How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, Fether said:

I too find the best response to difficult questions to be ad hominem.

Im genuinely learning things in this conversation and hearing things I did not know. Can you please define for me shame, guilt, and whether one is good or not?

Yes it was ad hominem. My apologies. But I am wondering if we well really accomplish much more in this discussion. I did give you my definition of shame already.

[bOObOO]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

... Virtue is about what “You” do, not what someone else does to “You”.  Virtue is fought for by continuing to be virtuous, by doing good to the best of your ability. 

Yes, and resisting someone’s attempt to have immoral sexual relations with You or to attack You is what You can do to show that You don’t want that to happen to You.  Otherwise You are consenting to allow that person to do what that person wants to do to You, and whether or not You have any virtue will be shown by what You choose to do in response.

Why aren’t you and other people seeing that your only 2 options are to either resist or consent?  If you just say “No” that will be a sign of resistance, not consent, and you should resist when you don’t want someone else to do something to you.  If you don’t resist or show any sign of resistance, then what do you think God or a jury would say?  Did you resist or consent?  If you allow someone to do something to you or with you, and you are actively involved in the act the entire time, even if you did not initiate the act, then don’t be surprised if others consider your allowance to be your consent.  Your choice is to either resist or consent when you have any ability to respond.

And for the record I did not and do not consent to you or anyone else making me out to be an unreasonable person on this board and I have resisted your comment assassination attempts by showing good reasoning and good humor regarding your comments of my comments.  We all are accountable for our actions or inactions, and all unrighteous judgments against my comments will be or already have been rectified.  Unrighteous rules and discrimination considered.  We all are here for only a Limited time only. Not much longer and we will not be here at all.  If I were y’all I would want to hear as much from me as possible, because God inspires and sustains me.

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, Fether said:

It definitely is. If someone swears regularly, drinks coffee, not go to church, and ignoring basic directives from the person I believe to speak for God… for my sake and hers, I am not going to date her

You believe certain person's speak for God yet you want to dismiss what those persons said 40 years ago even though they said it from the GC pulpit.  This seems a bit ironic.

[bOObOO]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... I think 99.9% of the members of the church would not follow this verse. Ahab might be an exception and still believe it is a fine idea.

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Yes a fine idea using the same reasoning for “You break it, You buy it”.  Others should still try to make the couple feel bad about having sexual relations before marriage, though, and a shivaree should soon follow the marriage.  They did not have shotguns in those days.  The word “rapes” in this case would be better translated as ravishes.

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes it was ad hominem. My apologies. But I am wondering if we well really accomplish much more in this discussion. I did give you my definition of shame already.

My biggest question is whether you differentiate from shame and guilt, and whether you see guilt as a positive. If you don’t see value in feeling guilt for sin, then you may be right, there is no reason to continue

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

My biggest question is whether you differentiate from shame and guilt, and whether you see guilt as a positive. If you don’t see value in feeling guilt for sin, then you may be right, there is no reason to continue

Guilt is healthy when it is an emotion that causes enough remorse to motivate us to change a bad behavior. Shame is excessive guilt that requires us to be excessively penitent, causes feelings of worthlessness and causes us even after the bad behavior is changes to feel that we are really not as worthy as we may have been.  What is really sin is another discussion.  Creating guilt for something that really is not "sin" is shaming.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Why aren’t you and other people seeing that your only 2 options are to either resist or consent?  If you just say “No” that will be a sign of resistance, not consent, and you should resist when you don’t want someone else to do something to you. 

This sounds more reasonable.   Just saying no is enough.  It is not a physically fight or lose our virtue dichotomy.   None of that - it would be better to die physically fighting than not fight - junk.  None of that BS about someone being able to take virtue from us. 

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Guilt is healthy when it is an emotion that causes enough remorse to motivate us to change a bad behavior. Shame is excessive guilt that requires us to be excessively penitent, causes feelings of worthlessness and causes us even after the bad behavior is changes to feel that we are really not as worthy as we may have been.  What is really sin is another discussion.  Creating guilt for something that really is not "sin" is shaming.

