A Curious Observation: Different sites, Different Attitudes

[StrawberryFields]

Over the years here, I have learned that there are some topics that just don't interest me or I know what will follow.

I think that there are people who come here to cast around "power" because it is all they have. Sad really but true in some cases.

I don't post much anymore because I don't feel the need to be "right" on a "message board".

I do however enjoy reading and sharing IDEAS along with making friends. I guess it boils down to motive and how far people will go. A year or so ago I started a post about bangs and it was quite lovely.

The way you opened this thread was very nice and so far everyone is behaving for the most part. Intent also plays a role in the way these threads go IMO. :)

[Guest]

I really, really want to ask this question without coming across as judgmental or holier-then-thou, but I fear ahead of time that I won't be able to pull it off. If (when?) I offend anyone with this post, please please forgive me.

I spent a lot of time at Mormon Matters and Feminist Mormon Housewives. They are blog sites and the most us lay people can do is comment... you can't start a thread unless you are one of the official bloggers. For that reason, I prefer this site... I can start conversations.

But that being said, there is another reason why I prefer those sites over this. At both, they tackle some pretty heavy issues that could be spectacularly controversial, and yet it is rare to non existent to see people become upset and contentious with each other, and I don't recall anyone ever casting fingers of blame for being judgmental, which seems to happen often here. We can't even discuss *pants* without people getting upset. (I am not excluding myself, by the way.)

I am an untrained people watcher, meaning I have no formal education in "human behavior" (if such a study exists... would it be called sociology?), but I am fascinated by it none the less. I am currently pondering, why, on this site, we can't discuss pants vs skirts without becoming contentious, but on other sites *real* issues are discussed in depth w/o a moderator ever shutting down the conversation because it's causing hurt feelings.

Any ideas?

Again... I do NOT want to blame anyone, be judgmental, be critical, or anything like unto it. I've just made an observation and would like some input.

Janice

Sorry, I haven't read any of the other posts... just the OP.

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

Different attitude between LDS.net versus FeminineMormonHousewives and Mormon Matters is completely because of the different format.

lds.net is a forum while the others are blogs.

Now, if you compare lds.net with another forum, then the difference would be the moderators. Some moderators are more tolerant than others and some moderators are pretty good at driving a discussion away from the danger zone. I especially love lds.net because of PAM - so, pam, this is a shout-out to YOU! I love you!

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I apologize if I am rambling, I haven't slept in about 22 hours, yay cherry coke

SINNER!!! YOU CAN'T DRINK CAFFEINE!!!!!

Sorry, but the urge to be ironic was too strong to resist I usually drink water but occassionally indulge in the rare mountain dew :)

[lilered]

There have been several good points made concerning the various exchanges by forum members to the two subject threads. What I find somewhat intriguing after reading the entire thread.

1 - I noted that the conclusion of some posters being very judgmental was supported by comparing other LDS forums to this one. Question: Isn't that in itself making a judgment of some LDSForum users?

2. - Original question as for the Forum members "Thoughts". So it appeared several gave them. And of course when this happens, a number of diverse thoughts were written. Of course, there are going to be differening opinions. Some based on expierence, some on personality, some on education, some based on desires to be perfect, etc. My point, This is a diverse group and a diverse range of opinions etc. should be expected.

3- This is an LDS Forum, however there are a number of non-LDS members. Therefore, on that basis alone, there is bound to be a difference of opinion on certain subjects. Now consider that none of us are at the same place on on our spiritual growth, our gospel understanding, nor in our desire to be as our Savior - Perfect. So now, throw in the mix, certain touchy or loaded questions and watch the fur fly.

4. - The difficulty I see is drawing conclusions and making judgments simply based on someones repsonses can lead to a much different answer than having the added perspective on knowing them personally and/or have expierence dealing with them. Good thing the savior gives us our lifetime to know us completly, before he makes his judgements.

5. I have noted a number of times in my life, that some people are very touchy on certain subjects. This may be in part because of guilt, past expierence, a lot of unknown reasons. So when certain subjects come up, they get very defensive of their point of view. Example: might be Word of Wisdon and the subject of drinking coffee or smoking. We all can read the Words of Wisdom as stated in church doctorine. We can all read or listen to our General Authorities espouse their guidance and cousel. But in the end, we still have our agency to choose our course of action. Most of can and do, still defend our lifestyle choices, our church attendance or lack thereof, our support and compliance. But in the end, each of us will have to answer for our own actions to our Heavenly Father, our neighbors judgements be damed. We all have our own beam in our eye to worry about. So why get so excited or upset about anything that is posted on a forum.

