I was planning to respond to Anon4Drama's post about his daughter being cloned into a morgbot by his TBM ex-wife, and to mold her into a follower of authority, whatever the authority is.

I think the only way to be able to defeat such efforts is to understand the thinking process of Anon4Drama's ex-wife as an authoritarian personality.

The following is taken from the website of Bob Altemeyer, an honored researcher into the authoritarian personality. You can google him using Altemeyer and Authoritarians.

Here is an except from his website on the Tea Partiers as followers of authority. This is not meant to be a political jab at anybody on this site, but the examples that Altemeyer cites are of this group and are illustrative of what happens in mormonism.

If Anon4Drama wants to teach his daughter to think for herself, he will have to address each of the following aspects of her thinking as the years go by. I am offering this as a map for him (and any of us) to use.

THE EXCERPT:

Authoritarian Followers

If you read the book presented at this website, you‟ll find lots of evidence that, as a group, social conservatives share the psychological trait of being authoritarian followers.1 And you can hardly miss the authoritarian follower tendencies in the behavior of the Tea Partiers. Here are a dozen that seem pretty obvious.

1. Authoritarian submission. Authoritarian followers submit to the people they consider authorities much more than non-authoritarians do. In this context, Tea Partiers seem to believe without question whatever their chosen authorities say. Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, various religious groups, the House and Senate GOP leaders, Sen. Grassley from Iowa, Rep. Bachmann from Minnesota, and of course Sarah Palin can say whatever they want about the Democrats, and the Tea Partiers will accept it and repeat it. The followers don‟t find out for themselves what the Democratic leader truly said, what is really in a bill, what a treaty actually specifies, or whether taxes have really gone up. They are happy to let Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin do their thinking for them. It has gotten so bad that their leaders casually say preposterous things that are easily refuted, because they know their audience will never believe the truth, or even hear about it.

2. Fear. Fear constantly pulses through authoritarian followers, and Tea Partiers are mightily frightened. They believe President Obama is a dictator. They also think the country will be destroyed by its mounting debt. They readily believed the health care proposals provided for “death panels” that will euthanize Down‟s syndrome babies, “put Grandma in the grave,” and place microchips in each American so the government can track us. When Rep. Paul Brown (R-GA) said that Obama‟s plan to expand such things as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps was really intended to create a Gestapo-like, brown-shirt military force in the United States, his followers accepted this. Conservative leaders especially vilify Barack Obama, recently calling him in the space of two days (April 7 and 8) the “most radical president ever” (Gingrich) who is “inflicting untold damage on this great country” (Limbaugh) and is inviting a nuclear attack on the United States by indicating we won‟t hit back (Palin). The people who orchestrate the Tea Party movement know well what button to push first and hardest among social conservatives, and they work it overtime. And they know spreading fear “works” with others as well. Sometimes it seems they are all trying to out-boogie-man each other.

3. Self-righteousness. Self-righteousness runs very strongly in authoritarian followers, and combines with fear to unleash aggression in them. The Tea Partiers commonly describe themselves
as “the good Americans,” “the true Americans,” “the people,” and “the American Patriots.” They could hardly wrap themselves in the flag more thoroughly or more often than they do. Theirs is the holy cause. They believe they are the only ones who can save the country.

4. Hostility. Authoritarian aggression is one of the defining characteristics of authoritarian followers. Do Tea Partiers seem particularly aggressive? The behind-the-scenes organizers of the protests often provided the “words” for the protest through talking-points they distributed. But the protestors put the feeling into the song, and the feeling was often hostility. They angrily called people who disagreed with them at the town halls “Liars,” “Communists,” and “Traitors.” They booed and booed until opposing speakers simply gave up. They lashed out at elected representatives who tried to engage in dialogue. If you look at some of the videos of last August‟s protests, you can see veins bulging in the necks of some of the Tea Partiers as they vented their fury.

5. A lack of critical thinking. Authoritarian followers have more trouble thinking logically than most people do. In particular, they tend to agree with sayings and slogans, even contradictory ones, because they have heard them a lot. Thus Tea Partiers reflexively, patriotically thump that the United States is the best country on earth, but as well that it is now an Obama dictatorship. They also have extra trouble applying logic to false reasoning when they like the conclusion. A ready example can be found in Tea Partiers‟ assertion that Obama is a socialist. They have heard this over and over again from Rush Limbaugh, etcetera, and “so it must be true.” But Obama has never advocated state ownership of an industry. He certainly did not advocate state ownership of health insurance, and eventually even backed away from the “public option” (that most Americans wanted) which would have let the government as well as private companies offer health insurance.