Who creates that guilt, if any guilt is created?  I do not feel guilty when I feel I have done nothing wrong, even if someone is trying to tell me or trying to convince me that I should feel guilty about something. I'm talking about particular instances.  I have felt guilt in the past but only when I feel God is trying to tell me I have done something wrong.  Other people who try that do not have that effect on me because I do not take their word as God's word unless I feel God is trying to tell me the same thing.  But that is not always the case because people are often wrong in their perception of what is right and what is wrong.  A fascinating issue we should all consider.  Thank you for discussing this.

[bOObOO]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

This sounds more reasonable.   Just saying no is enough.  It is not a physically fight or lose our virtue dichotomy.   None of that - it would be better to die physically fighting than not fight - junk.  None of that BS about someone being able to take virtue from us. 

Unfortunately, just saying "No" is not always enough to stop someone from attempting to put us in a particular situation.  Sometimes we need to do more than just say "No".  Sometimes we need to backup our words with more action. And if you can resuist someone's attempt to do what that person wants from you without a physical fight, then good, more power to you.  Maybe yelling really loud would be enough to inspire someone to abandon their efforts.  Whatever. But sometimes you might have to physically fight off a would-be attacker if you really want that person to understand that "No" means No.

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

But sometimes you might have to physically fight off a would-be attacker if you really want that person to understand that "No" means No.

Just when I thought you were starting to see the light, you come up with this...    

Facepalm!  

"No" really does mean "no".   It is usually one of the first word a child learns and understands.  No physical fighting required for my 2 year old to understand that "no" means "no". 

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Guilt is healthy when it is an emotion that causes enough remorse to motivate us to change a bad behavior. Shame is excessive guilt that requires us to be excessively penitent, causes feelings of worthlessness and causes us even after the bad behavior is changes to feel that we are really not as worthy as we may have been.  What is really sin is another discussion.  Creating guilt for something that really is not "sin" is shaming.

What sin is really is a completely different discussion. 
 

I agree with your explanation completely. 
 

After all this conversation, I would say that there does seem to be a lot of evidence of shame culture coming from previous leaders of the church. One in an official setting (GC) and others in semi-official (articles and books published by them, but not the church).

If they are saying they would prefer you dead than sinning, I disagree with that. seems almost like a call for murder or suicide.
 

However, If they are saying they prefer righteous and dead, over living and sinning. It seems to suggest that they would rather see you spiritually alive but physically dead rather than physically alive, but spiritually dead. This seems to be more reasonable… poorly executed… but more reasonable. Which are they referring to? I don’t know. I can honestly see them saying either or.

I would also love to see the church address these directly. I think it has done a wonderful job of teaching against these old views… but, as mentioned earlier, they haven’t come right out and apologized or made a big enough deal of attacking these harmful views.

If you view the church in just the last 15ish years, virtually all these issues disappear (which just so happens to be about half of my life, so my views on it all are different). But we can’t just look at the last 15 years, we have to look at it all. Which brings in the topic of Prophetic Fallibility and the inevitable question “if prophets are not I fallible… and the church claims this as well…why has the church never apologized for the wrong things they have done?”. They got close with the blacks and the priesthood essay… but no cigar.

We seem to have a VERY different view on the fallibility of the church, and that is likely so to how we were taught growing up. In Highschool, I learned about polygamy, the issues with the translation of the book of Abraham, criticisms of the Book of Mormon translation, and other issues that make up popular anti topics. And I do acknowledge that this church sponsored education was likely built on the graves of the martyred and excommunicated scholar that brought these to light in the 80s and 90s.

I have no problem seeing the church as imperfect and having had made big mistakes. My views align up closely with Jim Bennett’s approach to it all. 
 

What triggered me to start this debate was that it seemed you suggested that the church deliberately baked into its teachings shame (which after rereading it, I may have misinterpreted the comment), That they were deliberately using shame to control the members. I don’t find this to be the case

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

It’s all about assimilation really. That’s why there’s such a big emphasis on unity nowadays. 
 