[Janice]

I've looked at the Feminist Mormon Housewives site and a few others and maybe I went at the wrong time but all I found was ... PC 'intellectual' Mormons ... wink-winking and nodding going on behind the backs of the literal-flood, GA-as-spiritual-guides, Joseph Smith-knew-what-he-was-doing-with-polygamy, minded people.

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

[MsQwerty]

Speaking as one who has read an awful lot of LDS forums and blogs over the years, I have to say that Feminist Mormon Housewives is not immune from 'contention' at all. The main reason I stopped reading there after the post Prop 8 furore died down, was because of the disrespectful references permitted about President Monson. He was referred to as the "gay prophet" by a number of pro-gay voices, meaning they believe he will be THE prophet to recognize same-sex unions in the church. The contention came from those voices who criticized the church on various issues, and there were quite a few of them. I'm pretty open-minded, but even I was shocked and quite annoyed, to be honest, that our prophet was spoken about in such a "nudge-wink" manner in those discussions, and no-one came to his defense! I wrote to Lisa about it, and got no reply, the posts remained, so clearly the owner of that blog isn't too bothered by comments of that nature either.

I dunno...something felt very wrong about participating in a discussion where the Lord's prophet was referred to in such a casual and in some cases derogatory manner...I don't go there anymore.

[MsQwerty]

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.

Janice

I just went to FMH out of curiousity, there are a few spats going on in different threads, it happens everywhere I think :)

I'm a novice at posting on this forum but have read quite a lot here for about a year, there are both conservative, moderate and liberal leaning LDS here, and maybe I'm blind but I haven't read anyone getting too upset with each other apart from a few exceptions. In general I don't think people here are blind to the idea that there is an LDS culture that is often separate in meaning to LDS doctrine. If I thought it was like that, I wouldn't have dipped my toe in the forum at all...and no-one has nipped at me yet even though I've posted that I support women's right to wear pants

Other posters who've pointed out that there are varying degrees of tolerance towards disparate views are spot on. For someone who is not used to the forum style of discussion, it might be very easy to take personal offence when someone posts a different view. For others, it's water off the proverbial duck's back. In general it's probably good to go gently on a new poster especially if the regulars know he/she is a new member to the church or the forum. Kinda reminds me of the interactions at my current ward ...

[Janice]

The main reason I stopped reading there after the post Prop 8 furore died down, was because of the disrespectful references permitted about President Monson.

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

[MsQwerty]

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

The fuss at FMH over Julie B. Beck's 2007 conference talk "Mothers Who Know" was another case in point.

See here for the comments: Feminist Mormon Housewives Pres. Julie Beck's Motherhood Talk

[FunkyTown]

The fuss at FMH over Julie B. Beck's 2007 conference talk "Mothers Who Know" was another case in point.

See here for the comments: Feminist Mormon Housewives Pres. Julie Beck's Motherhood Talk

No matter what, things can get rough on a thread. Most of the time, there's a lot of respect. Sometimes, however, you can tell if a thread will go badly simply by the attitude of many of the posts.

People usually engage in what is called 'Mirroring'. They subtly take on the qualities of those around them. It's why angry mobs get angrier and good-vibe occasions get even good vibier(That's the technical term). We tend to mimic those around us.

People need to remember the biblical saying about pointing out the mote in someone else's eye when you have a beam in your own.

Usually, you should be too busy screaming in pain with a giant freakin' BEAM in your eye.

[MsQwerty]

No matter what, things can get rough on a thread. Most of the time, there's a lot of respect. Sometimes, however, you can tell if a thread will go badly simply by the attitude of many of the posts.

People usually engage in what is called 'Mirroring'. They subtly take on the qualities of those around them. It's why angry mobs get angrier and good-vibe occasions get even good vibier(That's the technical term). We tend to mimic those around us.

People need to remember the biblical saying about pointing out the mote in someone else's eye when you have a beam in your own.

Usually, you should be too busy screaming in pain with a giant freakin' BEAM in your eye.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't mirror anyone. And those who participate in mob mentality are idiots, with less intelligence and morality than sheep.

Interesting that people seem unable to see the irony in telling others to look out for motes while they themselves are guilty of the same behaviour.

