I’ve always thought Mormonism and Calvinism had a lot in common. People who don’t perhaps hold some aspect of Calvinism in high esteem which they don’t see in Mormonism — or even vice versa — which would be fine. However the aspect I see in the both of em is their insistence for some kind of proof of God’s grace, in a sense, as exemplified in the individual’s actions, the measure of which is to be gaged by local religious authority and the community.

Some *Mormons* might get that same wry pleasure you speak of, would they not? As might some Evangelicals, some secularists, and others who have never been Mormon. There was no need to single out post-Mormons as the only group of people worth mentioning of whom *some* might be ignorant enough to think Puritans and/or Mormons were big into witchburning and mean enough to enjoy the thought. In fact we would be less likely than certain other groups you could have singled out, such as “anti-Mormons.”

Language (rhetoric, semantics, logic) did not require you either to mention or to omit mention of any group that might accidentally have overlapped with the set of people who like to think of Mormons as witchburners. You could have just written “some may like my comparison…” and left the dig at post-Mormons entirely out. But you didn’t; you chose to single out one particular group, and I happen to belong to it. I don’t appreciate the smear.

I agree that what words mean is due to social convention. Where did you pick up on the social convention of calling people who delight in inaccurate descriptions of the church “post-Mormons”? I don’t think such a convention exists.

As for “Mormon” polygamists, there is a certain definitional sleight of hand involved in insisting that they aren’t Mormons. This is certainly true if one means by Mormon, a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to think that the Mormon means something like a follower of Joseph Smith or the like. Everyone has the right to make arguments about what words ought to mean, however the question of what they actually do mean seems to me to be a matter of social convention rather than group ownership.

I don’t appreciate being accused of sleight of hand when I am presenting the truth as I understand it. Is it definitional sleight of hand when Mormons sound an outcry against the media’s labeling of polygamist splinter groups as “Mormon”? Would you say that all Mormons should sit on their hands and silently accept the media’s choice to continue to muddy and smear the already not-universally-accepted definition of “Mormon?” Personally, I think it’s the right of any group to define what does and doesn’t fall under the umbrella of its label.

Every self-described post-Mormon I have ever met has used the term to mean just what I said it meant. Peradventure you can find me one person who identifies as post-Mormon and admits that they enjoy the comparison of Mormons to a group that they perceive as brutal witchburning hypocrites, and if you can, I’ll back down. Otherwise, I’ll ask you to kindly cease the smears of post-Mormons.