6. Our “biggest problem.” Authoritarian followers will readily believe that lots of things are our “biggest problem.” It can be drugs, the decline of religion, the breakdown of the family, you name it. Thus it was not hard to get Tea Partiers worked up about, of all things, a plan to improve health care to the levels found in other industrialized countries. Yet Tea Partiers believe the passage of the health care bill marks the end of liberty. But they could just as easily have been led to believe that climate change legislation, nuclear disarmament, gay marriage, or taking “In God we trust” off the money would sound the death knell for America. In earlier eras it could have been sex education, Sunday shopping, the 40-hour week, or a Catholic president that would lead to our doom.

7. Compartmentalized thinking. Authoritarian followers can have so many contradictory beliefs and “biggest problems” because their thinking is highly compartmentalized. Ideas exist independently of the other ideas in their head. Their thinking is so unintegrated because they have spent their lives copying what their authorities say, without examining whether the ideas fit together sensibly. And Tea Partiers say over and over that the Democrats are installing a dictatorship, but they demonstrate every time they demonstrate that Americans still have all the freedom of speech they ever had. And one notes the health care reforms bear a striking resemblance to Social Security and Medicare—which many of the protestors happily enjoy and would never give up. Tea Partiers argue that competition makes private enterprise do things more efficiently than the wasteful government can; but they don‟t want the insurance industry to have to compete against a public option in health care that might offer coverage at lower prices. And they complain bitterly that the government is ruining the economy by interfering in the free market system. But the recession was brought on precisely because the banks had been de-regulated, showing the only “invisible hand” at work then was the one sliding other people‟s money into its own pocket. Even Alan Greenspan eventually realized this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html ).


8. Double Standards. Highly compartmentalized thinking makes it easy for authoritarian followers to employ double standards in their judgments. One finds many examples of this among the Tea Partiers. The protest started off being about “pork” in the stimulus bill. But there have long been clots of extravagant local spending in the federal budget. Who of the protestors took to the streets when Senator Ted Stevens, a champion pork barrel-er, brought tons and tons of pork home to Alaska year after year, such as Sarah Palin‟s “bridge to nowhere”? Tea Partiers also protested about the federal deficit growing by unprecedented leaps and bounds under Obama. But it grew by unprecedented leaps and bounds during George W. Bush‟s presidency, and demonstrations against that were few and far between. President Bush signed the $300 billion Housing and Economic Recovery Act on July 30, 2008 which gave relief to people who were losing their houses and shored up the government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies. But this set off no epic rants in Chicago or declarations that Bush was a socialist.

Tea Partiers have asserted that the Obama administration has too much power and is taking away our Constitutional rights. But they did not cry out when President Bush set up illegal domestic spying operations. And when Tea Partiers claimed today‟s government is riding roughshod over basic human rights, how loudly did they protest the previous government‟s use of torture? And can we not doubt people‟s commitment to democratic freedoms when they shout down speakers at town halls, allowing only their own opinions to be heard?
Tea Partiers howled, on cue, when the Senate used the reconciliation process to pass health care reform. How loudly did they howl when the Republicans used reconciliation to pass George W. Bush‟s tax cuts? They thought the Democrats bullied the Senate parliamentarian into giving them the rulings they wanted. Did they recall that this parliamentarian had been hired by a Republican controlled Senate, and that those Republicans had fired the previous parliamentarian because he had ruled against them? The Tea Partiers vilified Nancy Pelosi for the way she “steamrolled” the legislation through the House. Did they ever hear of Tom DeLay, “the meanest man in Congress”? Tea Partiers claimed abuse of process when Obama made “recess appointments” that he could not get through Congress. Do they know how many times George W. Bush did exactly the same thing?
It’s pretty clear that many, many Tea Partiers aren’t really against the things they say they’re against. For them, it‟s OK when Republicans do these things. But that is pure hypocrisy, which one finds in abundance among authoritarian followers. And in their leaders, such as the various governors who condemned the stimulus package, said they would refuse such funds, but then accepted them and had their picture taken at project announcements that followed.

9. Feeling empowered when in groups. Authoritarian followers seem to want to disappear as individuals. They‟re not comfortable taking stands on their own, or acting alone. Instead they seem fulfilled simply by being part of a large, powerful movement on the march. Thus the insult-hurling Tea Partiers probably would have been quiet, even deferential, had they met with their member of the House one-on-one last August. But experiments have shown that authoritarian followers are highly conforming. When they are in a group of like-minded persons they are much more likely to do things, especially aggressive things, that they would not do alone. They make a good mob, winding each other up by hearing each other yell. Did you notice how they got louder and louder as the town halls wore on? Being in a crowd of fellow-believers also helps them maintain their opinions through the “GOP echo chamber.” “You say to me, „Obama‟s a tyrant!‟ and then I‟ll tell you „Obama‟s a tyrant!‟ Then we‟ll both be more certain he is. And if we‟re with lots of other people who agree, we‟ll all shout it. And the more we shout it, the more I‟ll believe it.”

10. Dogmatism. We also know that authoritarian followers lead the league in being dogmatic. When their leaders set their opinions for them, those opinions are set in stone. Experiments show that nothing (aside from their authorities) can convince them they are wrong. If overwhelmed by logic and evidence, they simply “castle” into dogmatism. This is probably because they don‟t really know why they believe what they believe. They didn‟t figure it out for themselves; they Xeroxed what their authorities said.

Does this apply to Tea Partiers? During the health care debate their authorities said an enormous number of untrue things, and the proponents of reform quickly countered them point by point. For example, Joe Wilson was proved the liar when he famously shouted that Obama was lying about no coverage for illegal immigrants. And opponents endlessly told their followers that federal dollars would now be used to fund abortions, when they would not. Obama called out the Republican House caucus face-to-face in a meeting last January about the lies they had spread, but Tea Partiers probably never heard about it. So the truth was out there in lots of places. But it rolled right past the protestors, who had been inoculated against catching it.
Another example of Tea Partiers‟ intransigence in the face of fact was illustrated by a CBS News/New York Times poll reported on February 12, 2010. Democrats have lowered income taxes for almost all Americans, but the poll found that virtually none of the Tea Partiers realized their taxes had gone down. Instead nearly half of them thought their taxes had gone up, a mistake they made more than twice as often as the rest of the sample. They simply believed the rhetoric of their movement more than the information on their own pay slips.

11. Ethnocentrism. Authoritarian followers are notably ethnocentric, constantly judging others and events through “Us versus Them” lenses. They largely choose their friends according to their beliefs. They stick to news outlets that tell them what they want to hear. They live in a polarized world, divided into their in-group, and out-groups consisting of everybody else. They stress in-group loyalty, and try to keep their distance from the out-groups.
Tea Partiers certainly display a streak of ethnocentrism. They wrap themselves in the flag so tightly, everybody else is outside it. They have very definite out-groups. And of course one of the reasons that the Tea Partiers were uninfluenced by what was actually in the health care reform proposals is that they relied so much on their untrustworthy trusted sources.
This fierce in-group orientation, along with the followers‟ need for external confirmation of their beliefs, explains why Fox News has such a big audience compared with other outlets, why Sarah Palin‟s, Glenn Beck‟s, and Ann Coulter‟s books leap to the top of the best sellers lists, and why “hate radio” is so popular. Authoritarian followers have to get their ideas “validated” by others more than most people do. So they constantly seek out sources of information that will tell them they‟re right. It amounts to in-group in-breeding of the intellect. Research shows that less authoritarian people are more likely to consider different sides of an issue, and figure things out more for themselves.

12. Prejudice. Studies have found that authoritarian followers are among the most prejudiced people in society. It is the nastiest aspect of their ethnocentrism, and one they insistently deny—to others and to themselves. And they really do not realize how prejudiced they are, compared with others, because they associate so much with other prejudiced people. So their prejudices seem normal and perfectly justified to them.

Racial prejudice appeared at many of the Tea Party demonstrations, in the form of signs, banners, and tee-shirts—just as it did during the 2008 campaign after Sarah Palin energized the social conservatives. Tea Party spokespersons attributed these racist attacks to outsiders, “a few bad apples,” or fringe members of the group. However Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor of New York who was enthusiastically supported by the Tea Party as a “100% conservative,” was discovered on April 12, 2010 to have emailed racist photos (and also a picture of a woman having sex with a horse) to a long list of friends. One doctored photo depicted the president and Michelle Obama as a stereotyped black pimp and prostitute. Another described an African tribal dance as the Obama inauguration rehearsal. A third picture showed an airplane landing behind a group of black men, with the caption, “Holy Shit, run @#$%&, run!"

