The underlying point of my last post
was that, assuming the posters to that T&S thread were representative of "Mormon," I do not wish to be "Mormon." Obviously, you and I both know that the comments there are not indicative of all
Mormondom; however, I think we can safely assume that some "Momondom" was represented.
Ah, group membership.
I don't know about y'all, but I hate it when I am on the same side as wackos. I hate it when I argue for a position that I believe is eminently reasonable, but the guy next to me arguing for the same thing using bad reason. Or worse yet, his methodology is wacked. I'm as liberal as whatever, but I had a hard time getting through Michael Moore's latest work
, even though I think he is, in the end, right. You know, whatever, but I think Moore ends up doing more harm than good for those of us on the left.
But since I am a "liberal" I have to 'deal' with Michael Moore being on my side. Luckily, there are so many of us liberals (and let us praise Heaven for that!...although we could use more...) that the effect Moore has on the perception of the term "liberal" is relatively small.
But what if it wasn't?
Examples are easy to offer: notice how the descriptor "Muslim" was interpreted post-9/11. Since then, it seems, Muslims (especially those in America) have to make "excuses" for the stupid and malicious actions of a few other "Muslims."
Of course, this is nothing new with "Mormon."
And it's relatively easy to dismiss those of the extreme fringes. Do Mormon's really have to make that many "excuses" for, say, Tom Green? Or that guy in the Krakauer book? Usually (it seems to me) the good example of one Mormon can outweigh the stereotypes of the fringe.
But what to do about those the aren't the fringe, but still give your descriptor a bad name? These are the insidious; the Maxim-like just-off-center position compared to the Hustler-esque outliers. What do about those Mormons who say things like, "All Homos are pedophiles" or "Homos recruit straight teens" (which only has the mere semblance of validity if a very broad definition of "recruit" is allowed)?
I don't know what to do. Luckily, I self-identify with groups that are small enough that there aren't a lot of wackos or groups large enough that the wackos are diffused. As much as it annoys me, if the only thing I get accused of being is a raging sex-hound (because I'm a non-Mormon male
), life is pretty good.
But there is a problem here, especially when talking about the Mormon wackos. Yes, I don't have to deal with them, because I don't self-identify as "Mormon." But, if I (or anyone else) looks at converting, it is an issue. The question is, I guess, Do I want to be part of a group with these wackos?