charity wrote:Runtu wrote:charity wrote: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.
I'd be on Satan's side if they provided health insurance. ;)
That's borderline mocking. But at least you didn't say fire insurance.
Moniker wrote:I can't handle the quotes anymore, so I'm just going to go point by point:
Wade, about MAD -- I posted questions about sealing policies. This dealt with my family and I was interested in it. I was attacked, viciously, had threads closed, and my husband called an ugly name by a poster. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it does not occur.
Wade, the anecdote about voters and southern bigots was that when I offered alternate views I was looked at suspiciously and actually felt as though my sentiments were labeled as wrong. Trying to show how those outside LDS do not all hate LDS was often seen as defending bigots. I can't be more specific without going over there and copy and pasting. These issues included discussions where I tried to illuminate people that believed others hated them -- I attempted to ask them to consider that they weren't hated and I was thrown in with protecting the "haters".
MAD also had a post started by a Mod that called for one of the LDS posters on that site to be treated like a child and encouraged everyone on the site to come in and call him names. It's obvious bad behavior occurs on both sides. And I'm not elevating myself to discuss this matters to act like I'm not a vindictive, angry person at times -- I do get hot and do things I wish I didn't. I think that when we can understand that we all act poorly at times (ON BOTH SIDES) that it makes it easier to forgive others if they seem remorseful.
I think zealot is appropriate for someone that says I'm of Satan. Says I'm "just screwed up all to hell" and need to get the holy ghost when I'm talking about horse bones and the Book of Mormon. Those that question whether I have any morals because I'm not a believer, question whether I have any meaning to my life (tell me I don't) and say I have no basis for charity or good deeds because I'm not a believer would likewise fall under a zealot for me. They are so ingrained in their world outlook that they absolutely see me as EVIL.
I call people rabid that act in that manner. I don't care if you think it's inappropriate -- I do it. What would you prefer? A big ole meanie? A naughty boi? A grumpy wumpy? ;)
If it makes any difference whatsoever; I've been more offended by ex-Mos and find that some of them are worst than anything that MAD ever did or could do to me personally.
wenglund wrote:Moniker wrote:I can't handle the quotes anymore, so I'm just going to go point by point:
Wade, about MAD -- I posted questions about sealing policies. This dealt with my family and I was interested in it. I was attacked, viciously, had threads closed, and my husband called an ugly name by a poster. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it does not occur.
I have said nothing to suggest otherwise. Please understand that even though I disagree with your sweeping and rigid stereotyping of certain MA&D posters, does not mean that I deny that they have done "vicious" and "ugly" things. It simply means that I am not prepared to go as far as you in judging them using such a broad brush, nor inclined to speak ill of them on another board (to me that would be gossip).Wade, the anecdote about voters and southern bigots was that when I offered alternate views I was looked at suspiciously and actually felt as though my sentiments were labeled as wrong. Trying to show how those outside LDS do not all hate LDS was often seen as defending bigots. I can't be more specific without going over there and copy and pasting. These issues included discussions where I tried to illuminate people that believed others hated them -- I attempted to ask them to consider that they weren't hated and I was thrown in with protecting the "haters".
I appreciate you sharing this with me, but I already pretty much understood the essence of that experience. I wasn't looking for further details about this specific experience. Instead, I was asking for general reasons why you think certain participants at MA&D take things personally.MAD also had a post started by a Mod that called for one of the LDS posters on that site to be treated like a child and encouraged everyone on the site to come in and call him names. It's obvious bad behavior occurs on both sides. And I'm not elevating myself to discuss this matters to act like I'm not a vindictive, angry person at times -- I do get hot and do things I wish I didn't. I think that when we can understand that we all act poorly at times (ON BOTH SIDES) that it makes it easier to forgive others if they seem remorseful.
I agree that many of us act poorly at time. I just don't think it helpful to make sweeping and hard-n-fast judgements of people based on select events.I think zealot is appropriate for someone that says I'm of Satan. Says I'm "just screwed up all to hell" and need to get the holy ghost when I'm talking about horse bones and the Book of Mormon. Those that question whether I have any morals because I'm not a believer, question whether I have any meaning to my life (tell me I don't) and say I have no basis for charity or good deeds because I'm not a believer would likewise fall under a zealot for me. They are so ingrained in their world outlook that they absolutely see me as EVIL.
I call people rabid that act in that manner. I don't care if you think it's inappropriate -- I do it. What would you prefer? A big ole meanie? A naughty boi? A grumpy wumpy? ;)
I suspect that all parties who were calling each other names believe the name's were appropriate. I just happen to prefer that people not call each other names, but speak instead to specific behaviors and whether those behaviors are constructive or not.If it makes any difference whatsoever; I've been more offended by ex-Mos and find that some of them are worst than anything that MAD ever did or could do to me personally.
While, again, I appreciate you sharing that with me, it really doesn't make any difference to me to learn it. I have found it beneficial to not gear my mind towards determining who may be behaving worse that whom, but rather whether my own behavior is meeting my own standards and whether I am improving or not, and what things might I suggest to help improve the lives of others. That way, I tend not to feed into the cycle of interpersonal alienation, but may become a part of the solution rather than the problem.
