Economics of Anti-Mormonism

[_Some Schmo]

Example, Jersey Girl (LSD) and I used to be venomous enemies. We still would disagree on much, no doubt, but the tone and tenor of our discussions has changed 180 degrees. Those who do not respect or take me seriously will get little in return (and this is why I simply ignore the vast majority of what you, PP Coffee, Schmo, and a few others here, like GIMR, post).

The likes of you get clever puns, witty sarcasm, satirical songs, and disdain. Others get serious critical analysis and debate-and respect.

Awww... thanks for mentioning me, sweetie. I'm moved.

I'm interested in some examples of your clever puns, witty sarcasm, and satirical songs. Some serious critical analysis, debate and respect would also be cool. If you could point that out, that'd be great.

Don't worry about the disdain though. I know what you're talking about there.

I feel like we're close friends now. Ya big ol' softy, you.

[_Jersey Girl]

Many of Jerseys real life friends are members of the church. She is well aquainted with both the doctrine and culture. She just neds that witness of the spirit so she herself can get baptized.

And you explain her lack of a witness attributable to what? Sin? Stupidity? Perhaps accountability? not "Golden" yet?

To take such a stance Gaz one must have the belief that Jersey is in error. And, if your information is correct, which I am sure it is, I would accept a certain daily level of experience perhaps. I am still skeptical of jerseys ability as a commentator of actions between Mormons. This is at least from a cultural, historical perspective. In short, stick to what you know Jersey.

Theres a difference between living Mormonism and observing Mormonism.

And I'd accept your demonstrating by example support for the claims you made.

Jersey Girl
(waiting for hell to freeze over)

[_wenglund]

Much gratitude for the several on-topic and thoughtful post.

Instead of responding to each relevant and valued post, let me just make a couple of general comments.

First, while economics is typically associated with financial choices (what house to buy, what career to persue, what goods or services to offer, etc.), the principles of economics can also be efficaciously applied to intellectual, emotional, psychological, and spiritual choices, etc., as Loren wisely pointed out.

Second, while the term "anti-Mormon" may be viewed by some as insulting and "thought-terminating", I am simply using it here in reference to significant (quantitative and qualitative) expressions of criticism and/or derision against the LDS Church, and/or its leaders, defenders, and membership in general. This, then, does not include constructive criticism, respectful disagreement or inquiry, or expressions of genuine doubt or unbelief.

Third, one of the reasons that I asked the question that I did is to eventually move the discussion towards a more efficacious evaluation of anti-Mormon attitudes and behaviors--somewhat like what may be found in Ajax18's post at the bottom of page 2, and even more so like what was stated by Analytics in the third post on page 3.

Too often we make choices out of impulse or habit, or even based on "emotion" as Yong said. We don't always think things through very deeply, nor do we take the time to educate ourselves about alternatives. Consequently, we may make choices that not only fail to maximize our happiness (utility), but may frequently and unwittingly be mediocre, if not also counterproductive and disbenefitial.

Is that, for the most part, the case with anti-Mormonism?

Before answering that question I think it may help to look a little more carefully at both the costs and the benefits sides of the decision-making equation, and do so in light of one's ultimate objective--which, presumeably is to maximize one's happiness, peace, and contentment (let me know if you disagree with this).

Some of you listed various financial costs (such as the price of your computer, internet connection, electricity, etc.), as well as time/effort costs, and even some intellectual and emotional costs (confusion, irritations, increased biases, anger, etc.--and by implication, being subjected to the boorish and childish behavior from the likes of Mercury and PP). Can you think of any other reasource costs?

What about opportunity costs (like what analytic mentioned)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Too often we make choices out of impulse or habit, or even based on "emotion" as Yong said. We don't always think things through very deeply, nor do we take the time to educate ourselves about alternatives. Consequently, we may make choices that not only fail to maximize our happiness (utility), but may frequently and unwittingly be mediocre, if not also counterproductive and disbenefitial.

Is that, for the most part, the case with anti-Mormonism?

Somewhat, but not nearly so much as it was the case with Mormonism itself. At least here I am fully aware that I'm indulging myself and frittering away my time.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I have posted this on several other boards, but I wanted to give those here to whom it may apply, a chance to respond as well:

The choices we humans make typically amount to an informal cost/benefit analysis, where we each weigh the cost against the benefits of known options, and choose the option that we believe will give us the most benefit.

I believe this applies even to choices made in regards to anti-Mormonism of all sorts, including what often occurs here at MD.

Would those who are interested, and to whom it applies, be so kind as to briefly, though thoughtfully, let me know what PERSONAL costs (if any) or PERSONAL benefits you get from griping about and deriding the LDS Church here?

I promise to read all of the responses, though I may not respond to all of them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So it was you trolling the RfM board for information! I guessed as much. You refused to divulge your name or reasons for requesting information when questioned by posters on the board. Your motives were suspect from the get-go and for good reason. What use do you have for the personal information you're gathering? Do you plan to use it to show how cognitively distorted ex-Mormons are?

I derive great personal satisfaction in keeping people from joining Mormonism and by helping questioning Mormons find their way out of that cult. I have saved two families from joining Mormonism by approaching them after I noticed the missionaries at their homes. Seven extended family members have resigned and my whole immediate family, as well. I've gotten wonderful emails from people telling me how I helped them in their recovery from Mormonism and that their correspondence with me helped them make the decision to leave the church. It is also cathartic to share my personal experiences with others.

