Mormons being distracted by body/perfectionism issues?

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:59 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

This shaming can be traced back to a conference address by Gordon Hinckley who specifically publically shamed Mormon women who choose to wear more than one earring.  By making this a thing, President Hinckley perhaps purposely or unweldingly set into motion a new standard of body shaming specifically targeting women.  Wearing more than one set of earing is now equivalent to carrying a Starbucks coffee cup into church, no one will say anything but they are all making a silent judgement of your lack of following the prophet. 

Also I we should mention the shaming by Elder Ballard when he told women to wear lip stick...so much of this body shaming comes from the top leaders of the church... add to this the constant strain of perfection and you get a mentality standard where women always feeling less than perfect which leads to all of the mental problem and drug use along the Wasatch front with woman. 

This entire highjack was initiated when I asserted that when President Hinckley's introduced how many earrings a woman chooses to wear into the Mormon expectation, it opened the door for cultural shaming of woman who chose to disregard his advise.  For a man it's not the same overt equivalent but similar to men who wear a colored shirt to church...it sets the man aside as someone who is on the fringe and not following the council and advice to follow the prophet...it's a  subtle cultural identifier as someone who isn't fully embracing the council given by church authorities.  It opens these people up, who chose to disregard the advice of prophets, as bucking the cultural standard. and not conforming or being fully assimilated.

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...I thought this unrealistic because I was aware of women  who had been shamed by the culture into removing their extra earrings.

Back and forth we went...until Bluebell finally admitted that the church does exact an influence on its members, which I took as vindication. She does not see this as vindication...so I'll leave it there...so maybe I did enter the twilight zone. I'm done have a good day...

 

[Jeanne]

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. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This entire highjack was initiated when I asserted that when President Hinckley's introduced how many earrings a woman chooses to wear into the Mormon expectation, it opened the door for cultural shaming of woman who chose to disregard his advise.  For a man it's not the same overt equivalent but similar to men who wear a colored shirt to church...it sets the man aside as someone who is on the fringe and not following the council and advice to follow the prophet...it's a  subtle cultural identifier as someone who isn't fully embracing the council given by church authorities.  It opens these people up, who chose to disregard the advice of prophets, as bucking the cultural standard. and not conforming or being fully assimilated.

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...I thought this unrealistic because I was aware of women  who had been shamed by the culture into removing their extra earrings.

Back and forth we went...until Bluebell finally admitted that the church does exact an influence on its members, which I took as vindication. She does not see this as vindication...so I'll leave it there...so maybe I did enter the twilight zone. I'm done have a good day...

 

You convinced me.  Bluebell did not.  It was quite interesting over the years to have heard many ladies do things like testify in testimony meeting about following the prophet on this directive, while they often compared that to those who did not.  Some who did not were said to have lost their faith and gone the way of the apostates.  I think the pressure aspect of it was obvious.  Soon enough some women who thought the prophet was being stupid before were taking out their extra set of earings.   I was surprised Bluebell tried to say it never was. 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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 

You asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members.  I did not vindicate or confirm that in the least.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You convinced me.  Bluebell did not.  It was quite interesting over the years to have heard many ladies do things like testify in testimony meeting about following the prophet on this directive, while they often compared that to those who did not.  Some who did not were said to have lost their faith and gone the way of the apostates.  I think the pressure aspect of it was obvious.  Soon enough some women who thought the prophet was being stupid before were taking out their extra set of earings.   I was surprised Bluebell tried to say it never was. 

I agree on many points.  In my own ward...there were very devout women in my RS who were kind of upset by this directive. A few together commented that they wish they had known about this way before they spent many dollars on earrings that came in sets of two..or sets that were put together to match with 2 holes. They may have followed the prophet..and that is okay..but they were upset and to me..rightly so.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members.  I did not vindicate or confirm that in the least.

I really don't think you are representing his view anywhere near what he said.  Are you saying you've been arguing with Johnnie Cake over the notion that he is saying all member decisions are made because of societal pressure by other members?  Can you offer some quotes to help establish this claim?  I simply haven't read that in here, and must have overlooked. 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This entire highjack was initiated when I asserted that when President Hinckley's introduced how many earrings a woman chooses to wear into the Mormon expectation, it opened the door for cultural shaming of woman who chose to disregard his advise.  For a man it's not the same overt equivalent but similar to men who wear a colored shirt to church...it sets the man aside as someone who is on the fringe and not following the council and advice to follow the prophet...it's a  subtle cultural identifier as someone who isn't fully embracing the council given by church authorities.  It opens these people up, who chose to disregard the advice of prophets, as bucking the cultural standard. and not conforming or being fully assimilated.

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...I thought this unrealistic because I was aware of women  who had been shamed by the culture into removing their extra earrings.

Back and forth we went...until Bluebell finally admitted that the church does exact an influence on its members, which I took as vindication. She does not see this as vindication...so I'll leave it there...so maybe I did enter the twilight zone. I'm done have a good day...

 

The hijack occurred when you asserted that the counsel by Pres. Hinckley caused (not opened the door for, caused) cultural shaming of women by other members who did not follow the counsel.  I personally said that I knew the counsel could cause shame for some women back on page 1 of this thread, so the fact that it could happen was obviously not the reason for our disagreement.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:08 AM, bluebell said:

Church should influence all of our decisions.  That's the whole purpose of church.   If we belong to a church and/or having sincere religious beliefs, and those things aren't influencing us, then something is broken.

But there is a difference between righteous influence and unrighteous influence.  I don't think the the church, in general, asserts an unrighteous or negative influence in the lives of it's members.  

I think the gospel of Jesus Christ should influence all of our decisions, not the church. It may be the purpose of the church to exert that kind of influence but I don't believe it's Jesus' purpose. It's a significant difference for me.

I agree that the church has good intentions but that doesn't mean there aren't also negative influences on people. Rarely is there anything that is perfectly righteous, and the church is no exception.

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The hijack occurred when you asserted that the counsel by Pres. Hinckley caused (not opened the door for, caused) cultural shaming of women by other members who did not follow the counsel.  I personally said that I knew the counsel could cause shame for some women back on page 1 of this thread, so the fact that it could happen was obviously not the reason for our disagreement.

 

 

So you are arguing that although shaming came as a result of Hinckley's teaching, his act did not cause the shaming?  Ok...but then the shaming that came without Hinckley's teaching wouldn't have much effect at all.  There would be no testimonies dedicated to the topic that the rest of us would have had to endure. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I really don't think you are representing his view anywhere near what he said.  Are you saying you've been arguing with Johnnie Cake over the notion that he is saying all member decisions are made because of societal pressure by other members?  Can you offer some quotes to help establish this claim?  I simply haven't read that in here, and must have overlooked. 

I did quote him.

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."

And this is what he had to say in general about the topic-"Within Mormonism culture there is an undercurrent that is always present...eyes always watching what each other is doing...always on watch for some misstep by a member of the ward or church.  Its subtle, its often unsaid, but its there...always lurking and watching what other Mormon's are doing....the quiet silent judgement of fellow Mormons watching each other to make sure no one steps out of line or does something that the church might disapprove of. It's particularly present when a Mormon you might know missteps...usually then its seen as an anonymous tip to the relief society president or the bishop or elders quorum president so that the "sin" might be corrected."

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the gospel of Jesus Christ should influence all of our decisions, not the church. It may be the purpose of the church to exert that kind of influence but I don't believe it's Jesus' purpose. It's a significant difference for me.

I agree that the church has good intentions but that doesn't mean there aren't also negative influences on people. Rarely is there anything that is perfectly righteous, and the church is no exception.

 

When I said church I was speaking of the truth claims of the church and it's doctrines.  From my perspective, 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.  It's just a social club at that point, as influential as being a member of the ELKS or a sorority or something (again, from my perspective).

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did quote him.

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."

And this is what he had to say in general about the topic-"Within Mormonism culture there is an undercurrent that is always present...eyes always watching what each other is doing...always on watch for some misstep by a member of the ward or church.  Its subtle, its often unsaid, but its there...always lurking and watching what other Mormon's are doing....the quiet silent judgement of fellow Mormons watching each other to make sure no one steps out of line or does something that the church might disapprove of. It's particularly present when a Mormon you might know missteps...usually then its seen as an anonymous tip to the relief society president or the bishop or elders quorum president so that the "sin" might be corrected."

I'm just commenting because I know he is limited on what he can respond to.  I don't see anything near what you claimed in the post I responded to.  The part you quoted was "societal pressure by members within the church caused shame"  the part I asked about was "influenced all decisions of the the members".  

I don't know why you accused that of him.  Are you saying when he said "Within Mormonism culture there is an undercurrent that is always present..." that he's saying that members only make a decision due to pressure from other members?  That would be silly, based on what you quoted.  And it's a silly notion.  Who influenced the members to put pressure on the other members?  Other members?  Well when did it all start?  Afterall you are accusing Johnnie Cake of saying members only make decisions when pressured by other members.   

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you are arguing that although shaming came as a result of Hinckley's teaching, his act did not cause the shaming?  Ok...but then the shaming that came without Hinckley's teaching wouldn't have much effect at all.  There would be no testimonies dedicated to the topic that the rest of us would have had to endure. 

What??

JC made a statement of fact-Hinckley's council caused societal shame for women who did not follow it.  His statement is demonstrably false because it's too broad.  I know women who felt no shame not following the counsel.  

I said that it could cause shame, he said that it did cause shame.  Can you see the differences in those two statements?  

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When I said church I was speaking of the truth claims of the church and it's doctrines.  From my perspective, 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.