Also interesting the number of LDS who go online and allow the prophet and other leaders of the church to be slandered, misquoted and disrespected without ever coming to their defence - and who then condemn other LDS who believe such comments should be addressed.

Que sera, sera.

[dazed-and-confused]

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.

this has taken an interesting turn for me. i have OCD and can either throw myself into the frey, or sit back and watch. i take meds for mine...lol. yes, they help a great deal.

i do, however say things at times that have sparked something within me and then feel a bit foolish, and DEFINATELY apologetic. thankfully, these are few and far between.

uh, they ARE few and far between, right pam?

as to the subject at hand, some people are here because they have looked around and like this spot, some have only been here, could be a "birds of a feather" thing with reguards to the "vibes" of this room or the others.

[sixpacktr]

The fuss at FMH over Julie B. Beck's 2007 conference talk "Mothers Who Know" was another case in point.

See here for the comments: Feminist Mormon Housewives Pres. Julie Beck's Motherhood Talk

that happened on this forum as well.

After reading so many of the responses, I think that on the LDS Gospel discussion area, there isn't that much contention. We all pretty much know what is going on and what we should/shouldn't do, and while every once in a while a someone starts chasing a wild hare, it is pretty tame.

The politics threads, and a couple of others, though, bring out the guttersniping. The church, by and large, is conservative. Those liberal Mormons enjoy tweaking our noses from time to time (c'mon admit it!), I think just for the sheer joy of it. Twisting the knife can be fun! I spent many years doing just that. But I left this forum because I didn't like what I was becoming. Too many arguments, too many posters that liked to go off in the tall grass just to show that they could. I came back with the resolve that for the most part I'll stick to the LDS Discussion forum so that my personal feelings don't enter into it as much.

My wife tells me that when I get up to speak in Sacrament meeting (we speak 4 times a year) she gets nervous because she doesn't know who I'm going to offend next. I tend to be a blunt speaker, and take my calling seriously about teaching doctriine and making sure that people understand what the Lord is teaching us and expects of us. I tend to do the same here, not because of any 'holier-than-thou' attitude but because I feel I should proclaim truth when it needs to be proclaimed. When I state my opinion I try very hard to preface that statement as just that, my opinion, and welcome any other insights so that I can learn and be edified.

But, and I know this will draw jeers, but so be it, when the Brethren or the scriptures have spoken on a subject, then I see no room for debate on its 'rightness' or 'does it apply to me' etc. It applies. I pray about it, ask to have a testimony of that teaching, and move on.

I know that we are all at different points along the 'strait and narrow path' and some have wandered off into forbidden paths. But we all need to cling to truth and use it to guide us, instead of looking for ways around it because it makes us feel better about ourselves, etc.

If I offended anyone, I didn't mean to. I really didn't. Maybe another reason for contention? People read into cold, black letters and words things the poster never intended, as they couldn't see the face/gestures, etc., if it were spoken. I had an experience with one poster writing me a note to my inbox recently stating I had offended her/him over a year ago and that s/he still holds that grudge because I had been 'mean'. I went back and looked at the thread and honestly couldn't see what I had said that was so mean. But a person's frame of mind at the time, their life experiences, their supper, etc., could have them in a mood that makes them read things into what is said that were never intended...

Sorry to ramble.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

Simply put, IF truth is restored for the big doctrines, if such religious and spiritual matters can be known with clarity and certainty, than why not peripheral matters? If God, through Joseph Smith, clearly says no hot drinks, and the church interprets that as coffee and tea, both of which have caffeine, then, if I really love the Lord and his Church, I'll just be safe and sure, and not drink anything with caffeine in it. What, you do? Well...I'm not saying you won't make the Celestial Kingdom, but your willingness to dabble on the periphery of what is safe, noble and true is not a strong indicator, hmmmm?

This is but an example of a spirit that can arise. In a faith tradition that offers official doctrine, Restored Truth, one true church, and a strong, consistent code of moral living and mutual support, there is little room for opinion and uncertainty. In such an environment some may fall prey to be overly certain about their opinions, not distinguishing between known truths and strongly held viewpoints.

[Moksha]

Perhaps some of this need for homogeneity comes from the doctrines of the Great Apostasy and the Restoration. After all, the other churches are all wrong, and we are right. With such a stark resolution to doctrinal opinions, it's rather natural to slink into such a stark true/false right/wrong mentality, even in peripheral matters, that might properly belong to individual conscience and agency and personal revelation from the Holy Spirit.

