It’s an incendiary word that is already loaded with negative connotations that arouses in people a reflexive response that is neither necessary or relevant, almost feral in nature.
To elicit a sympathy response from an outsider who may or may not understand what has actually been said in previous discussions, only reflexive outrage. “Propaganda”, “attacker”, “misrepresent”, “twist”, etc. all fall into the same category.
The obstinate and childish nature becomes evident when the poster is confronted. The projection begins, the revision of comments and quotes, the “lols”, etc. All in an attempt to present himself as above the “fray”, better than the opposition because he’s attempting to claim the moral high ground. That he’s just a “poor widdle mormon being persecuted by all those evil evangelicals”.
Attempts to ridicule, deride or malign are the typical response. The choice of words, sentence and comment construction are such that it projects to the reader that only he is noble, that all those who reject his premises are ignoble, are untrustworthy, not sincere. That is a tool of deceit. Deceit is the devil’s playground. Dancing right up to the edge of truth, yet never entering.
All one has to do is follow the trail of comments to see how the poster “responds” to the criticism of his beloved church. Doesn’t matter if the criticism is true or not. The only thing that matters is the source of said criticism. Mormons are NOT permitted by their authorities to question their church.
They have been warned and admonished. IF they choose to do so, they will find themselves before their bishop or a “court of love” to determine whether or not they are disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
So for any who think a TBM will constructively criticize the mormon church, think again. It ain’t gonna happen. But we need to pray for them. If this behavior is the last bastion a mormon has to fall back on, then it should be quite evident to any that they are most certainly led astray.
Here's a "comment" from a FReeper from some time back that I believe accurately reflects that attitude of most who insist on mischaracterizing those of us who are ex-mo's and challenge LDS doctrine..."The anti Mormons here have blood on their hands....... they are the scum left from the Mormon killers of old."
Anti-cult-of-every-kind-placemarker
[and greetings to SZ!]
One of the greatest sins you could make in a tournament, almost always promptly resulting in a loss of the contest, was resorting to ad hominem arguments ... attacking the motives or character of an individual rather than rebutting the validity of their position.
The dismissive use of the term anti-Mormon is a classic example of this loathsome practice.
It is done out of desperation.
In all of my many years of challenging the Saints with annotated facts, I have never had one instance where a Mormon was able to even minimally refute a major issue such as: the anachronisms in their scriptures; the contradictions between their scriptures; the additions and deletions to their scriptures; vast changes in their fundamental beliefs; the false prophesies made by their founders and early church members; and their sordid past.
And, of course, this is exactly why, at the present time, the Church is conducting a FAIR conference focusing on the topic of doubt by Mormons who are finally exposed to these facts regarding their faith.
I do think there is room for the use of terms like “church critic” to describe a person who sets forth well thought out analyses of doctrine, history, or practice. But I think anti-mormon is still useful, especially in describing those who make a cottage industry out of their discourse, especially when it is markedly hostile.
Yup; like calling someone a RACIST or a HATER or a BIGOT.
It deflects the 'anti' away from examineing the falsity of whatever is being exosed, and into a defensive mode of trying to prove that they AIN'T what they just been called!
Homie don't play dat!
From someone who apparently APPROVED of the antics of the Danites - Porter Rockwell - and/or Friends of the Utes??