Ruminations on "Thick Skins" and "Snowflakes"

[smac97]

First, let me define a few terms:

Quote

 

1. "Kindness"

• "{T}he quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate."

2. "Having a 'Thick Skin'":

• "Not easily offended."
• "{S}omeone who is not easily upset or insulted and who can take criticism well."
• "The ability to withstand criticism and show no signs of any criticism you may receive getting to you."
• "{A}ble to ignore personal criticism."

3. "Being a 'Snowflake'" (aka "Thin-Skinned"):

• "Oversensitive, especially to criticism or insult."
• "{E}asily bothered by criticism or insults : very sensitive."
• Snowflake: "An overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own."
• Generation Snowflake: "{A} term that refers to young people, typically university or college students, who seek to avoid emotionally charged topics, or dissenting ideas and opinions. This may involve support of safe spaces and trigger warnings in the university setting."

 

As members of the LDS Church, I think it is incumbent upon us to develop attributes fitting within the parameters of items 1 and 2 above.  We should be kind in our communications to others.  We should also be thick-skinned when we listen to others.  We should not be easily offended.  We should cope with slights and slurs, whether intended or accidental.  We should not respond in kind (FWIW, I've been working on this for myself for the past several weeks).

However, I am becoming concerned that some (many?) of us are developing attributes which comport to item 3 above.  In other words, some of us are becoming snowflakes.  I am concerned that some of us are becoming Snowflakes in the face of criticism and ridicule from the World.  This is bad.  Poor handling of criticism or insult weakens our resolve to keep our covenants, listen to the prophets, and obey God.  It makes us more susceptible to Going Along To Get Along.  It makes us more inclined to listen to the denizens of The Great and Spacious Building.

Moreover, becoming a Snowflake can harm the person's interactions with other members of the Church, and also hinder the cohesion we can and should be developing within the Church.  This is also bad.  In the main, I think the Saints are overwhelmingly kind and decent to each other.  I also think the talks given at General Conference, and also talks and lessons given during Sunday services, are replete with virtuous principles, beautiful truths, and Christlike love.  However, on occasion someone may say something in error, or out of turn, or thoughtlessly.  When that happens, we should be able to brush it off and move forward (if the statement is sufficiently improper or alarming, a bishop or other leader should probably be notified and corrective action taken).  But when we have become a Snowflake, then all of that goes out the window.  Or worse, becoming a Snowflake engenders a weird sort of entitlement, one in which the individual is at liberty to take offense where no offense was given or intended.

Consider, for example, this article I came across this morning:

Quote

Talking about marriage at church: Another sucky thing about being single and Mormon

I can’t think of a time when I have walked out of an LDS Sacrament Meeting. I have thanked my lucky stars for a well-timed bathroom request from my children. I have rewritten many a boring or offensive talk in my head (thank you, Elder Eyring’s dad for that sage advice). I have sought refuge in the smiles of nearby babies or discarded coloring books. But I haven’t ever just plain walked out. I wanted to this week but was prevented by the logistics of being the organist (the talk in question was the last talk of the meeting — perilously close to the closing hymn).

Being a divorced person in a marriage-centric church means you have to develop a thick skin. 

Wow!  Those talks about marriage must be really offensive!  The content must include horrible things, like calling on single or divorced persons to stand up in the meeting and submit to being heckled and ridiculed, perhaps even being pummeled with rotten vegetables.  They must have been forced to sit in the back rows of the room, each wearing a placard with a scarlet "S" ("Single") or "D" ("Divorced").  And then there must have been the obligatory Walk of Shame after the three hour block, where all single and divorced persons are ritually shunned and escorted from the building, in a matter not unlike this scene from Star Trek:

This would indeed be "sucky."

So let's continue with the article and see what parade of horribles the author had to endure:

Quote

There will be off-handed comments that push your buttons. There will be painful assumptions. There will be whole lessons that do not appear to directly apply to you. And I know divorced people aren’t the only people for whom this is true. The church is a group of imperfect people striving for perfection in an imperfect world (notice that’s two real-life imperfects to one hypothetical perfect). Sometimes, though, it just goes a bit too far.

"Off-handed comments?"

"Push{ed} buttons?"

"Painful assumptions"

"Lessons that do not appear to directly apply to you?"

These are the things that require a "thick skin?"

Um, no.  They only require that we refrain from being a bunch of Snowflakes.  That we not be easily offended.

Back to the article:

Quote

This Sunday, we had a visiting High Councilor speaking on the stake-assigned topic of marriage. That, in itself, is unremarkable. Mormons talk about marriage a lot. But having it be the sole topic of the main worship meeting (which is much harder to escape than, say, the Marriage & Family Relations class in Sunday School) where a segment of the congregation was not only unmarried but painfully unmarried seemed about as good an idea as a Father’s Day slide show at an orphanage.

...

