Mormons being distracted by body/perfectionism issues?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

So 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.

of course.  She made a claim about what he is saying.  It's only fair she supports her claim.  Can we each just start making up stuff and saying the other person said it without addressing that which we make up?  This is nonsense, Calm. If the people were switched, you'd be all over the person who claimed Bluebell said something she did not say. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.

Nope, I didn't conflate two different discussions.  If you had read the entire thread, you'd know that.

[ALarson]

18 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. 

I hesitate to jump in here (with all the mansplaining and womansplaining flying back and forth ), but I think that both bluebell and JC made good points and I found myself agreeing with both of them at different times.

Maybe they just need to back up and both restate what their views and beliefs are here regarding the topic because this has become ridiculously confusing.  

I'm also not sure why this is a man vs. woman topic or discussion, but it feels that it's digressed into being one.

I have my own views on the topic as well, but I will not state them at this time (with all the confusion already)!

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

Nope, I didn't conflate two different discussions.  If you had read the entire thread, you'd know that.

Yes you did, obviously.  I pointed out how exactly.  I offered the quotes and all that.  I started two conversations with you.  You used one quote from each and said that they mean the same thing.  What does that have to do with anything I've said?  Exactly nothing. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I hesitate to jump in here (with all the mansplaining and womansplaining flying back and forth ), but I think that both bluebell and JC made good points and I found myself agreeing with both of them at different times.

Maybe they just need to back up and restate what their views and beliefs are here regarding the topic as this has become ridiculously confusing.  

I'm also not sure why this is a man vs. woman topic or discussion, but it feels that it's digressed to being one.

I have my own views on this as well, but I will not state them at this time (with all the confusion already)!

 

I would love that.  But I don't think that's happening.  I want out, in a sense, for sure.  I have no idea how this keeps getting all twisted up into something it never was. 

It's gotten ugly. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would love that.  But I don't think that's happening.  I want out, in a sense, for sure.  I have no idea how this keeps getting all twisted up into something it never was. 

It's gotten ugly. 

I just find it ironic that it's ironic when another man shows up (or two now).  But, it was ok when JC was being ganged up on by 3 (or more) women.  (I'm saying that pretty much tongue in cheek actually, but that's probably how JC felt....and I did have a laugh over it).

Once again though, I really don't believe this should be a male vs. female discussion and it's too bad it has spiraled down into one as I do agree with points from both views expressed.

Edited September 15, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Yes you did, obviously.  I pointed out how exactly.  I offered the quotes and all that.  I started two conversations with you.  You used one quote from each and said that they mean the same thing.  What does that have to do with anything I've said?  Exactly nothing. 

Here is the chain of posts-

I posted to marginal gains that church should influence all of our decisions.  Johnnycakes quoted that line (said to Marginal Gains not to Johnnycakes) and said I vindicated him.  That's how Johnnycakes got involved with something I said to Marginal Gains.

HappyJackWagon commented on my post to Marginal gains. You commented on one of my replies to HJW.  I responded to you comment.  That's how you got involved with something I said to Marginal Gains.

The entire conversation stems from a statement that I made to Marginal Gains.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just find it ironic that it's ironic when another man shows up (or two now).  But, it was ok when JC was being ganged up on by 3 (or more) women.  (I'm saying that pretty much tongue in cheek actually, but that's probably how JC felt....and I did have a laugh over it).

Once again though, I really don't believe this should be a male vs. female discussion and it's too bad it has spiraled down into one as I do agree with points from both views expressed.

I haven't seen it that way, until bluedreams brought up genders.  just people disagreeing. 

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I'm also not sure why this is a man vs. woman topic or discussion, but it feels that it's digressed to being one.

I have my own views on the topic as well, but I will not state them at this time (with all the confusion already)!

 

A man  repeatedly tells a woman he knows what she is really thinking , as in she is not aware of her own thoughts, and then calls himself a feminist ally and you don't know why it became a man/woman thing? Really? How bad does it have to get to recognize how incredibly sexist that is? 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just find it ironic that it's ironic when another man shows up (or two now).  But, it was ok when JC was being ganged up on by 3 (or more) women.  (I'm saying that pretty much tongue in cheek actually, but that's probably how JC felt....and I did have a laugh over it).

Once again though, I really don't believe this should be a male vs. female discussion and it's too bad it has spiraled down into one as I do agree with points from both views expressed.

How should a woman react when she is told by a self-proclaimed feminist ally that he knows a woman's inner thoughts better than she does? Should she do the socialized woman thing and apologize, as Stem demands? Should she do everything possible to accommodate the male's feelings....or should she just go silent?

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't seen it that way, until bluedreams brought up genders.  just people disagreeing. 

What did you think of Cake calling himself a feminist ally? Or don't you see feminist as gendered? 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I hesitate to jump in here (with all the mansplaining and womansplaining flying back and forth ), but I think that both bluebell and JC made good points and I found myself agreeing with both of them at different times.

