DiscussMormonism.com

Moniker has accused me of both.

These are evidently issues of concern to Moniker.

1. Evidently because I made a post about "dumbing down, words of shorter syllables" "Dumbing down" and "shorter syllables" was a snipe. It wasn't the nicest thing I oculd have said in the context of the discussion at the time.

Question to Moniker: Since that conversation was between beastie and me quite a while ago, did you read the thread, or just take beastie's cute and paste and run with it? I really would like to know, since context is everything.

Back to the topic: I should not have responded in kind to the condescension I was being hit with. Okay. Beastie, I apologize for saying "dumbing down" and "shorter syllables." Next time I will call you on being condescending in straight up terms and not try to be cutsy. It obviously didn't work. And was perceived as being insulting. Mea culpa.

#2. Moniker took exception to the statement that young women who are abandoned by their fathers tend to become sexually active at earlier ages and have more sexual partners. Since their sexual activities are not motivated by love or even sexual need, but by a need to establish a father relationship, this is neurotic. This is value neutral. (A neurosis is a relatively mild personality disorder typified by some degree of social or interpersonal maladjustment.) There is no moral statement made or implied.

Then I said that if a person is making a decision to engage in a sexual relationship driven by a neurosis, that takes away their ability to give consent. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape.

Can somebody explain to me how that is cruel or intolerant?

#3. I made the statement, "You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions."

Are there people who tell lies about the Church, its leaders and its history? Is there any poster here who would say that every single anti-Mormon argument that has ever been put forth is absolutely true?

Are there people who fight against the Church? One poster on this board has repeatedly said it is his intent to destroy the Church. Sounds like "fighting against God" to me.

Those who fight against God are in Satan's camp. In the sphere of religion, there are only two sides. God's and Satan's. There may be a situation where two people each think they are fighting on God's side, and both can't be right. Of course, atheists, etc. can say there isn't even a war, but that is irrelevant to this argument.

So, where is the cruelty, intolerance, etc.?

Moniker wrote:What upsets me about Charity (and this is essentially all of it) that she shows no remorse or self reflection as to how she comes across to others. That she doesn't grasp that she is insulting and hateful with remarks just is astounding to me. I try really, really, really hard not to be cruel -- not so good at that sometimes. Yet, I at least grasp when I've done so. If it was unwarranted (some people deserve a tongue lashing) I regret it and fret about it. Not her. It's bizarre to watch her light of Christ in action.

I do not perceive any of the above "remarks" as hateful. A difference of opinion. I never called anyone a slut, as she charged and then rescinded. I don't call people idiots or morons, terms that have been used against me. I have never called Moniker any names that I could have used following her diatribes against me.

Reflecting how I come across to others, of course. We all do, or should. But I have a much larger sample size that this message board. Moniker acts as though her assessment is universal. I am sure that those who have nothing but contempt for the Church will see me much differenlty than those who share my beliefs. I enjoy quite a good reputation among most people who are not so firmly stuck in the "all Mormons are blind, ignorant, deluded or delusional" paradigm.

So, can we get back to discussing ideas without all the personal attacks?

charity
So, can we get back to discussing ideas without all the personal attacks?

You know...
I would love to discuss some of these issues on a different board. I wonder why would they cut me off,
or others who don't fit into their plan.
charity, you are the rare star of this board. Simply because the owner of this board is not STUPID to silence you or your kind (whatever that might be).
Can we say the same thing about MADD?.

We are grateful for your presence.

I've been giving this some thought today. First off, let me say that I do admire the strength of your convictions (although I may not agree with your religious beliefs) and your willingness to engage others about them. With that being said, when I look at this list of "offenses", perhaps the only one that appears to be personally insulting is the first. And now that you have offered your mea culpa, hopefully others will not hold that against you (we all pop off on occasion, and should hope others will give us a break when we recognize it). As for the second instance, you offered a clinical description, which I understand (my mom is an LCSW, and we discuss this sort of thing every now and again). Admittedly, speaking of it in such terms makes it seem judgmental, but it really isn't. Hopefully people will understand this. Finally, the third instance may rub people the wrong way, but that is the point of religion, isn't it? Your faith, at its ultimate core, does believe what you've said. Some of us might not believe it anymore (and if we don't, we really shouldn't be bothered by those sorts of statements), but you are expressing your beliefs in very frank terms. I confess that I do get a bit perturbed when told that I'll be surprised to find out the truth after I die, but I could just as easily tell you that you'll be surprised when nothing happens after you die. No harm, no foul.

I guess what it all comes down to is this: you are a strong, outspoken woman. You do not mince words. It may inflame the passions on this board, but I know that you've given engaged my synapses on more than one occasion, and I do enjoy having you here. It may be that I'm feeling extra conciliatory today, but there it is.

Is this where we hug? ;)

(I still reserve the right to occasional snark - otherwise I could explode).

Somethings touch people in certain ways. Like you might say something normal to another person that might affect me in a way. I imagine you as like a machine full of information. All I see is masses of text next to your name. I feel no emotion from you. But maybe that's because I haven't really talked to you.

Pirate.

