Why they're MAD

[_moksha]

Thus, when we go to war, we must find a face for our enemy, whether it's Hitler or Saddam Hussein or whoever.

Good point. Would we be willing to go to war when our symbol was a dollar bill, especially when it was in someone else's pocket?

[_bcspace]

I feel like hitting myself on the head for not fully realizing this before. Tbone on RFM was speculating on why conversations with believers tend to get ugly, and I had an epiphany, which I will share here.

You sure it's not just a spot of gravy or a bit of rancid meat.....lol

I've totally given up on discussing Mormonism with Mormons.

Here I am; though admittedly I prefer scriptural topics.

With very rare exceptions (believers who are genuinely liberal, not the faux-liberals you see on internet LDS boards), it is just too personal not to get ugly.

If by liberal you mean political liberal then you just aren't getting the LDS perspective as a liberal in that sense is always going to carry beliefs that are in opposition to LDS doctrine.

Exbelievers, out of the rest of the gentile world, know the church better than anyone else - and flat out rejected it. Mormonism isn't just a religion, it's a life, a world-view, so when you flat out reject Mormonism, you have rejected THEM.

Knowing you've rejected the Church is no insult to me. I simply chalk it up to the Parable of the Sower.

I think this is why so many believers do not seem to be able to differentiate between criticizing the church and its leaders and criticizing the believer personally. They feel attacked when the church is criticized because they can't separate themselves from the church. So they attack back.

I will most certainly counterattack. But not you personally, just your opinions and misconceptions. Isn't that what you want?

[_beastie]

Good, bcspace, I like being challenged.

No, I didn't mean a political liberal. I was referring to the construct of some MADders that exmormons are really "fundamentalists" because they can't embrace the ambiguity inherent in revelation, while they are "liberals" because they do embrace it. I call them "faux" liberals because they are only willing to embrace certain ambiguity that touches peripheral issues (like Adam/God), they refuse to admit that the ambiguity touches core issues of belief, too (is the church "true"?).

[_guy sajer]

I feel like hitting myself on the head for not fully realizing this before. Tbone on RFM was speculating on why conversations with believers tend to get ugly, and I had an epiphany, which I will share here.

I've totally given up on discussing Mormonism with Mormons. With very rare exceptions (believers who are genuinely liberal, not the faux-liberals you see on internet LDS boards), it is just too personal not to get ugly. Exbelievers, out of the rest of the gentile world, know the church better than anyone else - and flat out rejected it. Mormonism isn't just a religion, it's a life, a world-view, so when you flat out reject Mormonism, you have rejected THEM. I think this is why so many believers do not seem to be able to differentiate between criticizing the church and its leaders and criticizing the believer personally. They feel attacked when the church is criticized because they can't separate themselves from the church. So they attack back.

Geez. I think believers admit this, in so many words. I do not know why it didn't finally sink in until today. When believers labeled my behavior ugly and attacking on MAD, I was confused, because I think I normally stick to the topic and had to put up with a lot of baloney from believers. But what I did that was so ugly was to point out the serious flaws in their BELIEFS, which feels the same as pointing out the serious flaws in THEM. That is also why people like Juliann seem to lose all reading comprehension when dealing with these issues - it's like how we react when we are personally criticized. It's almost impossible to "hear" any of it objectively, even if it is at least partly based in truth.

So the believers who lash out and feel justified in creating a board with LDS biased moderating have done so because of their inability to draw a firm boundary between who THEY are and the church. They are enmeshed with the church and feel attacked when the church is criticized.

It would be interesting, psychologically speaking, to figure out how this happens in Mormonism. Is it because it colors everything in your life as a youth? (I didn't grow up in the church so don't fully understand its childhood impact).

My experience, the self identity of true believers is completely wrapped up in their membership in the Mormon Church. They are funamentally incapable or unwilling of conceiving of themselves outside their membership in the Church, and they lack the ability to step outside and view themselves objectively.

This is, of course, not true of everyone and is based on the hundreds of true believers I have met over the years.