Maybe they just need to back up and restate what their views and beliefs are here regarding the topic as this has become ridiculously confusing.  

I'm also not sure why this is a man vs. woman topic or discussion, but it feels that it's digressed to being one.

I have my own views on the topic as well, but I will not state them at this time (with all the confusion already)!

 

It got sidetracked when Johnnycakes told me i was not being honest about why I took out my second set of earrings. He said that I took them out because i was worried about being shamed, and that I knew he was right but didn't want to admit it. When confronted about whether or not it was appropriate for a man to be telling a woman why she decided not to wearing multiple earrings, he claimed to be a feminist.  That was the beginning of the 'mansplaining' rabbit hole.  But you're right, this topic is not man vs. woman.

My position is that while I have no doubt that some women might have removed their earrings because they were worried about being shamed, that not all women were concerned about that or had that play into their decision.

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

How should a woman react when she is told by a self-proclaimed feminist ally that he knows a woman's inner thoughts better than she does?

Ok...I must have missed that (I do admit that I skimmed some posts as they were going back and forth).  Can you quote where JC "told" bluebell that he knew her "inner thoughts better than she does"?  If he stated that, then he went too far and I agree with you.

[Tacenda]

Just now, bluebell said:

It got sidetracked when Johnnycakes told me i was not being honest about why I took out my second set of earrings. He said that I took them out because i was worried about being shamed, and that I knew he was right but didn't want to admit it. When confronted about whether or not it was appropriate for a man to be telling a woman why she decided not to wearing multiple earrings, he claimed to be a feminist.  That was the beginning of the 'mansplaining' rabbit hole.  But you're right, this topic is not man vs. woman.

My position is that while I have no doubt that some women might have removed their earrings because they were worried about being shamed, that not all women were concerned about that or had that play into their decision.

 

At the time I think I truly didn't want to stand out as someone that doesn't listen to the prophet. Because you can't help but show it out in public. I surely didn't think there was anything wrong with it. So I was shamed into it. Never thought of it like that before Johnnie brought the word up, but I guess it works. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Here is the chain of posts-

I posted to marginal gains that church should influence all of our decisions.  Johnnycakes quoted that line (said to Marginal Gains not to Johnnycakes) and said I vindicated him.  That's how Johnnycakes got involved with something I said to Marginal Gains.

HappyJackWagon commented on my post to Marginal gains. You commented on one of my replies to HJW.  I responded to you comment.  That's how you got involved with something I said to Marginal Gains.

The entire conversation stems from a statement that I made to Marginal Gains.

No.  here is your quote that I challenged from the outset:

Quote

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

This was in response to Johnnie, not Marginal Gains.  How do I know that?  Because you quoted Johnnie Cakes when you said this.  Here's what you quoted from him:

Quote

You've confirmed what I was asserting...that the church influences all of the choices of its members....but if you didn't mean that then you'd be correct and I misspoke   

So you will note, Johnnie was feeling like some headway was made wherein you indicated all our decisions should be influenced by the Church.  But as you can see, I hope, you claimed his position was the all decisions made by members is influenced by shame brought on by societal pressure of other members.  What Johnnie actually said and thought you were in agreement with is that all choices are influenced by the Church. 

This to me, at bottom, is very simple.  I don't know how you conflated two different conversations and suggested I was challenging that a quote from each conversation didn't match or something.  it appeared you way mixed that up.  And again here.  It is quite clear I responded to something you said to Johnnie, yet you think it was something you said to Marginal Gains.  You again, seem to not really know what has been said to whom, and under what circumstance. 

All I'm trying to do is clarify a few things, in the end.  Instead I got a lot of belligerence, it seems to me.  I honestly don't think you really believe Johnnie said that.  That what you summarized is what he said.  I honestly don't think you really think I, for instance, can't have a spiritual reason to be a member if I don't base all my decisions on the doctrines and teachings of the Church.  When I challenged you, I thought, it'd lead to something interesting.  Instead I got a lot of belligerence.  It's too bad. 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Ok...I must have missed that (I do admit that I skimmed some posts as they were going back and forth).  Can you quote where JC "told" bluebell that he knew her "inner thoughts better than she does"?  If he stated that, then he went too far and I agree with you.

You probably posted while BB did. See above. And he not only did it once, he did it repeatedly, thus the many posts chuckling over the hole he was digging.  You should be able to easily find it.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

What did you think of Cake calling himself a feminist ally? Or don't you see feminist as gendered? 

