Mormons being distracted by body/perfectionism issues?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Your tongue is getting in the way of my cheek 

Why I would never.  How dare you insinuate I do that with my tongue

Edited September 15, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Oh my goodness stem, this is insane.  I provided the exact quotes where he said those things.  I'm done.

You did not.  Not at all.  YOu claimed he said "You asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members".  Nothing you quoted from him said that all decisions by members are influenced by the shame caused by societal pressures. 

[Johnnie Cake]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Those were his words, that's why i accused him of saying it.

He said, and I quote-"You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members."

This is seriously getting silly.  I don't want to spend even a second more thinking about Johnnycakes or his accusations or characterizations of the church anymore.  Let's all move on.

Actually when I used the word "all" I was quoting you

[BlueDreams]

36 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Actually when I used the word "all" I was quoting you

She said that the truths found in the doctrines should influence all our decisions. Your statement is not an accurate summation.  

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You did not.  Not at all.  YOu claimed he said "You asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members".  Nothing you quoted from him said that all decisions by members are influenced by the shame caused by societal pressures. 

Stem. This is absolutely ridiculous. NO ONE here has insisted that the church has no influence on our choices or culture while arguing against what Johnnie has said. NO ONE. I dare you to find the person in this thread who said church influence and/or culture doesn't have a play in our decisions. That wasn't the problem with what Johnnie had started to capitulate and then very recently (1-3 pages) begin to soft pedal as others have grown irritated that he was mansplaining and insisting that he knew BB's mind better than BB does. The problem was that he was capitulating the WORST possible means of influence on everybody everywhere over earrings. The worst including "silent" shaming (whatever that is), pressure, neighbors backbiting and spying on each other etc. That isn't influence that's social coercion.  He was so dogmatic about it being some form of social coercion bringing about changes in earring usage that he insisted that BB's decision had to have some of that in there and she was just not fessing up to it. 

Johnnie spoke in all-or-nothings, consistent extremes in descriptions, and placing this negative and dark cloud over any who happens to have removed multiple piercings (and feasibly those who don't have any/1 set). And then he level switched his vocabularly to try and insist BB really agrees with him about this, without changing any of his previous extreme statements and is acting like admitting influence was really the problem.  When that was never the problem, since just about everybody was admitting influence to some degree of another in the midst of these several pages.

I personally hate when people use my words and opinions to insist I believe something I don't. No one likes that. How is this suddenly acceptable? This hijack started from extreme rhetoric with anectdotal evidence at best, mind-reading, mansplaining, and over generalizations by JC. THAT is the problem all of us are criticizing him on.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 15, 2017 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

She said that the truths found in the doctrines should influence all our decisions. Your statement is not an accurate summation.  

Stem. This is absolutely ridiculous. NO ONE here has insisted that the church has no influence on our choices or culture while arguing against what Johnnie has said. NO ONE. I dare you to find the person in this thread who said church influence and/or culture doesn't have a play in our decisions. That wasn't the problem with what Johnnie had started to capitulate and then very recently (1-3 pages) begin to soft pedal as others have grown irritated that he was mansplaining and insisting that he knew BB's mind better than BB does. The problem was that he was capitulating the WORST possible means of influence on everybody everywhere over earrings. The worst including "silent" shaming (whatever that is), pressure, neighbors backbiting and spying on each other etc. That isn't influence that's social coercion.  He was so dogmatic about it being some form of social coercion bringing about changes in earring usage that he insisted that BB's decision had to have some of that in there and she was just not fessing up to it. 

Johnnie spoke in all-or-nothings, consistent extremes in descriptions, and placing this negative and dark cloud over any who happens to have removed multiple piercings (and feasibly those who don't have any/1 set). And then he level switched his vocabularly to try and insist BB really agrees with him about this, without changing any of his previous extreme statements and is acting like admitting influence was really the problem.  When that was never the problem, since just about everybody was admitting influence to some degree of another in the midst of these several pages.

I personally hate when people use my words and opinions to insist I believe something I don't. No one likes that. How is this suddenly acceptable? This hijack started from extreme rhetoric with anectdotal evidence at best, mind-reading, mansplaining, and over generalizations by JC. THAT is the problem all of us are criticizing him on.

