Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

I am confused as to what violence has to do with anything I have been talking about. I definitely am not advocating violence. I am advocating for individually and collectively as a society calling out harmful/sinful behavior as such in the hopes that it will deter people from engaging in the harmful/sinful behavior, i.e. stigmatizing the behavior.

There is a fine line between stigmatization and violence. But calling out is a public act, what Christ did with the adulteress was not stigmatizing. What He did with the wealthy and perhaps even the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees that was potentially stigmatizing. But taking a Sister aside when you have authority to do so and telling her to go and sin no more, that is not stigmatizing. Hauling her in front of the public and pointing out to anyone and everyone that she was a slut, that would be stigmatizing.

[go_utes01]

There is a fine line between stigmatization and violence. But calling out is a public act, what Christ did with the adulteress was not stigmatizing. What He did with the wealthy and perhaps even the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees that was potentially stigmatizing. But taking a Sister aside when you have authority to do so and telling her to go and sin no more, that is not stigmatizing. Hauling her in front of the public and pointing out to anyone and everyone that she was a slut, that would be stigmatizing.

In every one of your examples you show stigmatization of the individual. Every time I have responded, I have told you that I do not agree with stigmatizing the individual, but rather stigmatizing the behavior. For example, we could have public pronouncement that certain behavior is harmful and discouraged (without even naming individuals), thus stigmatizing the behavior without stigmatizing the individuals. Thanks.

[Stone holm]

In every one of your examples you show stigmatization of the individual. Every time I have responded, I have told you that I do not agree with stigmatizing the individual, but rather stigmatizing the behavior. For example, we could have public pronouncement that certain behavior is harmful and discouraged (without even naming individuals), thus stigmatizing the behavior without stigmatizing the individuals. Thanks.

Yeah you can stigmatize some behaviors without stigmatizing a class of individuals. For example, I think the smoking example works. I think it is a pretty limited range, however, that doesn't automatically bleed over into stigmatizing the individual. Its not at all clear to me how you stigmatize unmarried sex without also stigmatizing the unwed mother, or stigmatize homosexuality without stigmatizing the homosexual individual.

[go_utes01]

Yeah you can stigmatize some behaviors without stigmatizing a class of individuals. For example, I think the smoking example works. I think it is a pretty limited range, however, that doesn't automatically bleed over into stigmatizing the individual. Its not at all clear to me how you stigmatize unmarried sex without also stigmatizing the unwed mother, or stigmatize homosexuality without stigmatizing the homosexual individual.

Much like the Church does currently. Public pronouncements that certain behaviors are harmful and unacceptable, while still empathizing and realizing that we are sons/daughters of Heavenly parents with infinite worth. The Church stigmatizes the behavior, but not the individuals.

[Tacenda]

I'm jumping in here and haven't read through every single post, but feel the news article below, about a heterosexual school principal abusing young boys for 35 yrs., says that pedophilias are not only gay men acting out on young boys. The majority of pedophiles that pick on young boys are heterosexual! One stigma I'd like to get out of circulation, especially out of the bloggernacle boards!!!

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=25360325

[Calm]

I'm jumping in here and haven't read through every single post, but feel the news article below, about a heterosexual school principal abusing young boys for 35 yrs., says that pedophilias are not only gay men acting out on young boys. The majority of pedophiles that pick on young boys are heterosexual! One stigma I'd like to get out of circulation, especially out of the bloggernacle boards!!!

http://www.ksl.com/i...48&sid=25360325

To be clear, pedophillias---if they are attracted to adults as well---some are not, are more often attracted heterosexually when it comes to adults even when they are homosexually attracted when dealing with children. Psychologists, I believe, make a point of using the term "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" only with attraction between adults or post puberty at least.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

The majority of pedophiles that pick on young boys are heterosexual!

http://www.ksl.com/i...48&sid=25360325

Male pedophiles who molest boys are by definition committing homosexual activity. Male pedophiles who molest girls are not. Pedophilia in and of itself is both homosexual and heterosexual but males who molest boys are by definition homosexual.

[thesometimesaint]

What about Jesus stigmatizing the action of the woman caught in adultery? Is that behavior something not to be encouraged. Calling her actions sinful and requesting that she sin no more seems to be the sort of stigmatization of actions of two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home that you would be against.

He didn't. He did not condemn her.

SEE John 8:3-11:

8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[go_utes01]

He didn't. He did not condemn her.

SEE John 8:3-11:

8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Thank you for making my point for me once again - Jesus DID NOT stigmatize her, but DID stigmatize the behavior (calling it sin).

[thesometimesaint]

Male pedophiles who molest boys are by definition committing homosexual activity. Male pedophiles who molest girls are not. Pedophilia in and of itself is both homosexual and heterosexual but males who molest boys are by definition homosexual.

