Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Or you could just go REALLY old school and call them "Mohammedans." That's really a thing? Interesting.
unixknight Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah I first encountered that when reading some of the Patrick O'Brian books (Master and Commander) but you'll also see it occasionally in vintage Church writing.
LeSellers Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 · Hidden by estradling75, January 21, 2016 - Again Hidden by estradling75, January 21, 2016 - Again This somewhat-current somewhat-trend of changing words or spellings,I didn't change. It's Moslem for decades. It only became "Muslim" recently. But just for you, Eowyn, I'll change it. This discussion is tedious. Lehi
LeSellers Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Or you could just go REALLY old school and call them "Mohammedans."That's really a thing? Interesting.Yes, it is was. It was always considered insulting, especially by those who used it, which is why I never did. Lehi
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 This discussion is tedious. We agree at last.
unixknight Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Yes, it is was. It was always considered insulting, especially by those who used it, which is why I never did.LehiAlways? It's hard to imagine Church leaders back in the day deliberately using an insulting term.
LeSellers Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Always? It's hard to imagine Church leaders back in the day deliberately using an insulting term.I knew someone would object (this is lds.net, after all), but yes, the use of "Mohamedan" was never the polite term. It was so widely used, however, there were many people without formal education who may not have known any other term, just as, in antebellum USmerica, a lot of people didn't know that Blacks were not N******s. Lehi jerome1232 1
jerome1232 Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Yes, it is was. It was always considered insulting, especially by those who used it, which is why I never did.LehiBe it ordained by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo, that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims] and all other religious sects and denominations whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges in this city…It doesn't seem to be intentionally insulting to me.
LeSellers Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 It doesn't seem to be intentionally insulting to me.See post 31. Lehi
jerome1232 Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 See post 31.LehiThat's far, far different from *always* insulting by those who used it.It's a lot like the term *Mormon*, which I was trying to point out. We don't prefer it because it can imply we worship Mormon instead of Jesus. Only we shrugged our shoulders and embraced the term since it's in such popular usage anyways. Maybe we should be more uppity about this stuff.
Just_A_Guy Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 I knew someone would object (this is lds.net, after all), but yes, the use of "Mohamedan" was never the polite term. It was so widely used, however, there were many people without formal education who may not have known any other term, just as, in antebellum USmerica, a lot of people didn't know that Blacks were not N******s.Lehi Talmage uses the term "Mohammedan" repeatedly in Jesus the Christ. I doubt he meant to offend by it, nor would I call him "uneducated". But be that as it may, language has evolved to the point where today, generally speaking, those who insist on using that term (or who show an especial antipathy towards just writing "Muslim") tend to have a particular agenda.
LeSellers Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Talmage uses the term "Mohammedan" repeatedly in Jesus the Christ. I doubt he meant to offend by it, nor would I call him "uneducated".I didn't recall reading that in Talmage. I'll have to adjust my opinion. But be that as it may, language has evolved to the point where today, generally speaking, those who insist on using that term (or who show an especial antipathy towards just writing "Muslim") tend to have a particular agenda.I have no "antipathy" writing "Muslim", I just learned something different, and there is no compelling reason to change. I do, however, admit freely to having an agenda. Whether it is the particular agenda you imagine my having is another question. My only agenda regarding Muslims is to determine whether they are likely to kill me, my family, my neighbors, or to do other harm to my country. As of yet, no one here, in spite of page after wearisome page of tirades against wariness, has shown the least evidence that there is a reasonable way, indeed any way at all to make that distinction. Lehi
pam Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 Thread is closed. I think enough has been said.
Recommended Posts