I have spent my entire life in a male-centric world, generalizing from male examples. Maybe, just for once, men could sit down and generalize from me. That’s part of what was beyond the pale with this talk. I am so tired of generalizing from traditional-family/traditional-marriage examples. Maybe, just this once, Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood could listen to a story about a single mom and dig out the nugget that applies to them, too. The boilerplate comment at the front of the talk didn’t make me feel like the speaker was truly inclusive and thoughtful. It just highlighted the fact that the bulk of the talk wasn’t. This is not to say that talk of marriage or examples from traditional family situations should not be used, but if the principles are truly applicable more broadly, why not make the entire talk more broadly inclusive?

So talking about the importance of marriage = a Father’s Day slide show at an orphanage.

• "Your Honor, I'd like to submit the above as 'Exhibit A' in the case of Common Sense v. Snowflakiness."
• "So ordered."

Back to the article:

Quote

This brings us to the next issue: Even within the narrow scope of marriage, the talks were still more exclusive than inclusive. The tone was quite patronizing towards women, setting up a world where women were, as one sister in the ward put it, “hot house flowers” and not equal participants in marriage (or, I imagine, life). It was not patriarchy’s finest hour.  In fact, if patriarchy had a PR firm, I imagine they were cringing in the corner thinking, “No! No! Didn’t you get the memo? We aren’t so blatantly dismissive of women’s contributions anymore! And we absolutely don’t pat women on the head anymore. Think, man! Think!”

The final straw was a flippant remark that I have heard before, but not over the pulpit. It was a suggestion that men should take their wives out regularly because “it’s cheaper to pay for a weekly date than to pay for alimony!”  The principle is a good one — that we should allocate resources to nurture important relationships — but the presentation made light of a very painful situation. Thinking of my own journey to alimony, I sat on the front row with tears in my eyes, waiting to play the closing hymn.

Seriously?  This person is faulting the talk from the high councilor because a "flippant remark" (about dating being cheaper than alimony) triggered a private thought in her own mind about her own "journey to alimony" and resulted in "tears in {her} eyes" at this "final straw?"

• "Your Honor . . ."
• "Got it.  The foregoing statement is entered as 'Exhibit B'in the case of Common Sense v. Snowflakiness."

Back to the article:

Quote

After the meeting, I debated about cutting postlude short so I could catch the speakers and talk to them but decided against it.  As I was dashing to get my children to class, I passed them in the foyer and decided yet again against stopping. When I came across them a third time, I decided this was perhaps a gentle nudge to speak up, so I did. We spent a good chunk of Sunday School talking in the parking lot, and I was struck by how caring they were and how concerned they were about giving offense.  The intent to be thoughtful was 100 percent there. It just didn’t happen. I’m convinced that the disconnect sprung from lack of experience and empathy.

Exactly.  The speakers were concerned about giving offense.  They apparently did not actually give offense.  It was kindness and love all around.

And yet we're still reading an article that publicly finds fault with these good and decent people.  Not because the speakers said or did anything offensive, but because the author was easily offended.  Because she subjectively took offense where none was intended (nor objectively given).

Back to the article:

Quote

Interestingly enough, the joke about alimony was one that the speaker had heard from the stake president in one of their meetings, and he honestly didn’t seem to realize that the tone, approach, and humor of a small group meeting of married men wouldn’t be the best thing to use in a large group meeting of men, women, and children of varied circumstances.

Lesson learned.  Do not ever say anything that might in any way be susceptible to causing a bent or hurt feeling by anyone in the audience.

What an absurdity.  This isn't about kindness and thoughtfulness in our communications (things to which we should all aspire).  This is about pandering to Snowflakes.

Back to the article:

Quote

Later that day in Ward Council, the subject came up again. The bishop asked for suggestions for Sacrament Meeting topics, and after a long, fruitless silence, I said, “Could we take a break from the topic of marriage for a while? Today was kind of brutal.”

So talking about the importance of marriage "brutal."  As in " savage; cruel; inhuman . . . crude; coarse . . . harsh; ferocious . . . taxing, demanding, or exhausting."

What an absurdity.  Characterizing Sacrament Meeting talks in this way is not reasonable.  It is an expectation that everyone kowtow to the subjective daintiness of an individual, even if it means censoring a topic of vital importance in our day.  This is classic Snowflakiness.

Quote

It was gratifying to find that I wasn’t alone in my perception of the talks, in particular about the flippant alimony comment. What struck me most about the whole experience, though, was how one thoughtless, offensive encounter led to two encounters that were the very definition of caring and nurturing. A moment of potential exclusion led to a greater feeling of inclusion.

I'm glad a crisis was averted.  But it wasn't a necessary one in the first place.  It only arose because the author was acting like a Snowflake.

Quote

How easy it would have been to walk away after the meeting filled with righteous indignation and not look any further (and write this column, of course).  It was actually pretty uncomfortable to approach the speakers specifically and call them out on their remarks.

So listening to a well-intentioned talk about marriage justified "righteous indignation" against the speakers and "call{ing} them out on their remarks?"

• "Your Honor . . ."
• "Got it.  'Exhibit C' is entered."