 

With luv,

BD

That was a whole lot of splainin.   I'm Not talking about any of that.  I just pointed out that bluebell mischaracterized what Johnnie said.  Her quotes from him don't say what she has claimed.  Clearly.  All of this that you are talking about has not been something I've commented on.  Take care ms dreams.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You did say all of our decision should be influenced by the Church.  Quoting you, "if the truth claims and doctrines don't influence all of our decisions in some way, there's no spiritual reason to be a member".  Unless I suppose you saying there is no spiritual reason for you to be a member.  I am saying in response, I don't think there is any reason to be so absolute or dogmatic.  I for one admit that I make decisions all the time that are not influenced by the truth claims and doctrines of the Church at all.  And yet, in contradiction to your claim, I still find spiritual reasons to be a member. 

I don't know why you are injecting this "only be influenced by the church" comment.  That was not part of the conversation--not what I was addressing.   

I said that church should influence all of our decisions.  And I think it should.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I said that church should influence all of our decisions.  And I think it should.

THis is tough, bluebell.  I just quoted the words you used, exactly.  I keep doing that and you being very evasive about those words and stating something quite different then what I quote.  You didn't just say "the church should influence..." but that "if the doctrines and teachings don't influence all..." 

There's a big difference, no?  I pointed out, very clearly, I thought, why I disagreed with your initial claim.  I wouldn't care at all if all you were saying is that you think the Church should influence our decisions.  but again, that was not what I took issue with, at all.  Something entirely different. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

You did not.  Not at all.  YOu claimed he said "You asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members".  Nothing you quoted from him said that all decisions by members are influenced by the shame caused by societal pressures. 

JC-"had there NOT been societal pressure within the Mormon church to conform and had she actually had freedom of choice without this added pressure, I believe she would have continued to wear her multiple earrings as she desired...but it took the added societal consequences element to actually remove them and I'll add begrudgeningly...so YES I do not believe she is being honest with us nor herself....and while I don't expect her to admit it here on this board...this is what I believe to be true."

He's talking about me, by the way.  

Here's what else he said to me, when i told him that I specifically didn't remove extra earrings because i was worried about being shamed, "BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform."

JC-"You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members."

In these quotes JC asserts that societal pressure by members influences all the decisions of members by subjecting those who don't obey to shaming and judgement.  He said that my statement vindicated this assertion.  My statement did not prove this assertion true and therefore, did not vindicate him.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My joust with Bluebell stemmed from this...she asserted that this pressure didn't exist, that she was only motivated by a desire to follow the prophet, that this cultural expectation didn't factor into to her decision...

You really need to stop explaining what other people mean as you are rather bad at it.  It is so consistent it looks like intentional misrepresentation.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

JC-"had there NOT been societal pressure within the Mormon church to conform and had she actually had freedom of choice without this added pressure, I believe she would have continued to wear her multiple earrings as she desired...but it took the added societal consequences element to actually remove them and I'll add begrudgeningly...so YES I do not believe she is being honest with us nor herself....and while I don't expect her to admit it here on this board...this is what I believe to be true."

He's talking about me, by the way.  

Here's what else he said to me, when i told him that I specifically didn't remove extra earrings because i was worried about being shamed, "BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform."

JC-"You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members."

In these quotes JC asserts that societal pressure by members influences all the decisions of members by subjecting those who don't obey to shaming and judgement.  He said that my statement vindicated this assertion.  My statement did not prove this assertion true and therefore, did not vindicate him.

As he indicated he was quoting you in saying the Church influences all....  That is what you said.  But you are trying to say he said that shame influences all choices by all members.  There is a clear difference.  You have mischaracterized what he had said.  It seems to me you have misunderstood and have mischaracterized what he has said. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

You really need to stop explaining what other people mean as you are rather bad at it.  It is so consistent it looks like intentional misrepresentation.

I wish you had consistency and said this to bluebell.  She's the one who has claimed he has said that which he has not said. 