Sorry for chiming in but this really annoys me.  I don't accept all the truth claims nor all the doctrines.  Therefore I get influenced by things outside the Church all the time.  And yet I find many spiritual reasons to be a member.  It's a weird exclusive idea, it seems like. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 It's just a social club at that point, as influential as being a member of the ELKS or a sorority or something (again, from my perspective).

Well open up a bit. You'll see any member can have influence outside the Church and still find spiritual value in being a member. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm just commenting because I know he is limited on what he can respond to.  I don't see anything near what you claimed in the post I responded to.  The part you quoted was "societal pressure by members within the church caused shame"  the part I asked about was "influenced all decisions of the the members".  

I don't know why you accused that of him.  Are you saying when he said "Within Mormonism culture there is an undercurrent that is always present..." that he's saying that members only make a decision due to pressure from other members?  That would be silly, based on what you quoted.  And it's a silly notion.  Who influenced the members to put pressure on the other members?  Other members?  Well when did it all start?  Afterall you are accusing Johnnie Cake of saying members only make decisions when pressured by other members.   

 

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.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sorry for chiming in but this really annoys me.  I don't accept all the truth claims nor all the doctrines.  Therefore I get influenced by things outside the Church all the time.  And yet I find many spiritual reasons to be a member.  It's a weird exclusive idea, it seems like. 

Well open up a bit. You'll see any member can have influence outside the Church and still find spiritual value in being a member. 

I get influenced by things outside the church all the time as well.  I don't think it's an either or proportion.  

[stemelbow]

Just now, bluebell said:

What??

JC made a statement of fact-Hinckley's council caused societal shame for women who did not follow it.  His statement is demonstrably false because it's too broad.  I know women who felt no shame not following the counsel.  

Because Hinckley's statement caused something it does not mean it always caused that something.  Therefore just because some women felt no shame, it does not stand to reason that his statement did not cause shame.  His statement, if you are representing it correctly, points out that there was a cause to the shame women felt.  It does not say all women had to feel that shame. 

Just now, bluebell said:

I said that it could cause shame, he said that it did cause shame.  Can you see the differences in those two statements?  

 

 

 

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". 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Because Hinckley's statement caused something it does not mean it always caused that something.  Therefore just because some women felt no shame, it does not stand to reason that his statement did not cause shame.  His statement, if you are representing it correctly, points out that there was a cause to the shame women felt.  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 got the last word in, now let's all move on.  

[stemelbow]

2 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.

You had just said "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".  So if he says the Church influences the choices of it's members, then what are you disagreeing with? 

Again, I did not challenge that.  I was very specific in what I challenged.  YOu had claimed that all decisions by the members were caused by shame or pressure from other members.  That's a far cry from what you are saying now. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get influenced by things outside the church all the time as well.  I don't think it's an either or proportion.  

Then why did you say, "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."?

If you are influenced by things outside the Church then how can you possibly find a spiritual reason to be a member?  You had said if someone isn't influenced by the Church, then there's no spiritual reason.  If it's not either/or then why did you state it as such?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You got the last word in, now let's all move on.  

But you accused him of saying something he did not.  Why move on?  Did he say all decisions by members are because of shame of other members? 

Here's I'll quote you:

Quote

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

Earlier you said that was his position.  Now it seems like you don't want to address what you had accused. 

It sounds to me the easiest way to move on is for you to acknowledge he did not say what you are accusing him of saying and apologize. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But you accused him of saying something he did not.  Why move on?  Did he say all decisions by members are because of shame of other members? 

Here's I'll quote you:

Earlier you said that was his position.  Now it seems like you don't want to address what you had accused. 

It sounds to me the easiest way to move on is for you to acknowledge he did not say what you are accusing him of saying and apologize. 

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

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Then why did you say, "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."?

If you are influenced by things outside the Church then how can you possibly find a spiritual reason to be a member?  You had said if someone isn't influenced by the Church, then there's no spiritual reason.  If it's not either/or then why did you state it as such?

Because I believe that's true.  

Decisions can be (and usually are) influenced by lots of different things at the same time.  My decision to have children, for example, was influenced by the doctrines of the church, my own family, society in general, my husband's background, etc. 

I didn't say that our decisions should only be influenced by the church.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

You convinced me.  Bluebell did not.  It was quite interesting over the years to have heard many ladies do things like testify in testimony meeting about following the prophet on this directive, while they often compared that to those who did not.  Some who did not were said to have lost their faith and gone the way of the apostates.  I think the pressure aspect of it was obvious.  Soon enough some women who thought the prophet was being stupid before were taking out their extra set of earings.   I was surprised Bluebell tried to say it never was. 

Your tongue is getting in the way of my cheek oh wait you're being serious?

Edited September 15, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because I believe that's true.  

Decisions can be (and usually are) influenced by lots of different things at the same time.  My decision to have children, for example, was influenced by the doctrines of the church, my own family, society in general, my husband's background, etc. 

I didn't say that our decisions should only be influenced by the church.

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.