What does anti mean?


Byron
 Share

Recommended Posts

From my studies I have come to understand 'anti' means 'in place of'. I learned this when discussing with 7th day Adventists who insist that the pope is the anti-Christ that the pope stands in place of Christ. 

 

But what does it mean when used in the form of ant-gay, anti-theist, or anti-Mormon? I guess one can say that the English language is evolving and that a secondary meaning has come to play in which 'anti' means 'against'. Or perhaps this is yet another example of man's desire to categorize and compartmentalize all things he sees. There is a school of belief that believes that man was charged with naming all things in creation and if you are of that school I am sure you can agree that this is simply a means by which God has entrusted us to be good stewards over creation. But when we use words (like anti-Mormon') designed to separate and ostracize each other I believe we are not doing God's will.

 

You might ask, 'Well, how then do we address those that would come to our forum and preach against our faith?'

 

I think it best to not add fuel to the fire. I believe it best that should someone approach me with words of hatred I deflect the words and respond with kindness or simply ignore the words. Calling someone anti-'anything' is really no different than saying, "I am right and you are wrong", or "I am better than you." This is pride, and pride is sin.

Edited by Byron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term is used for people whose entire purpose is to tear down the LDS faith.

Specifically, it refers to people who believe that the ends justify the means. That is, they'll gladly commit all sorts of wickedness in God's name. Some don't even recognize that they're sinning, others believe that God will excuse their actions under the circumstances, and the rest just don't care for morality at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it best to not add fuel to the fire. I believe it best that should someone approach me with words of hatred I deflect the words and respond with kindness or simply ignore the words. Calling someone anti-'anything' is really no different than saying, "I am right and you are wrong", or "I am better than you." This is pride, and pride is sin.

 

Not really. Anti means opposed to, and it has always meant opposed to (contrary to what 7th day Adventists apparently said). Calling someone anti-Mormon simply means you are saying they are opposed to Mormonism. It has nothing to do with who's right or wrong, who's better, or anything about pride at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term is used for people whose entire purpose is to tear down the LDS faith.

Specifically, it refers to people who believe that the ends justify the means. That is, they'll gladly commit all sorts of wickedness in God's name. Some don't even recognize that they're sinning, others believe that God will excuse their actions under the circumstances, and the rest just don't care for morality at all.

 

Ok but if we label someone "anti-xxxxx" and justify the labeling because they are 'opposed' to what we believe. Are we not also thinking that our ends justify the means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our prefix "anti-" comes from the Greek ἀντί, meaning "over against", "opposite", or "in place of". So there certainly can be that inference of "in place of".

 

For example, the Book of Mormon talks of Lamanites, descendants chlidren of the prophet Lehi who rebelled against him and his righteous son Nephi, These Lamanites repented of their murders and wished to join the Nephites. They called themselves "Anti-Nephi-Lehis". In context, it would not make sense for "Anti-Nephi-Lehies" to mean "opposed to the Nephites". Rather, it appears to mean something closer to "in place of": "Lehite descendants who stand over against the Nephites, or in the place they stand."

 

But in this case, "anti-" has a clear and obvious meaning -- and contrary to your assertion, it is not "I am right and you are wrong." Rather, it is "you have a clear bias against me/my religion and an agenda to that end." It is, in fact, an accusation, and may not be (N.B.: may not be, not isn't) a good thing. But that does not make it false.

 

For example someone who approaches a group of religionists with (as he claims) questions about their religion, seeking further light and understanding, but who point-blank refuses even to consider reading a foundational text for the religion, is not likely to be perceived as sincere. Can you imagine someone coming up to a group of Christians, professing to be merely searching for truth about Christians while asking a bunch of loaded questions typical of those who hate Christians, and who then refuses to consider reading the Bible to see for himself?

 

What you say is worth considering, but in the end I don't think it really stands up to scrutiny. Those of us who accused you of being anti-Mormon may have been wrong to do so, and indeed may have even been accusing you falsely. But I disagree with the idea that the term "anti-Mormon" itself is somehow flawed or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be false.  Calling a noun by its name or description isn't ostracizing anyone.  This sentiment is similar to an individual who claims if we describe an individual by their skin tone then we must be racist.  This is false.

 

For a minute let us say this sentiment is true.  Then we should be more like Christ, and respond to those who merely come to stoke a fire (i.e. Pharisees who came to Jesus with questions who cared not for an answer but only to trap), or as you say "add fuel to a fire, in the language our Master did, "Woe unto you...hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Or, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites."