This is absurd.  The author only addresses two options:

• Option A: The Snowflake "walk{s} away after the meeting filled with righteous indignation and not look any further"; or
• Option B:The Snowflake confronts the speakers and "call{s} them out on their remarks."

How about a Option C, which would be to not take offense where not was subjectively intended nor objectively given, and also to not resort to expectations of censorship of important topics? 

Quote

But as we talked, I recognized myself in them. ... We can all be thoughtless.

We can also be namby-pamby Snowflakes and expect everyone else to pander to subjective and absurd expectations (rather than, you know, grow up and not take offense where none is given or intended).

Quote

The real measure of a person is what we do next.

At last the author says something which I can strongly endorse.  But what the author did next was to find fault.  She was easily offended, even though no offense was subjectively intended or objectively given.  She expects members of the Church to censor topics not to her liking, even when such topics are of vital importance to members of the Church and to the world generally.  

This is absurd.  Thin-skinned.  Unbecoming.  Unworkable.

To reiterate: I think the Saints need to be both kind and thick-skinned.  I also think we need to avoid the "Snowflake" proclivity which has become popular in society.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 10, 2016 by smac97

[Rajah Manchou]

Wow, seems like that blog post really got under your skin. Pushed some buttons even.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Wow, seems like that blog post really got under your skin. Pushed some buttons even.

Nope.  And more to the point, I was not offended, nor have I called for the author's remarks to be censored.

So I'm not being a Snowflake.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

Client [Reclined on couch]: "And that's why yellow makes me sad, I see."

R. Lee Ermey, seated across from Client, notebook in hand, as "Therapist": "That's interesting.  You know what makes me sad?"

[Hardly enough time passes for a response]

R. Lee Ermey: "You do!"

[Client exhibits shocked expression at sudden outburst]

"Maybe we should chug on over to mamby-pamby land, where maybe we could find some self-confidence for you, you jack wagon!  Tissue?"  [Throws the box across the room in disgust]  "Cry baby!"

Why does Church so often seem to be an exercise in taking offense?  There's only one person who's a bigger fool than someone who takes offense when offense is intended.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hiccup!

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hiccup, hiccup!

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Rain]

I find it odd that you are saying we should be kind and then calling people snowflake and namby pamby. I get the definition of the words, but the connotations of the words are not kind. I've never heard those words used except as an insult. 

I do think people need to be less easily offended and not oversensitive. When I have heard people were offended at things I have said I have wished they would talk to me so I could help ease their pain. 

Right now I'm over sensitive on the topics of faith of moms, stripling warrior mothers and agency. I have left 2 meetings in tears the last couple of weeks. The thing that has helped me most to be more "thick skinned" is a woman who understood why I feel hurt when I hear those topics and doesn't try to make me feel ok about the topics. Her acknowledgement of my pain helps me to shed the pain and become stronger.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Rain
Getting rid of quote so we don't have to scroll through it.

[Duncan]

Don't get me started on divorce and the Church!  However, there are a lot of lonely marriages

[Rajah Manchou]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  And more to the point, I was not offended, nor have I called for the author's remarks to be censored.

So I'm not being a Snowflake.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well played : )

I actually enjoyed your post, just trying to not be so namby pamby about some of the things that rubbed me wrong.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

I find it odd that you are saying we should be kind and then calling people snowflake and namby pamby. I get the definition of the words, but the connotations of the words are not kind. I've never heard those words used except as an insult. 

This.

I think we all have our triggers and are overly sensitive regarding certain topics (some are different ones at different times of our lives).  Read almost any thread on here and you'll see this in action  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, let me define a few terms:

As members of the LDS Church, I think it is incumbent upon us to develop attributes fitting within the parameters of items 1 and 2 above.  We should be kind in our communications to others.  We should also be thick-skinned when we listen to others.  We should not be easily offended.  We should cope with slights and slurs, whether intended or accidental.  We should not respond in kind (FWIW, I've been working on this for myself for the past several weeks).

However, I am becoming concerned that some (many?) of us are developing attributes which comport to item 3 above.  In other words, some of us are becoming snowflakes.  I am concerned that some of us are becoming Snowflakes in the face of criticism and ridicule from the World.  This is bad.  Poor handling of criticism or insult weakens our resolve to keep our covenants, listen to the prophets, and obey God.  It makes us more susceptible to Going Along To Get Along.  It makes us more inclined to listen to the denizens of The Great and Spacious Building.

Moreover, becoming a Snowflake can harm the person's interactions with other members of the Church, and also hinder the cohesion we can and should be developing within the Church.  This is also bad.  In the main, I think the Saints are overwhelmingly kind and decent to each other.  I also think the talks given at General Conference, and also talks and lessons given during Sunday services, are replete with virtuous principles, beautiful truths, and Christlike love.  However, on occasion someone may say something in error, or out of turn, or thoughtlessly.  When that happens, we should be able to brush it off and move forward (if the statement is sufficiently improper or alarming, a bishop or other leader should probably be notified and corrective action taken).  But when we have become a Snowflake, then all of that goes out the window.  Or worse, becoming a Snowflake engenders a weird sort of entitlement, one in which the individual is at liberty to take offense where no offense was given or intended.

Consider, for example, this article I came across this morning:

Wow!  Those talks about marriage must be really offensive!  The content must include horrible things, like calling on single or divorced persons to stand up in the meeting and submit to being heckled and ridiculed, perhaps even being pummeled with rotten vegetables.  They must have been forced to sit in the back rows of the room, each wearing a placard with a scarlet "S" ("Single") or "D" ("Divorced").  And then there must have been the obligatory Walk of Shame after the three hour block, where all single and divorced persons are ritually shunned and escorted from the building, in a matter not unlike this scene from Star Trek:

This would indeed be "sucky."

So let's continue with the article and see what parade of horribles the author had to endure:

"Off-handed comments?"

"Push{ed} buttons?"

"Painful assumptions"

"Lessons that do not appear to directly apply to you?"

These are the things that require a "thick skin?"

Um, no.  They only require that we refrain from being a bunch of Snowflakes.  That we not be easily offended.

Back to the article:

So talking about the importance of marriage = a Father’s Day slide show at an orphanage.

• "Your Honor, I'd like to submit the above as 'Exhibit A' in the case of Common Sense v. Snowflakiness."
• "So ordered."

Back to the article:

Seriously?  This person is faulting the talk from the high councilor because a "flippant remark" (about dating being cheaper than alimony) triggered a private thought in her own mind about her own "journey to alimony" and resulted in "tears in {her} eyes" at this "final straw?"

• "Your Honor . . ."
• "Got it.  The foregoing statement is entered as 'Exhibit B'in the case of Common Sense v. Snowflakiness."

Back to the article:

Exactly.  The speakers were concerned about giving offense.  They apparently did not actually give offense.  It was kindness and love all around.

And yet we're still reading an article that publicly finds fault with these good and decent people.  Not because the speakers said or did anything offensive, but because the author was easily offended.  Because she subjectively took offense where none was intended (nor objectively given).

Back to the article:

Lesson learned.  Do not ever say anything that might in any way be susceptible to causing a bent or hurt feeling by anyone in the audience.

What an absurdity.  This isn't about kindness and thoughtfulness in our communications (things to which we should all aspire).  This is about pandering to Snowflakes.

Back to the article:

So talking about the importance of marriage "brutal."  As in " savage; cruel; inhuman . . . crude; coarse . . . harsh; ferocious . . . taxing, demanding, or exhausting."

What an absurdity.  Characterizing Sacrament Meeting talks in this way is not reasonable.  It is an expectation that everyone kowtow to the subjective daintiness of an individual, even if it means censoring a topic of vital importance in our day.  This is classic Snowflakiness.

I'm glad a crisis was averted.  But it wasn't a necessary one in the first place.  It only arose because the author was acting like a Snowflake.

So listening to a well-intentioned talk about marriage justified "righteous indignation" against the speakers and "call{ing} them out on their remarks?"

• "Your Honor . . ."
• "Got it.  'Exhibit C' is entered."

This is absurd.  The author only addresses two options:

• Option A: The Snowflake "walk{s} away after the meeting filled with righteous indignation and not look any further"; or
• Option B:The Snowflake confronts the speakers and "call{s} them out on their remarks."

How about a Option C, which would be to not take offense where not was subjectively intended nor objectively given, and also to not resort to expectations of censorship of important topics? 

We can also be namby-pamby Snowflakes and expect everyone else to pander to subjective and absurd expectations (rather than, you know, grow up and not take offense where none is given or intended).

At last the author says something which I can strongly endorse.  But what the author did next was to find fault.  She was easily offended, even though no offense was subjectively intended or objectively given.  She expects members of the Church to censor topics not to her liking, even when such topics are of vital importance to members of the Church and to the world generally.  

This is absurd.  Thin-skinned.  Unbecoming.  Unworkable.

To reiterate: I think the Saints need to be both kind and thick-skinned.  I also think we need to avoid the "Snowflake" proclivity which has become popular in society.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well you were doing well until you took to eviserating the bloggers comments because.... Well....you responded like what you call a Snowflake.  

But your advice to be more thick skinned and less a snowflake is good advice for anyone..........within our families, with friends, at work, in political situations, at church and so on. 

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  And more to the point, I was not offended, nor have I called for the author's remarks to be censored.

So I'm not being a Snowflake.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry.  Your words sounded like you were very offended.  Yea you were being a snowflake.  

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...Wow!  Those talks about marriage must be really offensive! ... 

Rather than criticizing those who are genuinely hurting, and whose chronic pain flares up even more so in occasional social settings (including family-minded church), I'd recommend that we take more thought to reflect on what they're actually going through.

If we've never had to be single, or divorced, or childless, or whatever might be outside the accepted/promoted norm...month after month, and year after year, then we perhaps don't come close to comprehending what it means to bear one another's burdens that they may be light/light, and to mourn with those who mourn.

