Sunday in Outer Blogness: Hard Facts Edition!
Wow, everybody is talking about this new study that suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. Why are former Mormons so interested in this topic? What’s the connection? Oh, yeah, this.
This whole topic makes me want to question so many fun facts! Like America’s popular Horatio Alger level-playing-field-where-everyone-can-win dream. (Strangely enough, the founding texts of Mormonism lean more Socialist.) Polygamy: dissimulation encouraging others to set the conversational agenda? How real is race? Was the Liahona just a compass? And what about those Jaredite Barges? Hate mail: good or bad? Apostates: everybody knows they’re miserable, right? Should we go back to the church and try to make it work? And what about the evidence that Jesus was never a skirt-wearing hippy? And I don’t even know how to describe this one, but good luck if you can make heads or tails of those facts.
(That wasn’t very good questioning, was it? I don’t think I linked to anything I really disagree with this time. Well, maybe we’ll get some enlightening discussion in the comments…)
Oh, well. Here’s the follow-up to the Mormons-and-gay-marriage in Argentina question. Oh, and the long-awaited men’s edition of Fascinating Womanhood is finally available! That should provide some interesting reading for the week… 😉
I feel the discussion as it has unfolded on the Exponent thread (e.g.,the one linked to “they’re miserable”) is so tragic. may have to write something about that.
Wow, I didn’t notice, but I should have known that would happen. You can’t just go questioning people’s belief in the “bitter fruits of apostasy”…
It appears I can’t comment on the Exponent post any longer, so I will here.
I appreciated all of the Exponent comments and the post. I would like to state, for the record, I have never meant to belittle or be condescending to active members by commenting in the bloggernacle. I understand (sort of) that it must be hard to figure out why former members comment on mormon blogs. When you’re in the majority, and all you ever hear is the majority opinion, it’s hard to see privilege.
But just because a person disagrees with you, or has a different experience doesn’t necessarily mean that they have less respect for you. Or that *your* experience is invalid. Or that they have a low opinion of you, personally or disapprove of your lifestyle.
It may mean that. But it doesn’t always mean that. Most of the time, it means that on some issues, two people do not agree.
Perhaps a different opinion is threatening to one’s worldview. Perhaps former mormons need to get out our official “this is just how mormon I was”, this is my-seminary-book-of-mormon-that-was-color-coded-for-scripture-chase cards before we can comment on a believing blog. sigh.
Aerin — so true. Yet, I think that making civil comments on the Bloggernacle is worth it, and you’ve explained why:
It’s possible that we’re exposing people to unfamiliar perspectives, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt that some some will think about it.
but the way things currently, go, we are in a catch 22. If we comment, we either have to censor or tone down our messages, or we will be seen as unfriendly, unfun jerks and whiners. If that happens, then all we do is CONFIRM the stereotypes about ex-Mos (even though our entire goal in posting was to dispel such stereotypes).
They have a particular view of the “good ex-member.” congrats, guys, because John is on it. But between John Hamer and MikeinWeHo and (that’s about it), you don’t get much of the entire breadth of exmo experience.
Andrew — that is so true.
I think John has joined the CoC. If that counts as an ex-member, you’re right that it’s hardly representative.
The Exponent post comments were funny/sad to read because I have been in the shoes of nearly every view point expressed there.