 

Thus, we should not call an anti-Mormon, "anti-Mormon," but we should call them by their real names, as our Savior did, "hypocrites!" Unless of course, the only perfect man to walk this earth exhibited pride also, as I am sure the strong tone of "hypocrite" most likely ostracized these individuals by which one specifies "is not doing God's will"?  Intriguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be argued that calling the late Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins "Anti-theists" is the same as calling someone "anti-Mormon" but there is a difference here. Hitchens would often label  himself  "Anti-theist" whereas, at one time, I was accused of being an anti-Mormon but I never invited this label.

 

I guess it comes down to simply "loving your neighbor as you love yourself." Would anyone want to be called something that groups them with people that openly hate?

 

We can also remember the warning 'do not judge, lest you yourself be judged'.

 

I think we are all capable of discussing differing opinions and beliefs without resorting to name calling. Again I refer to Mr. Hitchens' debates. Particularly the debates between himself and Williams. Two men of polarized beliefs were able to discuss and champion their beliefs without labeling each other anything that was not welcome.

 

FYI, Though I do not share Hitchens' beliefs I am a fan. I think he was a very good speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our prefix "anti-" comes from the Greek ἀντί, meaning "over against", "opposite", or "in place of". So there certainly can be that inference of "in place of".

 

For example, the Book of Mormon talks of Lamanites, descendants chlidren of the prophet Lehi who rebelled against him and his righteous son Nephi, These Lamanites repented of their murders and wished to join the Nephites. They called themselves "Anti-Nephi-Lehis". In context, it would not make sense for "Anti-Nephi-Lehies" to mean "opposed to the Nephites". Rather, it appears to mean something closer to "in place of": "Lehite descendants who stand over against the Nephites, or in the place they stand."

 

But in this case, "anti-" has a clear and obvious meaning -- and contrary to your assertion, it is not "I am right and you are wrong." Rather, it is "you have a clear bias against me/my religion and an agenda to that end." It is, in fact, an accusation, and may not be (N.B.: may not be, not isn't) a good thing. But that does not make it false.

 

For example someone who approaches a group of religionists with (as he claims) questions about their religion, seeking further light and understanding, but who point-blank refuses even to consider reading a foundational text for the religion, is not likely to be perceived as sincere. Can you imagine someone coming up to a group of Christians, professing to be merely searching for truth about Christians while asking a bunch of loaded questions typical of those who hate Christians, and who then refuses to consider reading the Bible to see for himself?

 

What you say is worth considering, but in the end I don't think it really stands up to scrutiny. Those of us who accused you of being anti-Mormon may have been wrong to do so, and indeed may have even been accusing you falsely. But I disagree with the idea that the term "anti-Mormon" itself is somehow flawed or wrong.

 

Vort, I have often been approached by Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God, They encouraged me to read this evidence in the Quran but refused to read the Bible. I did not see them as being insincere and I certainly didn't call them anti-Christian. Instead I saw them as unwavering in there faith and though I did not agree, I did respect.

 

I have tried to show you and your members the same kind of respect, I am sorry if you think me insincere.

Edited by Byron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be false.  Calling a noun by its name or description isn't ostracizing anyone.  This sentiment is similar to an individual who claims if we describe an individual by their skin tone then we must be racist.  This is false.

 

For a minute let us say this sentiment is true.  Then we should be more like Christ, and respond to those who merely come to stoke a fire (i.e. Pharisees who came to Jesus with questions who cared not for an answer but only to trap), or as you say "add fuel to a fire, in the language our Master did, "Woe unto you...hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Or, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites."

 

Thus, we should not call an anti-Mormon, "anti-Mormon," but we should call them by their real names, as our Savior did, "hypocrites!" Unless of course, the only perfect man to walk this earth exhibited pride also, as I am sure the strong tone of "hypocrite" most likely ostracized these individuals by which one specifies "is not doing God's will"?  Intriguing.

Is it not Christ's calling to separate the wheat from the chafe? He can do so because he can read a man's heart. We are not Christ. We have differing doctrines and it is good to compare and judge each other's doctrines lest we not believe in false words or fail to understand God's message.  But I have not found any Biblical passages that endorse us to judge* our fellow man.

 

*remembering that judge is meant as condemn.

 

Also as for labeling someone according to their skin colour, this may not be intent as racism, but it is understood as racism. This simply because it has been a tool (the labeling) of the hateful. It's for the same reasoning that we do not use the 'N' word.

 

I recall a pastor's message once. He asked, "Which is the most dangerous part of our body?" Some said fists, other said feet. The answer was "Our tongue". If we are punched or kicked we will heal far more quickly than if we are verbally attacked.

