Calm

You likely have already done this at that age, but if they are up to it recording their memories or messages to family members, that would be a nice thing to do.

Also, much of the Journal was based off of shorthand notes taken by George Watts. I am spacing on her name, but a rare expert in this Pittman shorthand has been going back to the original shorthand and comparing the published text. There are significant, sometimes very significant differences. One reason appears to be George Watts decided to make Brigham sound more prophety, grander in speech than he really was. My opinion is he filled in some gaps as well with his own stuff or speculations. Brigham may or may not have cared as he cautioned about treating them as error free or finished. LaJean Carruth…that’s her name. Took a minute to percolate to the top. I belong to FAIR. Very proud we have got her to talk at our conferences. I love her opening, if you aren’t in the mood to watch the whole thing, watch it for the limerick at the beginning that summarizes her findings.

Going repetitively to “ugly” to attack my personal language choice rather than just keeping it at “wrong” or “inflammatory” seems like a gratuitous insult to me.

I may disagree with your own perception of your comments. I find it respectful to believe someone can change and therefore be willing to take the risk of calling them out to correct them. I assume that is why you posted given your usual posting rather than to just upset him.

So helpful to those who freeze when the spotlight shines even when prepared.

In one sense yes. How much we have allowed it to affect our behaviour outside of possibly making us even more passive and likely to freeze in difficult situations I have my doubts. We (women, but seriously everyone) need to be more consistent with serious and thorough thinking about what this data means and not treat it as superficial and unnecessary to dwell on in most cases as we have in the past in my experience. It is possible that women did take it more seriously in the past when the law and culture’s punishment for a rapist was often to marry his victim, giving him 24/7 access to her or ruin the woman for life while scolding the man (unless an marginalized minority) and it is only in the past one or two centuries where life had become safer and more stable in our culture at least as a whole that women here got out of the habit, but certainly my grandmother, mother’s and my generation set us up to ignore caution in favour of being social and accepted by males. I would love to see research on that.

This whole conversation is reminding me why I have moved to pushing to allow use of very assertive, even aggressive language in limited contexts when it comes to women’s concerns. From the beginning of the conversation my inclinations have been to compromise, move closer to smac and Danzo’s positions, trying to find things we can agree on, adjusting my own so it will be more acceptable and understandable, finding things to be complimentary about when it was appropriate so I showed I was listening and trying to understand and validate their experiences, adding “for me, imo, and “from my POV” rather than making outright assertions to show I crept there are other valid ways to look at this. Honestly, I haven’t seen from my POV any such inclination to do the same from their position (Danzo did give me a rep point, but did not engage for a post so I am wondering if it was because I said I saw him and Smac as sincere in wanting to protect women). I have tried for the most part to not position their comments as demonizing women’s efforts to be safe, but the constant theme from them seems to be I and others are using ugly, etc language. There is no way if this conversation was taking place in person I would not be intimidated, second guessing myself and my reasoning to the point I would at least back down publicly…especially since the very few times I have been able to be this assertive in public was in defending another from being verbally abused and the result was the abuse got worse. My experience confronting men in general has not been good, Iow. And that includes times that were high risk. I don’t see my tendency to accommodate as that protective in such situations. It seems instead to more likely get me in deeper. I hear of and see similar responses from women and girls enough to know I am not unusual in this. I have been able to develop the ability to survive relatively civil confrontation, including pressure to view my position as having no validity online because I have been given an anchor to trust myself by the long term support of others. They have essentially given me permission to believe in myself strongly enough not to allow other influences to overwhelm me…online. In person, I haven’t reached that point yet unfortunately. I think it’s very important to find some way to give women anchors to believe in themselves, to not doubt their own judgment so they do not replace their appropriate discomfort and reservations with passivity and submission. I think our culture is moving towards setting young women up to be more confident, but it isn’t there yet and the inertia from millennia of being told to submit is massive. I don’t see subtle or passive and accommodating approaches as moving that bulk that much. I can see the ongoing real life cost in having to endure harassment and assault in women’s lives. I have yet to see actual costs to men documented as opposed to possible costs speculated about. There are some personal anecdotes about having to be cautious around women as if that is something novel and dangerous to one’s health (if it is so awful, then why not the outrage for women having to constantly live that experience, why not support for women trying to get out of that rather than on the potential damage to men? Why not look for more effective ways…and show they are more effective rather than speculate about harm by one of the solutions women have come up with). And while those possible costs may involve some questioning of self esteem, I don’t see an equivalent to the documented damage—physical and emotional—that occurs to women in the speculated potential damage to men in being told there are women who view all men as potential rapists even if the men don’t understand the intent and take it to mean the most extreme interpretation.

I agree. That you put on it additional meanings, that it is “facially ugly and provocative and patently prejudiced” about how women and men should is inappropriate, imo.

Since you aren’t open to considering a different interpretation than the emotional one you have put in it, there is no point to me repeating my plain and direct and logical interpretation.

