Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueHair
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?