04-14-2007, 08:37 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
|
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.)
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
04-14-2007, 03:37 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,148
|
Quote:
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? |
|
04-14-2007, 03:38 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Archetypical anti-Mormons like the Tanners and Steve Benson are ultimately not very harmful to the LDS Church. The reason is that arcana such as the "Kinderhook plates," the B of A scrolls, and "reformed Egyptian" becomes their all-consuming obsession. This only lends undue credence to the very nonsense they are attacking. The truth is that none of this is ultimately very interesting except to those who have been wounded by Mormonism. There is not much there there pure and simple. These old tiresome debates are as uninspiring as your average EQ lesson, because they limit themselves to engaging your average EQ nit wit on his terms. By expanding your outlook and placing Mormonism in a larger context the scales fall off of your eyes and it becomes very clear that Mormonism is just a more recent revolution in an age old cycle that has been repeating for 3,000 years and is slowly expiring of its own weight.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
04-14-2007, 03:41 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,148
|
I do this too for the comedy. It's fun when you call super active mormon ladies like my mom "anti" whenever she has even the slightest criticism. She gets mad until she notices the grin on my face. I usually get smacked and a good laugh from her afterwards.
|
04-14-2007, 03:49 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,148
|
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2007, 04:47 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
As for missionaries of other faiths, if they are trying to share what they know and believe to be true, I don't see that as being anti; I don't see myself, for example, as having been anti-catholic for serving a mission in Spain. When they specifically target Mormonism to oppose it and seek to tear it down, that is, by definition, anti-Mormonism.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
04-14-2007, 05:13 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
To respond to an earlier post, I don't see SU as an "anti-" anything (if I may take such liberties in describing his persona). To define him in such a derivative way is overly simplistic and hardly does justice to his advocacy for placing Mormonism in a broader context. Those who define themselves by opposing Mormonism (or anything else) merit the label "anti-". Those whose ideas, research, and opinions touch LDS topics tangentially, albeit in a so-called detrimental way, are something else. Seattle's pro-secularism is hardly anti-Mormonism, strictly speaking.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|
04-14-2007, 05:21 PM | #18 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2007, 05:44 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
I wish. I spew my heresy gratis.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
04-14-2007, 07:26 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
This is not to say that what he contributes has no value nor does the personal aspect have any bearing about whether he is right or wrong. Saying that SU is simply pro-secular only, I think, respectfully, is a reflection of your short tenure here. As I say, I like SU and value his imput, but Waters has him more or less pegged even if he says it in jest, IMO.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|