Agreeing to Disagree

[_Moniker]

I'm really discouraged at the us vs. them mentality. No matter where it manifests. Religion is such a personal issue, I suppose -- yet I don't really understand why?

It's a belief system. Why is it taken so personally?

My religion is not something I take off and on like a coat. It is me. It's the way I live every minute of every day. I am not saying I live it perfectly, but when I am not living it perfectly, I am aware that I am failing.

If runtu's "agree to disagree" were without insults and mocking, I could live with that. But too often, the disagreement with LDS theology, history and leaders is couched in the most defaming terms possible.

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

I'm trying to understand that, Charity. It just is difficult for me to comprehend that saying that the LDS Church has an emphasis on appearance is equated to gossip or slander against a person. I'm just 'saying it just does make me hesitate in knowing WHAT to say! If I say that I disagree with polygamy -- mainly because it is anti-democratic in nature and is especially harmful to young males and females is this dispariging beliefs of those that are pro-polygamy? No, it's merely stating my opinions backed by some facts that I find pertinent. When I say I'm startled that Joseph Smith slept with young girls this is not dispariging you and your faith (the way I see it) I am merely stating that I am surprised at this information.

I try to refrain from mocking. When I point out that the LDS Church websites do not mention that Joseph Smith had other wives is this an attack on the Church or seen as an observation and wonder why this may be so?

I just am frustrated that I can make almost no observations and discuss them without it being seen as an attack against you. For instance in the lavish temple thread I discussed how I better needed to remember that my focus is on humanity and NOW and LDS focus is on the afterlife -- I forget this, at times. You thought I was attacking you. I was merely trying to say how I view the world differently and how I understand that our focus is on different things.

There are some VERY insulting things said. I actually wish the more rabid posters would tone down and the conversation could be more productive. I just think the two sides have quite possibly been hurt by sentiments said in the past and there are defensive stances on both sides.

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

I have no idea what this means. Can someone translate for me? 'Cause it sort of looks like an us vs. them mentality all over again.... sigh....

[_Moniker]

I'm really discouraged at the us vs. them mentality. No matter where it manifests. Religion is such a personal issue, I suppose -- yet I don't really understand why?

It's a belief system. Why is it taken so personally? When Wade was equating discussing religion to a personal smear against a person it really surprised me and at the same time was rather illuminating. It's not just something that some subscribe to -- it is them. I don't know if that's a healthy mentality.I can see that discussing various religions as a positive step to understanding differences and similarities and to better understand human nature to subscribe to some faith system. When all discussions are taken as a personal affront I think it's time to step back and perhaps evaluate why you feel that way?

I think zealots, no matter which stripe, are usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner. Yet, I do see some sensible posters on MAD -- just the overly fanatic ones seem to stand out more. Of course the same is seen here.

This isn't just in religion. In Mormon cultures, religion is a very defining aspect of ones self.

Other cultures are defined by other things, such as political affiliation, nationality, military, or any number of other defining entities.

If a family comes from a very political culture, where democrats rule, any critcism about the democratic party is a reason to fight. It is perceived as an attack on that person, not just democrats.

Yep, I bolded the part in my original statement where I allude to this. I just don't necessarily understand it. Fanatic sport fans, give me pause too...

I dunno, it may be from growing up anti-social, quasi-anarchist where I just don't understand the need for individuals to define who they are by a group in a completely fanatic nature.

[_charity]

Are you suggesting that I engage in insults and mocking? I've tried not to do so.

Not you, runtu. But you see that here all over the board.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Runtu,

Doesn't the location of Eden in Missouri sort of require a global flood?

-Chris

[_wenglund]

My entire post wasn't about you. I should have been clearer about that.

No need. I didn't assume that it was all about me.

I invoked your name because when you equated your faith with a person it was really an "aha" moment for me. The rest of my comments carried from there -- yet, they were not specific to you. I think there are some that absolutely take everything as a personal affront against LDS. I was dismayed when I was on MAD that I would have to repeatedly state my purpose for being there and assure people that I cared not what beliefs they subscribed to and I was there to learn more. Yet, some still insisted on treating all questions (of a sincere, non-judgmental nature) as if I was somehow attacking them. It was frustrating and more than slightly disappointing.

