charity wrote:I don't know why you say that active membership in the Church is a "comfort zone." For the truly faithful it is a daily challenge, of self-evaluation, of self-denial, of work, of seeking not just the good or the better way, but the best. It would be a lot easier to not be LDS.
Sure, there's plenty of busyness but there is nothing difficult about living the kindergarten version of spirituality that is Mormonism.
You want we should sit on a mountain top and contemplate the existence of fog?
That's pretty much what you are doing, actually.
Please explain.
Happy to. Charity's silly question seemed apropos of nothing and not in the least responsive to my statement until I used my talents as an internet psychiatrist wanna-be and interpreted it metaphorically. "You want we should sit on a mountain top" ... as in the Mormon superior position of knowing their church is true ... "and contemplate the existence of fog" ... as in studying the literary creations of Joseph Smith as if they had ever actually lived much less spoke for God ... Yep, pretty much what Mormonism is about, sitting on their high horses in a fog, contemplating nothing real. If Charity had anything of substance in her ideology she could have responded with substance, but instead she fell back on the only thing she knows, get on her high horse and stir up some fog.
Lucretia, do you write ficiton for a living? Fantasy fiction? That was pretty much an example.
You made a slap at LDS spirituality. "Kindergarten spirituality." You said this in response to my comment about the daily challenge of being LDS. Self-evaluation, of self-denial, of work, of seeking not just the good or the better way, but the best. That is what I said. (It is in the post above, so you can refresh your memory if you need to.) My comment was to ask what kind of activities were supposed to be more "spiritual" than to foillow the Savior.
It was a veiled reference to people who think that some kind dedication to meditation is better than getting down in the trenches and working with your hands to help people. Loving your neighbor by working beside him in his garden, rather than prancing around talking about love. It is a difference between belief and applicaiton of belief.
You have your definition of spirituality and I have mine, and that's all good. You have no idea what my definition is and your assumptions are way off, but that's okay too. You are exactly where you are supposed to be. Merry Christmas.
BishopRic wrote:All of them revealed to me that their husbands had been abusive in their homes...two of them sexually, with them and their kids, and they wanted my help to intervene.
What, exactly, did they want you to do?
My SP was not surprised when I made the late phone call to him that night. In almost a "don't bother me with this" sort of attitude, he said they were continuously whining about this, and these men were righteous priesthood holders, former leaders in the church, and I should consider this when deciding how to proceed.
So, did you consider that when deciding how to proceed? And what difference, if any, did it make?
Finally, did you or any of the women ever consider just skipping the middleman and going straight to the police?
"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?"
Dr. Shades wrote: Finally, did you or any of the women ever consider just skipping the middleman and going straight to the police?
That's my question. In a couple of high profile suits against the Church, I wonder why the lawyers don't ask that quesiton. You have a brain, woman, figure it out and turn the creep in! Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.
Dr. Shades wrote: Finally, did you or any of the women ever consider just skipping the middleman and going straight to the police?
That's my question. In a couple of high profile suits against the Church, I wonder why the lawyers don't ask that quesiton. You have a brain, woman, figure it out and turn the creep in! Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.
I guess you don't understand the abuse cycle. You are right, they didn't have much "spine." They had not been raised with one. I would think with a psychology background Charity, that you would understand the fear and guilt many of these women have -- and they have been taught that much of the abuse is their fault. You use this word a lot, but it is appropriate here -- "SAD," but common.
Remember that when it all happened, I was still a believer. I was trying to do what I was supposed to do, and what a temporary bishop should have done in the short time I was in the position. As I mentioned in the OP, it was a trigger that catapulted me to study the church claims. It was a few years before I became disaffected -- the last thing I wanted at the time was to get anybody in trouble, or make waves. Of course I see things differently now, and wish things could have been different then....
BishopRic wrote:All of them revealed to me that their husbands had been abusive in their homes...two of them sexually, with them and their kids, and they wanted my help to intervene.
What, exactly, did they want you to do?
This was an interesting dilemna...all of them, despite the abuse they had received, believed their husbands were "men of God," and just had a little temper problem. They didn't want to make waves...but assumed the organization they (and their husbands) were so committed to would help them. After my talk with the SP, I played the scapegoat card and told each of them I didn't have much I could do because of my temporary calling, and suggested they could, and should, approach the bishop again after he returned. As I mentioned, I moved away right after he came back, but have heard that a few have sought some help. I hope (and think) this sort of thing is handled much better today in the church.
Dr. Shades wrote: Finally, did you or any of the women ever consider just skipping the middleman and going straight to the police?
That's my question. In a couple of high profile suits against the Church, I wonder why the lawyers don't ask that quesiton. You have a brain, woman, figure it out and turn the creep in! Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.
Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.
Spoken like a true disciple of Christ... a knowledgeable women with a background in psychology.
:-(
Shame on you.
~dancer!
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.
Spoken like a true disciple of Christ... a knowledgeable women with a background in psychology.
:-(
Shame on you.
~dancer!
Truth Dancer,
I just checked out your website. It is amazing!! It is now saved to my 'Favorites'. :-)
I really enjoyed the section on how to tell if a guy is a Jerk. I know a few women that could benefit from reading that, so I will send them the link. It also validated my guy. He is an absolute Gem and that is a rare find.
Have a Merry Christmas! :-)
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who cold not hear the music. ----Nietzche
BishopRic wrote: I guess you don't understand the abuse cycle. You are right, they didn't have much "spine." They had not been raised with one. I would think with a psychology background Charity, that you would understand the fear and guilt many of these women have -- and they have been taught that much of the abuse is their fault. You use this word a lot, but it is appropriate here -- "SAD," but common.
I understand the abuse cycle. And do you understand that 70% of women raised in abusive homes go on to NEVER be abused in their lives? Because they don't allow it. And people who treat women as perennial victims do the a great disservice. This is not teaching them to be strong.
BishopRic wrote: Remember that when it all happened, I was still a believer. I was trying to do what I was supposed to do, and what a temporary bishop should have done in the short time I was in the position. As I mentioned in the OP, it was a trigger that catapulted me to study the church claims. It was a few years before I became disaffected -- the last thing I wanted at the time was to get anybody in trouble, or make waves. Of course I see things differently now, and wish things could have been different then....
Of course, maybe it isn't a brain she is missing, but a spine. If a woman wants to play victim, that she can't do anything to help herself, she doesn't get much sympathy from me. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.
Spoken like a true disciple of Christ... a knowledgeable women with a background in psychology.
:-(
Shame on you.
~dancer!
And how does patting a woman on the head and treating her like she is a child, help her to be strong and in charge of her life? This is what happens when agency is denied.