A Curious Observation: Different sites, Different Attitudes

[Maya]

Sometimes words fly pretty hard this way and that. However YOU can choose NOT to be offended. I was once offended... at least I felt so... so I crept in my caven to lick my sores ... and came back and quess what... I have talked with this person many times afterwards. Looks like this person was deep in to the subject and this person did point out a week point in my thinking (which irritated me). However I do articulate my words more carefully with this person... but it is kind of hard for me, as my native language is not English... English is my 3rd language.

So there are also various reasons someone may sound a bit rough, not only because that person dont like you... even extreem faith in him/her self sounds a bit rough sometimes.

Patience, and tolerance my dear sisters and brothers!

[Vort]

I spent a lot of time at Mormon Matters and Feminist Mormon Housewives...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 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?

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

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.

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.

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

[Maya]

Maybe there are more people on this nestside, whose ego is not that strong and think everything against them is an attac thowards them.

[Moksha]

3) - A forum such as Feminist Mormon Housewives is far more likely to attract like minded individuals than a general topic site.

However, even conventional Mormon housewives can go there and feel no guilt if they chant these lines:

Baa-ram-ewe! Baa-ram-ewe!

To your breed, your fleece, your clan be true!

Sheep be true! Baa-ram-ewe!

This will allow them to resist Feminist Mormon rhetoric and remain sweet.

:)

[Janice]

#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....

Idea #3: When the personal insults begin to fly, bad feelings ensue.

.. 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

[Misshalfway]

I couldn't have said it better than PC. My experience here has been extremely positive and on the very rare occasion that I get into it with someone, it has always been followed with apologies and a return to civility. And I have seen this site tackle some pretty weighty subjects and most post with wisdom and tact. Yeah, occasionally it goes South......but that seems like something to be expected.

And I was in both conversations....the one about "debating" and the one about the "pants" and I don't recall things getting out of hand. Now if you wanna look at some real heat, I can dig up a few past posters for you.....but they aren't here anymore because the mods really do try so hard to keep the contention to a minimum. But gosh....isn't it ok to express a little emotion sometimes? to poke fun at ourselves....even in (heaven forbid!) sarcasm? I mean, come on.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Tough Grits]

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

I actually spit on my screen from laughing at this last comment!!!

[Maya]

I think this is the most awesom LDS forum in the world... but it is stil not perfect! Fex I have not been announced the queen of the site and many have not even tried to give me the ir

So now it is time to say good night sweet dreams and BEEGOOD!

[Snow]

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?

Oh - it's self-righteousness.

[Guest SmarterBlue]

IMHO contention just doesn't have to escalate if we choose not to react, and not to take personal, these forums. Yes, sometimes it's meant to be personal. So what? They dont really know me, nor do I know them. So, it really isn't personal after all.

Bottom-line: Jesus actually did have a heart-felt, calm, respectful conversation with a leading Pharisee once. Perhaps it should be our model (John 3)?

I have to agree with the Chaplin regarding not responding to personal attacks. I really feel that most attackers (troll’s) feel some kind of minor satisfaction when they get a response akin to someone looking for a negative response in lieu to nothing. Honestly, I feel bad for them.

I believe part of the reason why it’s sometimes hard to have a relatively “mud slinging free” forum resides in the forum’s popularity. I just made a Google search for LDS forums and this was the first on the list. Having a rise in popularity does bring opportunities for more attacks.

However, I do come to this forum because of the ability to customize and I like being able to chat with other members. I have seen people here asking questions and getting what I consider to be genuine heart felt responses. It felt good knowing that even in an online community the gospel was being shared and testimonies were given in a way that has never been done before in the history of man – in a word, “amazing.” It’s also miraculous to see when people from different cultures, religions, and any part of the world be given the truth freely and openly.

I’m sorry to see that posters can’t seem to make a single commit with out flaming someone else. Gordon B. Hinckley was quoted to say, “You can’t pick yourself by putting others down,” which edifies my feelings on attackers more then anything else.

Personally I just let that individual have their moment of fame and move on.

[Janice]

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?

[Wingnut]

But gosh....isn't it ok to express a little emotion sometimes? to poke fun at ourselves....even in (heaven forbid!) sarcasm? I mean, come on.

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances would or should anyone here ever use sarcasm.

[beefche]

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances would or should anyone here ever use sarcasm.

Wingy, how are you able to speak so well with your tongue in your cheek? If I try that it usually comes out, "Thmpf, mphth!"

[pam]

If I had a tongue like yours it would probably come out that way for me too.

[Vort]

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...

Christ commanded us to be one, and warned, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." Efforts to follow this commandment may perhaps at times lead to an unnecessary, perhaps even unhealthy, uniformity. Significantly, I can find no instance in all of scripture where we are commanded to avoid being like the other Saints. This observation leads me to conclude that God isn't very concerned about that matter.

I do see the reverse of that, however: People so concerned with heterogeneity (or at least with their version of it) that they blast anyone who champions a traditional view. In the late, lamentable "women in pants" thread, the harsh, personally condemning words originated with those who took the view that people should wear whatever they like to Church, and not those who thought women should wear dresses and men should wear white shirts and ties.

Another few definitions for the Devil's Dictionary:

Open-minded: Those who agree with me.

Close-minded: Those who disagree with me.

Political correctness: A brilliant ploy whereby those who can't stand other opinions get to lecture everyone else on their close-mindedness.

Tolerance: a virtue for those who disagree with me; a vice for us who know the truth

[Misshalfway]

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?

Why isn't it ok to say "I think that statement is false/wrong/not what I understand"? Again, it all comes down to how it is done.

I think maybe the cure to all of this is charity. If one is full of charity they can warn and be warned, teach and be taught, debate and yeild the floor.

Sometimes the wicked take the truth to be hard. Sometimes the wicked only act in defense.

Maybe Janice, you are just seeing that we still have some rough edges that do need some work.

With regards to conformity, I really agree with Vort. At the end of our lives, we will know Jesus because we will be like him. But gosh, I mean the church isn't the polygamists in Texas. We are allowed to wear a different dress and change our hairstyle. I think we need to see things accurately here. I think sometimes people hear the "dictates" of the church standards and completely miss the point (spirit of the law).

I used to teach at the MTC and had lots of conversations with Elders about pulling their pants up and not wearing bowling shoes and sunglasses to class. And then argued with Sisters about how many earing they were sporting. Was their individuality being violated by the dress standards. No. These kids were learning to balance their personal preferences with the will of the Lord.

[rameumptom]

A lot of it has to do with the audiences and writers in each place. Few people respond in a blog, whereas many will jump in and respond on a list like this.

In blogs, those who do write are limited, simply because only a few are allowed to write at feminist Mormon housewives, or elsewhere on the bloggernacle. There are fewer threads begun, and fewer eyes seeing/commenting on those threads.

Finally, there are often different groups looking at each. Most members are not interested in the things going on in much of the bloggernacle, which often tends to be a bit more liberal than most LDS are.

Finally, sometimes things do heat up on those blogs. But since the blogger can limit who posts, it can be kept to a minimum.

[Janice]

Why isn't it ok to say "I think that statement is false/wrong/not what I understand"?

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.

I think maybe the cure to all of this is charity.

Well said.

[Janice]

A lot of it has to do with the audiences and writers in each place. Few people respond in a blog, whereas many will jump in and respond on a list like this.

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.

[prisonchaplain]

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?

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.

[Janice]

No. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances would or should anyone here ever use sarcasm.

"Well, isn't that special!"

-- Church Lady (I have no idea why your comment made me think of her)

Edited July 31, 2009 by Janice

[Janice]

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.

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.

[Misshalfway]

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.

I think you are right here. We aren't very tolerant of other's spiritual journeys. We think they should look like the same picture. In this sense, I think that there is room to open the conformity thinking a bit.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

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

FYI I haven't read all the other replies.

I think it's because people who go to those sites go expecting to discuss controversial issues (just look at the site names!). People who come here come expecting to chat about the weather and never have their opinions called into question - so when somebody does ask a question people get defensive. I'm also going to say that some people here expect that anybody who asks a question is either an investigator that they can convert or a detractor looking to cause trouble, and so they taylor their responses to fit within one of those two paradigms.

Besides. We're Mormon, which means we ARE self-righteous :)

[talisyn]

"If you would just read this quote from a GA, you will clearly see that you are wrong."

You know, sometimes they really are wrong.

I spend a fair amount of time on another lds site which is great fun with all the discussions and references flying around like hyper winged-monkeys, and I have to say there is a whole spirit of peace and tranquility here that is missing from the other board. 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 a bunch of people saying pretty much the same thing (it was during the prop 8 debate so you can imagine), like PC 'intellectual' Mormons. What I object to in places like that is the pervasive feeling that there is a lot of 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.

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