Well, do you have a better definition?
Well, Pahoran, that is what this thread is about. I didn't start out with the "Kishumen definition" of anti-Mormon. I wanted to hear from others. It is something that I am giving some thought to as I watch others respond. So, at present, I don't think I have a "better definition" because I haven't arrived at a solid definition. Punkt.
I will say that your definition has an elegance in its simplicity, but I am not really sold on it. One of the problems, as I see it, is that you say, "Hey, here is my simple definition of anti-Mormon; it works for me, doesn't require much explanation, and generally speaks for itself." Then you proceed to expand that definition by including various categories that seem to you to fit or not to fit, according to your interpretation of your definition:
it excludes those who are happy for the Church to exist and to carry out its mission in the world without interference, but who may have some problems with a particular aspect of LDS doctrine or practice; it includes those who may profess to admire some peripheral aspect like the welfare program, but who think the Church should abandon its core truth claims, demolish its temples, and become a common-garden-variety Protestant denomination; IOW, to all intents and purposes, to be destroyed. It excludes those who can't decide whether Mormon's Cumorah was in New York or Mesoamerica, but includes those who try relentlessly to prove that there never was a Lehi colony. IOW, it works.
You see, I don't think all of that is self-evident in your definition. You have to expand on it, and now we are at a place where this is very complicated indeed. What, for example, would you think of a prophet who, for the sake of argument, received a revelation that the temple had served its purpose for now and that it was time to focus on welfare efforts, so he mothballed the whole temple operation and sold off the temple properties? Now, my guess is that you would go pray about this and have a confirmation of the Spirit that this was the Lord's will, and you would never dream of calling that prophet an "anti-Mormon."
As for those who would "relentlessly try to prove that there never was a Lehi colony," well, I can't imagine calling that poor soul anti-Mormon so much as fundamentally misguided. After all, it is very strange to devote one's time disproving the existence in antiquity of something that is only attested in an English-language text produced in the 19th century. What's to disprove?
I say, let the people who have faith in the existence of a Lehi colony enjoy their faith, and don't waste your time on quixotic enterprises like proving the non-existence of unsupported claims. So, I am left undecided on this category as well. Maybe it is true that the person committed to proving the non-existence of the Lehi colony is also an anti-Mormon. I don't think, however, that a person who fits this description obviously is an anti-Mormon for engaging in such a silly quest. Maybe the person is just a harmless crank.
Was your question about Hurlbut and Law intended to take the discussion in a particular direction? Is it your view that if Hurlbut was an anti, then Law could not have been?
Not at all, Pahoran. I think one could make a good argument that Law became an anti-Mormon based on things he wrote after Smith's assassination. He obviously came to theologize Smith in a way that aligned the Mormon prophet with Satan. That, in my view, might easily be called "anti-Mormon" in sentiment. I think I was more interested in exploring these different paths and using them to ask ourselves where the line is, and whether the strength of LDS passions about the person is determinative of their anti-Mormonism, as well as other such questions.
What interests me in these fellows is that they are, in some respects, quite different. Hurlbut seems like a clearer case of the guy who was embarrassed for being caught sinning and wanted to take revenge on Mormons out of anger and hurt. Law is arguably more interesting in that he had really believed in Mormonism, but was evidently not committed to the point where he was willing to go along with marrying his wife off to Joseph Smith. He decides that this is morally wrong, and intends to oppose what he sees as Smith's excesses and reform the LDS Church.
Right there we have a lot to chew on.
This does look like it has potential for a "decent discussion." Are you willing to make the attempt, or would that take you too far out of your comfort zone?
I regret that you have to get a dig in at the end here, Pahoran. I am, as a matter of fact, quite capable of having "decent discussion," and as a professor I engage in it all of the time. I have also been known to do it on the topic of Mormonism. I guess the better question is this: can you refrain from insulting and baiting long enough to foster a decent discussion instead of derailing it out of all recognition?