Why they're MAD

[_beastie]

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).

[_Runtu]

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).

Yep, that's it. That's why they refer to this place and RfM as "hate sites," why charity called me "nasty" for expressing an opinion about how Joseph Smith benefitted materially from starting the church, and why it's so common to attack the person instead of the argument.

[_beastie]

It explains another phenomenon I noticed a long time ago, while a moderator at Z. On boards which allow for interactions between believer and nonbelievers, believers tend to engage in more outright misbehavior than nonbelievers. I don't think it has anything to do with a difference in moral tendencies or self-control, but rather because the nonbelievers normally aren't feeling personally attacked (except when they actually are).

Now my next speculation - is one differentiation between believers who know all the "stuff" and still believe and those who learned the "stuff" and lost belief that the exbeliever was always less personally enmeshed with Mormonism, and was able to "hear" criticism of the church without feeling personally attacked?

[_Runtu]

It explains another phenomenon I noticed a long time ago, while a moderator at Z. On boards which allow for interactions between believer and nonbelievers, believers tend to engage in more outright misbehavior than nonbelievers. I don't think it has anything to do with a difference in moral tendencies or self-control, but rather because the nonbelievers normally aren't feeling personally attacked (except when they actually are).

Now my next speculation - is one differentiation between believers who know all the "stuff" and still believe and those who learned the "stuff" and lost belief that the exbeliever was always less personally enmeshed with Mormonism, and was able to "hear" criticism of the church without feeling personally attacked?

That's a tough one for me to answer. My own "atrocity story" involves having been an apologist and dealt with the attacks from critics. Putting my apologist hat back on, I think I was pretty good about separating the personal from the religious. I remember one evangelical who consistently called me names and said my posts consisted of used kitty litter (I was going by the name Johnny-cat back then), so yeah, I did get a little defensive. But it's funny how I never got angry with people like Randy Jordan and Duwayne Anderson, whereas Pahoran (who was there at the same time I was) thinks they are the devil's spawn and treated them like it.

I met another former a.r.m. denizen on RfM a while back, and back then he had struck me as perhaps the most gracious and evenhanded poster on the board. Now he's out, too.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Interesting thoughts Beastie.

I don’t think this is limited to Mormonism however (I also don’t think it is something that applies to all Mormons). I think there are people within each religion whose self identity is made up largely by their religious upbringing. Whether they be Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist, or Mormon.

I do agree though that Mormonism is as much as culture as it is a religion (I guess Judaism would be the closest example as far as other religions go).

I also don’t think it is limited to religion either. [I know the following analogy is flawed, but hopefully it gets my point across] If someone is a biologist, they might take personal offense if someone criticizes biology. If someone is French, they might take personal offense if someone criticizes France. An example of people taking personal offense for the criticisms of their Nation is the changing of French Fries to Freedom Fries.

I admit though that when someone calls Mormonism such things as “stupid” that I do take personal offense. After all, because I believe in it, the person is basically calling me stupid. Now, there are probably many that would agree that I am stupid (often including myself), but I still take slight offense nonetheless.

[_asbestosman]

An awful lot of people seem obsessed with attacking Dr. Peterson. Is it really because he attacked you, or did he merely argue against with what you believe in. Sauce for the goose . . .

Yes, I'm sure he's attacked some of you, but did he start the personal nature of it, or did you start it by attacking him?

[_Bond...James Bond]

The thing about religion is that its so personal to some people. A personal relationship with Jesus is thought to be just that, a real personal relationship. Religion provides so many important answers for some people (Where are we going? Where are we at? What's it all about? etc etc) and to have anyone question those important answers really hits some people. Further, religion is tied up into other important things:

Religious marriage ceremonies
Family bonding (a father baptizing his sons)
Community (the automatic social network of a church)
and many more...

Basically some people, who are so willing to question anything else from politics to emotions or whatever, often will go into defensive mode when anything threatens their religious views. Religion provides a safe cocoon where many of the most important questions are answered. Being pulled out of that cocoon leaves people vulnerable, sad, confused, lost, and often without direction (I was the poster child for the sad, confused, lost person by the way...slowing moving forward).

