John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[_Sethbag]

Hank, from the first link in the first search you provided, I find this post by a poster named "rumblestiltzken" to be very interesting:

And very clearly, the proportion of people who will fill those categories is gendered. Men are socialised to lash out under stress, and so Antisocial personality is the disability. Women are socialised to express themselves emotionally and manipulate rather than dominate, thus Histrionic and Borderline personality disorders are almost exclusively diagnosed in women.

Is that sexism? It is certainly the result of sexism, the subconscious gender roles that inform wellness and illness behaviour.

Most of the posts in that thread addressed "hysteria", not "histrionic", but to the extent that it was discussed, there didn't seem to be a consensus that the term is inherently sexist. Regarding disorders, he did address what he said (I'm not arguing with this; I don't know) were differences in proportions of men vs. women being diagnosed, but even then he tied it into the results of gender stereotyping and how differently men and women are socialized to react, and not to any inherent sexism in the term or the diagnosis itself.

I'd like to point back to the point, earlier in this thread by someone I can't remember and won't look it up right now, that "histrionics" and "histrionic personality disorder" are not the same thing, and should not be conflated. If you don't like "histrionic personality disorder" as a psychological disorder on the basis of gender-related objections, fine, but that doesn't/shouldn't reflect on the use of "histrionics" absent a clear link with an attempt to diagnose a disorder. Again, I don't think it's been established by anyone that "histrionics", in a description of actions taken by a woman (or by a man) represents misogyny inherently, absent clearer evidence of other misogyny.

[_Mayan Elephant]

This quit being about Rosebud in particular several posts ago. I don't get it, gents. Forgive me if any of you pushing back are female and I'm being presumptuous in assuming that all females would get what I'm saying. At this point, I don't know what else to say.

easy there, my friend. i hear ya. and i happen to agree with you. i really do. i think all the effort spent to prove that histrionics comes from the root word that meant bigasswhiteeffingmanhonkey, and was never meant to be disparaging to women when shakespeare made it rhyme with a word that meant goat-has-a-taint, is irrelevant when anyone with any common sense knows that mormonstories meant it to be disparaging to a woman.

what i really hear you saying though, which is cracking me up, is that this all may be explained with a few key words - Utah State University Aggies. maybe USU doesn't correctly teach psych grads how to insult their targets of derision in online forums.

[_Elphaba]

"Histrionics" is a perfectly acceptable word to describe someone's words, male or female, if the words are, in fact, histrionic, and I think most people who understand its definition know this.

For example, I conducted a search for "histrionics" in Mormon Discussions threads. Seven pages of hits, or 135 matches, were returned. After eliminating those discussing rosebud, I looked at the following four pages and discovered the vast majority of those hits, written by a variety of board regulars, refer to something written by a male board member. I stopped looking after page 4 as the point had been made.

Again, there is nothing wrong with calling a woman's words "histrionics," if they are, in fact, histrionic.

Elphaba

[_hank rearden]

Awesome, y'all. Sounds like cats got it down. Peace.

[_hank rearden]

what i really hear you saying though, which is cracking me up, is that this all may be explained with a few key words - Utah State University Aggies. maybe USU doesn't correctly teach psych grads how to insult their targets of derision in online forums.

I truly don't know. I thought my original point was practically anodyne - I felt I was pointing out the obvious. Amazing to me that it stirred up controversy. Some folks have had some very different experiences, evidently. I need no further proof of that. Pretty groovy yeshiva here.

The area within one std dev remains about 68%, right?

[_Mayan Elephant]

I truly don't know. I thought my original point was practically anodyne - I felt I was pointing out the obvious. Amazing to me that it stirred up controversy. Some folks have had some very different experiences, evidently. I need no further proof of that. Pretty groovy yeshiva here.

The area within one std dev remains about 68%, right?

if i have learned anything about this forum, that distinguishes it from many others, is that conversations get traction when they have real content that make a point or hit a nerve. if there was nothing valid in your original point, believe me, it would have fallen flat. and what you did aligns with what sethbag and equality were discussing, it was not handwaving at all. it stood out and i, for one, appreciate it, even if you or i are in the minority or alone in our interpretation of what we read.

that said, std is really not a good abbreviation for anything but STD's. imnsho.

[_Sister Mary Lisa]

For example, I conducted a search for "histrionics" in Mormon Discussions threads. Seven pages of hits, or 135 matches, were returned. After eliminating those discussing rosebud, I looked at the following four pages and discovered the vast majority of those hits, written by a variety of board regulars, refer to something written by a male board member. I stopped looking after page 4 as the point had been made.

