I might suggest you ask your offender(s) what their definition of an "antiMormon" is and see if you fall under that description. That would be a fair approach. It may simply be a misunderstanding of terms.The FAIRWiki
gives the following definition (citing Dan Peterson):
Dan Peterson wrote:
The hallmark of anti-Mormonism is an agenda, whether covert or openly expressed, of combating the faith of the Latter-day Saints and opposing their church.
And also says:
1) the prefix anti-
Noun: "A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice"
Preposition: Opposed to; against.
2) ...and Mormon, as a colloquial term for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Anti-Mormon" . . . is a descriptive term for those whose tactics or desires oppose or fight against the beliefs, members, or practices of the Church.
I don't have an agenda of combating the faith of Mormons or opposing the LDS church. Not even a little bit. None. Whatsoever. I do not try to get Mormons to leave the church just for the sake of getting Mormons out of the church, and I have no desire to see the LDS church cease to exist. Its success in growth, or lack thereof, isn't something that moves me in any direction. I study the LDS church for intellectual as well as missiological reasons (i. e. I'm interested in the best way of sharing my faith with Mormons).
After repeating the FAIRWiki's definition, Pahoran elaborated
on our forums:
I think [my definition] captures the phenomenon of anti-Mormonism pretty well: 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;
Good, because that describes me pretty well.
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.
As an evangelical Christian, I accept a different set of core truth claims than Latter-day Saints do, and I don't share in Pahoran's
disdain for Protestant denominations. Of course
I would be ecstatic if the LDS church shifted to an acceptance of what I hold to be the truth, similar to what happened with the Worldwide Church of God (although its transition to mainstream evangelicalism has been problematic).
That isn't a function of opposition to Mormonism though. It's a function of being a member of a missionary faith. And the only way I think that scenario should
happen is if the Mormon church and its leaders are sincerely converted. Otherwise I'm pretty happy to coexist with them.
I can't think of any circumstances where I would advocate for LDS temples to be demolished.
If William and William are using broader definitions than the already-broad definitions that I cited above, then the onus is on them to define their terms and
cite specific examples of how I fit such a definition. "You dared to complain about how one Mormon apologist was treating women" doesn't count.