Some such are not just wrestling with that ongoing pain/loss, but with the additional dissonance of the as-of-yet unfulfilled divine promises that such blessings will one day be theirs.

Rather than others being too easily offended, perhaps too many of us simply don't give enough of a damn about their ongoing pain.

My. Two. Cents.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

I find it odd that you are saying we should be kind and then calling people snowflake and namby pamby.

I intended these more as critiques of the mindset, not insults as to the overall character of individuals.

But I am open to correction.  How would you propose that I modify my language so that I can both A) address the "Snowflake" mentality which seems so problematic, and B) retain some measure of "kindness" in my communications?

Quote

I get the definition of the words, but the connotations of the words are not kind. I've never heard those words used except as an insult. 

Do you have a better noun/adjective in mind?  "Thin-skinned" is apt, but that's not exactly "kind," either.  It's not a pleasant attribute, so I'm not sure there is a "kind" way to describe it.

Quote

I do think people need to be less easily offended and not oversensitive. When I have heard people were offended at things I have said I have wished they would talk to me so I could help ease their pain. 

I respect and appreciate that.  But wouldn't it be even better for such folks to not be thin-skinned in the first instance (thus eliminating the need for sorting things out with you in the second instance)?

Quote

Right now I'm over sensitive on the topics of faith of moms, stripling warrior mothers and agency. I have left 2 meetings in tears the last couple of weeks. The thing that has helped me most to be more "thick skinned" is a woman who understood why I feel hurt when I hear those topics and doesn't try to make me feel ok about the topics. Her acknowledgement of my pain helps me to shed the pain and become stronger.

This is the sort of thing that is troubling to me.  You acknowledge that you are "over sensitive" about the above topic.  But then what?  "Acknowledgement of {your} pain," is nice, but what happens when someone chooses to not do so?  What if someone comes along and says something along the lines of "You are being too sensitive.  Toughen up.  Nobody was saying anything objectively offensive, and nobody was trying to hurt your feelings.  Don't take offense where none was objectively given nor subjectively intended.  Get over it."?  Would that unravel you?  Do you expect everyone to tiptoe around topics as utterly innocuous as "{the] faith of moms, stripling warrior mothers and agency?"  Do you expect others to censor their speech about topics which you subjectively and unreasonably dislike (again, you acknowledged that you are "over sensitive" about certain topics)?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well you were doing well until you took to eviserating the bloggers comments because.... Well....you responded like what you call a Snowflake.  

No, I didn't.  I did not take offense, nor did I call for the author's post to be censored (I provided a direct link to it, for pete's sake).

Can you see a difference between principled, reasoned disagreement and critique (which I did do) and acting like a Snowflake (which I did not do)?

Quote

But your advice to be more thick skinned and less a snowflake is good advice for anyone..........within our families, with friends, at work, in political situations, at church and so on. 

Thanks!

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry.  Your words sounded like you were very offended.  Yea you were being a snowflake.  

I was not offended (easily or otherwise), nor am I calling for censorship.  These are the key attributes of being a Snowflake.  

I wasn't I wasn't I wasn't!

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Rain said:

I find it odd that you are saying we should be kind and then calling people snowflake and namby pamby. I get the definition of the words, but the connotations of the words are not kind. I've never heard those words used except as an insult. 

I do think people need to be less easily offended and not oversensitive. When I have heard people were offended at things I have said I have wished they would talk to me so I could help ease their pain. 

Right now I'm over sensitive on the topics of faith of moms, stripling warrior mothers and agency. I have left 2 meetings in tears the last couple of weeks. The thing that has helped me most to be more "thick skinned" is a woman who understood why I feel hurt when I hear those topics and doesn't try to make me feel ok about the topics. Her acknowledgement of my pain helps me to shed the pain and become stronger.

I am offended by your sig line. It seems like a criticism of me for having quotes in my sig line. Please remove it so I don't have to scroll through it. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

Best way not to be offended at church or by the church is to not take it so seriously. It's just a church! No reason to care, honestly.

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am offended by your sig line. It seems like a criticism of me for having quotes in my sig line. Please remove it so I don't have to scroll through it. 

So stop being a snowflake and get over it. It doesn't matter if it hurts your feelings. Your hurt feelings are wrong. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac, I take your point and pretty much agree with it. 

But a while ago, an anti-Mormon on this board was making sport of calling me "Snowflake" because I took issue with his anti-Mormon comments. So there may be an eye-of-the-beholder element in this matter, a message I sought to convey in my satirical comment to Rain. 

[Jeanne]

I am a snowflake.  I am.  Though I may not stick up for myself alot..that sensitivity in a way helps me help others.  So..I don't know.  I may not say anything at work or in the past in the church..but I don't get mad...I get even.  I think  a lot of this goes back to the basic golden rule.  Do unto others as you would like done unto you..There are some things people say..that could put me down to their level..and I try not to do that.  I do feel and understand the feelings in the stories above.  As a single mom in a ward for a short time...it would be nice in a meeting if someone said...hey..you single women, you are remarkable and hold your heads up because you shoulder and do so much for your kids without the father in the home...way to go...!  How easy is that??  In my case, there really wasn't an atta boy...but so sorry you don't have the priesthood in your home.  Seriously, that didn't make me feel like any kind of good thing.

