I think most of them DO fit, and very well. Stem seems to be objecting more to irrelevant details than to the spirit of the types of abusive behavior.
Here's one that fits very well:
Gaslighting. “I didn’t do that. I didn’t say that. I don’t know what you’re talking about. It wasn’t that bad. You’re imagining things. Stop making things up.” If the woman you’re involved with is prone to Borderline or Narcissistic rage episodes, in which she spirals into outer orbit, she may very well not remember things she’s said and done. However, don’t doubt your perception and memory of events. They happened and they are that bad.
This has happened over and over and over again, both from GAs and from apologists.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Taken from a couple of articles on signs of an abusive husband/girlfriend. How many parallels can you find with the Brighamite branch of the LDS Church?
None.
Of course not. The church is perfect.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I think most of them DO fit, and very well. Stem seems to be objecting more to irrelevant details than to the spirit of the types of abusive behavior.
Here's one that fits very well:
Gaslighting. “I didn’t do that. I didn’t say that. I don’t know what you’re talking about. It wasn’t that bad. You’re imagining things. Stop making things up.” If the woman you’re involved with is prone to Borderline or Narcissistic rage episodes, in which she spirals into outer orbit, she may very well not remember things she’s said and done. However, don’t doubt your perception and memory of events. They happened and they are that bad.
This has happened over and over and over again, both from GAs and from apologists.
If you are talking about abusing the history of the church, then sure.
But who is abusing members, and then saying, "Nope, we never did that!"
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Scottie wrote:If you are talking about abusing the history of the church, then sure.
But who is abusing members, and then saying, "Nope, we never did that!"
I'm talking about the former, of course. But when it came to abusing non-members (The Fancher Party), the church really did respond with "Nope, we never did that!"
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I think this arm-chair psychologist thing where you compare abusive relationships to other things you don't like is just silly. For your next act, try making the comparison with your least favorite political party, or maybe an employer or corporation you don't like. Arm-chair psychology--yet another reason You (read mankind) Are Not So Smart.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Buffalo wrote:I'm talking about the former, of course. But when it came to abusing non-members (The Fancher Party), the church really did respond with "Nope, we never did that!"
But it can be reasonably argued that the Church didn't abuse the Francher party. Sure LDS did. Sure the structure of the local church played a role in getting things going and it taking off, as they say, but its not like the structure of the church or the ability, based on that structure to make things happen, can be to blame. Afterall, the same type of structure is what gets LDS people out to help in times of disaster and need.
Some criticisms are severly disappointing to me, and this thread demonstrates nicely what is disappointing about these disappointing criticisms. I truly wish there was more substantive, more considered stuff, like pops up here every so often.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Scottie wrote:If you are talking about abusing the history of the church, then sure.
But who is abusing members, and then saying, "Nope, we never did that!"
I'm talking about the former, of course. But when it came to abusing non-members (The Fancher Party), the church really did respond with "Nope, we never did that!"
Initially, yes. When the threat of destruction by the US Army was looming heavy over their heads. I don't blame them! I wouldn't want to incur the wrath of the US Army for the actions of a few rogue saints. Plus, I'm not sure anybody really knew exactly what happened. There was still a lot of misinformation and speculation during that time.
However, the church has apologized formally and publicly for the MMM. They even dedicated a monument at the site.
In your list of abuses, this would be more like saying, "Your mom smacked me when you weren't there. You denied that it happened until later you found out it was true, and then you apologized for your mom."
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Scottie wrote:Initially, yes. When the threat of destruction by the US Army was looming heavy over their heads. I don't blame them! I wouldn't want to incur the wrath of the US Army for the actions of a few rogue saints. Plus, I'm not sure anybody really knew exactly what happened. There was still a lot of misinformation and speculation during that time.
However, the church has apologized formally and publicly for the MMM. They even dedicated a monument at the site.
I'm not sure expressing regret that it happened really counts as an apology
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I'm talking about the former, of course. But when it came to abusing non-members (The Fancher Party), the church really did respond with "Nope, we never did that!"
But it can be reasonably argued that the Church didn't abuse the Francher party. Sure LDS did. Sure the structure of the local church played a role in getting things going and it taking off, as they say, but its not like the structure of the church or the ability, based on that structure to make things happen, can be to blame. Afterall, the same type of structure is what gets LDS people out to help in times of disaster and need.
Some criticisms are severly disappointing to me, and this thread demonstrates nicely what is disappointing about these disappointing criticisms. I truly wish there was more substantive, more considered stuff, like pops up here every so often.
Go ahead, I'm listening.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I'm not sure expressing regret that it happened really counts as an apology
While the words "we are sorry" weren't mentioned, I believe the spirit of the talk was that of ammends. Besides, who, exactly would they be apologizing to?
I accept the talk as restitution and making ammends. I don't believe the words "we are sorry" must be spoken for ammends to be made.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo