Scratch wrote:She doesn't say that anywhere. She says that the daughter could "decide" if she wanted to read the book, but that is very different from being allowed to read the book.
Come on, Scratch. You're really splitting hairs with this one. If the mother was not going to allow the daughter to read the book from the get-go, then the story would have had no impact. Again, the whole point of the story was the fact that the daughter chose of her own volition not to read the book. From a Mormon perspective, it's a testimony of her daughter's ability to "make the right choice." In order for the story to have impact, the mother would have had to have intended to allow her daughter to read the book if she had chosen to.
Well, I don't think that the mother did. Do you think this mother would have thrown in the towel if the daughter still wanted to read the book after this "chit-chat"? Or would there have been another round of discussion?
The fact that you don't think that she intended to allow her daughter to read the book at all does indicate that you think the mother was lying.
I think that "lying" is too strong a word. I do, however, feel that this mother was manipulative.
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, I don't think that the mother did. Do you think this mother would have thrown in the towel if the daughter still wanted to read the book after this "chit-chat"? Or would there have been another round of discussion?
The fact that you don't think that she intended to allow her daughter to read the book at all does indicate that you think the mother was lying.
I think that "lying" is too strong a word. I do, however, feel that this mother was manipulative.
I think the mother would have allowed the child to read the book, but would have been disappointed. Furthermore, I think the daughter knew this and may not have wished to displease her mother. I don't think the mother was trying to manipulate her daughter, but I think that her distaste for the book was a strong influence in the decision. Is that manipulative? Not necessarily. Is that freedom? Not necessarily.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, I don't think that the mother did. Do you think this mother would have thrown in the towel if the daughter still wanted to read the book after this "chit-chat"? Or would there have been another round of discussion?
The fact that you don't think that she intended to allow her daughter to read the book at all does indicate that you think the mother was lying.
I think that "lying" is too strong a word. I do, however, feel that this mother was manipulative.
I think the mother would have allowed the child to read the book, but would have been disappointed. Furthermore, I think the daughter knew this and may not have wished to displease her mother. I don't think the mother was trying to manipulate her daughter, but I think that her distaste for the book was a strong influence in the decision. Is that manipulative? Not necessarily. Is that freedom? Not necessarily.
In other words, a guilt trip would have been in store for the daughter. An excellent point, ABman. If a punishment of this sort is being dangled over the daughter's head, can she really be said to have chosen fully, or her own volition? No, not really.
Mister Scratch wrote:In other words, a guilt trip would have been in store for the daughter. An excellent point, ABman. If a punishment of this sort is being dangled over the daughter's head, can she really be said to have chosen fully, or her own volition? No, not really.
On the other hand, if the daughter respected her mother's opinion instead of fearing her mother's disapproval, then the daughter was free. I have a recent example of myself. I asked my wife (an avid reader) what she thought of the book, The Golden Compass. While I often read books she would not because she doesn't like them (like Dawkin's Delusion), I put more weight on her opinions for fiction since she reads lots of sci-fi and fantasy. She said the book wasn't very interesting to her as fantasy. That being the case, I have lost interest in it.
Anyhow, I don't think the mother was consciously trying to be coercive.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
I'm really offended that Judy Blume still holds the market for coming-of-age books! They were outdated when I was a kid and I'm pushing 40. Did they have to make a new edition of the book to change the references to those maxi-pads with belts and stuff?
(LMAO)
Insert ironic quote from fellow board member here.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
asbestosman wrote:I think the mother would have allowed the child to read the book, but would have been disappointed. Furthermore, I think the daughter knew this and may not have wished to displease her mother. I don't think the mother was trying to manipulate her daughter, but I think that her distaste for the book was a strong influence in the decision. Is that manipulative? Not necessarily. Is that freedom? Not necessarily.
I think the mother would have been saddened by her daughters rebelliousness. I think you're right, guilt trips are a huge part of Mormonism.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks