Monty, Would You Please Step Into My Office?

The BBQ Pit
1

I admire a man/woman who knows what their convictions are and stands up for them no matter what the opposition might be. You have more then shown your belief in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you have shared your beliefs with everyone here on the SDMB who cared to read them. That is something not many people would do so openly and adamantly.

Since Rico brought my attention to the Is there something odd about the Elizabeth Smart case? thread, I’ve been observing your interactions in that thread, the Ask the Mormon thread and the I’ve got the Mormon wedding blues thread.

As admirable as it can be to see a man stand up for the Church and share his beliefs openly, I have made some observations that I find very disturbing. And I need to get them off my chest.

A common thread that runs through each of the patterns I’ve seen of yours is all vs. nothing aka black vs. white. There’s no room for gray in your interactions.

For example, I have seen a pattern which you’ve repeated over and over wherein you will give someone positive praise or credit when they say something that supports something you have said, but as soon as that person says something you don’t agree with, the wording you choose is not one that conveys your disagreement, but more along the lines of totally discounting that doper of having any intrinsic value to you as a human being any longer. The method you do that by is by telling them they are wrong.

One example of this is taken from the E. Smart thread: Monty: 3-20-2003 at 8:00 PM.

Which brings me to the next item. And I totally admit, I am being nitpicky bringing this one up, but I am including it because it is connected with your discounting other doper’s opinions and I’ll explain how in a little bit.

This quote is also taken from the E. Smart thread: Monty 3-21-2003 at 6:12 am.

Monty, Making accusations about other doper’s motives in the comments they make results in not only are you discounting their right to their beliefs, just as much as you have the right to yours, but in doing so, you discount them as a Child of God who has a brain and the Free Agency to use it, believing what they choose to believe. It also makes you sound very juvenile instead of engaging in a mature debate.

I’m wondering how long you’ve been a member of the Church. It’s sounding to me that either you are very young or not very experienced in the Church yet. It’s not my place to ask how long you’ve been a member, your level of experience or your age and not everyone would fall into one category based on those demographics alone. It’s just something that’s been tugging at me all through your posts. Perhaps it would make it more understandable if I knew you are a young man just coming into his own or if you are a fairly recent convert.

There comes a point where sharing the Gospel and standing up for your beliefs steps over the boundary into (as best said by CrazyCatLady in the Mormon Wedding blues thread):

Bro. Monty it is my opinion, and the opinion of some others that I’ve seen, you have indeed stepped over the thin line between standing up for your belief and testifying to it into the land of pretentiousness, perhaps expecting to see discrimination so that you respond to a perceived discrimination against the LDS church where there is none intended.

The dreaded land of religious discrimination is where well meaning members have gotten bogged down in when they unintentionally give the Church a bad name, leaving a bad taste in other people’s mouths because of how vehemently they feel the need to defend the Church and their beliefs at all costs in all situations. I’m sure it’s difficult for someone to see it when they are there. That’s why I’m pointing it out to you in as gentle as a manner as possible.

I looked up your posts for the past one week:

In the past one week, 20 threads

BBQ Pit: Threads: 10
Posts by OP: 47
Posts by Monty: 78

GD: Threads: 4
Post by OP: 9
Posts by Monty: 46

GQ: Threads: 6
Posts by OP: 13
Posts by Monty: 12

How I interpret those statistics, Monty is a man who likes to express his opinions, likes to debate, defend, and even argue positions he has an interest in. You also have an interest in many areas. These are all good things, but, Bro. M I think you are out of control. When you have so many more posts then the OP, thy mouth runneth over.

Take a deep look at yourself and see where you’ve gotten mired in the dreaded land of religious discrimination and pull yourself out. When you get yourself out, you won’t have to yell so loud or so much to be heard; you won’t feel like you have to defend so desperately and life will be better for you.

No malice or ill will intended but as Will Shakespeare once said:

Thank you very much for stepping in; please close the door on your way out.