I have had a long history at MA&D, and have yet to come across anyone matching the description you just gave. Sure, there are certain participants there that tend to take things more personally than others. But, even they are not offended by some of the more diplomatic disagreements.

Second, it may help to discipher why some discussions are taken personally, and why some aren't.

I was pretty certain I did understand that! Yet, I think there is suspicion. For instance the first thread I participated on MAD was discussing bigots in the South that are Baptists. I was surprised at the sentiments and popped in to explain that I know some wonderful neighbors that did not fit that stereotype -- there were people in that thread that disagreed with me. I assured them that not everyone in the "outside" hated them and that what I'd heard often was PRAISE for LDS (in the South) for their charitable works and ESPECIALLY their political stances. The call to label Huckabee voters as bigots was likewise seen just recently by LDS -- there are legitimate reasons why people vote for candidates and it does not necessarily deal with religion -- it's an ingrained suspicion I see (us. vs. them) that is evidenced at times.

While I appreciate you sharing this anecdotal experience with me, it was of no help in enabling me to determine whether you do understand why some discussions are taken personally, and why some aren't. Could you directly address that issue? Please? ;-)

Speaking of personal affronts in which you participated -- I was surprised that you saw me stating that LDS have an emphasis on appearance and I prefer other Churches that do not have this emphasis, as somehow me being negative in nature. There are Catholic Churches where I live that are the same way, there are some Churches in the more affluent areas where I live that are very appearance oriented. Yet, as this was about LDS I spoke to what I saw and how I preferred other places. I'm dismayed that all my statements seem to require some sort of disclaimer. It wasn't to degrade, ridicule, or mock those that hold this view and yet it was seen by you as a negative thing. I think that (with just using a few examples) sort of illustrates what I mean when I say "all discussions are taken as a personal affront". It's frustrating when I don't mean them to be that way and others take them as such.

I can appreciate that. However, I didn't take that discussion as a personal affront. I didn't take it personally at all. I simply viewed it as "gossipy" and "stereotyping"--though later admitting that "gossip" may not have been the best choice of words. My comments weren't engendered because of personal affront (since there was none), but in hopes of encouraging constructive discourse.

So, you were mistaken in your perceptions about me, which reasonably raises some question about the accuracy of you perceptions of so-called "zealots" at MA&D.

And when I say "all discussions are taken as a personal affront" I mean only certain posters -- those would be the zealots I speak of.

I would caution against making these kinds of sweeping statements, even when adding the clarification.

I understand the threads where there is CLEAR mocking and smears that this is offensive. Truth be told it is offensive to me! I think that perhaps these posters and the rabid nature really gets those on the other side (whichever side that may be) into a defensive stance and perhaps start to get jumpy.

I agree.

Once that is done, then perhaps one may be in a better position to determine whether it is healthy or not, and whether there is a need to step back or not.

Agreed! I took a few things personally over the last few weeks and did have to step back and consider why I was reacting in the manner I was. There were no beliefs challenged though -- more personal issues. Yet, I think anytime you react in an emotional manner it's best to evaluate why that is so.

That is wise--even though after stepping back, one may feel the emotions justified.

However, just to be clear, I wasn't reacting in an emotional manner to your "appearance" comments.

I think zealots, no matter which stripe, are usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner. Yet, I do see some sensible posters on MAD -- just the overly fanatic ones seem to stand out more. Of course the same is seen here.

Since you envoked my name earlier, I am wondering if you include me among the "zealots" who are "usually rabid and difficult to discuss anything with in a sensible manner."

Certainly not. I separated by a paragraph and I do not see you as a zealot. I've been called of Satan by some and had my family insulted by others -- those would fall into the "rabid" category for me.