I think it's fine that he's an ally.  But more comment on that.  I used to say I was a feminist.  Then a woman who was a feminist took me to task, saying you should call yourself an ally, and not really a feminist.  So I've tried to keep in line in that regard.  It's tough though because at bare minimum I support the notion that women should have every opportunity and privilege as men--that women should be given equal consideration.  In that I am a feminist, by definition. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It got sidetracked when Johnnycakes told me i was not being honest about why I took out my second set of earrings. He said that I took them out because i was worried about being shamed, and that I knew he was right but didn't want to admit it.

Ok.  I agree that only you should be able to explain or express why you removed your second set of earrings.   I've always found you to be extremely fair and honest here.

The body shaming part of JC's argument is what I pretty much disagree with anyway.  I'm not saying that might not happen in the church at times, but from my experience at the time, most of the girls and women I personally knew who went home and removed their earrings did that out of obedience.  I do think some may have not immediately removed them, but eventually did as time went on (possibly because of peer pressure or possibly because they wanted to be obedient).  I also think that peer pressure prevented/prevents some from ever getting a second or more set of earring (or again, obedience).

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

At the time I think I truly didn't want to stand out as someone that doesn't listen to the prophet. Because you can't help but show it out in public. I surely didn't think there was anything wrong with it. So I was shamed into it. Never thought of it like that before Johnnie brought the word up, but I guess it works. 

Thanks, Tacenda.  I think what you describe seems to be exactly what Johnnie was saying. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok...I must have missed that (I do admit that I skimmed some posts as they were going back and forth).  Can you quote where JC "told" bluebell that he knew her "inner thoughts better than she does"?  If he stated that, then he went too far and I agree with you.

He asked me if i took out my second set of earrings because I was worried about what other members would think.  I said no, that wasn't why.  Then he said-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.

He also said this, about me, to another poster-

"I believe that following the prophet was certainly the initial motivation....but 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."  

Then he said-

"I stand by my statement and Bluebell KNOWS I'm speaking the truth ...while I don't expect her to admit it here."

I think the whole man vs woman thing also came from his post where he said "I'm tied of Pusey footing around on this board always having to self edit and use nuanced and diplomacy...I'm just going to tell it like I see it.  I'll probably be  banned but at this point I don't care...somebody has to stand up, be a man and tell it like it is. While it is my desire to remain a poster here on this board...because I do enjoy the exchange...I'm going to retain my self respect and throw caution to the wind...and If that happens to me for being honest and telling the truth...so be it."

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

All I'm trying to do is clarify a few things, in the end.  Instead I got a lot of belligerence, it seems to me.  I honestly don't think you really believe Johnnie said that.  That what you summarized is what he said.  I honestly don't think you really think I, for instance, can't have a spiritual reason to be a member if I don't base all my decisions on the doctrines and teachings of the Church.  When I challenged you, I thought, it'd lead to something interesting.  Instead I got a lot of belligerence.  It's too bad. 

And here we go again. And note the sexist language.  Manly Stem challenges, BB is just belligerent.  

I can go on forever about gendered behavior. And I mean forever, sourced, referenced, the whole thing.  And I will be bookmarking this thread to add to it. It is that bad.

Edited September 15, 2017 by juliann

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

You probably posted while BB did. See above. And he not only did it once, he did it repeatedly, thus the many posts chuckling over the hole he was digging.  You should be able to easily find it.

No need if what bluebell explained is what actually happened (and I'll take her word).  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He asked me if i took out my second set of earrings because I was worried about what other members would think.  I said no, that wasn't why.  Then he said-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.

He also said this, about me, to another poster-

"I believe that following the prophet was certainly the initial motivation....but 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."  

Then he said-

"I stand by my statement and Bluebell KNOWS I'm speaking the truth ...while I don't expect her to admit it here."

I think the whole man vs woman thing also came from his post where he said "I'm tied of Pusey footing around on this board always having to self edit and use nuanced and diplomacy...I'm just going to tell it like I see it.  I'll probably be  banned but at this point I don't care...somebody has to stand up, be a man and tell it like it is. While it is my desire to remain a poster here on this board...because I do enjoy the exchange...I'm going to retain my self respect and throw caution to the wind...and If that happens to me for being honest and telling the truth...so be it."

Got it.  Thanks (I replied above already).

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

I think the whole man vs woman thing also came from his post where he said "I'm tied of Pusey footing around on this board always having to self edit and use nuanced and diplomacy...I'm just going to tell it like I see it.  I'll probably be  banned but at this point I don't care...somebody has to stand up, be a man and tell it like it is. While it is my desire to remain a poster here on this board...because I do enjoy the exchange...I'm going to retain my self respect and throw caution to the wind...and If that happens to me for being honest and telling the truth...so be it."

The capital P on ****** was interesting in the context of telling a woman that truth telling is being a man. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

• And yet....a prophet does not care whether I clean off my counter or not.  Those little things are choices and priorities that belong to me.  Now...if I decided to clean instead of helping a neighbor at my  door...that would not better prepare me  to receive those greater events.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Jeanne