True. But that is not what Tacenda is saying. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

[go_utes01]

True. But that is not what Tacenda is saying. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

But, aren't the vast majority of people heterosexual as well? I have no clue what the statistics are, but the relevant question would be relative to each group's population size, I think.

Edited May 29, 2013 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you for making my point for me once again - Jesus DID NOT stigmatize her, but DID stigmatize the behavior (calling it sin).

Hate the sin, but love the sinner. Would that we all could do that.

[go_utes01]

Hate the sin, but love the sinner. Would that we all could do that.

Well that is all I am calling for and have called for throughout this thread. That is the sort of social behavioral stigmatization I believe would be both effective and appropriate in helping our beloved brothers and sisters engaged in harmful behavior.

[thesometimesaint]

But, aren't the vast majority of people heterosexual as well? I have no clue what the statistics are, but the relevant question would be per capita I think.

The vast majority of people are heterosexuals. Between 1and1/2 and 2 percent are homosexual. However the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

[thesometimesaint]

Well that is all I am calling for and have called for throughout this thread. That is the sort of social behavioral stigmatization I believe would be both effective and appropriate in helping our beloved brothers and sisters engaged in harmful behavior.

However appropriate it is I don't know how effective it is. The last 6000's years of human history isn't all that encouraging.

[go_utes01]

However appropriate it is I don't know how effective it is. The last 6000's years of human history isn't all that encouraging.

Well doing/saying nothing, or even encouraging/glamorizing harmful behavior does not seem to be an effective solution either.

Edited May 29, 2013 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

Never said it did. Only that stigmatizing the individual is neither effective nor moral.

[USU78]

Never said it did. Only that stigmatizing the individual is neither effective nor moral.

There's no way you can establish the lack of effectiveness or morality of stigmatizing the arrogant, unrepentant noncomplier: Sometimes Cain has to go. It's as simple as that.

[thesometimesaint]

We seemed to have been real "good" at stigmatizing the descendents of Cain until 1978. Must have been because they were less than valiant in the Pre-Existence.

[USU78]

We seemed to have been real "good" at stigmatizing the descendents of Cain until 1978. Must have been because they were less than valiant in the Pre-Existence.

Right out of the Anti-Mormon playbook.

Nicely played.

Wanna start up something on Blood Atonement or MMM now?

[Calm]

Male pedophiles who molest boys are by definition committing homosexual activity. Male pedophiles who molest girls are not. Pedophilia in and of itself is both homosexual and heterosexual but males who molest boys are by definition homosexual.

I am not disagreeing, just presenting the current most popular (imo) professional approach from the link I posted above:

<a name="note2_text">Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men² is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-malemolestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

Another example of how language is changing in this context (I am not saying here the change is wrong, my opinion is that some changes have been good, others not so good).

BTW, from what I've read, it would seem that the mainstream professionals believe that the research demonstrates that the frequency of pedophilia occurs no higher among homosexuals than it does among heterosexuals (offenders per capita) but that there is also some concern with most research done about child molestations from the adult side because of the limited population they have to work with generally (those who have been caught and usually jailed) possibly resulting in skewed data.

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Right out of the Anti-Mormon playbook.

Nicely played.

Wanna start up something on Blood Atonement or MMM now?

Bruce R. McConkie said: Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others ....Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin (Moses 5:16-41; 12:22). Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood (Abraham 1:20-27). Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man. The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord....The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing.^[29]

Was Bruce R. McConkie an AntiMormon then, or was he an AntiMormon when he said: Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. ?

Was Mark E. Peterson an AntiMormon when he said: Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin.... In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.^[1]

We believe in Blood Atonement as does every Christian on earth. Christ had to die some 2000 years ago to atone for our sins.

The MMM incident was a travesty, and mocks the foundation of this Church. There is no defending its participants. I have seen no evidence that the Church was involved, but that a relative few hotheads did something incredibly evil.

Get back on topic if you want to stay in the thread.

[Stone holm]

Of all of the American religions we Mormons should be aware of the dangers and cruelties of socially stigmatizing a group of people. Interestingly, occasionally Christ made use of prevailing stigmas of His time to emphasise points, such as his choice of a Samaritan for the character portraying good deeds, or His intentional fellowship with Publicans. While stigma is a tool which is effective, its effectiveness depends upon an effective appeal to and application of humankind's more base nature. It replaces reason with a type of Pavlovian emotional conditioning. As a result, it can produce attitudes and actions from otherwise reasonable persons which are completely out of character for such persons and which are unreasonable given the context. The most obvious and notorious evidences in our times has been racism and antisemitism.