Edited to add:  Those single fathers out there get an atta boy from me!!

Edited September 10, 2016 by Jeanne

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, let me define a few terms:

As members of the LDS Church, I think it is incumbent upon us to develop attributes fitting within the parameters of items 1 and 2 above.  We should be kind in our communications to others.  We should also be thick-skinned when we listen to others.  We should not be easily offended.  We should cope with slights and slurs, whether intended or accidental.  We should not respond in kind (FWIW, I've been working on this for myself for the past several weeks).

However, I am becoming concerned that some (many?) of us are developing attributes which comport to item 3 above.  In other words, some of us are becoming snowflakes.  I am concerned that some of us are becoming Snowflakes in the face of criticism and ridicule from the World.  This is bad.  Poor handling of criticism or insult weakens our resolve to keep our covenants, listen to the prophets, and obey God.  It makes us more susceptible to Going Along To Get Along.  It makes us more inclined to listen to the denizens of The Great and Spacious Building.

Moreover, becoming a Snowflake can harm the person's interactions with other members of the Church, and also hinder the cohesion we can and should be developing within the Church.  This is also bad.  In the main, I think the Saints are overwhelmingly kind and decent to each other.  I also think the talks given at General Conference, and also talks and lessons given during Sunday services, are replete with virtuous principles, beautiful truths, and Christlike love.  However, on occasion someone may say something in error, or out of turn, or thoughtlessly.  When that happens, we should be able to brush it off and move forward (if the statement is sufficiently improper or alarming, a bishop or other leader should probably be notified and corrective action taken).  But when we have become a Snowflake, then all of that goes out the window.  Or worse, becoming a Snowflake engenders a weird sort of entitlement, one in which the individual is at liberty to take offense where no offense was given or intended.

Consider, for example, this article I came across this morning:

Wow!  Those talks about marriage must be really offensive!  The content must include horrible things, like calling on single or divorced persons to stand up in the meeting and submit to being heckled and ridiculed, perhaps even being pummeled with rotten vegetables.  They must have been forced to sit in the back rows of the room, each wearing a placard with a scarlet "S" ("Single") or "D" ("Divorced").  And then there must have been the obligatory Walk of Shame after the three hour block, where all single and divorced persons are ritually shunned and escorted from the building, in a matter not unlike this scene from Star Trek:

This would indeed be "sucky."

So let's continue with the article and see what parade of horribles the author had to endure:

"Off-handed comments?"

"Push{ed} buttons?"

"Painful assumptions"

"Lessons that do not appear to directly apply to you?"

These are the things that require a "thick skin?"

Um, no.  They only require that we refrain from being a bunch of Snowflakes.  That we not be easily offended.

Back to the article:

So talking about the importance of marriage = a Father’s Day slide show at an orphanage.

• "Your Honor, I'd like to submit the above as 'Exhibit A' in the case of Common Sense v. Snowflakiness."
• "So ordered."

Back to the article:

Seriously?  This person is faulting the talk from the high councilor because a "flippant remark" (about dating being cheaper than alimony) triggered a private thought in her own mind about her own "journey to alimony" and resulted in "tears in {her} eyes" at this "final straw?"

• "Your Honor . . ."
• "Got it.  The foregoing statement is entered as 'Exhibit B'in the case of Common Sense v. Snowflakiness."

Back to the article:

Exactly.  The speakers were concerned about giving offense.  They apparently did not actually give offense.  It was kindness and love all around.

And yet we're still reading an article that publicly finds fault with these good and decent people.  Not because the speakers said or did anything offensive, but because the author was easily offended.  Because she subjectively took offense where none was intended (nor objectively given).

Back to the article:

Lesson learned.  Do not ever say anything that might in any way be susceptible to causing a bent or hurt feeling by anyone in the audience.

What an absurdity.  This isn't about kindness and thoughtfulness in our communications (things to which we should all aspire).  This is about pandering to Snowflakes.

Back to the article:

So talking about the importance of marriage "brutal."  As in " savage; cruel; inhuman . . . crude; coarse . . . harsh; ferocious . . . taxing, demanding, or exhausting."

What an absurdity.  Characterizing Sacrament Meeting talks in this way is not reasonable.  It is an expectation that everyone kowtow to the subjective daintiness of an individual, even if it means censoring a topic of vital importance in our day.  This is classic Snowflakiness.

I'm glad a crisis was averted.  But it wasn't a necessary one in the first place.  It only arose because the author was acting like a Snowflake.

So listening to a well-intentioned talk about marriage justified "righteous indignation" against the speakers and "call{ing} them out on their remarks?"

• "Your Honor . . ."
• "Got it.  'Exhibit C' is entered."