[juliann]

The only thing more fun than watching a mansplainer declare himself a feminist ally than watching two mansplainers tag teaming one woman as they tell her what she really said. Apparently, it does take two of them.....

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I think that what  bothers me the most is that at the time this was brought up, so many other important things were going on in the world and probably in the church as well.  To think that an extra pair of earrings or anything else like this deems so unimportant in a world of chaos.  Surely, there were more important things for the Lord to impair with his prophet.  White shirts, beards..earrings..how that helps in any spirituality or improve lives is a silly thing to me. 

The little day to day actions in our lives create the environment that allow us to have impact on greater, more important things.

Cleaning off the counter is a little thing, yet one who desires to create a delicious meal that could feed hundreds at a major fundraising event would be foolish to neglect such as it would cause a lower quality of meal at the very least and possibly food poisoning, that destroying the fine feelings the event was meant to nurture.

We nurture our spirituality through the little things so that when the great events occur we are prepared to receive them.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

THis is tough, bluebell.  I just quoted the words you used, exactly.  I keep doing that and you being very evasive about those words and stating something quite different then what I quote.  You didn't just say "the church should influence..." but that "if the doctrines and teachings don't influence all..." 

There's a big difference, no?  I pointed out, very clearly, I thought, why I disagreed with your initial claim.  I wouldn't care at all if all you were saying is that you think the Church should influence our decisions.  but again, that was not what I took issue with, at all.  Something entirely different. 

I have no idea why you are struggling so much with this.  I don't know if it's a reading comprehension thing or what is going on.  Maybe we are just talking past either other.  At this point i really don't care because it's not relevant to anything of importance to either of us.

There's no difference between saying "church (meaning its teachings and doctrines) should influence all of our decisions..." and "if the doctrines and teachings don't influence all of our decisions..."

Both are the statements say the same thing, just from different points of view (one from a perspective of the presence of influence and one from the perspective of the absence of influence).  

 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I really don't think you are representing his view anywhere near what he said.  

This is ironic.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As he indicated he was quoting you in saying the Church influences all....  That is what you said.  But you are trying to say he said that shame influences all choices by all members.  There is a clear difference.  You have mischaracterized what he had said.  It seems to me you have misunderstood and have mischaracterized what he has said. 

Yes, he quoted me, but he quoted me out of context and then implied that my quote agreed with his assertions, which was a clear misrepresentation of my words.  

I never said that the church influences all of our decisions by subjecting those who don't obey to shaming and judgement.  He said that, but I never said that.  I don't agree with his assertions.  

 

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 It does not say all women had to feel that shame. 

of course.  He's acknowledging what happened (shame was a result) while you seem to not acknowledge that by saying basically, "I guess it's possible someone felt shame". 

You are ignoring the fact that he accused her of feeling shame even when she denied it.  You need to include all the posts of the conversations, not just the ones being quoted later on.

She never denied it was possible that someone would feel shame.  She said that upfront.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea why you are struggling so much with this.  I don't know if it's a reading comprehension thing or what is going on.  Maybe we are just talking past either other.  At this point i really don't care because it's not relevant to anything of importance to either of us.

There's no difference between saying "church (meaning its teachings and doctrines) should influence all of our decisions..." and "if the doctrines and teachings don't influence all of our decisions..."

Both are the statements say the same thing, just from different points of view (one from a perspective of the presence of influence and one from the perspective of the absence of influence).  

 

 

what?  you have conflated two different discussions. 

You claimed JCake said something "You (Jcake) asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members.".  I challenged you, asking wherein did he say that all members decisions are influenced by shame brought on by societal pressure.  You responded with quotes from him.  But not one of which supported what you had said he said.  I still can't see one instance in which he said all decisions all members make are influenced by the shame brought on by societal pressure.  I ask, because while shame plays a role, no doubt, in member's decisions, like my own decisions, it's not all that drives my decisions.  I think it quite a stretch to say all decisions are influenced by such.  It seems like you were attributing to him a position he did not claim. 

