I'll admit to being Anti-Mormon if you admit to being Anti-Reason

anti- 
a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words (anticline); used freely in combination with elements of any origin (antibody; antifreeze; antiknock; antilepton).

The problem with using a definition as a broad brush to paint any group or person is that it leads to "binary thinking". More importantly it allows us to dismiss a segment of the population because we don't agree with them, or in the case of this article in today's Mormon Times, because what they say may not be faith promoting.

I agree with the writer on the following:

First of all, we shouldn't call people who simply don't believe in Mormonism "anti-Mormons." We should call them Catholics or Baptists or Muslims or atheists. People who ascribe themselves to faiths or philosophies that contradict Mormonism should not automatically be seen as antagonists. They should be credited with having their own beliefs.

Now, what about people who try to convert Latter-day Saints to their belief systems? Are they anti-Mormons?

No.

The believing Baptist who testifies of his church's doctrine to a Latter-day Saint is trying to do something he believes is constructive. Even if he attempts to point out supposed flaws in Mormon doctrine, if his genuine intent is to save a soul and he maintains a polite, rational tone, I don't think he deserves the anti-Mormon label. After all, should Mormon missionaries be considered anti-Catholics or anti-Protestants?

In the blog-o-sphere "tone" becomes subjective to reader and there is broad license to interpret that tone. My biggest concern with this writing is the permission to exclude from the conversation based upon perception without encouraging the reader to consider evidence, offer evidence of their own or to ask for clarification of meaning and intent.

The line, I believe, that separates non-Mormons from anti-Mormons is motivation. Anti-Mormons are people who put down Mormon beliefs, practices and people simply for the sake of destroying their faith. Not many anti-Mormons would admit that is their primary goal, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

I really think this is a trap. How is this interpreted? If you actively question doctrine and call people on what appears to be bigotry is that anti? When you confront the assertions that atheists are doing the work of Satan as offered by General Authorities is that Anti? When you question church history and the origins of doctrine is that Anti? Is it likely that the above examples will be interpreted as putting down Mormon beliefs for the sake of destroying their faith? Is a journey in reason and critical thinking likely to destroy faith.

For the most part, anti-Mormons should be ignored. But before that can happen, they have to be identified.

In my short tenure as a blogger I have come across as many "militant Mormons". I don't engage in combat blogging which means if I have made an assertion I have a source to back it up if you have a counter point of view I expect the same discipline. However my topics are pointed and not necessarily faith promoting. But I don't think that means I should be ignored (of course I don't that's why I am a blogger). I am of the opinion that the danger in the author's statements is a promotion of the tribalism that has proven to divide cultures in the past and which contiues to be a problem in Utah.