 

 

We are the Morg. We will add your technological and biological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Unfortunately, just saying "No" is not always enough to stop someone from attempting to put us in a particular situation.  Sometimes we need to do more than just say "No".  Sometimes we need to backup our words with more action. And if you can resuist someone's attempt to do what that person wants from you without a physical fight, then good, more power to you.  Maybe yelling really loud would be enough to inspire someone to abandon their efforts.  Whatever. But sometimes you might have to physically fight off a would-be attacker if you really want that person to understand that "No" means No.

I see your point.

*hits bOObOO on nose with rolled up newspaper*

NO! BAD! STOP SAYING THESE THINGS!

[bOObOO]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just when I thought you were starting to see the light, you come up with this...    

Facepalm!  

"No" really does mean "no".   It is usually one of the first word a child learns and understands.  No physical fighting required for my 2 year old to understand that "no" means "no". 

Suppose someone said No at first but then showed no resistance whatsoever, no longer saying No and by body language indicating she was not resistant at all.  People often change their mind. Consider this case portrayed in a court of law.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Yes a fine idea using the same reasoning for “You break it, You buy it”.  Others should still try to make the couple feel bad about having sexual relations before marriage, though, and a shivaree should soon follow the marriage.  They did not have shotguns in those days.  The word “rapes” in this case would be better translated as ravishes.

*backs away slowly and exits room and shuts door*

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Suppose someone said No at first but then showed no resistance whatsoever, no longer saying No and by body language indicating she was not resistant at all.  People often change their mind. Consider this case portrayed in a court of law.

So you have the mindset and justification skills of a rapist.

Next step is fixing it.

[Canadiandude]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We are the Morg. We will add your technological and biological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

I mean. You aren’t wrong.

https://www.the-exponent.com/guest-post-my-apology-for-my-complicity/

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

My biggest question is whether you differentiate from shame and guilt, and whether you see guilt as a positive. If you don’t see value in feeling guilt for sin, then you may be right, there is no reason to continue

Good afternoon. Instead of speaking in an adhominem manner about you - let me share my values with you. I will make this about me - not you. I believe there is spiritual value in both true shame and true guilt. I have felt both in my life. The spiritual value in each is that they cause me to pause, reflect and repent. I turn around away from those things - that is the meaning of the Greek word for repent. What I have had to learn in my life is how to discern between those things that are Biblical, doctrinal and those things that are cultural, societal, and the norm in my religious group, but are not doctrine. They may be dogma. But dogma is doctrine gone awry. That is a value of mine. Not all shame and guilt are true shame and guilt. The challenge as we grow in Christ is to discern between them.

As you may or may not know I am not a member of TCOJCOLDS - never have been. I have spent most of my life as a member of the Mennonite church (denomination). It is not the church, or thee church. As a Mennonite, my values in my life have been as follows: I don't swear. I don't go to the movie theater. I don't watch television on Sunday. I don't dance (no kind of dancing - square dancing included). I have a beard. I don't smoke. My mother never cut her hair or wore makeup. Let me repeat - these are values of my church over the years. My sister wore no jewelry - no wedding or engagement rings - she got a watch! If something has no utilitarian value it is worldly and should be avoided. Hence ring- bad; watch - good. Tattoos were bad. Skinny jeans were really bad - especially on guys! Premarital sex was bad because it led to dancing (that's a Mennonite joke). Women always had to wear a prayer covering. Did I mention no playing cards - face cards - the kind you gamble with. Those all have been my values. Committing any of them caused me shame and guilt. If I were a girl - would you date me if I had those values? How about if I judge you if you don't have the same values I have mentioned? I am still a bit offended when I know the ward or the local LDS academy is sponsoring a dance. Is that offense a good thing? Should I stop attending the ward because of it? What do you think about those who have different values than you? What about those who have values that are stricter than you? Are they more spiritual? Would you agree Mennonites are more righteous than Saints because we have a longer list of values? Is the fact we drink coffee offsetting? Is the fact I am writing this sipping ice tea offsetting? Oh, and I don't drink coke either. I drink Dr. Pepper! I learned to do that in a Baptist graduate school. Shame on them for corrupting me. Should you think of me and feel shame next time you step into a theater or dance with someone? You can play Rook without guilt or shame, but playing cards????? No way!