2

uh-oh :slight_smile:
get ready Kathy!
Actually I do like Monty–I have had zero interactions with him–but I have also observed the exact same things that you have stated here. Sometimes he is very justified in his reactions–but in my humble opinion more often then not he is sort of mean about things in his response.

I also commend you (Kathy) on the Ask the Mormon thread–I was born and raised a good Catholic in Utah–live in Seattle now–and I find myself defending you guys all the time :slight_smile: Glad to see the level head approach many of the dopers layed out in that thread–including Monty. I have many LDS friends and it was a good thread to dispel some dumb rumors about your church.

But in many of Monty’s responses in other threads he does come across as getting upset. Maybe he is not–but it ‘sounds’ like he is, like there is a chip on his shoulder over the issue of someone not agreeing with him. I too do not like his dismissal of other dopers.

so Monty, my post in not to jump on you :slight_smile: I actually find you a very interesting addition to this board–I do think the board is a better place for you being on it. I dont’ post much–more of a lurker–but as such I do read a lot on this board. In fact I have found a few posters are much better after they have been pitted :slight_smile: Won’t mention the names–but they are much more relaxed since that point.

my advice for what it is worth—wait an hour or two before you reply–often times the immediate response in your head is not what should be posted. I understand the struggle–it isn’t easy when you feel the other poster has wronged you–but often times after you have calmed down and reread the post–maybe it won’t seem like such an assault.
Tom

3

Not going to get in between Monty and Kathy in “Cadolphin’s Constructive Criticism Corner” but…

You sat there and totted up all the threads he’s posted in this week, and how many more posts he’s made in them than their OPs did?

And this proves something?

**Whoa. :rolleyes:

[hastily steps back behind Martha Stewart Can O. Worms Splatter Shield]

4

DDG, in the front page of any forum, if you click on the number in the “replies” column, you get a popup window listing the posters and number of posts in the thread. No counting required.

5

Brigham Young or no Brigham Young, Hakuna Matata has exceeded their monthly smiley allocation. Please report to the nearest processing center.

6

DDG: It does prove something. I’ll leave it them thar young’uns to ponder what it proves.

7

fuck–actually that feels better than a smiley face
better Brutus?
Good University of Utah grad–not of that heathen school that shall go nameless!

8

cadolphin, I hardly think it a valid point of contention against Monty if someone opens a thread, then disappears for a day or fails to respond after the initial “rebuttal”. A recent Pit thread about color in a sign, for example, saw the OP virtually disappear from sight while Monty was merely responding to posts. If having more posts in a thread than an OPer who doesn’t come back is something of a crime, I’ll be doing life in prison. Speaking out to punish someone who is engaged in lively debate when the OP is but a drive-by poster (which it would seem is the case in some of the threads you’ve cited) is rather fruitless, IMHO. Just for argument’s sake, how many posts do other people in same threads have? If Monty has half the posts in each thread and five or six other people collectively have the other half, then the point is made more valid. But if it’s a lot of people with the same rough number of posts, then it’s just a case of OP stepping out for a day or whatever. It happens quite often here.

9

iampunha: To date, the OP in this thread only has one posting. I still don’t see a valid point.

10

I meant “I don’t see a valid point from the OP.” Your points, iampunha, are extremely valid.

11

Monty I’m genuinely concerned about your attitude and the state of your well being as a result of it. I’m also concerned about that attitude that makes you the kind of person that gives Mormons a bad name.

The numbers that 3 of you are so concerned about… you missed the rest of what I said so I’ll repeat it here so from here on out, no one needs to concern themselves about the numbers.

I obviously made and error including them. That distracted you from the important points I was addressing and for that I’m very sorry.

It did not take me more then 5 min. at the max to add the numbers up, so no, you can not say I sat obsessing over the number of posts.

It sounds to me like every real concern I expressed about Monty was overlooked in an obsession with the numbers.

Reread the OP and skip the numbers.

