Mormon Discussions Disrupts Mormon Apologetics

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Embrace "bitch."

It tells you more about the speaker than the person being spoken about.

Embracing it makes life a lot easier.

I also like, "Yeah, I''m a bitch. So watch out." That tells an audience something different about a speaker.

I agree, Rosebud.

It seems like men and William Schryver have been using this word in an attempt to shame or degrade women. Or at least it seems that way to me.

The interesting thing about the word is that it's usually an insult used by men to demean women who are strong, speak their minds, have opinions and don’t shy away from expressing them. If being an outspoken woman means being a "bitch", women should embrace that as a compliment and as a way of taking power away from the insulter.

[_Jersey Girl]

So it is HER fault someone called her a cunt? I can't believe your post. What a disgusting thing to say.

Dr. Shades, please. I broke my commitment to not report because what Rockslider is implying here is sickening. Please move his filth.

I'm simply suggesting that Jersey Girl has a nack for endlessly harping on an individual, in her own nasty condescending way, never giving up, pushing total frustration on her current focus. I'm suggesting Jersey Girl enjoys this. Hell she has been doing it for years and years.

Further: Jersey Girl, Jersey Girl, i.e. I'm rough and tough, I take pride in being a bitch. This is Jersey Girl's persona.

Where is Jersey Girl's boundaries? If she takes pride in being a bitch, and is actively being a bitch to someone, where is the offense in someone calling out her bitchiness?

Perhaps Jersey Girl could list which words she takes pride in associating herself with and which words/descriptions cross the Jersey line.

What you are 'simply' doing here is derailing and shifting focus away from the issue at hand. This sub conversation isn't about my personality or what you perceive it to be. It's about a potential board violation.

I have no reason to answer questions that you would never pose to a male poster based on their participation on this board.

[_Kishkumen]

Is this "re-contextualize" from a doctrinal stand (i.e. you still believe in God and are trying to re-contextualize God)?
From a cultural stand (what has the society been, what might/could it become)?
Or are your interests purely philosophical?

At the outset, my interest is in history and when I use the word re-contextualize, I am talking about situating Mormonism in its historical context in a different way. My inspiration for doing this is the historical work of Michael Quinn on magic, Brooke's Refiner's Fire, Robert F. Smith's Oracles and Talismans, and historical work on Mormonism and Freemasonry. I am also reading the work of Frances Yates to get a better sense of the general background.

In practical terms, when you understand where something has come from, you have a better idea of what it is, or what it might be.

[_ClarkGoble]

Is this "re-contextualize" from a doctrinal stand (i.e. you still believe in God and are trying to re-contextualize God)?
From a cultural stand (what has the society been, what might/could it become)?
Or are your interests purely philosophical?

At the outset, my interest is in history and when I use the word re-contextualize, I am talking about situating Mormonism in its historical context in a different way. My inspiration for doing this is the historical work of Michael Quinn on magic, Brooke's Refiner's Fire, Robert F. Smith's Oracles and Talismans, and historical work on Mormonism and Freemasonry. I am also reading the work of Frances Yates to get a better sense of the general background.

In practical terms, when you understand where something has come from, you have a better idea of what it is, or what it might be.

Make sure, if you're going that route, you read Steve Flemming's work. I don't agree with everything he's proposed but I think he has a better theoretic grounding than Quinn and has done some very interesting work on neoplatonic influences on early Mormonism. I'd also read more broadly about the Art of Memory as an important background. Yates is a great first step there but there are other books that cover it both in its Renaissance forms and it's more medieval and ancient forms.

[_Kishkumen]

At the outset, my interest is in history and when I use the word re-contextualize, I am talking about situating Mormonism in its historical context in a different way. My inspiration for doing this is the historical work of Michael Quinn on magic, Brooke's Refiner's Fire, Robert F. Smith's Oracles and Talismans, and historical work on Mormonism and Freemasonry. I am also reading the work of Frances Yates to get a better sense of the general background.

In practical terms, when you understand where something has come from, you have a better idea of what it is, or what it might be.

