Quote:
Originally Posted by All-American
Why not just go with what the word means? An anti-Mormon is one who opposes and/or fights against Mormonism.
If one insists upon qualifiers, I'd say that such opposition ought to be active and deliberate. For example, my Elder's quorum president will undermine more testimonies in a month than SU could possibly do in a lifetime, but because the damage he does to the church is a result of his dim-witted stupidity in spite of his good intentions, I wouldn't classify him as an Anti.
I doubt there's ever been a really good "anti." It may be that the church is going to be essentially unopposed from without. Even the most effective "antis" are the ones that were once members, but then left-- but then again, even those worth mentioning haven't really done that much. (I wonder if the net result of Fawn Brodie's works, for example, actually brought MORE people to the church by encouraging a reactionary movement amongst the LDS "intellects." It'd be an interesting study.)
|
So are you saying the location of the opposition is a qualifier? For example, if I had a problem with women not holding the priesthood. If I stated in EQ that I think women would better priesthood holders than men. Everyone would nod and laugh and agree. But if I stood outside the church with signs that said women would be better priesthood holders, I'd be labeled an "anti"? That is probably true.
So what about missionaries of other faiths. What if they come into your house to share their message. In sharing what they believe to be true, it is obvious that they think pretty much everything about Mormonism is wrong. Are they anti or does their intent have to be more sinister?