This may be true for some, but not for all. While there will always be those with a stick up their butt, there are also those who approach questions and issues with an open mind and willing heart. "Bring your truths to the table", as President Hinckley put it.

:)

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha, no doubt. There are arrogant, opinionated folk in the most liberal, tolerant, "open-minded" church traditions, and there are intelligent folk, willing to converse in some of the most fundamental and authoratarian religious sects. My suggestion was that certain LDS doctrines (Restoration and one true church in particular) might lend themselves to less tolerance for diverse opinion about matters deemed religious in nature.

[rameumptom]

Just because we believe the LDS Church is the "one true and living Church with whom, I the Lord, am well pleased" (D&C 1), does not mean God is well pleased with all the individual members, nor that the Church is perfect in its teachings.

And it is sad when too many people insist their view of things must be. This is true for either the conservative or liberal side of things. A discussion is one thing. Pushing for change as if the Church were a democratic body, is another thing. During the Equal Rights Amendment struggles of the 1970s, the Church opposed it as it was too over-reaching in its language. Sonia Johnson was a member who fought for the ERA, and the Church left her alone until she publicly requested all people to not let the missionaries into their home until the Church caved to her demands. At that point, she was excommunicated, because it went from an individual's efforts to an attack on the Church.

We have to ensure that we don't have such open minds that our brains fall out.

Many Churches are collapsing right now, due to political intrigue. The American Episcopalian Church is now splintered, due to the homosexual issue. Other churches are suffering and struggling due to major political infighting. The Southern Baptists have run most of the moderates out of their church over the past 20 years, and many of their pastors are being raised as Calvinists in their seminaries. Creeds, damnable creeds that force people and churches into a pigeon hole, are dangerous. There are many that attempt to do this with the LDS Church. Thankfully, the current prophets have insisted that the GAs only "teach the doctrine" and leave speculation alone. Why? Because for too long, we had GAs at each others' throats on disagreements: evolution, conservatism/liberalism, etc. Their job isn't to preach their personal views, but to be witnesses of Jesus Christ and His doctrine.

And we as members should also focus more on the important issues, and quit insisting on having our personal pet issues on the front burner all the time, in the limelight. There's too much hubris in the world, for us not to destroy the Church by using it ourselves, as in ancient times. Looking beyond the mark applies equally well today, as it did in Jacob's time.

So, I agree with PC that while we hold to the standard of the Restored Church being true and living, we need not be arrogant to the point of damning other faiths, or setting ourselves up against our own leaders for our own personal gain.

[Guest SmarterBlue]

Simply put, IF truth is restored for the big doctrines, if such religious and spiritual matters can be known with clarity and certainty, than why not peripheral matters? If God, through Joseph Smith, clearly says no hot drinks, and the church interprets that as coffee and tea, both of which have caffeine, then, if I really love the Lord and his Church, I'll just be safe and sure, and not drink anything with caffeine in it. What, you do? Well...I'm not saying you won't make the Celestial Kingdom, but your willingness to dabble on the periphery of what is safe, noble and true is not a strong indicator, hmmmm?

This is but an example of a spirit that can arise. In a faith tradition that offers official doctrine, Restored Truth, one true church, and a strong, consistent code of moral living and mutual support, there is little room for opinion and uncertainty. In such an environment some may fall prey to be overly certain about their opinions, not distinguishing between known truths and strongly held viewpoints.

I would like to start first by apologizing if for any reason, or any shape or form, I misquoted a Prophet – that was not my intention.

Secondly I think people in general are allowed to have opinions and allowed to disagree. I don’t enjoy watching, as I often see, posts that seem to be directed more towards flaming posts specifically designed to draw attention toward a negative response. I think sarcasm is ok, and sometime’s it’s down right witty (and funny). However, I still stand by my statement that I don’t like to see others being put down. I think there is ample opportunity for disagreement among intelligent dialogue, but don’t try finding any on CSPAN.

Why can’t we discuss pants? Well ok. I wear mostly Levi because I work out doors. On Sunday I’ll wear slacks. I like the color navy blue probably because of my long family history of military tradition. I like jean shorts in the summer time but I guess those don’t actually count as pants.