Make sure, if you're going that route, you read Steve Flemming's work. I don't agree with everything he's proposed but I think he has a better theoretic grounding than Quinn and has done some very interesting work on neoplatonic influences on early Mormonism. I'd also read more broadly about the Art of Memory as an important background. Yates is a great first step there but there are other books that cover it both in its Renaissance forms and it's more medieval and ancient forms.

Thank you for the recommendations, Clark!

ETA: Steve is the Plato guy. I have read some of his blog posts.

[_RockSlider]

At the outset, my interest is in history and when I use the word re-contextualize, I am talking about situating Mormonism in its historical context in a different way. My inspiration for doing this is the historical work of Michael Quinn on magic, Brooke's Refiner's Fire, Robert F. Smith's Oracles and Talismans, and historical work on Mormonism and Freemasonry. I am also reading the work of Frances Yates to get a better sense of the general background.

In practical terms, when you understand where something has come from, you have a better idea of what it is, or what it might be.

Ah, not what I was thinking at all. Thanks Kish

[_Dr. Shades]

How is it all good, Shades? . . . It's not all good. It's not even close to all good.

"It's all good" = "I accept your apology."

In other words, Lemmie posted an apology, and that was my way of serving notice that I had taken no offense.

[_Jersey Girl]

How is it all good, Shades? . . . It's not all good. It's not even close to all good.

"It's all good" = "I accept your apology."

In other words, Lemmie posted an apology, and that was my way of serving notice that I had taken no offense.

How is it all good, Shades?

I've read the previous exchanges and comments here. It was me who was once again called a cunt on this board. Let me be complete in my reporting. "Total cunt", "venomous bitch" and was told I was "circle jerking" myself off, followed by "Screw you" and "Screw you!!"

I didn't report it the first time, although Lemmie raised the issue of the first incidence in Prison. She has once again raised the issue about female slurs being used as personal attacks here, another instance where I didn't report the offensive comments.

And why? Because of exactly how this has been received by you on this particular thread. You say,

Here's the clarification: It happens so often that I can't keep up. I don't have the psychic energy, so the word-censor has to suffice as being "better than nothing."

No one expects you to keep up with everything. I've lost count of how many times I have commented that you of all people should be able to come to the board that you yourself have created and enjoy it like the rest of the community.

Here, you have got a report right on this thread. You've got the language that was used and the location. I see no indication that you've taken time to examine the exchanges that Lemmie's report on this thread identified.

Have you acted on this report? Examined the exchanges in question and if so, I should like to know what your determination was. Do the comments constitute a moveable personal attack or not? Have you decided that the filthy words in question were warranted within the context of the exchanges in which they took place?

Where I come from, the word cunt is the most abusive and filthy female slur in existence. How is this warranted under any circumstance?

I have no problem whatsoever when other posters become exasperated or annoyed with me and choose to swear in their posts. I find it incredibly offensive to be called a hight tier filthy, vulgar, and pornographic female slur and particularly when you yourself have taken a report about it on this very thread and left the issue without address and close with "It's all good".

It's not all good. It's not even close to all good.

You know what was said. You know where it was said. Where is your determination?

Where is your determination? Too busy?

[_Rosebud]

Idk Jeraey Girl,

This board can be a fairly horrifying place for women. But if it weren't so horrifying, I'd never even have been allowed to speak up for myself, as a woman. A lot of efforts were put into silencing me.

Some women even treat me poorly here.

I don't think it's reasonable to have expectations that the major problems in Mormon culture will be effectively and consistently resolved to complete satisfaction on a message board.

The board records the people and the problems. Nobody is being forced to put herself in emotional danger by posting here. Some of us come here because this danger is less than other dangers.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This board can be a fairly horrifying place for women.

The board is a fairly horrifying place for anyone who can't be protected against their own sensibilities. It's a tough pill to swallow for someone who uses their status, privilege, gender, identity, race, religion, or political ideology as a shield against other people's opinions, ideas, behaviors, and emotions. There's also a reason why people who post here come back; and I don't think it's because we're masochistic, but rather on some level we understand and appreciate the freedom of expression here even if we get butthurt once in a while.

- Doc