Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Jersey Girl]

I've been thinking (oh no! again?) with regards to the blowhard remark. I suppose (and this interests me because I've been making a strong effort to explore gender differences professionally, I'm trying to relate) that if I were a man who placed great emphasis on my role as family patriarch, authority figure, LDS priesthood holder, I would take offense to being called a Mormon Blowhard.

This coming from a poster (me) who when called similar names on another board, used to intentionally change my screen name to the insult to respond to the name-caller just to tick the person off!



What do the men who are or have been LDS think about that remark? Is it or would it have been offensive to you?

[_Alter Idem]

Well then, since a number of you saw "absolutely nothing" humiliating about Goodk's original post, why did it matter when his stepfather was sent a link? What's the problem? If it showed Goodk's concern and caring for his family so clearly, it would do them good to see how he was feeling their pain.

If some of you are going to take the position that there was nothing wrong with Goodk's original post, then there would also be nothing wrong with his family seeing it--and therefore, nothing wrong with Dr. P sending a link.

And don't forget. Goodk posted that email KNOWING that his stepfather's friend, Dr. Peterson posted on the board--and he would know who the email was about. Did he also know at that time that rrocket was a friend of his stepfather's? With two people on the board who knew his stepfather, it's not unreasonable that one of them would have alerted his family of his 'concerned' post and the fact that he had shared the stepfather's email with his friends on a public message board.

With posting an email sent to him by someone else, Goodk showed that he did not feel this was a breach of netiquette. Yet, sending a link of the email to someone else (the email originator) was a breach? This is a double standard.

And the question remains, IF the post was innocuous, why should Goodk care that his stepfather was made aware of it? More likely, he knows the post would have hurt his family had they been made aware of it...And so I have to wonder...why did he post it, knowing it could certainly get back to his family? That's a question he'll have to answer to himself.

[_Jersey Girl]

So...if my idea about how the remark would be taken by someone who see's himself in the above stated roles, then yes, I could see where the LDS perception of family humiliation (see thread title) would apply and that others (who see themselves as holding the same roles) would view it that way as well.

Respect is important to men. I don't understand why they so often fail to give it to other men.

In other words, why didn't DCP and crock respect GoodK's right to vent anonymously on the board.

It just goes in circles, doesn't it?

My brain hurts!

[_Kishkumen]

Respect is important to men. I don't understand why they so often fail to give it to other men.

Because disrespect is intended to pull people back into line. Using the patriarchal angle is a powerful tool in Mormon culture. GoodK would be upset because he still knows that the stepfather might be hurt as he is operating on in that patriarchal mindset, even though GoodK has abandoned it.

[_Some Schmo]

Well then, since a number of you saw "absolutely nothing" humiliating about Goodk's original post, why did it matter when his stepfather was sent a link? What's the problem? If it showed Goodk's concern and caring for his family so clearly, it would do them good to see how he was feeling their pain.

Is the only thing that could possibly wrong with the email a family humiliation?

Come on. Nobody's fooled by this silly logic.

[_Droopy]

I would like to ask Bob, (if he has the guts to answer.....He seems to have disappeared since I kicked his ass yet again on the thread Inc started about DCP and bishops), and anyone else who cares to respond.....What is "humiliating" to Eric's family about this post?

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you made the full transition from larval anti-Mormon to fully adult dung beetle.

All one has to do around here is just call them as one sees them, and things will follow their natural course from that point forward.

[_Droopy]

It is shocking that so many Mormon parents jump immediately to shipping their children off to private prisons and military schools, when something goes awry. There were families in my ward who did exactly the same with their children. If little Tommy starts wearing droopy drawers, they go apoplectic. Amazing stuff, when you think about it. A real alarmist crowd these Mormons, or maybe latently militaristic.

Really? Any empirical data regarding this, or is this just the typically liberal/exmo/MTV culture hand wringing over LDS standards?

[_Droopy]

In our individualistic western culture, the authoritarian and collective mindset of the Mormons does seem to produce different ideas about what it means to be part of a family.

Authoritarian and collective? You're apparantly not particulary up to speed regarding how the vast majority of Mormons vote, nor about their culture or doctrines. But why actually know what you're talking about when going after the Church and its people?

That would spoil all the fun, no?

The Mormon mindset seems closer to some subsets of Islam, the foregone blood atonement teachings are basically along the same thinking that results in honour killings in Jordan and Pakistan.

Its almost to the point that the sheer lack of intellectual substance or seriousness here has become cathartic. Why pay $7 dollars to see a summer blockbuster about some guy in a hockey mask slicing up naked teenagers when you can come here and read this kind of stuff for free?

To have a difference in opinion with the patriarch, or anyone else with 'authority' is to deliberately offend them.

Utter pap of course, but, as I said, why know what you're talking about?

The worst sin a child can commit is 'wilful disobediance'. So to turn things around, if a patriarch cannot produce perfectly compliant children, is his priesthood weakened? In his eyes, or the eyes of the rest of the priesthood?

This might actually have some humor value were it not for the really ugly tendentiousness of the whole thing.

Move along...

[_Droopy]

We are not MAD, we don't want to be MAD, we make no excuses for who we are...

Yes, MAD actually had intellectual and moral standards - much like the Church, reflecting those who created and manage that board.

Then, there is this place, on the other hand...

[_Dr. Shades]

Once goodk forgave rcrocket, it should have ended. But....It was allowed to continue.

It was allowed to continue because others wanted it to continue. Who are the moderators to dictate what others want or don't want to continue?

There are reasons why it is against the law to stir racial incitement in Europe and yet, there is still free speech.

How does merely continuing something that why me wishes would end rise to the level of stirring racial incitement?

Free speech entails personal responsibility for how something is said and for what purpose.

Exactly. And merely continuing a discussion that why me wishes would end does not imply that anyone abrogated their personal responsibility.

So, should the decision on which discussion must end and which discussion ought to continue rest in the hands of why me, or in the hands of those doing the discussing?

In the future, the moderators need to show a more hands on approach to what is being said on this board.

Be specific--what, in your opinion, should this "hands on approach" look like?

Name calling and personal insinuations against a poster should get deleted and the poster should get a warning or a suspension.

To a Mopologist, any disagreement equals name-calling and/or personal insinuations. Do you honestly think that type of thing can be sorted out?