Paladino quickly disassociated himself from the emails he sent, saying “That activity is not Carl Paladino.” He didn‟t however say who it was instead, but still insisted he is not a racist. You can be pretty sure that the rank-and-file of the Tea Party doesn‟t think he is either. But the point here is, he sent these pictures to so many associates, some influential people in the movement had to know what he thought. And it was apparently all right with them too, for he got a rousing Tea Party endorsement.
The vitriol directed at Barack Obama seems unprecedented to many observers. It may be that most Americans now see him as the President of the United States who happens to be African-American. But to many Tea Partiers he is a black man/N-word first, who has no right to be president. Instead, he is a Muslim, a foreigner, a gangster, a fascist, a communist, even the anti-Christ. And they will probably never see him as anything else.

* * * * * * *

You will find the research alluded to in the twelve points above in The Authoritarians. 6 You will also see that the studies discovered less authoritarian people were not nearly as submissive, fearful, self-righteous, etcetera as the authoritarian followers. It‟s not a case of, “Well, you do it too, just as much.” Liberals do show some of these same behaviors—but not nearly as often. So if you have noticed, for example, how hostile today‟s conservative and Republican leaders have been with their inflammatory speeches, cross-haired congressional targets, and threats to turn a shotgun on the census taker, compared to liberals and Democrats, you have noticed something repeatedly borne out by scientific study.

i am copying this.... cause it prolly will be deleted.... seems too political...although i agree wholeheartedly! some of the people i work with are very much the believers that the country is being DESTROYED!! :(

She isn't authoritarian as such. She is brainwashed and fearful. Fearful that if she allows her daughter to think for herself she will lose her to the world/Satan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 02:57PM by matt.

How this authoritarian follower mentality fits the NPD that is so prevalent -- due to the cult breeding a lot of narcissistic personalities. Can a NPD also be a follower of authority? Yes, as long as that authority feeds the need to feel special, entitled, promise a path of grandiose success/power and let them off the hook of being tolerant and patient.

The criteria/symptoms of NPD are:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance.
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty...
3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. Rarely acknowledges mistakes and/or imperfections
5. Requires excessive admiration
6. Has a sense of entitlement
7. Is interpersonally exploitative
8. Lacks empathy: is unwilling or unable to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
9. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
10. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitude.

1-nothing more grandiose that being a god in embryo except being god.
2-see 1, and think of the prophecies that mormons will save the day, rule the world in the millenium, etc.
3-members of the only troo church, valiance in the pre-existence, special lineages, heritages, etc
4-perfectionism is rampant in the culture
5-Mos do seem to like getting complimented on their perfect families, jobs, status, etc.
6-entitled as priests and priestesses, gods and godesses.
7-the only reason to have friends outside the exclusive mo clubs is to get praise for being a member-missionary
8-intolerance is extremely high among mos. they preach charity but don't actually understand it.
9-see 4, always worried about how the world sees them, but not so much that they'll start being like the rest.
10-they're numero uno and true.

They are the ones who rule and step on the ones below them in authority or status and who smooch the fannies of the ones above them.

That was really interesting!

And if you don't see how this applies to TBMs, then perhaps you're not as intelligent as I previously thought.

people. That's why it's dumb and purely political.

The Tea Party are ALL libertarians.

If you truly believe that, then I have a bridge to sell ya...

This "grass roots" movement is astroturf. Thinking otherwise is pure hogwash.

The post is purely political and makes mindless generalizations about a huge group of people.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your politics doesn't make them STUPID.
"Thinking otherwise is pure hogwash." Oh, gee. The Thought Police have arrived.

And tea partiers are NOT libertarians.

I've met more than my share and they all sound like little clones of Sean Hannity.

I'm the Thought Police? Because I call you out when you're wrong? Wow, how the hell do you figure THAT?

both a Libertarian and a Tea Party favorite.

But before that, I would like to say Thanks to Admin for allowing this post to stay up.

I believe that Altemeyer's work can inform much of what we are dealing with currently in American life. The morg fits it to a T.

When I first read this research, I finally understood why my sibling and I could be raised in the same family and come out so different. She is ultra-TBM and politically very conservative (a tea partier in all but name) and I am skeptical of authority, liberal politically, and regard the morg as a nasty cult.

By the way, Altemeyer makes a reference to libertarians' thinking that government should only provide fire departments. I would like to point out that fire protection used to be provided by businesses who would put your house out only if you had previously paid. This was deemed a bad idea at some point and became a government function, which seems to have worked out well! ;)

NOW MORE FROM ALTEMEYER:

The Other Authoritarian Personality

Because the Tea Partiers display so many “classic” signs of authoritarian followers, I think it‟s safe to conclude that a lot of the members have such personalities. But another sizeable group swells the ranks who would seem to have little tendency to follow anyone: libertarians. And while the two contingents may agree on many economic issues, they appear to have fundamentally different views of government and liberty.