I want you to know, though, that with all that has been said, I count you a good and decent person with a great heart and mind, who is striving to better herself and mankind. I honor you deeply for that.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
beastie wrote:I have to add one more quick point before bed. In the past, when exmormons have tried to explain the impact of leaving the LDS church to believers, we've sometimes referred to the fact that the church is a culture, a worldview, an entire way of being, not just a "religion", and to lose that is traumatic and requires "recovery". In response, some believers predictably protest that this isn't so, it's not a culture the way judaism is a culture, and leaving Mormonism shouldn't be so traumatic as to require "recovery" or grief. Yet, to explain their own sensitivity, they're quick to explain that Mormonism is much, much more than just a religion.
I've stated before I think that there are people whose identities become completely enmeshed with the LDS church, and they are True Believers in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word. Losing that identity is so threatening to the "core" of self that challenges to that faith literally cannot be recognized.
Time, once again, for my favorite Hoffer quote:“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”.
Moniker wrote:Hi, Wade, I wasn't saying all posters at MAD have that behavior.
I was pointing out instances. You wanted to know what I based certain opinions on and I offered them. I have no other way to do this then to tell you what has personally been observed by me. I didn't use specific poster names and if I did I still don't count it as gossip because anyone could go over there and do a search and see it right on the board. It's not an intimate matter that a few people acted ugly in public -- is it?
I've often said there are plenty of good posters on MAD -- I said that ON THIS THREAD! I've said it repeatedly that the good too often are drowned out by the few that act so ugly that the attention is focused on them. Same with this board at times. I can only make assumptions on certain posters by how they interacted with me and others. I have nothing else to base this on.
So often I assume people are "good" and just act poorly -- I'm reconsidering that position. I think I'm being too generous with some. I think it's a healthier view to admit that some people truly are miserable, enjoy causing others pain, etc... then to always default to a position of; well maybe they're good -- maybe they were having a bad day. After how many bad days in a row can I assume that the person they're projecting is their "real" self? Even if it's not their "real" self all I have to go on are interactions.
Moniker wrote:Yes, Wade I understand the difference between how people react and why.
I was attempting to show you that I HAVE NO IDEA why they react the way they do. I've thought on it and often considered it's me? But, if the same few group of people take everything I say as an insult, can I assume it may be them and not me? If I can talk all over that board and the majority of posters were kind and saw my questions as sincere -- and these few other posters didn't do I have to continually beat myself over the head to try to get into their mind? I can't do it.
I think at some point people must take responsibility for their own actions. If they are somehow defensive (or offended) it is possible it's them -- not me. I can't do anymore than attempt to try to understand them. I'm telling you I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM! That's all there is to it. I don't understand how someone would take a question about sealing policies as a swipe against their Church and then attack my family --- especially when plenty of other posters interacted with me did not see my comments construed that way.
I find it interesting that you are asking me to consider why people react to me -- or misread my intentions at times. Perhaps, we should all look inward (I said "we" -- not "you"';) and that may be productive? Perhaps when "we" ask people to consider why they're misunderstood that should include ourselves, as well?
wenglund wrote:Moniker wrote:Yes, Wade I understand the difference between how people react and why.
I was attempting to show you that I HAVE NO IDEA why they react the way they do. I've thought on it and often considered it's me? But, if the same few group of people take everything I say as an insult, can I assume it may be them and not me? If I can talk all over that board and the majority of posters were kind and saw my questions as sincere -- and these few other posters didn't do I have to continually beat myself over the head to try to get into their mind? I can't do it.
I think at some point people must take responsibility for their own actions. If they are somehow defensive (or offended) it is possible it's them -- not me. I can't do anymore than attempt to try to understand them. I'm telling you I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM! That's all there is to it. I don't understand how someone would take a question about sealing policies as a swipe against their Church and then attack my family --- especially when plenty of other posters interacted with me did not see my comments construed that way.
I find it interesting that you are asking me to consider why people react to me -- or misread my intentions at times. Perhaps, we should all look inward (I said "we" -- not "you"';) and that may be productive? Perhaps when "we" ask people to consider why they're misunderstood that should include ourselves, as well?
Okay. You previously said you understood why participants at MA&D take things personally (which is what prompted my question to begin with), and now you are saying you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM." I can accept that--particularly since that was what I thought to begin with. I am glad we are now on the same page. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Moniker wrote:Actually I said I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW A BELIEF IS EQUATED AS AN ATTACK AGAINST A PERSON! I said that a few times on this thread! I do NOT understand how when I ask a question about a CHURCH that it is thought as being an ATTACK AGAINST A PERSON and they take it personally! I do not understand that -- I have said that repeatedly. I said THEY DO THAT -- I SAID I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DO THAT!!!
You quote me where I say I UNDERSTAND how an individual equates self with a group or organization. I explained repeatedly this is a foreign idea to me and one I can NOT comprehend.
We're not even in the same book!
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the "response" by some believers. To see just how, explore the question whether or not, in the minds of believers, their "sensitivities" causes them "trauma" requiring "recovery"? (Hint: it doesn't)