In regards to the tea and coffee, God did not say, ”Never drink caffeine.” Some popular religious sects do not believe in eating pork, but think that consuming beef is ok. “Well wait. That’s still an animal.” So? – That is their faith. Not consuming tea and coffee is MY faith. Who am I to question someone else’s faith? Perhaps I should join their forum, spam pics of bacon cheeseburgers, and tell them they are wrong? On second thought, I think I’ll accept that fact that what I’m really looking at is a religious, cultural difference and leave it at that.

“MMMmmmmmmm… baaacon..” Homer.

“Well...I'm not saying you won't make the Celestial Kingdom, but your willingness to dabble on the periphery of what is safe, noble and true is not a strong indicator, hmmmm?” Strong indicator of “what” and to “whom?” Please elaborate.

[beefche]

In regards to the tea and coffee, God did not say, ”Never drink caffeine.” Some popular religious sects do not believe in eating pork, but think that consuming beef is ok. “Well wait. That’s still an animal.” So? – That is their faith. Not consuming tea and coffee is MY faith. Who am I to question someone else’s faith? Perhaps I should join their forum, spam pics of bacon cheeseburgers, and tell them they are wrong? On second thought, I think I’ll accept that fact that what I’m really looking at is a religious, cultural difference and leave it at that.

SmarterBlue, I'm not sure if you are aiming this particular comment directly at prisonchaplin (but since you are quoting him it appears you are), and since you are new you probably don't realize that PC is extremely respectful of LDS beliefs. I think it's unfair to say that he is mocking or otherwise being disrepectful to Mormons when explaining his beliefs/faith.

[prisonchaplain]

Beefche, I was not sure how to take SmarterBlue's post, but did not believe she was implying any disrespect on my part. I appreciate your affirmation of my postings, though. :-) It's never pleasant to discuss disagreements in church, and members who engage in contention. My thought is that Smarter was simply saying, probably correctly, that the level of disagreement is not that serious, is common to most churches, and for the most part, is grounded in personal experience and practice, not doctrine or Scripture.

[ztodd]

I'll present some ideas with a lot of overlap. I have made them discrete ideas, but in fact you will see that they bleed into each other a lot.

Idea #1: You would have to ask the moderator who shut the thread down (Beefche?). I don't know that she did so "because it's causing hurt feelings". Maybe she just did it because she thought the thread had run its course.

Idea #2: The sites you mention tend to have members and commenters with a higher overall education level. Such people tend not to get offended by ideas or dissenting opinions as easily as others. I would guess that sites such as this get a more representative cross-section of the population, and thus a lower overall educational level

Hey, I'm offended.

(which does not necessarily mean a lower level of intelligence).

Oh, ok, never mind, I'm good.

Idea #3: When the personal insults begin to fly, bad feelings ensue. Such personal insults usually result from someone taking umbrage at an opinion they don't like (as mentioned in Idea #2). The sites you mention may be populated more by people used to hearing opinions that differ from their own, so they are less likely to get all huffy because they think someone is saying (for example) that women in pants are evil.

Idea #4: The members of the lists you mention are probably more "liberal" than the average poster here, both in the traditional sense and in the modern US political sense. In the traditional sense, such "liberalism" allows for expression of opinion without feeling the need to censor.

Idea #5: The choking grip of political correctness is everywhere present, as has been fully demonstrated by the "women in pants" thread. But political correctness seems always to be more intense when the politically incorrect form the majority or plurality. Since those other lists also tend to be more "liberal" in the US sociopolitical sense, more traditionally minded people are not perceived to form the majority, and so are probably tolerated a bit better by those who style themselves "progressive". By contrast, such people feel outnumbered on this forum, and therefore might be more inclined to criticize and attempt to censor ideas that they don't like.

Idea #6: Many (perhaps all) people tend not to think through the arguments presented, but just comment off-the-cuff. It requires mental discipline to read someone's post carefully and actually understand what they're saying. The other lists you mention might be populated by people who, on the average, are better disciplined than here.

Oh wait, I'm offended again.

Idea #7: Discussion lists and boards develop their own personalities, to which the members then seem to adhere to some degree. Perhaps LDS.NET has developed a personality of haranguing the politically incorrect, while the other lists you mention have developed a more tolerant (and perhaps more truly open-minded) atmosphere.

Should I be more offended?

Idea #8: Maybe we're all jerks and they're all angels.

Oh yea, now I'm really offended.

:) <-- (I'm really not)