Oh sure, authoritarian followers will shout that Obama has too much power and is crushing individual liberty. But studies have shown they would like government to impose their own religious beliefs upon others, outlaw the teaching of evolution, punish homosexuals, forbid abortions, and so on. Libertarians, on the other hand, may genuinely want a government that does as little as possible and lets “nature take its course” otherwise. They wouldn‟t want governments saying anything about abortion, for instance. They‟d say that‟s the woman‟s decision. As John Dean and Barry Goldwater Jr. point out in Pure Goldwater, that was the very pro-choice position of “Mr. Conservative” himself (who almost certainly could not get the GOP nomination for the Senate in Arizona now because of that position).

Libertarianism has deep roots in American history. Nobody likes the government telling him what to do, and then having to fill out pages and pages of forms to do it. And you find libertarian sentiments at almost every Tea Party web site, talking about individual rights, small government,
and taxation. Their positions vary from general principles that everyone can agree with (taxes must be spend wisely; government waste must be reduced) to quite dramatic pronouncements such as this I found at http://www.teaparty-patriots.com/ on April 13, 2010.

“In a Republic we have three kinds of people…

Group One: These are the achievers, those who stride, work hard and are rewarded with the fruits of their toils.

Group Two: The non-achievers. This group seldom exerts the extra effort required to rise above their station and attain their perceived goals. They are dissatisfied with their lot in life and spend much of their lives in envy of achievers.

Group Three: This segment consists of those who contribute absolutely nothing, yet demand equality based on the labor and achievements of society as a whole.
…
Any attempt to engage in the confiscation or the conscription of the fruit of one man’s labor, by either men or government, in order to provide goods or services to another is an act of illegal plunder and as such should be protested and resisted by all.”

According to this rather extreme position, a government that used tax revenues to give a white cane to a blind man would be illegally plundering others. As well, one can think of other “Groups” besides the three listed above, such as “Group One-A: Those who work hard and are not rewarded with the fruits of their toils because of unfairness.”

Libertarians vary in how much the government should do, but staunch libertarianism apparently rejects the role that government can play in righting injustice and social wrong. It seems to say, “If some people get screwed in life because of discrimination against their race or gender or nationality or sexual orientation or whatever, that‟s their tough luck. The government exists to do things like organize fire departments. It has no business interfering with the way society works.”

One can hold this view, but it does not overflow with sympathy, generosity, or a sense of justice. When millions of Americans had no health insurance and other millions were being gouged by the big insurance companies, when so many had been laid off because of a recession caused by greedy, deceitful bankers, when the poor stayed poor while the rich got richer through tax cuts enormously favoring them, the “leave things alone” attitude seems morally bankrupt and very selfish. You often see the Gadsden flag at Tea Party rallies; it‟s the yellow one with the coiled snake in the center. The inscription under the snake does not read, “Don‟t tread on us;” it goes, “Don‟t tread on me.” It‟s an apt symbol for this kind of libertarianism.

If you read postings and comments that argue the Tea Party‟s case on various websites, you will sometimes encounter sentiments like those expressed in the “Three Groups” quote above. Poor people are poor, they say, simply because they are lazy. We should not extend unemployment benefits to the people laid off now because it will just encourage them to watch TV instead of looking for work. The poor people who accepted the banks‟ invitation to buy nice houses for their families at low interest rates were “reaching beyond their class” and deserved to lose them. The rich are rich simply because they worked harder than everybody else, and deserve their wealth. Obama is taking money from those who work hard to buy votes from people demanding hand-outs.

These attitudes come right out of the catechism of the other authoritarian personality that research has discovered, the social dominators. Their defining characteristic is opposition to equality. They believe instead in dominance, both personal (if they can pull it off) and in their group dominating other groups. They endorse using intimidation, threats, and power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. This is the natural order of things, they believe. “It is a mistake to interfere with the „law of the jungle,‟ they argue. Some people were meant to dominate others.” “It‟s a dog eat dog world in which the superior people get to the top.”

Such people may want government to stick to running fire departments so they can rise/stay above others unimpeded. Research shows that social dominators are power-hungry, mean, amoral, and even more prejudiced than the authoritarian followers described earlier. They want unfairness throughout society. Barack Obama, and the ludicrous perception that he is going to lead African-Americans in “taking over America” would be their worst nightmare. So the hypothesis that the Tea Party movement has more than its fair share of social dominators may have merit.