Back to the topic: I should not have responded in kind to the condescension I was being hit with. Okay. Beastie, I apologize for saying "dumbing down" and "shorter syllables." Next time I will call you on being condescending in straight up terms and not try to be cutsy. It obviously didn't work. And was perceived as being insulting. Mea culpa.

You've studied psychology, you should know something about genuine apologies. This isn't one. You are still avoiding responsibility for your own words. You have blamed me, and then you stated that your words were "perceived" as being insulting. Then, later, you say that you don't "call people idiots or morons".

When you tell someone you need to "dumb down" your posts, and use "shorter syllables", and later assert it's not an insult because it's true, you have, for all intents and purposes, called that person dumb, or, you know, an idiot or moron.

Once you can admit that, and admit that you were insulting - aside from my own responsibility for my own words - then I will consider your apology genuine.

In regards to your question about what's really hateful - the statement I view as the most malicious and hateful is the one in which you state, and still affirm, that people who fight against the church are satan's minions. That is not only malicious and hateful, but also incredibly narrow-minded. Let's just focus on the most obvious example of people actively fighting against the church - EVs who assert that Mormons are going to hell and try to warn others and save them.

Just like, most of the time, I assume Mormons genuinely believe their own truth claims, I assume that EV mean what they say, as well. So, in reality, although their delivery may lack expertise, if they genuinely believe Mormons are going to hell - and I think they do - then they believe they are doing God's work to help people stay away from Mormonism. These are their genuine beliefs, and if they really do believe Mormons will go to hell, they actually have a moral responsibility to intervene, just like Mormons feel they have a moral responsibility to do missionary work.

In fact, that's an excellent correlary - if an EV asserts that Mormon missionaries are satan's minions, would that be hateful and intolerant?

I do want to make one more thing clear. I don't need, or want, an apology from charity. Most of us get testy from time to time in these conversations. I've certainly said insulting things in the past myself.

I only bring charity's past insults up when she tries to assert that it's only other people who are insulting or rude on this forum, or that personal attacks automatically mean one has lost the argument. When she tries to make those assertions, I bring up her own past "sins" to try to get her to think about what she's saying.

Although you've never said anything to me personally (except once grouping me into a 'so much ignorance, so little time' comment) I do think of your comments as harsh and arrogant and not at all indicitive of a person filled with the light of Christ.

However - I do realize that others have been harsh to you so I understand it somewhat.

I feel that you are trying so hard to win people to the church with evidence and not paying much attention to what really attracts people to religion - happiness and peace.

Such as your comments above - I feel that you are saying those who have left the church are fighting against God. I'm not fighting against God. I do not feel, however, that God is the LDS Church. Again, I doubt I'm even a blip on your radar screen but there are probably a lot of people out there like me who read a lot but don't post. The harsh side of the church, the arrogance, the lack of empathy is something I'm still healing from.

Once again, that is my opinion but I do also consider the treatment you've gotten here from others.

Charity, I'm going to cut and paste from that thread about Utah Rape Stats. I went into the conversation intent on having a reasonable discussion. THIS first quote I'm putting up pushed my buttons.

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?

I asked you for references approximately ten times now and you have not been forthcoming with them. Neurosis has not been a clinical diagnosis for over 20+ years in the DSM. I also pointed out to you that depression and anxiety fit under the term "neurosis".

I replied with this:

She has not been raped. I wouldn't consider that the sexual intercourse would cause her trauma if she consented to it. Interesting that you would label a young woman "neurotic" that is looking for love by having sex with multiple partners -- I'd call that pretty much status quo. Do you believe that young woman was raped? If not, why even introduce scenarios that bear no resemblance to rape? There are many instances of individuals behaving in sexual risky manners, or promiscuously and yet they consented (even sought out the encounters) so why would that be a subject introduced in as a possible rape scenario?

You then wrote this:

Because neurotic behavior is mental illness when it leads to damage to the person. So, you are okay with women who are engaging in risky sexual behavior due to mental illness just because they want to?

You are saying all of this without a reference, by the way. What is that mental illness precisely that can be found in a current DSM manual? I also pointed out to you this definition of neurosis (which says the same of the 10+ others I found):

In modern psychology, the term neurosis, also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder, is a general term that refers to any mental imbalance that causes distress, but does not interfere with rational thought (I.e., psychosis) or an individual's ability to function in daily life (I.e., psychosis or a personality disorder)..

I replied as such -- and I stand by it:

I loathe to consider what motives you have to label young women that search for male partners as being neurotic. I sense that it may have more to do with your issues, than the young womans. Seriously Charity, was that just a swipe? It didn't sting anyone, I hope. Only, perhaps, showed the very skewed way in which you view sexuality and what you think of women that have various partners.

I posted this:

The word neurosis means "nerve disorder," and was first coined in the late eighteenth century by William Cullen, a Scottish physician. Cullen's concept of neurosis encompassed those nervous disorders and symptoms that do not have a clear organic cause. Sigmund Freud later used the term anxiety neurosis to describe mental illness or distress with extreme anxiety as a defining feature.