I find this both a bit sad and a bit pathetic at the same time.

No sense of "self," only a sense of Mormon self.

[_Yoda]

I will most certainly counterattack. But not you personally, just your opinions and misconceptions. Isn't that what you want?

BC....If every TBM on MAD debated the way you do, I don't think there would be a problem. You and I have disagreed on many issues, and still remained friends.

What I don't understand are those who resort to personal attacks. I don't condone it on either side of the aisle.

[_harmony]

My experience, the self identity of true believers is completely wrapped up in their membership in the Mormon Church. They are funamentally incapable or unwilling of conceiving of themselves outside their membership in the Church, and they lack the ability to step outside and view themselves objectively.

This is, of course, not true of everyone and is based on the hundreds of true believers I have met over the years.

I find this both a bit sad and a bit pathetic at the same time.

No sense of "self," only a sense of Mormon self.

Unfortunately, very few people have a sense of self that isn't tied up with something else. Anyone who has lived their life in a way that their sense of self is tied to an idea, whether the idea is Islam, Mormonism, or feminism etc, when something happens and they change their focus (whether by disillusionment, or some other means), they become lost and disoriented, without a steering mechanism until they are able to work through it. Happens all the time. Mormons aren't the only ones effected, and Mormons aren't effected any worse than anyone else.

[Analytics]

Unfortunately, very few people have a sense of self that isn't tied up with something else. Anyone who has lived their life in a way that their sense of self is tied to an idea, whether the idea is Islam, Mormonism, or feminism etc, when something happens and they change their focus (whether by disillusionment, or some other means), they become lost and disoriented, without a steering mechanism until they are able to work through it. Happens all the time. Mormons aren't the only ones effected, and Mormons aren't effected any worse than anyone else.

Why wouldn't one expect that people would be lost when they reject God?

By the way, I tend to identify myself strongly with mathematics and computers. I truly would feel lost and disoriented if something happened to change that. ;o)

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It is understandable that Mormons are so entrenched in their faith that they are personally offended when people "attack" it. As has been pointed out already, it isn't much different than other religions, politics, or national identity. Some people identify themselves by their faith. What I find interesting, though, is TBM's inability to seperate their leaders from their faith. They get upset when you poke fun at silly Mormon beliefs, but they sometimes get even madder if you refer to Gordon B. Hinckley as just "Hinckley," or "Gordon," or god forbid "Gordo." His official name is "President Gordon B. Hinckley" and if you refer to him in a more casual way you are acting in an offensive manner. If you make fun of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young it is a personal attack on the TBM. I think it is because Mormonism is more dependent on their mortal leaders than other religions, in general.

[_asbestosman]

They get upset when you poke fun at silly Mormon beliefs,

Depends which ones. Mark Twain's description of polygamy has me ROTFLMHO. It is when people mock the core of God, the temple, and things like that which I am offended.

but they sometimes get even madder if you refer to Gordon B. Hinckley as just "Hinckley," or "Gordon," or god forbid "Gordo." His official name is "President Gordon B. Hinckley" and if you refer to him in a more casual way you are acting in an offensive manner. If you make fun of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young it is a personal attack on the TBM. I think it is because Mormonism is more dependent on their mortal leaders than other religions, in general.

I think it's because it demonstrates a lack of manners. If you're going to be rude you're not going to have civil discourse. I'm sure you'd be none too pleased if I referred to you, your spouse and familiy with derogatory names. I'm happy to refer to other religous leaders and scholars by their proper titles--at least if I expect something more than mudslinging, rants, and garbage in an exchange of words.

[_Yoda]

I think it's because it demonstrates a lack of manners. If you're going to be rude you're not going to have civil discourse. I'm sure you'd be none too pleased if I referred to you, your spouse and familiy with derogatory names. I'm happy to refer to other religous leaders and scholars by their proper titles--at least if I expect something more than mudslinging, rants, and garbage in an exchange of words.

Great minds think alike! I was in the middle of posting almost the exact same thing. LOL