[_Runtu]

An awful lot of people seem obsessed with attacking Dr. Peterson. Is it really because he attacked you, or did he merely argue against with what you believe in. Sauce for the goose . . .

Yes, I'm sure he's attacked some of you, but did he start the personal nature of it, or did you start it by attacking him?

We seem to have a need to personalize things as humans. Thus, when we go to war, we must find a face for our enemy, whether it's Hitler or Saddam Hussein or whoever. It's easier to focus our anger, hurt, or frustration on a person than it is to focus it on an abstraction.

[_beastie]

Hi, Seuss,

I don’t think this is limited to Mormonism however (I also don’t think it is something that applies to all Mormons). I think there are people within each religion whose self identity is made up largely by their religious upbringing. Whether they be Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist, or Mormon.

I agree, although I think that certain religions are more prone to this effect than others. I think it is largely associated with "high demand" religions, in which the religion pervades almost every part of life.

I do agree though that Mormonism is as much as culture as it is a religion (I guess Judaism would be the closest example as far as other religions go).

I think this is self-evident as well, yet, in the past, when I stated this on FAIR, I was criticized for it. There are some posters, the more aggressive ones, whose reaction has more to do with "who" says something than "what" they say. These are the ones I have most in mind with these comments.

I also don’t think it is limited to religion either. [I know the following analogy is flawed, but hopefully it gets my point across] If someone is a biologist, they might take personal offense if someone criticizes biology. If someone is French, they might take personal offense if someone criticizes France. An example of people taking personal offense for the criticisms of their Nation is the changing of French Fries to Freedom Fries.

I agree, it's not limited to religion. I think the comparison to partisan politics is particularly apt.

I admit though that when someone calls Mormonism such things as “stupid” that I do take personal offense. After all, because I believe in it, the person is basically calling me stupid. Now, there are probably many that would agree that I am stupid (often including myself), but I still take slight offense nonetheless.

There are some criticisms that ARE personal, such as stating the entire religion is "stupid". But the people I have in mind see offense, and take aggressive offense, at arguments that address only a specific claim of Mormonism - such as the topic that interests me the most, the placement of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. When people on MAD accuse me of generic bad behavior - so bad they're surprised I hadn't been banned - it is a reaction that goes beyond a common sense reaction to being indirectly called stupid.

I think that these believers are not only so enmeshed with Mormonism that they cannot differentiate criticism of specific claims between personal attacks, but they also buy into the black and white notions that exbelievers who are interested in discussing certain claims from a critical viewpoint are being inspired by Satan. So any attack in return is justified. These critics are malicious, with evil intent, and ought to be exposed even if it requires behavior that would otherwise be labeled "bad" in a different situation.

In retrospect, I realize I'm probably talking about True Believers in the Eric Hoffer sense, whose identities are so thoroughly enmeshed within the belief system that there can be no conception of self outside it, hence, the brain acts in an aggressively self protective manner when the belief system is attacked. From his book The True Believer:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

[_beastie]

An awful lot of people seem obsessed with attacking Dr. Peterson. Is it really because he attacked you, or did he merely argue against with what you believe in. Sauce for the goose . . .

Yes, I'm sure he's attacked some of you, but did he start the personal nature of it, or did you start it by attacking him?

I don't recall ever having attacked DCP, so I can't answer that. I have stated I don't think he's that great of an apologist and don't understand the focus on him, but I don't mean that as a personal attack, although it would probably feel that way to him. I just don't think he's that good, and sometimes creates problems for other apologists I think are much better (like Ben McGuire and Brant Gardner).

I'm not saying that all attacks are caused by this enmeshment factor, by the way. Some are just the result of personal animosity and bad blood over past experiences. That explains my comments about Juliann, for example. She began her sarcastic attacks on me from our first encounter on Z - and that was in my nicer, less blunt, days. ;)

It is possible, as runtu suggested, that DCP is some sort of personalization of "apologists" in general.