This is absurd.  The author only addresses two options:

• Option A: The Snowflake "walk{s} away after the meeting filled with righteous indignation and not look any further"; or
• Option B:The Snowflake confronts the speakers and "call{s} them out on their remarks."

How about a Option C, which would be to not take offense where not was subjectively intended nor objectively given, and also to not resort to expectations of censorship of important topics? 

We can also be namby-pamby Snowflakes and expect everyone else to pander to subjective and absurd expectations (rather than, you know, grow up and not take offense where none is given or intended).

At last the author says something which I can strongly endorse.  But what the author did next was to find fault.  She was easily offended, even though no offense was subjectively intended or objectively given.  She expects members of the Church to censor topics not to her liking, even when such topics are of vital importance to members of the Church and to the world generally.  

This is absurd.  Thin-skinned.  Unbecoming.  Unworkable.

To reiterate: I think the Saints need to be both kind and thick-skinned.  I also think we need to avoid the "Snowflake" proclivity which has become popular in society.

Thanks,

-Smac

At first it sounded a lot like being thick skinned and a snowflake was like standing for truth as opposed to being politically correct. I agreed 100 percent until I saw where it was going. This is when I saw your complete lack of understanding what it is like to be divorced and still go to church.

I can completely understand where this blogger is coming from. Sure she is overly sensitive. It doesn't matter how thick your skin is, if someone grinds off your skin down to the bone it hurts, no matter how thick it was to begin with. Then when you go to a place where you want refuge from all the pain of having raw skin, letting the healing love of God in instead, you find that no matter what you try to do, you always feel like you are left out of loop in so many ways. It's a feeling of not belonging. Most people don't understand and it often feels like they are rubbing salt in the rawness.

When my kids were little, my wife left me and the kids. She didn't want to have to deal with all the responsibility of being a wife and mother. (Just for the record, now that it has been 12 years later, she has come a long way and is now very involved in their lives) I owned a machine shop, and decided to give it up in lieu of raising my children instead of having some kind of day care people raise them for me. My youngest was still in diapers. Needless to say, I was pretty poor for a decade or so, until the kids were old enough for me to be able to work more.

The church really isn't geared toward helping middle aged, single parents out very well. Most of the lessons aren't inclusive in helping either. As the blogger said, most of it is geared towards marriage, and complete families, and the relations that go along with it. Once I was even told during a bishop's interview that I needed to start dating and find a wife. I told him, "That's exactly what I would love to do, but what am I supposed to do? Not feed my kids so I can spend the money on a date or something instead?, or not pay a bill, just so I can pay for a dinner and movie for someone who might not even be around for very long?" I told him, "If you could find me some kind of sugar momma, that wouldn't mind paying for all the dates and baby sitters, I'll be all for it!" "Where do I find one of those?" He just chuckled as he realized that there was no way I was going to be finding a mate anytime soon. To this day I still feel like some kind of outcast in church. I can't really hang out with married couples much, because it is awkward for them unless it is just something for the kids to have fun together. Any adult time is usually spent with other couples in group date settings and things. Even if I am included in things I am always left feeling like an extra wheel.

Needless to say, there were times I went out into the parking lot to sit in the car during church because I couldn't get used to the feelings of not belonging in church. The few times when my kids actually were with their mother, because they would beg her to spend time with them, were usually on Sundays so she could keep them from going to church. I then found myself turning around in the parking lot of church and just going back home a lot of times, or not even going because I was having a hard time dealing with all of the feelings of not belonging, and all because of the raw feelings of being discarded in a divorce. I didn't ever imagine that I would ever be having to deal with something like that, since we were sealed in the temple and everything. Previous to the divorce I'm quite certain I never would have understood what it is like. Most people in church don't. I never have spoken up about it like the blogger has, because in all honesty, I can't for the life of me, figure out anyway for the church to handle these types of situations better. That doesn't negate the fact that the church definitely lacks in adequately helping people in these situations.

So before you compare someone who is going through something like this as being the same thing as people who are PC, or who think that getting offended by another is the worst thing that can happen. Perhaps you should see that there is a rawness to the flesh that doesn't allow for thick skin to even be there in the first place.

With my own experiences in this area. The best way I have found is to have the single person learn how to get closer to the Holy Ghost. To recognize and understand His voice better. The thing that allows me to remain a strong member, in spite of all the lessons, talks and actions of well meaning, yet completely misunderstanding people, are hearing and learning directly from the Holy Ghost. There are many times during insensitive lessons and talks that I can't even remember what was said by the teacher or speaker, because the Holy Ghost is taking the opportunity to give me my own personal revelation to learn and grow from, just because I am willing to try and sit through these lessons that have little to no bearing upon my particular situation.

