Forum Policy Change

[Jeff_Ricks]

Initially when this forum was launched unregistered visitors were allowed to post as a way to encourage people to post. I knew that at some point we’d have to require registration to minimize postings from those who want to stir up trouble. Now most of our posters are registered and we've had at least one unregistered post from someone looking for trouble, so from now on registration is required to post.

Jeff

[free thinker]

but the church members just can't leave us alone!! :D

The TBM dogs bark, but the post-mo caravan moves on!! :cool:


Free Thinker

[ps_editor]

The TBM dogs bark, but the post-mo caravan moves on!! :cool:


Free Thinker

Free Thinker,

When we were pondering names for the Peep Stone, one I considered was "Yapping Dogs," but I worried that no one would get it...apparently YOU would! :D

Peep Stone Editor

[free thinker]

Yes I think it is somewhat ironic that members, who are so very convinced of the churches authenticity, would care less what we think or say. I cant help but believe that, if they could, they would silence us. Just as Joeseph Smith destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor. Unfor tunately for the TBM folks, there will always be a few William Laws' to keep restraints on theological power. Being a dissident is very American. The greatest threat, as you know, to theocracy, is active intellectual thought and discussion. Just ask Gallileo!!

I think you picked a perfect name for the comic section of this community. It is a reminder of absurdity, and absurdity makes good comedy. Especially when it pokes fun at those who feel they are above reproach .

I think you guys are doing a super job here. My "hat" is off to you!!! :D Pun intended!! ;)

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

Yes I think it is somewhat ironic that members, who are so very convinced of the churches authenticity, would care less what we think or say. I cant help but believe that, if they could, they would silence us. Just as Joeseph Smith destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor.

Free Thinker

I have spent a little time recently pondering the mindset that sees all that does not agree with Moism as 'anti-Mo'.

Do scientists whose work is robustly engaged by peers, and other researchers, term them anti?

It stuck me that there is a certain narcissism inherent their mindset - they are very me-centric. They appear to have no familiarity with the notion from philosophy of the movement from thesis to antithesis and on to synthesis. And who are most prone to narcissism? The immature (where it is normal), and sadly frequently the victims of abuse (where it is pathological). The narcissistic seem to have concluded "I did not receive a normal dose of TLC and attention from the world/family, so I will (over)compensate by seeing myself as the center of the universe".

When listening to John Shelby Spong once, he suggested that prosletysing religions operate out of an "I'm OK, You're Not OK" mindset. For the unfamiliar the notion of OK comes from transactional analysis. That connected for me with the observation from TA that about 80% of people in prisons have the same mindset.

Why? Of course the answer is open to speculation, but early life neglect, and abuse are the contributors most regularly suspected.

So, for me, the question arises, "Is there some commonality between inmates and 'children' of the Lord in Moism"? Whilst Moism has it's own measure of physical and sexual abusers, my guess is that most the abuse is emotional and intellectual - with frequent boundary violations a key feature of many Mo families and even the Church itself.

Eds papers on the toxic impact of shaming on capacity for intimacy are highly relevent. A badly shamed person disconnects from themself, and as a result has a deeply flawed capacity to empathise with others.

And it raises the question as to why men are the abusers in so many cases. The above logic would suggest that a high number of them have been abused. This aspect of abuse is sadly too often lost on some feminists. Men too have frequently been the recipients of abuse, or why else would they be so insensitive to the plight of others.

Nathaniel Branden in his book Taking Responsibility says of men:

"If I deny and disown the ways in which I need you, I will almost certainly be blind to the ways in which you need me and I will fail you, no matter how much I love you.

If I am oblivious to my own need for nurturing, as men in particular often are, I am unlikely to be sensitive to yours. Empathy for another has its roots in self-awareness."

My own journey through and out of Moism was to realise how heady the religion is, but not in terms of real intelligence. They live in doctrinal trivia, whilst completely missing the big picture. They live in their heads, because their bodies are such unfriendly inhospitable places to be, what with all those urges and feelings.

I have rambled a bit here and kept querying myself if I was off topic, but as often happens the thread developed as it came out the fingers, distilling my own thinking along the way.