What makes someone an "Anti"?
 

I think most people agree that the term "anti-Mormon" is way overused. How far does someone have to go to actually deserve the term? For example, I wouldn't consider someone an "anti" if he disagrees with church doctrine or even tells me he thinks JS made up the whole story. I remember hearing all the time in seminary how the ACLU is anti. That one still cracks me up. I wonder if when Catholics see missionaries they think of them as "anti-Catholics". I think the term was made up to discredit dissenters. Label them "anti" and their credibilty is lost. To me, to deserve the term "anti-Mormon", someone would have to go to great lengths to try to destroy the church. Making a few statements in the press or to friends wouldn't qualify.

I agree that those who will go to great lengths to destroy the LDS church is an anti. Mark Hoffman comes to mind.

Those like Jacob Weinberg who ignorantly bash all that the LDS people hold sacred are anti.

I toss out the term anti just to get under people's skin. But then, I am immature, juvenile and sophomoric. You're only as old as you act, ya know?

It's tough being an anti on cb and cg. You have to of course criticize the church, but you can't go too far, or you will lose your audience. So you have to mix it up a bit, talk about something else, and then judiciously attack the church when you get the chance.

It's a real balancing act. SU is pretty good at it. Hyrum is an amateur, but I expect he will get better as time goes on. Aaronshaf entirely lacked subtlety, and was a complete failure as an anti- on cg. Robin wasn't actually knowledgeable enough about the church and its history to be effective. That may be the most funny example--desperately wanting to put down the church, but not having anything even remotely effective to say.

Quite an understatement, don't you think, since SU pioneered what you're talking about. No one does it as well as SU, not even close.

If Satan himself were on the board, I would expect him to operate pretty much as you do. I'm not joking.

Occasionally witty, once in a while erudite, taking shots at the gospel where you can, while constantly trying to build relationships and alliances.

So why do we allow it? Because we are not afraid of Satan.

Thanks; terrific compliment! You're just jealous because SU threatens your status as protagonist here. It's happened before.

"Nothing can exceed the energy and magnificence of the character of Satan as expressed in Paradise Lost. It is a mistake to suppose that he could ever have been intended for the popular personification of evil. Milton's Devil as a moral being is as far superior to his God as one who perseveres in some purpose which he has conceived to be excellent in spite of adversity and torture is to one who in the cold security of undoubted triumph inflicts the most horrible revenge upon his enemy, not from any mistaken notion of inducing him to repent of a perseverance in enmity, but with the alleged design of exasperating him to deserve new torments. Milton has so far violated the popular creed (if this shall be judged to be a violation) as to have alleged no superiority of moral virtue to his God over his Devil."

--Percy Shelley

Wow. Mike's on a roll this week.

I have no problem being Waters' poetic Satan. Everyone here knows the truth. If the real Satan came here to torment Wates he'd enter Waters, make him look horribly grimwith big dark circles under his eyes, and spew steaming posphorescent projectile vomit and horrible profanities in a snarling beast-like voice out of Waters' mouth.

Arch take notice.....see? I'm not the ONLY one on here who can see through the facade that is SU.

He's an intelligent, educated, clever version of Aaron Shaf.

Anti's are usually the ones who think the term is overused and not an accurate judgement of their anti-ness.

Anti's usually think they're clever, enlightened, and most humorous of all...open minded.