But this doesn’t mean assuming women will react the same way as you will in such a situation. For example, in a situation where a man will no longer trust another, it’s more likely a woman will. Therefore there typically needs to be more reasons or stronger ones for a woman to step back and reconsider and recognize untrustworthiness. Men need to make the effort to recognize the variety and strengths of the influences women have on them that push them to be accepting of unsafe situations.

Since you are comfortable with using AI for information, here’s an AI summary about why too many women choose politeness over personal safety even these days…. And you appear to be insisting politeness and consideration of men’s feelings is still the better way to go.

Not really. I am only including additional info because you and others have insisted it means something else than it does. Because you are ignoring the real life experience of women being told for eons to ignore or suppress their negative and natural responses towards men, uncomfortable warnings in favour of being kind, accepting, even flattering rather than cautious and neutral. Even being cautious has been framed as be sure to be courteous and smiling so as not to trigger anger or rejection. We also have biological programming in that regard to overcome as awareness of greater strength can too often lead to submissiveness rather than distancing. We are even more likely to trust than men even when it’s been shown that’s not wise.** It’s easier to overcome that programming if we start at a distance. We (girls) were taught in my youth all the situational awareness stuff you have mentioned with pretty much the way you have described it. Every school district I was in and college I have encountered taught it. And yet date rape was not uncommon. Engaging strong emotion can be effective way to change behaviour. **https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114001437

If we were already programmed to see Muslims as safe and we should just go along with anything they do without questioning, that would be different. It’s a slander because of all the stuff that’s already attached to it, especially by those who promote such comments. While there is a small segment of women who openly and strongly misanthropic, the vast majority of women are quite pro men as a starting point. This idea is often discussed in the context of behaviors during dating and other interactions that are seen as positive as well, so the surrounding context is quite different than what is typically being discussed when comments about Muslims being terrorists gets thrown out.

And how many times do I need to repeat why… Do you not believe there is strong programming, both biological and cultural for women to be passive and submissive to men? Do you not believe women have been telling their daughters for eons to be cautious around men? Do you not see how the first could negate the second if it’s not taught in a way that really gets imprinted?

Yep. So why are you and others adding so much nuance to it? Honestly, this reads to me like I am encouraging using a defensive driving course that points out other drivers might be dangerous, so it is wise to be prepared and being told that is going to make me and other women afraid of driving and hating cars and drivers in general rather than better drivers who are quicker to spot a car moving the wrong way and better prepared to react to it.

That’s a beautiful way of putting what is a fundamental need for so many.

That is as effective in getting them to reconsider natural and programmed impulses to be passive and accepting before it’s wise to be.

It does need to be about you because it’s you who are choosing to interpret a factual observation about the unknown internal state of people into something that is ugly and prejudicial instead of taking into account how it can also be used without all the emotion you are attaching to it.

And adding information that leads us to not jump to conclusions, but to take more time to assess both makes sense to me. And given that assessment reaction is on the instinctual level, it needs to be a strong piece of data to push us into spending more time assessing imo, especially when so much of our culture pushes us to go with impulse and emotion rather than discipline and reason.

But you don’t understand what that means to them, only how you interpret it, even after it’s been explained to you (it includes also seeing you as a potential good guy, it’s a position more of neutrality, more withholding judgment than accusation).

Right, that’s pretty much is the only info I can think of we believe is revealed and I see that as pretty vague. Was the Father also persecuted, was his life threatened, or were those of his world more receptive? Was he born in a time where there was little tech or higher tech so he himself was able to bring the Gospel to his world at that time. Did he die young or old? Married or not?Given the details of the Father’s life not only depended on his choices, but the choices of those around him which we have no information on, I don’t believe we can extrapolate much beyond what you have said. Did Jesus do everything he saw the Father do or only those things his circumstances allowed?

If you read the rest of my post, it explains.

Would love to get some feedback from Danzo and Smac so I know if I am on the right track or not. I have no doubt this subject is going to come up again and I hate the idea we might have to start from square one again and therefore never come to a clear understanding of what the other is actually thinking.

So good to hear.

No, I don’t believe that. Given what I see in manuals in the last 25 years, I think they try to use scripture as much as possible to support teachings and if an belief is not fleshed out in scripture, it may not get discussed in detail. Speculation is much less present in manuals as well now than it was in the past….which I very much approve of. And God the Father as a mortal is not detailed in scripture or imo official sources for labeled revelation. I also think with the misrepresentations that have been done by antis, they are more careful in how this is taught in official publications, including conference. I don’t think it’s about looking more mainstream, but an overall approach to keep to the better supported basics when teaching. Functionally it may often end up looking the same, but the purpose is quite different imo….just as me cleaning my house because I love order is not anywhere close to me cleaning my house so I won’t be embarrassed when others come over, but it looks identical with a very clean house.