Runtu wrote: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.
I think this is a great question to explore more indepth and for those interested to come to a common understanding thereon.
If I and other LDS (or anyone else for that matter) are overly sensative and taking things in the worst possible way, that may well become an impediment to effectual interfaith dialogue and limit the chances for improved relations and mutual growth. It is difficult to have social progress if one or both parties feel like they are walking on egg shell so as not to inadvertantly upset or offend the other party. So, if hyper-sensativity is something I am bringing to the discussion table (and I am open to considering that as a distinct possibility), then I would want to change for the better, and to the benefit of all concerned. Wouldn't you want to do the same, yourself?
However, if I and other LDS (or anyone else for that matter) are offensive in what we say and do, that too may become an impediment to effectual interfaith dialogue and limit the chances for improved relations and mutual growth. People can only take so much offending behavior before they are thoroughly repelled and communications breaks down entirely. So, if I am offensive in what I say and do, then I would want to change for the better, and to the benefit of all concerned. Wouldn't you want to do the same, yourself?
The challenge comes in figuring out which is which--i.e. whether certain words or deeds are inherently offensive or whether they are mis-construed in the worst possible way. It is a challenge because this kind of social skill tend to be more of an art than a science. There is no absolute or objective standard for determining offensiveness or hyper-sensitivity. A comment made in one context may be perfectly appropriate, whereas in another context it may be inherently offensive, and there are various shades inbetween. For example, black youth find it perfectly appropriate to call each by the N word, but would rightly be offended were a white person to use the term in reference to them.
I believe there are, though, certain general guidelines that may be followed to minimize offensive or hyper-sensative actions and reactions. I have some ideas about what those guidelines consist of, but I would first like to learn what others have found useful in this regard. What do you use to avoid being offended and/or being hyper-sensative?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-