 

If you think I am wrong, ask yourself, what does the "Word of God" really mean? How did He create, what was said for light to come to be. God did all this with a word. So if God being God has so much power with his word, is it not reasonable to think that man (created in His image) would also have power through what he says? And if we can agree that man has power in his own words, should we not be careful in what we say?

Edited by Byron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my discussions on the internet, I don't call anyone an antiMormon unless that is their profession.  If someone "sounds" like one, I just point out, "the antiMormons have poisoned your mind."  It's not their fault, because the antiMormons have brainwashed them.

 

Once you label them, then they are less likely to move in another direction -- they actually become what you label them.

 

But I'm less generous with those who make money with their hate mongering.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, Though I do not share Hitchens' beliefs I am a fan. I think he was a very good speaker.

 

Hitchens was flat-out brilliant, but his hatred of religion poisoned everything he said on that topic. (Ironic, given the title of his book about how religion supposedly poisons everything.)

 

On topics not having to do with religion, and especially having to do with government and certain social issues, I think the guy had a sober, clear-eyed view of many things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be argued that calling the late Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins "Anti-theists" is the same as calling someone "anti-Mormon" but there is a difference here. Hitchens would often label  himself  "Anti-theist" whereas, at one time, I was accused of being an anti-Mormon but I never invited this label.

 

The necessity of an invitation for labeling would be an irrelevant stipulation.  I assume, the Pharisees never labeled themselves as, nor invited the declaration, hypocrite, and yet, the Lord referred to them as "hypocrites" consistently.

 

I guess it comes down to simply "loving your neighbor as you love yourself." Would anyone want to be called something that groups them with people that openly hate?

 

We can also remember the warning 'do not judge, lest you yourself be judged'.

 

The first commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our fellowmen.  We would agree.  The concept of what we "want" would again be irrelevant if the statement is indeed true.  

 

In light of the warning "judge not, lest ye be judged" we are also informed a few verses later to remove first the beam from our own eye such that we might "see clearly to cast out the mote out of they brother's eye."  In order to remove the mote that was there previously requires a judgement to be made.  We are not to fear making judgements, but we are to make righteous judgements, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see clearly to remove any mote without a judgement being made.

 

 

I think we are all capable of discussing differing opinions and beliefs without resorting to name calling. Again I refer to Mr. Hitchens' debates. Particularly the debates between himself and Williams. Two men of polarized beliefs were able to discuss and champion their beliefs without labeling each other anything that was not welcome.

 

FYI, Though I do not share Hitchens' beliefs I am a fan. I think he was a very good speaker.

 

This statement reminds me of PC.  A champion of his faith, although we disagree, and an individual who is loved by many, if not all, in this forum.  We share many truths.  We are polarized in others.  Yet, we are still able to have peaceful discussions, majority of the time (eh PC ;) ) because we all know where his love stands with the members here, and LDS members around the world.  We also know he will defend falsehoods preached.  

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a realization that someone is anti-something else is not condemnation of that person.

The only accurate realization would have to be from God. Otherwise we are just making assumptions based on our own perceptions. If we act on the latter, we are in fact condemning the person we act against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This is not exactly doctrine of our church, but my own personal thoughts of the matter)

I don't think God has a particular problem with setting bounds to live by. Bounds are like a fence warning of a cliff which is to mean sin.

In the same thought we need to understand more than just the bounds we need to recognize the difference between sheep of our fold, wolves, and even as we are warned in the bible of the sheep in wolves clothes.

The use of labels to comprehend, to recognize this is not sin.

I believe this view has strong standing in biblical wisdom.

It is regrettable that your initial posts had a very strong similarity to those who often attack our church. If the mistake is on us I would hope that you would be forgiving of us, and those who in their weakness erred. I do also believe that if you stick around for discussion, trying to learn from your mistakes in how you approached us through likely little fault of your own(I'm going to give you the benefit of believing you are sincere) that it may go better. Though it is to be expected that we will still assert what we believe here, even if it may be at odds with what you do.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only accurate realization would have to be from God. Otherwise we are just making assumptions based on our own perceptions. If we act on the latter, we are in fact condemning the person we act against.

 

Disagree.

 

The simple fact is that we cannot not judge. It is imperative that we do in order to act. Every choice we make, every conversation we have, every interaction, requires judgment. If we're going to claim that we cannot have any accuracy in those judgments (or "realizations"), and therefore any judging therefore qualifies as condemnation (which is a bit silly...I can tell when someone's being a jerk...just the same as you who have realized that some were jerks to you here), then we cannot act. But that is impossible. We must act, for even failure to act is an act -- which requires judgment.