You see my friend - values vary, don't they? My values today are not the same as when I was 25. I am 72 and am much looser in some ways and much stricter in others. Would you be my friend with me the way I am? Should I stop attending the LDS ward because they don't have the same high values I do? Because they have differing values? How about my Catholic neighbors (I live in Mexico). Should I invite the Catholic priest over as a friend and neighbor? Might he corrupt my beliefs or my values? Or might I corrupt some of his that I don't share? Facial hair is not appropriate for one who ministers? Say what???????????

That is enough about me. Some of my values were cultural, dogma, and simple Mennonitish societal expectations, weren't they? You don't conform to all of them as non-Mennonite do you? You probably don't even agree with all of them, do you?  If you dated a Mennonite girl would your LDS values be corrupted or even raised higher? Hmmm....Would your standards be raised, or lowered? You are not the only one with standards -- God-given standards, or church expectation standards, are you? We don't share the same standards - am I less than you? Are you less than me? I don't think so. Thanks for reading all of this. Take care; just don't tell me you are going to see a movie tonight! Just kidding - sort of - no really! - oh never mind!

Edited October 21, 2021 by Navidad

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I mean. You aren’t wrong.

https://www.the-exponent.com/guest-post-my-apology-for-my-complicity/

 

Not what I said but I guess you just wanted to post it no matter how much of a shoehorn you needed to make it fit.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I definitely don’t and I didn’t intend on portraying that. This is a conversation that is completely outside the realm of religion, this is basic relationship development. It’s about finding similar values, not to what level is someone sinning.
 

There may be people out there who drink, by hate marijuana. Those people shouldn’t date people who smoke marijuana.

There may be people who view pornography on occasion, but find piercings to be a disgrace to one’s body. Those people shouldnt date people with piercings.

To drive home my point. I wouldn’t date a KKK clans(wo)man that calls for the burning of black men. I also wouldn’t date a girl who can’t help but gossip all the time. I don’t view those as equally bad, it is just that neither align with my values.

yes.  But for you, this is about an extra earring.

And it is about a culture where an extra earring is a big enough reason to reject someone for just that one issue. While Christ talked about the interpersonal being the criteria of whether they are a good person or not.  

Maybe it would help me understand your reasoning better if you could explain the evils of an extra earring that you see and the prophet sees.  Because I, for the life of me can not see the evil that is embraced by such. a decision.

Edited October 21, 2021 by california boy

[Canadiandude]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not what I said but I guess you just wanted to post it no matter how much of a shoehorn you needed to make it fit.

Then you’re intentionally not connecting the dots. Assimilation is an age old problem within the church.

I doubt you even read it.

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

yes.  But for you, this is about an extra earring.

For me, it is about not wanting to follow a simple directive from a prophet. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Suppose someone said No at first but then showed no resistance whatsoever, no longer saying No and by body language indicating she was not resistant at all.  People often change their mind. Consider this case portrayed in a court of law.

In a court of law, hopefully unless it was proved she said “I changed my mind and now say ‘yes’” and she did so without pressure or fear of punishment, it will be viewed as rape if she said “no”.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

In a court of law, hopefully unless it was proved she said “I changed my mind and now say ‘yes’” and she did so without pressure or fear of punishment, it will be viewed as rape if she said “no”.

I'd also challenge the claim that people "often change their minds" from not wanting to have sex to wanting to have it, after someone tries to force them into it.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'd also challenge the claim that people "often change their minds" from not wanting to have sex to wanting to have it, after someone tries to force them into it.

Yes, makes as much sense as saying no to being beaten and then changing one’s mind into wanting to be beaten, to be hurt.  How often does that happen?