In the meantime I challenged your statement "if the truth claims and doctrines don't influence all of our decisions in some way, there's no spiritual reason to be a member".  This was a whole different discussion.  I challenged this statement because as I thought about it, I realized many of my decisions have not been influenced by the doctrines and teachings of the Church.  I think many decisions I've made have nothing to do with the doctrines and teachings fo the Church and yet, I still am able to find spiritual reasons for Church. 

The whole thing about there being no difference between the two statements is meaningless.  I have not addressed this and don't care to.  it's moving goal posts in a way I've not seen here in a while.  I do not care if your two statements can work together or mean the same thing, or whatever. 

HOpe that helps.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

You are ignoring the fact that he accused her of feeling shame even when she denied it. 

That was not a part of my participation.  Why should I be required to acknowledge everything when all I was doing was pointing out the position she stated for him was not found in his comments? 

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to include all the posts of the conversations, not just the ones being quoted later on.

That makes no sense.  You and Bluebell seem bent on pointing out that Jcake is wrong about thinking shame influence Bluebell.  I have not commented on that, and have no obligation to at all. 

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

She never denied it was possible that someone would feel shame.  She said that upfront.

So?  That's not part of this either.  This is all about her mischaracterizing his position. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That was a whole lot of splainin.   I'm Not talking about any of that.  I just pointed out that bluebell mischaracterized what Johnnie said.  Her quotes from him don't say what she has claimed.  Clearly.  All of this that you are talking about has not been something I've commented on.  Take care ms dreams.

You can't take one or two posts out of a whole conversation and base your evaluation on that.  The conversation was a long, ongoing one where JCake misrepresented what Bluebell said as well as insisting she felt a certain way after she said she didn't.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is ironic.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about here, judging by your other comments. 

[Calm]

Just now, stemelbow said:

That makes no sense.  You and Bluebell seem bent on pointing out that Jcake is wrong about thinking shame influence Bluebell.  I have not commented on that, and have no obligation to at all. 

So?  That's not part of this either.  This is all about her mischaracterizing his position. 

The problem is that was part of the conversation that led to the comments you are commenting on.  They do not exist independently of what JCake said before, especially when he was summarizing the conversation.

She didn't mischaracterize his position if you would bother to go back and reread the conversation...and you repeating it won't change what was said.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

You can't take one or two posts out of a whole conversation and base your evaluation on that.

This is ridiculous.  I can to.  I read her post.  I realized, upon reading it, what she was claiming he had said was not what he had said, so I challenged her.  Why can't I do that?  What rules are you going on here? 

Just now, Calm said:

 The conversation was a long, ongoing one where JCake misrepresented what Bluebell said as well as insisting she felt a certain way after she said she didn't.

He may have misrepresented her.  I don't know.  I just pointed out where she misrepresented him.  She doesn't get a free pass because he did something first. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This is ridiculous.  I can to.  I read her post.  I realized, upon reading it, what she was claiming he had said was not what he had said, so I challenged her.  Why can't I do that?  What rules are you going on here? 

He may have misrepresented her.  I don't know.  I just pointed out where she misrepresented him.  She doesn't get a free pass because he did something first. 

She isn't getting a free pass because if you take his current posts in context with his previous posts, her representations are accurate.

You appear to think she has to ignore everything he said before and just respond to the current post as if none of the previous conversation existed?

That doesn't make sense.  Conclusions to arguments (in the sense of reasoning out something) are built on previous statements, they don't spring into being ex nihilo.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

The problem is that was part of the conversation that led to the comments you are commenting on.  They do not exist independently of what JCake said before, especially when he was summarizing the conversation.

She didn't mischaracterize his position if you would bother to go back and reread the conversation...and you repeating it won't change what was said.

If she didn't then kindly point me to the quote that suggests what she had suggested?  She was unsuccessful in providing such a quote. 

Here's what Bluebell said:

Quote

You (Jcake) asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members

I asked because I didn't catch that as being Jcake's point.  I didn't see it.  So it seemed she misunderstood.  I challenged her claim because I would disagree with this position myself.  I'm a member and I can assure him, and bluebell who claimed something offensive to me and which I challenged her on, that not all of my decisions are influenced by shame brought on by societal pressure of other members.  Not all of my decisions are influenced by the doctrines and teachings of the Church either.