- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald, honestly, I was disappointed in the article – because we talked for 45 minutes, largely about positioning Mormonism and the issues we face in historical perspective, and she seemed to understand a lot of what we discussed. None of that – not a single thing – was included in the article. I also made it clear, intentionally, that I am a fully active, dedicated member who isn’t struggling in any way – and her quote from our conversation, although I like it in isolation, didn’t represent our conversation. It was pulled completely out of context and actually implied things I never said to her. I’m not saying it was an anti-Mormon piece. It wasn’t. However, it also wasn’t what I thought it would be throughout and at the end of my discussion with Michelle. I don’t dislike the article – but I was disappointed.
I also understand totally why traditional members could read it as an anti-Mormon piece – and I think you can to if you put yourself in their shoes and read it as one of them.
Maybe. She could have said a lot more from my interview, and she didn’t. Thank God. I asked her not to, because I wanted it to be positive article about the need for sites like stayldd….and didn’t want it to just be a bash about Mormon church etc etc.
I guess it is all about perspective.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald – my comment about it being more negative than the article Brian & I interviewed for last time (2 years ago) is really mostly due to her writing style & word choice. This article sounds so much more controversial and emotionally charged. The other article focused on our outreach and that people sometimes go through doubting periods and require empathy and understanding, and that’s what we are all about. Some of the phrasing this person used was just so dramatic: – “the entire reason he and his wife had created a big family with a stay-at-home mom in the first place: Their Mormonism.” Really? That’s the entire reason? People outside the church sometimes have big families and people inside the church have small ones. People both in and out have dual careers or don’t. It just seems like it’s never the “entire” reason – but it is more dramatic to say that it is.
– “after deciding it was a dangerous cult.” I realize that she didn’t say that – she said Brian’s wife concluded that (which from all I know she probably did). But putting those words out there – it’s in print which gives it more credibility. It’s like if someone says they voted for Obama before “deciding he was a radical Ismalic fundamentalist.” The word deciding sounds rational, which makes what follows sound more credible even if it’s outlandish.
– “simply felt shunned at church” Saying shunned in a religious context sounds like the Amish religious practice of shunning. Especially on the heels of saying “dangerous cult” it sounds sinister. It’s just an inflammatory word choice.
– “this is a faith still strongly shaped by prejudice” the line after qualifies the statement to mean that people don’t want to question things (whether that’s true or not on the whole I can’t say), but to say it’s a faith strongly shaped by prejudice sounds like it’s about racism.
Aside from some sensationalistic word choice, I do think the article was positive. That’s really why I said it was more negative than the other one.
Okay. It could have been a lot worse I suppose. Papers love controversy. Kennewick’s wrong anyway, the website has the word “stay” in it, and a lot of board members actually do stay in some way or another (not all do of course, but they still hang around). There’s another community specifically for people who don’t want to ever return… I’ve been on there, it can be very negative. Quote:I’m not sure that our goal for this forum should be to get more attention.
IMO, it should be to help members struggling with their beliefs.
The people will come to this site is by word of mouth.
I know that since I’ve been here I’ve told others about it.
I’m here because of the article, too. As a newbie it’s probably not my place to comment too much on the site, but I’d agree that attention (and the attendant growth) for its own sake isn’t a proper goal of this site, but the attention is a positive if it leads other like-minded folks who want to engage in the dialogue that goes on here.
That’s actually the article the brought me to this site. 
leavingthecave25 wrote:That’s actually the article the brought me to this site.
Sweet!:thumbup: glad you found us.Nobody’s too newbie to comment. Dive right in. Yes, personally, I’m all for the publicity! People who need a place to talk about their issues may not find us otherwise. Or might land on that cybersquatter’s page or worse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.