There is a difference of opinion over the clinical use of the term neurosis today. It is not generally used as a diagnostic category by American psychologists and psychiatrists any longer, and was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980 with the publication of the third edition (it last appeared as a diagnostic category in DSM-II). Some professionals use the term to describe anxious symptoms and associated behavior, or to describe the range of mental illnesses outside of the psychotic disorders (such as schizophrenia, delusional disorder). Others, particularly psychoanalysts (psychiatrists and psychologists who follow a psychoanalytical model of treatment, as popularized by Freud and Carl Jung), use the term neurosis to describe the internal process itself (called an unconscious conflict) that triggers the anxiety characteristic.





The neurotic disorders are distinct from psychotic disorders in that the individual with neurotic symptoms has a firm grip on reality, and the psychotic patient does not. Before their reclassification, there were several major traditional categories of psychological neuroses, including: anxiety neurosis, depressive neurosis, obsessive-compulsive neurosis, somatization, posttraumatic stress disorder, and compensation neurosis—not a true neurosis, but a form of malingering, or feigning psychological symptoms for monetary or other personal gain.

You are well aware that you are using a psychological term that is not current, accepted, does not effect rational thought (ability to give consent) and said these women were raped in that thread.

I take issue with it! I find it highly insulting that you say these things as someone that taught courses in psychology and use terms and characterizations that I blew out of the water with 45 seconds on Google. I want you to retract it and apologize that you said that these women are incapable of giving consent, that they are raped when they have intercourse, and that you define them as being neurotic.

I don't get uppity over LDS issues too often. I do get rather pissy when someone tries to swoop in and make judgments about women that have various partners and prescribe a mental disorder to them. IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT THEN OFFER PROOF!

I know no one else cares about this -- but I do, Charity.

I don't even want to go back to the abused woman thread. Again, you talked about the victim mentality. It was so upsetting to me that I really had to walk away from the computer because I was going to be ugly to you. I KNOW there are women on this board RIGHT NOW that are in abusive relationships! You saying women are "dumb" that stay with their husbands is awful! What did I say in that thread?

The one person you trust and love tells you for years that you are dumb -- then when you relay what is happening or leave society reinforces his opinion! As someone that dealt with these issues in courses do you really have no inkling how your words and demeanor in that thread could make a woman hesitant about speaking out?

charity wrote:Back to the topic: I should not have responded in kind to the condescension I was being hit with. Okay. Beastie, I apologize for saying "dumbing down" and "shorter syllables." Next time I will call you on being condescending in straight up terms and not try to be cutsy. It obviously didn't work. And was perceived as being insulting. Mea culpa.

'Way to evade taking the responsibility for your own words, charity. Truly you have absorbed the apologist's MO to the greatest degree. A simple "I'm sorry" would have sufficed, but you just had to add the bit about responding in kind, to take the burden off your own responsibility to curb your own words.

Then I said that if a person is making a decision to engage in a sexual relationship driven by a neurosis, that takes away their ability to give consent. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape.

Can somebody explain to me how that is cruel or intolerant?

Since when does a neurosis take away the ability to make decisions? If that were the case, any neurotic could commit murder and get away with it. I wasn't aware that neurosis was a basis for an incompetency defense, but I could be wrong.

Are there people who tell lies about the Church, its leaders and its history? Is there any poster here who would say that every single anti-Mormon argument that has ever been put forth is absolutely true?

Is every single Mormon leader's statement absolutely true? The extremes of any argument, the exaggerations, the absolutes are never in doubt. I don't know of any critic who maintains that every single argument a critic offers is absolutely true. However, I do know Mormon apologists who maintain that every single word from a latterday prophet is absolutely true, which is manifestly incorrect.

Are there people who fight against the Church? One poster on this board has repeatedly said it is his intent to destroy the Church. Sounds like "fighting against God" to me.

The church does not equal God. It simply is not so, charity. And you'd be hard-pressed to make that connection stick.

Those who fight against God are in Satan's camp. In the sphere of religion, there are only two sides. God's and Satan's. There may be a situation where two people each think they are fighting on God's side, and both can't be right. Of course, atheists, etc. can say there isn't even a war, but that is irrelevant to this argument.

There are many who fight against the church who are not Satan's minions. The church is quite simply not God. It's time you learned that.

So, where is the cruelty, intolerance, etc.?

Do you honestly think you exhibit tolerance and kindness here? Honestly? Good grief.

I don't call people idiots or morons, terms that have been used against me. I have never called Moniker any names that I could have used following her diatribes against me.

Exhibit the most Christ-like characteristic of them all, charity, and you will never be called names. In other words, turn the other cheek. Live our religion. If you can't, you aren't doing the church any good here.

I apologize for saying you are cruel, hateful, and intolerant. I shouldn't have done so. I just came into that thread yesterday and the first post I saw was you talking about the "evil" people that post here while pointing out to the new poster (dogsomething) that everyone here is so angry. I just don't understand how you don't see how you come across to people?

I do understand that you take criticisms against the Church very personally. I do understand that you are here to attempt to protect your faith and cherished beliefs. I imagine that it is VERY difficult to stay even keeled and calm when you are being called names that question your intelligence.

Again, I apologize and I will try to refrain from being personal with you from here on out.