30 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Monday, May 20, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
Doctrine is boring. |
Philosophy is boring. (Well, it isn’t, really, but certain blogs need to delve into the philosophical underpinnings of everything.) |
I like doctrinal posts, but I find the discussions of “Mormon life” more interesting. What drives me nuts are discussions about those topics that have no beginning, no end, no resolution, and for which nothing new has been said, yet turn into personal attacks and we question each others testimonies (examples in recent years are the patriarchy, when will women get the priesthood, when will the Church drop scouting, Brigham Young personally caused the ban, who is responsible for MMM, the near-deification of the September 6). Oh, and torture. |
Oh, and I hate the meme of “The Church Leadership got pwned in Prop-8 and have led the Church down a path they didn’t expect”. |
I prefer Guy posts. ‘Cause I’m a guy. |
I tend to be very mistrusting of emotional posts. Just because someone is emotional about something does not indicate that they’re under the influence of the Spirit. Or a woman, for that matter. Even though I’m a youth, I love the doctrinal posts. I want to understand the truth because it makes sorting through my emotions and spiritual experiences easier to understand. And emotional, Relief Society-esque posts really don’t instigate thoughtful conversation because there’s nothing you can say other than, “Way to go!” or “You’ll pull through this,” or “I’m so happy for you.” You can actually have a conversation about doctrine. |
A well thought-out discussion on doctrine which provides some good bites of gospel meat with just a touch of emotion to keep it alive are the best kind. |
I used to prefer doctrinal posts, but I find myself mostly skipping or skimming them now. Probably because they are usually about the same things from mostly the same perspective. Now, I prefer posts that show how doctrine has been applied to personal life, whether or emotional or not. Those are the ones I tend to actually read, whether or not I choose to comment. |
1. Ann – :) 2. queuno – I tend to agree with you on Philosophy – probably because my brain does not comprehend most of it. 3. queuno – now torture, there is a subject I blow by (sorry he who loves to discuss torture). I also am fascinated more by Mormon life questions are well. 5. Kent (MC) – I suppose that makes sense… 6. Paradox – good point on the ability to actually have a conversation on doctrine. |
7. Michael – So you are a moderate – give me a little meat with my potatoes type of person. I like it 8. SilverRain – I too usually skim doctrinal posts and enjoy the softer side of things, although I am always roped into reading politically charged posts. |
“Given your inherent gender” Since I don’t know what you mean by this, and find the whole implication of your post sexist and demeaning, I decline to answer. |
MCQ – Inherent being defined as “Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. [Latin inhaer ns, inhaerent-, present participle of inhaer re, to inhere ..” Therefore, if one does not know their inherent gender, next time you use the bathroom look down :) Why do you find it sexist and demeaning? Just because one likes guy posts does not necessarily mean one is male and vice versa. In addition, calling something a guy post only means that it fits the traditional definition of a male topic regardless of one’s agreement with that definition. |
I prefer the lighter side of blogging, with a mix of inspiration and laughter. If it gets too deep and doctrinal, it’s not fun anymore. I’m an infrequent commenter and blogger, so I’m not sure I can say I comment more or less depending on the gender of the person who wrote the blog post. |
Devyn, I’m just warming you up for the predictable feminist deluge. Consider yourself inoculated. |
Blogging itself has almost ruined my attention span. I can’t tell what holds me anymore because I go through so much so fast… gotta do something about that. |
I’m interested in stuff that matters to my happiness or is related to personal experience, so I usually skip the political stuff and the finer points of doctrine. |
I like funny light posts. I like women’s issues. I also like doctrinal posts that are not over my head. Not much for politics, that and sometimes I cannot contain myself so better to keep my big mouth shut. |
13. Brian Duffin – seems like a reasonable approach to me. Nothing wrong with being infrequent – probably safer that way 14. MCQ – I figured that. Since I consider myself a feminist of male anatomy, they can bring it on! 15. Proud Daughter of Eve – I have noticed that too, but can’t tell if it is blogging or age… 16. female – that seems like a reasonable approach for someone with limited time. And let me guess – are you a female? :) 17. JA Benson – I too find that sometimes I get too heated in the political discussions and many times I have written a response and then waited a bit before posting it and then thought better of it and deleted my response… |
Annegb and Margaret Young are my favorite posters on MM. (Though I may be thinking of some of MY’s posts on T&S & BCC.) queuno is one of my favorite commenters. I can go for doctrinal if it’s not too far above me or too far below me. Too much of the older group blogs in the Bloggernacle contain excessive navel-gazing, most of which takes itself too seriously. And I agree with queuno about the aggravation of the topics he mentions in #3. “Intellectual” does not equate to “intelligent”. They’re related, but not the same. There are plenty of intellectuals (legitimately so and those who are merely self-professed) who are of average IQ, and plenty of super intelligent people (IQ-wise) who are not intellectuals. The self-professed intellectual navel-gazers do seem to be mostly male. I don’t think one can be a good disciple if one allows the intellect to overrule the rest of our nature. Too many scriptures use “reins” and “heart” and “bowels” to ignore the feeling part of ourselves. |
Bookslinger – I too love Ann and Margaret’s posts. They are usually the right mix of seriousness and humor. Navel-gazing – never heard that term before, but it is an interesting analogy. |
I prefer the term “chick post.” |
So do I! |
I prefer the term “navel gaze-him” (to “navel gaze-her”). |
I prefer discussions that are more doctrinal, so I guess I prefer the “guy” posts, which matches my history pretty well. I’ve been involved in theology and apologetics for so long, most of my friends have been guys and initially most of the commentators at my blog were guys, though more women have been getting involved in our discussions. My fellow assassin sister-wives of fury have really been stepping up on the LDS-Evangelical circuit, and I love not feeling like the only woman around. I am really impressed with the quality of doctrinal and philosophical discussion which comes from the female authors at Zelophehad’s Daughters. Those women could keep up with any male philosophy nerd, and they’re usually way over my head, but I do love to lurk. |
Thanks, Jack! I’m just the token male among the ZD luminaries (I’m totally serious–they write over my head) but I’ll accept the compliment on their behalf. |
I object! |
I’ve never come come across a really good doctrinal post/thread. Few delve into the deep underpinnings of doctrine (that which is eternal) most end up just being a quoting match of peoples’ favorite general authority sayings/conference talks. So as a result I default to posts/threads which discuss the practical application of doctrine. |
Interesting. I did not make the above comment, but I am an emotional female. Also, I would have put an apostrophe in the “its.” |
Correction: confusion. |
Thanks Margaret – we have deleted the offender. |