Kathy

12

Opps, I just caught something I missed when I reread it before posting it. I do not think everyone who has responded missed what I was saying. I think just those people who have pointed out the numbers of his posts, and that’s all they have said, missed what I was saying.

Kathy

13

IMO, the OP has no merit. Monty is a man of strong opinions, but, hell, without strong opinions this place would be about as interesting as a bowl of tepid tapioca. Moreover, I don’t see how his posting has in any way “given the Church a bad name.” The last time I checked, Monty had not been named the new prophet of the LDS Church, and thus his postings reflect only on him (and rather well, I might add) and not on the LDS as a whole. My advice to the OP is to take the plank from her eye before attempting to remove the speck from Monty’s.

14

In addition, on review of the Mormon wedding thread that spawned this one, it seems to me that Monty as well as other posters were combatting false, bigoted distortions of their church and beliefs. If people are going to argue against the validity of the Mormon faith, then they should do so based on facts, not fabrications.

15

Well, as much as Monty irritates me at times, in over three years of reading his posts, I can’t say he gives Mormons a bad name at all.

He defends his beliefs strongly, and while I don’t share the same, I can respect his faith and strength of conviction.

Perhaps you two aren’t as far apart as you think.

16

I never said that the wedding thread spawned this one.

Kathy

17

Thanks, gobear. OTOH, I love tapioca.

18

Hmmm, I think all that I could say is that Monty’s can appear to have a hair-trigger at times and can also be quite tenacious in pursuit of an issue. These can be good or bad qualities.

19

I have never interacted with Monty on the subject of the LDS, nor would I, since the subject has no bearing on my life, apart from the polite besuited young American men who occasionally knock on my door of a Sunday afternoon (one of whom, when my wife said she wasn’t interested in the Church, offered to help her out with chores around the house anyway, a gesture with which I was highly impressed).

However, in a recent interaction with Monty in the Pit on an entirely different subject, I reacted strongly to what I thought was a snappy comment from him, in the spirit with which I thought it had been delivered. After many posts, it appears I was incorrect in my interpretation of the tetchiness.

I think that Monty unintentionally appears to be tetchy - to me at least - when perhaps he actually isn’t.

20

I’ve been reading some of the threads that relate to Mormonism, and taking part in one of them. My overall impression of Monty is that he can get irritated when it seems people are continuing to say ‘X’ after he has posted ‘why X isn’t true’ – but that is a human way to react, I think, plus he is mostly polite and informative in his replies, so I cut him some slack.

Actually, I find him a whole lot less offensive than those Mormons who show up on your doorstep without invitation (are they the ones you call ‘missionaries’?) They’re always polite, too, but damn, do they always seem to ring the bell when I’m in the middle of something I don’t want to interrupt. :frowning:

I much, much prefer to be allowed to seek out information on my own initiative. Or at least approach me in a public arena.

Whoops, straying from the point.

Ages ago I took a course in comparative religions, and one thing has stuck with me: new religions seem to have to pass through a gantlet of reactions from non-members. I’ve forgotten the terms the teacher used, but basically the new beliefs are at first dismissed as the ravings of one whacko. If that ‘whacko’ convinces some others, it grows into a cult. If that ‘cult’ continues to endure, grows in size to some indefinite ‘respectable number’ of believers, and those believers are in general good & useful members of the larger society, then Bingo! the cult becomes ‘respectable’ and gets to be called a ‘religion.’

During the process, especially during the early stages, the members of the new belief are subject to ridicule, scorn, scoffing…all the way up to actual persecution. I’m sure all the Mormons, at least, are nodding their heads. They’ve gone through this recently enough for it to be fresh in their church’s history.

There still is some mockery and dismissal of Mormon beliefs in this country, and I can understand how that can leave someone with a hair-trigger sensitivity. It’s the same process that leaves some women (over)quick to spot sexism, or some minorities (over)quick to spot racism.

If your toes have been stepped on repeatedly, they get sore.