Now you can turn around and use what I've told you to show whatever problems I have with Mormonism are all my own fault and caused by my own misperceptions. That's your mantra. Go for it.

KA

[_wenglund]

So it was you trolling the RfM board for information! I guessed as much. You refused to divulge your name or reasons for requesting information when questioned by posters on the board. Your motives were suspect from the get-go and for good reason. What use do you have for the personal information you're gathering? Do you plan to use it to show how cognitively distorted ex-Mormons are?

Yes, I posed this same thought-provoking question over at RFM. I don't know if that could rightly be called "trolling"--that certainly wasn't my intent.

However, no, I did not refuse to divulge my name. In fact, I specifically said that I would divulge it as long as Benson directly answered my question--which, ironically, he never did. Perhaps your inability to graps this obvious distinction may be due to your being in supposed "recovery". Who knows?

And, no, I did not refuse to divulge my reasons for requesting the information. When asked, I immediately said exactly why I requested it. You and others didn't accept my honest answer, and remain suspicious to this day. Such is the paranoic way of the "recovering". Since you didn't believe me then, I am not sure why you would ask me the same question now? You have your conspiracy theory that you will favor regardless of what I say, so what would be the point in my answering you?

I derive great personal satisfaction in keeping people from joining Mormonism and by helping questioning Mormons find their way out of that cult. I have saved two families from joining Mormonism by approaching them after I noticed the missionaries at their homes. Seven extended family members have resigned and my whole immediate family, as well. I've gotten wonderful emails from people telling me how I helped them in their recovery from Mormonism and that their correspondence with me helped them make the decision to leave the church. It is also cathartic to share my personal experiences with others.

This was helpful. I appreciate you sharing that with me.

It appears, though, that while you may have left the Church, you still view yourself as on some sort of salvific mission. No doubt to some people you are a shining beacon on the hill, a guard on the watch tower, an uncommon model of what works and how to make things right through spleen-venting "recovery". Surely, those who have presumably been rescued by you from the supposed vile clutches of the gospel of love, will undoubtably fare far better in this life and in the life to come. You go girl!!

Now you can turn around and use what I've told you to show whatever problems I have with Mormonism are all my own fault and caused by my own misperceptions. That's your mantra. Go for it. KA

I'll pass this time around. I don't want to once again feed into your victimological drama. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Since I haven't received any responses to my last question, I am wonder if some of you may not know what is meant by "opportunity costs". If so, you can find a helpful explanation at Wikipedia (just click HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Since I haven't received any responses to my last question, I am wonder if some of you may not know what is meant by "opportunity costs". If so, you can find a helpful explanation at Wikipedia (just click HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know what opportunity costs are, having at one time been an economics major. Honestly, I don't see a lot of lost opportunity. I've made good friends here, sorted out a lot of my feelings, and learned a lot about the church and its history.

[_Some Schmo]

Surely, those who have presumably been rescued by you from the supposed vile clutches of the gospel of love, will undoubtably fare far better in this life and in the life to come.

Strange how this supposed "gospel of love" doesn't produce very many loving people. At least, not if you go by the examples found here or on MAD.

Or did you mean to say "gospel of love toward those who agree with Mormons and screw the anti-mormons, critics, blacks, jews, atheists, homosexuals, women, children, feminists, immigrants, intellectuals, etc, etc..."?

[_beastie]

Wade,

the more you post, the more the mask slips. No one sincerely interested in helping someone that they viewed as having psychological issues would say the things that you say:

However, no, I did not refuse to divulge my name. In fact, I specifically said that I would divulge it as long as Benson directly answered my question--which, ironically, he never did. Perhaps your inability to graps this obvious distinction may be due to your being in supposed "recovery". Who knows?

And, no, I did not refuse to divulge my reasons for requesting the information. When asked, I immediately said exactly why I requested it. You and others didn't accept my honest answer, and remain suspicious to this day. Such is the paranoic way of the "recovering". Since you didn't believe me then, I am not sure why you would ask me the same question now? You have your conspiracy theory that you will favor regardless of what I say, so what would be the point in my answering you?

You're a poser, Wade. I suspect you have even fooled yourself. But these sort of slip-ups make it apparent to people who know you and your history well - your agenda hasn't changed. This is one more tired rerun in the very long history of the LDS church to persuade its members that when members lose faith and leave the church, it's not because of anything wrong with the church - something is wrong with the disaffected member. In the early days, church leaders didn't worry about PR - they just went ahead and said things like "whore from her mother's breast", or "too mean to mention". Now-a-days, the church in general and members in specific are more careful (although some, as MAD shows, are not). Now we are psychologically damaged and in need of "help".

So, Wade, how about a little cost analysis yourself? How much time have you wasted over the years in your various internet websites? How about the one that supposedly wanted to "help" people with the SAD disorder? (sexual attraction disorder) You know, the one that openly linked homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality? Or how about this anti-bigotry initiative? The one with the sloppy definition of the group you want to "help"? You know, the supposedly very narrow group, yet your definition implied it was any exmormon who participated on internet boards or had a website about Mormonism? How much time have you wasted? Judging by the fruits of your efforts, I would venture to say every minute you've spent on these "helpful" endeavors is a minute flushed down the toilet, except for the fact that you must feel "paid" in some emotional way. How, I can't imagine, but you must.