I am pleased to learn that you don't consider me a "zealot", though I am sadden to learn of the name-calling and insults directed towards you and your family. Such is unwarranted and toxic, though I am not sure it serves you or anyone else well to name-call ('zealots") and insult ("rabid") them in return . ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Runtu,

Doesn't the location of Eden in Missouri sort of require a global flood?

-Chris

I can't imagine how. Some have speculated that the flood is what carried Noah and his family from Missouri to Ararat, but it's certainly not in the canon.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I think agreeing to disagree is difficult when the two main sides to the Mormon argument take such absolutist positions. Coupled with the issue of God where the absolutist argument of "you can't prove He exists" stands in opposition to "you can't prove He doesn't exist" you're always going to have problems.

[_charity]

I'm just 'saying it just does make me hesitate in knowing WHAT to say! If I say that I disagree with polygamy -- mainly because it is anti-democratic in nature and is especially harmful to young males and females is this dispariging beliefs of those that are pro-polygamy? No, it's merely stating my opinions backed by some facts that I find pertinent. When I say I'm startled that Joseph Smith slept with young girls this is not dispariging you and your faith (the way I see it) I am merely stating that I am surprised at this information.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with your perception of polygamy. Polygamy, as it is practiced in much of the world, or even all of it today, has some very negative effects.

I do have a problem with the condemnation of the pratice by the LDS because those who were involved were generally supportive of the practice. So telling women to shut up because they didn't understand how they felt about it is extremely insutling to them and to those leaders who instituted and practiced what they said was commanded by God. It certainly is instulting to say that "Joseph Smith slept with young girls" because that is absolutey false and such a statement is meant to destroy his reputation and credibility as a prophet. The only people who believe that are the people who have not studied the topioc of plural marriage in the early Nauvoo period, who have gotten a fact here and a fact there and WANTED to put the worst possible face on a subject about which very little is known.

I try to refrain from mocking. When I point out that the LDS Church websites do not mention that Joseph Smith had other wives is this an attack on the Church or seen as an observation and wonder why this may be so?

I just am frustrated that I can make almost no observations and discuss them without it being seen as an attack against you. For instance in the lavish temple thread I discussed how I better needed to remember that my focus is on humanity and NOW and LDS focus is on the afterlife -- I forget this, at times. You thought I was attacking you. I was merely trying to say how I view the world differently and how I understand that our focus is on different things.

I just went through that thread, and I thought we had a good discussion. I did get a little testy with road to hana.

There are some VERY insulting things said. I actually wish the more rabid posters would tone down and the conversation could be more productive. I just think the two sides have quite possibly been hurt by sentiments said in the past and there are defensive stances on both sides.

I agree with this.

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

I have no idea what this means. Can someone translate for me? 'Cause it sort of looks like an us vs. them mentality all over again.... sigh....

I think it is very clearly an us vs them. God is on one side, Satan is on the other and the war is about the souls of men. I think there are those who KNOW they are God's side, and those who KNOW they are on Satan's side and an awful lot of people in the middle who don't even know there is a war much less which side they are on.

[_truth dancer]

I think it is very clearly an us vs them. God is on one side, Satan is on the other and the war is about the souls of men. I think there are those who KNOW they are God's side, and those who KNOW they are on Satan's side and an awful lot of people in the middle who don't even know there is a war much less which side they are on.

Could you give some examples of those you think, "KNOW" they are on Satan's side?

And examples of those you think, "KNOW" they are on God's side?

Thanks,

~dancer~

[_charity]

I think it is very clearly an us vs them. God is on one side, Satan is on the other and the war is about the souls of men. I think there are those who KNOW they are God's side, and those who KNOW they are on Satan's side and an awful lot of people in the middle who don't even know there is a war much less which side they are on.

Could you give some examples of those you think, "KNOW" they are on Satan's side?

And examples of those you think, "KNOW" they are on God's side?

Thanks,

~dancer~

Those who they are on God's side include faithful LDS. I think probably many other faithful of other religions, too. There are people who are avowed Satanists who would say they follow Satan.