So while I agree that people taking offense at nearly everything these days, in our PC indoctrinated world, is only serving to blind us from what truth is, and standing up for it. And while I agree that we do need to be thick skinned and stand for our values as opposed to what is being pushed upon everyone as okay to breach, and just deal with the ridicule and ignorant names you get called for doing so, like, "bigot," or, "racist," or something, this has nothing to do with what this lady is dealing with. Instead of ridiculing her as being some snowflake, perhaps you should look a little deeper to the outcry of very real pain that she is suffering, that the church isn't helping to ease very well. I have to admit that her criticisms aren't good, because they don't offer a better solution, since marriage and things are so central to the gospel message, but heck how many of us deal with our own pains perfectly when we are hurt far worse than we imagined we would ever be?

Let's be a Zion people. Not tear apart a person in her moment of pain and suffering, but instead to bare each others burdens.... one heart, one mind, and no poor among us, even if it is emotionally poor.

[Eek!]

Smac97 raises a valid issue (though I'd have probably chosen different wording).  The issue is of course much bigger than the church meeting example given. 

But if "developing a thick skin" means "learning to suppress your feelings", then it may not be the best solution for everyone involved. (Smac didn't actually say that thick skin = suppressed feelings; I just think it could seem to be implied.) 

I think there may be a solution that a) doesn't require anyone to suppress their feelings and b) at least theoretically allows us imperfect beings to live peacefully with one another, but it's going to take me some time to gather my thoughts and see if they add up to a worthwhile semi-coherent post.  

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Eek!

[Rain]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I intended these more as critiques of the mindset, not insults as to the overall character of individuals.

But I am open to correction.  How would you propose that I modify my language so that I can both A) address the "Snowflake" mentality which seems so problematic, and B) retain some measure of "kindness" in my communications?

Do you have a better noun/adjective in mind?  "Thin-skinned" is apt, but that's not exactly "kind," either.  It's not a pleasant attribute, so I'm not sure there is a "kind" way to describe it.

That's a good question. I'm not sure.

 Honestly, I rarely hear the use of "snowflake" in the way you defined it. Almost always I hear it in connection with "helicopter moms" which is more far reaching than your definition. Both are loaded terms. I'm inclined to think that "overly sensitive" fits better to what you are saying though it too has unkind connotations. Looking in the thesaurus I am not finding a good substitute.

Part of the problem from the terms is there is no clear definition so when people use them they, often unfairly, determine if someone else is sensitive enough to fit the term.  

For example if my son is killed last night in an auto accident and would have likely survived if he had worn his seatbelt am I over sensitive if someone says to me,  "People who don't wear seatbelts are stupid" and I cry? Some would say yes and some no.  But there are examples that don't seem so clear as is the case with me now.  The speakers are not saying insensitive things,  but how do you, general you, determine I am overly sensitive without me telling you and without you knowing my situation?

Quote

I respect and appreciate that.  But wouldn't it be even better for such folks to not be thin-skinned in the first instance (thus eliminating the need for sorting things out with you in the second instance)?

Well of course, but we are mortal and most of us haven't reached that point yet. And for some people that is their natural talent. Others not.

Quote

This is the sort of thing that is troubling to me.  You acknowledge that you are "over sensitive" about the above topic.  But then what?  "Acknowledgement of {your} pain," is nice, but what happens when someone chooses to not do so?  What if someone comes along and says something along the lines of "You are being too sensitive.  Toughen up.  Nobody was saying anything objectively offensive, and nobody was trying to hurt your feelings.  Don't take offense where none was objectively given nor subjectively intended.  Get over it."?  Would that unravel you?  Do you expect everyone to tiptoe around topics as utterly innocuous as "{the] faith of moms, stripling warrior mothers and agency?"  Do you expect others to censor their speech about topics which you subjectively and unreasonably dislike (again, you acknowledged that you are "over sensitive" about certain topics)?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Just because I am over sensitive it does not mean I unreasonably dislike these subjects. There are very good reasons why I don't like the topics now. That also doesn't mean that they are bad topics. On the contrary, I do think they are good topics.

I also recognize that others got a lot out of the talks and lessons of the last few weeks. In fact, people having been raving over them. I've not said a thing to these people as I do not want to take away from their edification.

What I have done is talked with people that know my situation and ask how I am doing and most have in a sense told me to get over it. It's kind of like having a splinter that is infected and the doctor says to just get over it without recognizing it is there and helping me remove it.  When people tell me that they understand why those topics cause me pain then it is like helping me find the splinter amidst the infection and gives me courage to work on removing it. If no one does then Heavenly Father can,  but like President Kimball, I find He usually meets my needs through those around me.

I try to do that for others.  I do sensor my words being aware of this. That doesn't mean that I change everything, but sometimes things I say really are insensitive or there are patterns that become too much for someone or words come at the wrong time. I want to know about these times when I am insensitive or less sensitive so I am not a burden to others. I assume good in others and figure they feel the same way so I talk on occasion to "offenders*" if I feel something is a problem, especially if I see a pattern. eta: Hopefully together we can ease the pain for others.

* I don't like that word here,  just not coming up with another. 

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Rain

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am offended by your sig line. It seems like a criticism of me for having quotes in my sig line. Please remove it so I don't have to scroll through it. 

Done.