From me, AoG: The Q 15 have got to be Social Dominators.

Everything in your post is absolutely false.

You couldn't be speaking about Altemeyer, could you? That would be silly considering his professional life.

I am quoting research that was honored by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) with their prize for behavioral research. In other words, it's Very. Good. Research. Which has been replicated.


Altemeyer is an academic at the University of Manitoba. As such, he would very probably follow where his results led him.

You are behaving badly, BadGirl, by saying such a thing.

Keep an open mind! What Altemeyer has discovered is EXTREMELY pertinent to the what the morg requires of people and does to people and it explains why you are on this website instead of drooling about your testimony on Facebook like a good little morgbot.

on the surface Adult has what seems a sound post...baddy can ya point out the falseness of any of those statements?

What a bunch of hooey.

Tea Partiers want their consitutional bill of rights protected rather than ripped out of american life.

List the bill of rights sometime out and then ask yourself which ones you still have as an american.

You might be surprised.

The ORIGINAL tea partiers are libertarians by the way, not republicans. They were started by Ron Paul fans prior to the last election. The concept and name was hijacked by republicans.

And unlike your assertions, the libertarians have been critical and angry at both republican and democrat presidents.

Libertarians recognise that republicans and democrats are puppets on two hands of the same puppet master.

Look at who finances elections sometime. Look who owns things and gets laws passed in their favor.

You might be surprised.

not politics. If you will go back and read the features of the authoritarian personality, which includes those on top, the Social Dominator (the Q-15), you will see that it is the same as what the morg demands and trains into its members. The morg does this through parents, FHE, and every other lesson and activity that emphasizes obedience to authority.

I don't want you or anybody to get misled by the Tea Party examples, but they are illustrative. It is no secret that almost all TBM's are very conservative politically and are black and white about it. This matches up with Altemeyer's findings. In fact, he has labeled the type 'Right Wing Authoritarians.' At this time in history, the authoritarian personality strongly tends toward the right wing and to be religiously very conservative "Christian." Jesus certainly could not have been one.

The usefulness of this research is that it explains the thinking processes in mormonism. People who think for themselves tend to reject mormonism. The research strongly indicates that authoritarian types do not think for themselves. They follow authority.

So, if I am a Conservative (and yes, I am), I am wrong because some person thinks that all conservative are lazy thinkers who are easily lead?? Really?? Liberals are not easily lead?? Really??
Here is the deal, the world is huge and the vast soup of thought is deep, broad, and wide. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks one side or the other are fools for believing the way they do is blind.
As a thinking person, I put considerable effort to understand what I think and the “natural law” at the root of my beliefs. Do I wish I could make everyone see things the way I do? NO, NO, NO. I fully expect that my beliefs will be challenged.
Now, what is upsetting, is when anyone stands for conservative values, Christian values, etc… on this board, they are hammered. Really?? There is no room for this kind of thought?? I call BS. Just because you don’t agree with a point of view does not give you the right to call someone a fool.
The focus of this board is to show that mo’ism is a sham, not that conservatives are dumb. If you want to prove that, please, find a place to do that.

I once innocently posted a thread asking whether or not a nomination of Mitt Romney would cause problems for the Mormon church. Admin took it down immediately, before anyone had even responded. Their response to my questioning it was that my thread was "political."

This post is obvious use of "encapsulated agenda." Whether or not one agrees with it is irrelevant. It is clearly an attempt to sneak one agenda in under the guise of another. Several of the responses take a totally political tack.

Look at it now, though: 21 replies, and Admin hasn't even taken note.

most detailed explanation as to why some are stuck in the morg and some get out. I do think Altemeyer's work shines a light on a lot of mysteries in modern American life, and especially the mormon church.

I couldn't reprint here the 90 page book that is on Altemyer's website, but came across a summary of his main points in the article I presented here. I'm sorry if someone's secondary ox gets gored in the process. But I think that is happening only when somebody like the esteemed braq in the post above starts off with the same kind of categorical thinking that we all enjoyed at church, which postulated the righteous (us in GD class) against the wicked (everybody not in church that Sunday morn). These labels are too broad to carry much meaning, so why use them?

It's too bad, but in this time and in this place, the TPer's seem to offer the most readily available examples of authoritarian thinking.

I don't care what your politics are; I think this reasearch is very very pertinent to the purposes of this site. Go back and look at the headings of the paragraphs copied here. Are they not the morg in a capsule?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 06:05PM by Adult of god.