I conducted the same search as you and found that you are right, almost all of the times the word "histrionic" was used were by men to men or about men who had posted something they thought was lame. An interesting note, though, if you look at some of them a little closer, you can see the following words used in the same sentences with the word:

"Silly..."

"...your arguments are devolving into histrionics, or perhaps you suffer from the vapors."

"...my little provocateur...spare us your histrionics."

"...Drama Queen of MD Histrionics."

"...your PMSy histrionics have further derailed an already derailed thread."

"I will take my dolls and go home...Histrionics over."

I think you can agree that these quotes denote a common theme where issues typically tied to *faults* women possess are used to denigrate a male who is found lacking in male greatness in some way. Why not "Drama King" do you think? Why not "I will take my ball and go home"? Because the actual dig is the fact that they are calling someone too girly to be taken seriously in a serious and worthy discussion. The word "histrionic" is a word used to shame women or emasculate men.

[_Mercury]

i am pretty sure he was raised and lives a middle class lifestyle.

i agree with your points, though. he operates with impunity within the Mormon community. i think that there are two parts to that. first, he only speaks up when he controls the moderators or the moderating. and the second, he operates more like a chameleon than a privileged silver-back.

OK, upper middle class. I'm not saying he is Mr Moneybags but one does not work for Microsoft, private equity and consult for middle class pay.

His connections with the church also taken into account along with the socioeconomics of Logan (that's where I think he is at) would show that he behaves like most well connected Mormons in that he does what he wants with no deference to the unwashed masses. He is "special" and "elect".

"How DARE a stake president tell me that being a wishy washy, contradictory Mormon is verboten! Does HE KNOW WHO HE IS TALKING TO?! Does he know who I know?!" ....and so on and so forth.

I'm just beating a dead horse here but class and perceived notions of superiority/inferiority play a larger role than is generally discussed.

The few interactions I have had with JD both in person and over electronic methods left me with a feeling that he is generally a nice, personable individual. I don't see him as a crazed megalomaniac. I think though that he is unable to stick with an opinion and this is the great enigma that leaves me wondering. If JD was some poor schlub he would have been ex'd years ago.

JD has made himself a participant of the great Mo/NOM/Exmo circle jerk where drama Llama herds are the norm, constatly chewing the same cud ad nauseum. Frankly I get discouraged when inside baseball BS becomes a reason for others to get excited. My theory on the why for this is that generally speaking, discussing Mormonism day in and day out is an act of repetition and the drama is the only thing that gives those perpetually discussing Mormonism any excitement. This unfortunately means that drama is sought, fostered and amplified by all camps/parties involved.

In essence, the drama Llamas reinforce the other drama Llamas. Its sad. Really really sad.

Also see Steve Bensons inability to take criticism without being an utter fuckwit, RFM clique politics and the smarmy barbs tossed by the in order to podcast towards Mormon Expression.

That last one was a bit tongue in cheek, as the Infants are generally speaking tongue in cheek as well...I hope. Sometimes I feel like the kid trying to get everyone to play nicely with each other in the podcasting family. I've been around a while and have for the most part been involved with the occasional Mormon Expression podcast, the most recent being back in 2011. Even then the back chatter and inside information seemed to fly fast and hard. I was a bit put off by it, as in the end it seemed to be self reinforcing and utterly inconsequential.

I still enjoyed it though. Alas, I too could be described as Lamoid in nature, usually being the contrarian smarmy asshole I am.

[_suniluni2]

If you can show me where the well established rules are that the sp is relying on, then I'll admit he's imposing conditions rather than threats.

those items you highlighted match items that are listed in section 6.7.3 of the CHI. those are the conditions of apostasy and are numbered 1-4 in the handbook. items 2 and 3 in that section, regarding apostasy, have descriptions and each says "after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority."

http://ge.tt/5OcBdKQ/v/0

Sorry, the CHI is not "well-established rules" for members; it is the clandestine protocol leaders use to exert their authority. The fact that only leaders are properly privy to its contents, and that members are then held to standards which they have not agreed to differentiates it from the rules of this board, which are there for every poster to reference for what is and what is not acceptable conduct.

That link wouldn't give me anything viewable, but the one I have a problem accepting for apostasy is "Cease providing a public forum for any person who is critical of Church doctrine." It gets messy there with what is doctrine, and whether the things ms supports is contrary to doctrine.

mormonstories was not threatened with excommunication. he was not threatened with a church disciplinary council.

So what do you think would have happened if he didn't resign his membership?

[_cwald]

Mormomstories has not resigned his membership.