Janice

Jehovah's Witness: I know of no other Christian religion (maybe not even ours) that asks so much of their members. And all of them that I know willingly give it.

That's unfortunate. I did not read any of the threads on prop 8, but I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

That goes on at FMH, no doubt. But I'm able to look past it I think because everyone is at least polite. The reason I enjoy that site immensely is because the bloggers and the audience seems to understand that LDS Culture and LDS Gospel are not the same thing. For me, and this is ONLY my humble little opinion, one of the biggest... um.... (looking for the right word....) "indicators" of someone who can't separate LDS Culture from LDS Gospel is the belief that every word spoken by every church leader is pure commandment as if it came from Christ Himself, and should be adhered to as if it was canonized scripture. I've made some people pretty riled up and received some "please repent" personal messages when I've stated, more or less, that teachings from GA's are good guidelines and that we should live our lives based on those guidelines plus our own well thought out, inspiration based decisions. Some of the "decisions" my husband and I have arrived at make some members of this forum very, very nervous. On other LDS blog sites, however, my ideas have been accepted with a much greater degree of ... (again, looking for the right word...) tolerance. I guess that, plus the recent "pants" thread was the basis of my original post. :) Janice

Hmm. Interesting. I had not thought of it that way before. I don't think I agree with you, but if you care to expound, I promise to listen with an open mind.... I'd like to understand your point.

"Well, isn't that special!" -- Church Lady (I have no idea why your comment made me think of her)

Ram, typical blogs on the two sites I mentioned range from 50 to 300 comments. These are not your average mostly-ignored-little-one-person-blog-sites that nobody reads. Mormon Matters especially is a pillar of the blogernacle. It's well read and receives a considerably healthy dose of comments on just about every post.

I've got no problem with "not what I understand". In fact I think that's what a good conversation is all about. "I had not thought of it that way before, but that's not how I understand it." I do have a problem with "your spiritual progression is in jeopardy if you don't agree with me." (Being careful with this next comment -->) It seems to me that when one person questions the spiritual progression of someone else... when one person suggests that someone else's conclusion on a Church / Gospel matter is something less then inspired or goes against church teachings and is therefor flawed... well, I guess I'm not comfortable with that. And in in my limited observation, this kind of thing happens much more on this forum them other LDS web sites. Well said.

Sure, SmartBlue, I agree with everything you said, but in my OP I was not referring at all to personal attacks. That's another matter all together. What I'm wondering about is why we can't have a discussion on fringe Church topics (ie: pants) w/o someone inevitably saying, effectively, "My opinion is the only opinion, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong." I don't see this as a personal attack. I see it as having a closed mind, as an inability or unwillingness to consider the possibility that there is more then one way, more then "my" way, to think about the topic at hand, and that when someone else sees an issue differently, it does not mean they are wrong, it just means they are different. I feel sometimes that Mormon culture celebrates homogeneity and discourages individuality, and that maybe that attitude is portrayed on this forum when we are unwilling to embrace different points of view, and when we instead tell people, for example, "If you would just read this quote from a GA, you will clearly see that you are wrong." Am I being unfair?

#8 made me laugh! #2 Education... err, maybe? But I'm not willing to say, "Ya'll are a buncha unedumacated hicks!" I know, this is not what you are saying, but still.... .. thing is, I don't think I've seen any personal insults on this forum. But I have seen people become riled up when someone views the Gospel or the Church or Church culture differently then they do. The term "ethnocentric" comes to mind. "The way I view the world is the right way to view the world, and if you see it differently, then you are wrong, and not only that, but it's my duty to prove that you are wrong." #4: Politically I am VERY conservative, but when it comes to church culture, I am, as some friends have told me, off-the-rocker liberal. So what does that make me? (potential answer: confused) Anyway, all good points. My pondering continues. Janice

I'm still thinking Josh was joking with his OP.

This is a joke? Right? HA HA?

I think this sums up my feelings nicely. Prevailing theme in many of the comments on this forum: "Your spiritual progression is in jeopardy if you don't see the Church and the Gospel exactly as I do. " Prevailing theme in many of the comments on other LDS web sites: "Interesting perspective. I don't agree with you, but thank you for helping me see the issue from a new angle." I'm, speaking in generalities, of course. Many exceptions exist on both sides.

Oh come now, it takes a heckuvalot more then that to get me riled up. As an adult with ADHD I've learned to manage it and compensate for it, but yes, I do tend to talk first and think second. When in a group setting, I often compensate by not saying anything at all. And back to the subject at hand... Maybe the amount of "spirit" we see here is a combination of both the people and the format.

Ha ha! I'm a Mormon with ADHD. Look out!

True. And that may very well play a part. Yet the discussions I see on those sites are no less limited then here. But here, at least, there is a bit more sense of community... we have avatars, profiles, etc. There, when you comment, you can post your name but there are no "accounts", so maybe here the sense of ownership is greater, and thus we all invest more emotion? (I'm thinking out loud.) This is actually not the case. MormonMatters makes a point of NOT filtering or editing posts. What is said stands, and what is said appears instantly (no approval process). And yet rudeness, sarcasm, and troll-like comments are virtually non-existent. Good point. I'd have to say that I don't always agree with the bloggers on that site, nor with some of the comments, but by and large, yes, the general audience is more on the... well... "liberal" side of Mormonism. Hmmm. Choosing my words VERY carefully here... "Immature" is a term that has come to mind during a couple of discussions on this forum. But please, let me explain before I cause hurt feelings. It strikes me that by and large, the people on this forum are very mature people, but that sometimes maybe that maturity is set aside when discussing topics that are very close, personal, and maybe emotional. (Religion is a VERY emotional subject.) We recently had a conversation here about the terms "debate" and "discussion" and "argument" (can't recall the thread, and don't feel like finding it.) It seems to me that maybe some members on this forum may have a hard time having a ______ (pick your favorite word: debate, discussion, etc) on topics about which they have strong feelings without letting it become personal. I don't see that as much on the other sites, and I'm curious if it's the people, or the format. So far the comments here seem to lean towards it being the format? I'm on the fence. Janice