Giving and Taking Offense

[_Runtu]

A while back I was called "one of the nastier antis" in a discussion on another board. In that thread, someone had suggested that Joseph Smith had not benefitted in any way for his leading the church. I said he obviously did, and when asked to give examples, I said that he had received monetary, power, and sexual benefits for having led the church, which to me was a simple statement of fairly obvious fact. I was told that I had a lot of nerve insulting the prophet that way.

Wade's taking offense at my "vile" comments the other day and his suggestion that Who Knows routinely bad-mouths the church and its members had me thinking about how things are perceived among members and critics. To me, Joseph Smith was a fraud, plain and simple; he was a manipulative and greedy man with a rather horrible temper; he was also very creative and charismatic and capable of kindness and compassion. Again, I say these things without intending to insult, but I would imagine most members of the church would take offense at my saying them. I wonder why that is. I could understand being offended if I said that Joseph Smith was a lecherous dirtbag, or something, but merely expressing my opinion that he was of poor character and that the religion he invented was an invention and nothing more, is taken exactly the same way as if I had used those harsh descriptions.

I wonder if it's less a function of how offensive we are to each other than it is of wanting to find offense. We see each other as occupying opposite sides, and maybe we just take things the worst possible way because of that.

[_Blixa]

Someone would have to have his own head pretty far up his own ass to label you "one of the nastier of antis." There are plenty of people taking potshots at Joseph Smith with far more sarcasm and intent to offend.

Chalk it up to the persecution mania that is encouraged within Mormon culture. Some tbm's routinely look for opportunities to pull themselves up onto their holier-than-thou snit perch from which to look down on all non-members.

[_Some Schmo]

A while back I was called "one of the nastier antis" in a discussion on another board. In that thread, someone had suggested that Joseph Smith had not benefitted in any way for his leading the church. I said he obviously did, and when asked to give examples, I said that he had received monetary, power, and sexual benefits for having led the church, which to me was a simple statement of fairly obvious fact. I was told that I had a lot of nerve insulting the prophet that way.

Wade's taking offense at my "vile" comments the other day and his suggestion that Who Knows routinely bad-mouths the church and its members had me thinking about how things are perceived among members and critics. To me, Joseph Smith was a fraud, plain and simple; he was a manipulative and greedy man with a rather horrible temper; he was also very creative and charismatic and capable of kindness and compassion. Again, I say these things without intending to insult, but I would imagine most members of the church would take offense at my saying them. I wonder why that is. I could understand being offended if I said that Joseph Smith was a lecherous dirtbag, or something, but merely expressing my opinion that he was of poor character and that the religion he invented was an invention and nothing more, is taken exactly the same way as if I had used those harsh descriptions.

I wonder if it's less a function of how offensive we are to each other than it is of wanting to find offense. We see each other as occupying opposite sides, and maybe we just take things the worst possible way because of that.

Well, I actually think this is a product of our Western culture more than anything else. People are constantly looking to be offended (it's easier to sue that way - or at least, gain sympathy). It's like their sensitivity is turned up to 11 on their internal amplifier.

I was just saying today in another thread that I just don't understand why anyone would take anything said here personally. It doesn't make any sense at all. The only reason I can think of is that the information somehow threatens them in some way because it "feels dangerous" which is to say, there's something to it.

For example, people can intimate or outright call me an idiot all day long if they want, and it just doesn't bother me, because it doesn't ring true to me. If I thought there might be some truth to it at all, I would likely get upset. It's also why I don't mind calling other people dumbasses, because what do I know about it? If they get upset, they should question why they're getting upset. But most people aren't seemingly reflective, and instead blame the messenger rather than the message.

But yeah... pretty wacky.

[_asbestosman]

On the one hand I often crave frankness instead of a facade. On the other hand I often cringe when I receive it.

It's as if by calling Joseph Smith a greedy con-man, you are calling me a fool and thereby hold a rather low opinion of me--perhaps pity at most. Yet I don't think any of that was intended.

[_Runtu]

On the one hand I often crave frankness instead of a facade. On the other hand I often cringe when I receive it.

It's as if by calling Joseph Smith a greedy con-man, you are calling me a fool and thereby hold a rather low opinion of me--perhaps pity at most. Yet I don't think any of that was intended.

Now that I can understand. I have said over and over that I understand that other people have reached different conclusions about Joseph Smith than I have, and I don't think less or better of them because of it. But somehow my saying what I believe about him is insulting, while believers expressing their feelings is not insulting to me. Do you see what I mean?

[_asbestosman]

Well, I actually think this is a product of our Western culture more than anything else. People are constantly looking to be offended (it's easier to sue that way - or at least, gain sympathy). It's like their sensitivity is turned up to 11 on their internal amplifier.

I was just saying today in another thread that I just don't understand why anyone would take anything said here personally. It doesn't make any sense at all. The only reason I can think of is that the information somehow threatens them in some way because it "feels dangerous" which is to say, there's something to it.

For example, people can intimate or outright call me an idiot all day long if they want, and it just doesn't bother me, because it doesn't ring true to me. If I thought there might be some truth to it at all, I would likely get upset. It's also why I don't mind calling other people dumbasses, because what do I know about it? If they get upset, they should question why they're getting upset. But most people aren't seemingly reflective, and instead blame the messenger rather than the message.

I think there's a lot of truth to what you say here Schmo. And that's really something since I so rarely agree with what you write.

I generally don't get offended by stuff written here. I do get hurt, however, when people assume I mean to be rude when I do not. Usually when I'm trying to be offensive it will be a barrage or oozing sarcasm instead of some back-handed thing on only one vague sentence.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Someone would have to have his own head pretty far up his own ass to label you "one of the nastier of antis."

Runtu is one of the nastier of antis.




I smell burnt toast.

[_Gazelam]

A while back I was called "one of the nastier antis" in a discussion on another board.

Did you invite them over here to meet Porter? : )

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

On the one hand I often crave frankness instead of a facade. On the other hand I often cringe when I receive it.

It's as if by calling Joseph Smith a greedy con-man, you are calling me a fool and thereby hold a rather low opinion of me--perhaps pity at most. Yet I don't think any of that was intended.

Human nature is pretty prone to taking things personally whether they are meant that way or not, and it's not easy to overcome. Mormons are particularly sensitive to criticism to their religion because they are taught to be that way, they have a personal investment that makes it virtually impossible to know where the boundary is between themselves and their religion, and when it's taken to the extreme you end up like Washington ... you-know-who.

Taking offense promotes as much grimness in the world as giving offense. I truly believe that's true, and I believe it's a lot healthier not to take offense, whether it was intended or not intended, it doesn't matter.

[_beastie]

Over the years, I really have concluded it is largely futile to try and bridge the gap between exmormon and Mormon. There's too much baggage from the get-go. This is particularly true when the exmormon in question obviously didn't "want to leave to sin", obviously understood and was invested in the church, and still lost faith. Just the mere fact of our existence is such a smack in the face. We knew what they know, we loved what they love, we believe what they believed - and we rejected it.

It's like we rejected them.