Answer to Harmony and Analysis

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Coggins7 wrote:
Kind of like pulling out a wallet and flipping it open so all the credit cards and ID unroll, scroll-like, onto the floor. We see the Temple recommed, the activity rolls, the "member in good standing" diploma, records of callings held etc., and now the psychology degee (alleged). Well I just have to lie down. If you actually, actually believe that your Mormon credentials flummox me or alter in any way what is more than clear about what your really beleve about the church, its doctrines, its leaders, its founding leaders, and its culture, after reading and responding to your posts for well over a year hear and in another forum, than you are far more niave, or even more hermetically narcissistic than I ever could have imagined previously.



You're the one who said I was ex-Mo, Loran. Correcting your assumption, so you don't look like a fool again, seemed like the charitable thing to do. And obviously was an exercise in futility. Looking like a fool is something you cannot seem to avoid.


OK, you're not an exmo. That's fine. I will use the term I previous used based upon my experience with you over time, and just say, "defacto apostate".


Ironically, in your interview with Tal Bachman, you said that you had, in effect, a "personal relationship with Christ," which Elder McConkie claimed was a heresy. Does this mean you're a "de facto heretic"?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

The idea that either myself or Wade, if we were professional psychotherapists (which I don't believe Wade is and I surely have never claimed to be), would be "slapped with an ethics" charge for discussing theoretical concepts related to personality theory and psychotheraputic modalities only demonstrates the depths of the desperation that animates and drives your participation in these forums as a perennial and relentless critic of the LDS church you claim to be a temple reccomed holding, calling holding, cookie baking, root beer guzzling, sacrement-taking-member-in-good-standing of.

The idea that psychotherapists don't discuss individual's perceived psychlogical issues in public is positively hysterical.


It's not only positively hysterical, it's positively stupid. It's a breech of ethics and if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that. Credentialed people don't discuss individuals in public.

They do it alll the time, and they do it in books, magazines, and professional journal articles. The names are changed to protect anyonimity, but they do it all the time. Every clinical example or vignette that's ever appeared in a serious text on counseling theory and practice is an example of it.


Your participation and Wade's on this message board more closely resembles a group of friends sitting around gossiping than it does a therapuetic session or professional journal. I prefer to not risk my credentials for the likes of you. I'm sure you will misconstrue that, but that's only your own ego talking. You're just simply not worth the risk to me, Loran.

In any event, as an amateur theorist who charges nothing for any counsel he would ever give a friend, relative, or aquaintance, and as a non-professional who can say anything he want's to anybody he want's anytime he want.s regardless of the theoretical background from which he comes, your ciriticism of both Wade and I is utterly irrelevant.


And you are still not credentialed, and I am. So carry on with your non-professional behavior. It has all the validity of any other non-professional: none.

The very fact that you will not discuss where you received your degree, and within what school of thought or modality your background is psychology is grounded, belies again, that this is just a pose; a game of intellectual one-upsmanship that you play with people with whom you cannot hold our own in the arena of ideas on a fair and open basis.


No, Loran. The reason I won't tell you where I got my degree is because I refuse to give out information that could lead to my being found. I've had some bad experiences with that sort of thing, on other boards, all of which were LDS. And my psychological modality is simply none of your business.

For the record, I''m a newcomer to the theory of CBT, even though I've known about it for sometime, and I've come to this primarily through a continued search for more effective and theoretically sound alternatives to the tradtional 12 step approcah to addiction. My primery theoretical influences, over the last 20 some years, as to psychology, personality theory, and psychotheratupic modalities has been a combination of Abraham Maslow, Family Systems, RET, Glasser's Reality Therapy, and the Bio/Psycho/Social model of addiction, as over against the traditonal disease concept. I'm also intrigued by an eclectic approach that combines different modelities and especially the concept of Brief Therapy. I'm also intrigued by the possibility of importing certain insights and concepts from some eastern philosophies, such as Zen and classical naturalistic Taoism into the process of counseling.

I am also attracted to the most articulate and effective critics of the counseling psychology and mental health field, such as Thomas Szasz and Stanton Peele.


Then I suggest in the course of your study you study ethics. You've obviously missed that important part. I, on the other hand, have the degree, the certificate, and the license.

Get serious Harmony, we might even be able to have a mature, intellectually substantive discussion if you'd quite digging your spurs into that high white horse your on.


Loran


"Get serious"? Did you actually say that? You, the proud owner of a thread on poop? Good heaven's, Loran. Your concept of getting serious is diametrically opposed to mine.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Loran,

I attempted to engage you with two questions on this thread. It seems clear to me that you aren't genuinely interested in serious or civilized discussion. Welcome to the "fling personal crap at harmony" thread. You've done yourself proud.

Jersey Girl
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Loran,

I attempted to engage you with two questions on this thread. It seems clear to me that you aren't genuinely interested in serious or civilized discussion. Welcome to the "fling personal crap at harmony" thread. You've done yourself proud.

Jersey Girl


Keep your shirt on sister and count to ten. I can't sit here in front of thsi critical race theory all day and answer posts. I'm not doing much today and I'm here, but I can't answer each and every question in a timely fashion. My how sensitve we are. I'm glad I have a public and am in demand. Take a look Jersey, I'm the only TBM here right now outgunned 10 to one and counting. Give me a friggin' chance.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Coggins7 wrote:
Loran,

I attempted to engage you with two questions on this thread. It seems clear to me that you aren't genuinely interested in serious or civilized discussion. Welcome to the "fling personal crap at harmony" thread. You've done yourself proud.

Jersey Girl


Keep your shirt on sister and count to ten. I can't sit here in front of thsi critical race theory all day and answer posts. I'm not doing much today and I'm here, but I can't answer each and every question in a timely fashion. My how sensitve we are. I'm glad I have a public and am in demand. Take a look Jersey, I'm the only TBM here right now outgunned 10 to one and counting. Give me a friggin' chance.


'Scuse me for interrupting this ego trip, but you aren't the only TBM here. Wade is here, Jason is here, Plutarch is here. I'm sure there's others I'm forgetting.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

"As far as the other, not only are young men who choose to not go stigmatized and ostracized, so are young men who go, and serve honorably, but have to come home because of medical reasons. We are not a forgiving people, and we jump to wrong conclusions on a regular basis. We assume that when a young man comes home early, he did something bad enough to get sent home. I've seen this phenomena played out over and over again, the old biddies (male and female) gossiping about the young man... was it sexual? how did he break the rules? was he too wimpy?... when in reality, the young man came home because he got a parasite that couldn't be treated in a 3rd world country, or his appendix burst and he almost died, or he ruptured a disk in his back and had to be released. Honorable releases, but those young men were trashed because of gossip and rumor."

In your view, is what harmony describes common?



No. I've never experienced it myself, and I've never gossiped about people who didn't go on missions, especially since the reason I didn't go had no connection to any moral transgressions or similar personal problems. I'm not saying it doesn't go on. Its perfectly natural, given the high standards of worthiness required of a missionary, to wonder why he didn't go or why he came back early. But is it common? Well, not in my experience.

Loran,

Let me try this another way. In your comments above you say that your not going on a mission was one of the "damn dumbest mistakes" of your life.

Why do you think that was so?


Because its what the Lord wanted me to do, and I knew that by revelation. Lost the blessings I would have received had I gone, as well as the maturing experience, and I very likely, in retrospect, not have made the utterly catastrophic mistake of marrying the person I did in lieu of that mission.


You say that you were treated kindly by others who did not hold against you that you didn't go on a mission. harmony presents a different picture of responses by members manifested in the form of speculation (read: gossip) about those who cut short their time at mission service.

As an outsider, I think that both descriptions are probably subjective and based on that, fully valid expressions. Is it intellectually honest for you to attempt to discredit harmony's subjective accounts using your own subjective experience as the standard with which you evaluate?


I'm not sure how my personal experieces with this, or Harmony's, should be considered subjective. They either happened or they did not. The subjectivity involved in my analysis of Harmony's claim is not about her not having some knowledge of improper attitudes among some members regarding missionaries, but her clearly unwarrented (and fabricated, in my view) exprapolation of this behavior to a common theme within Mormon culture, which it patently isn't, else in 40 years, at some point, I would have encountered it to a much greater extent than I ever have, is has been very little.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

The subjectivity involved in my analysis of Harmony's claim is not about her not having some knowledge of improper attitudes among some members regarding missionaries, but her clearly unwarrented (and fabricated, in my view) exprapolation of this behavior to a common theme within Mormon culture, which it patently isn't, else in 40 years, at some point, I would have encountered it to a much greater extent than I ever have, is has been very little.


Well, that's progress. At least you didn't call me a bold-faced liar.

And clearly you've never been in a Relief Society homemaking meeting, sitting around the quilt with a needle in your hand. tsk tsk.

If I may point out the obvious, just because you haven't observed it to as great a level as I have doesn't mean it doesn't exist to the level I've observed.

And I refer back to the general authorities, who repeatedly speak out against this in general conference. Or do you think they only give talks on things things that we have already accomplished, and never call us to repent of these out-of-line things? You might want to read some of those talks again; they're constantly nagging us about our failures... gossip, intolerance, and pride are recurring themes.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Coggins7 wrote:
Loran,

I attempted to engage you with two questions on this thread. It seems clear to me that you aren't genuinely interested in serious or civilized discussion. Welcome to the "fling personal crap at harmony" thread. You've done yourself proud.

Jersey Girl


Keep your shirt on sister and count to ten. I can't sit here in front of thsi critical race theory all day and answer posts. I'm not doing much today and I'm here, but I can't answer each and every question in a timely fashion. My how sensitve we are. I'm glad I have a public and am in demand. Take a look Jersey, I'm the only TBM here right now outgunned 10 to one and counting. Give me a friggin' chance.


Allow me to interpret the above for the benefit of the reading public who are unable to decode irrelevant self aggrandizing b***s***.

So, what you're saying, Loran is that your main complaint at present is that you are outgunned on a thread where you yourself fired the first ad hom shot at harmony and following that, your keyboard has been possessed by some alien life form who has taken control of your fingers causing you to pathologically pump out additional personal insults and other types of generalized asshattery on this thread and other new threads of your own creation (or the alien's creation) and that's what's preventing you from engaging in...what'd you just call it? Oh yeah, "mature, intellectually substantive discussion".

Give me, a friggin' break, Loran.

Jersey Girl

*The preceeding message is a public service announcement brought to you by "cutthroughtheb***s***.com".
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

*The preceeding message is a public service announcement brought to you by "cutthroughtheb***s***.com".


ROTFLMAO. oh my... THAT was hilarious, Jersey Girl!
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

harmony wrote:
*The preceeding message is a public service announcement brought to you by "cutthroughtheb***s***.com".


ROTFLMAO. oh my... THAT was hilarious, Jersey Girl!


Hey, I still got it, harm! I've seriously and earnestly tried to be good on this board. I've tried and tried and tried.

And now I'm done!

Jersey Girl
;-)
Post Reply