 

Everything we understand about others tends to be presumption. Whereas we should be careful with our presumptions, yes, to claim that we can never know at all is a bit extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only accurate realization would have to be from God. Otherwise we are just making assumptions based on our own perceptions. If we act on the latter, we are in fact condemning the person we act against.

 

We have to make judgments in some things, Byron. It's the nature of our lives in mortality. And that mortal nature also guarantees that we will make wrong judgments at times. We are not to excuse ourselves for that, any more than we are to excuse ourselves for other sins. But no one is sinless; we are made sinless through Christ's atonement. So recognizing that we will mess up despite our best efforts is really just recognizing that we need Christ's atonement.

 

I am not justifying wrong judgment. Indeed, the Lord commanded us to judge righteously, warning us that by what judgment we judge, we will ourselves by judged. But in context, it is clear that the Lord was not saying "Don't ever judge". Such a thing would be very foolish, if it were even possible.

 

Given this, I think it's not fair to say that any time we act on a judgment or supposition we have made about a person, we are condemning him. It means simply that we're acting off of incomplete information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In light of the warning "judge not, lest ye be judged" we are also informed a few verses later to remove first the beam from our own eye such that we might "see clearly to cast out the mote out of they brother's eye."  In order to remove the mote that was there previously requires a judgement to be made.  We are not to fear making judgements, but we are to make righteous judgements, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see clearly to remove any mote without a judgement being made.

 

 

 

4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

Yes, here we are warned against judging, but is this really an endorsement to judge once we have removed  our own plank, or simply a warning to not judge each other at all because we are all fallible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm going to give you the benefit of believing you are sincere)

 

Just as a side note and entirely off topic: I've seen people say this a lot -- as if sincerity in and of itself is a virtue. But sincerity doesn't really define good and bad. Sincerely evil is still sincere. Even Satan is sincere in his desire to destroy us. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree.

 

The simple fact is that we cannot not judge. It is imperative that we do in order to act. Every choice we make, every conversation we have, every interaction, requires judgment. If we're going to claim that we cannot have any accuracy in those judgments (or "realizations"), and therefore any judging therefore qualifies as condemnation (which is a bit silly...I can tell when someone's being a jerk...just the same as you who have realized that some were jerks to you here), then we cannot act. But that is impossible. We must act, for even failure to act is an act -- which requires judgment.

 

Everything we understand about others tends to be presumption. Whereas we should be careful with our presumptions, yes, to claim that we can never know at all is a bit extreme.

I believe there is a difference between having good judgment (common sense) and judging to condemn. I also believe that if we use certain words were the underlying meaning could be interpreted as hateful, we should apologize and avoid using said words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given this, I think it's not fair to say that any time we act on a judgment or supposition we have made about a person, we are condemning him.

 

It's more than not fair. It would be downright stupid to not do so in many cases. Would one let a condemned child molester babysit their kids? Should they? Does not letting them babysit mean condemnation? Does it mean one cannot otherwise be kind, loving, and friendly to them? Failure to make such a judgment, however, would be utter foolishness.

 

This is an extreme example, of course, but the principle applies. Wise judgment is requisite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I have not found any Biblical passages that endorse us to judge* our fellow man.

 

*remembering that judge is meant as condemn.

 

 

Deuteronomy 1: 16, "Judge righteously"

 

 

Proverbs 31:9, "Judge righteously"

 

Psalms 96:10, "judge the people righteously"

 

Leviticus 19:15, "but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour"

 

Alma 41: 14, "Judge righteously, and you shall have justice restored unto you again.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 11: 12, "Put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to judge righteously"

 

"Judge" scripturally is not meant to condemn, the notion that "judge" is meant to condemn is false.  When a child does good and we call this act good, a judgement, we haven't condemned.

 

Are we to make "eternal" judgements, no.  Eternal judgements are left to God.  If a man steals, and I call him a thief -- a judgement -- have I condemned?  No.  I have merely called the individual what they are.  If a man murders, and I judge him to be a murderer, have I condemned him?  No.

 

If a woman/man commits adultery and I call them an adulterer, have I condemned? No.  The scriptures, as have been inspired by modern and past prophets are replete with the notion that we are to judge righteously, and to leave eternal judgements to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is a difference between having good judgment (common sense) and judging to condemn. I also believe that if we use certain words were the underlying meaning could be interpreted as hateful, we should apologize and avoid using said words. 

I agree with both of these things. But they do not equate to your previous comment that acting on the judgment qualifies it as condemnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share