Alaris' Comment - Brotherly Love

[Jonesy]

A now famous story about the former Queen Juliana goes like this:
The former Queen would open Parliament each year with a formal procession where she slowly marches up to the podium ( after alighting from the Gold Coach) to give the speech that officially opens Parliament. While this procession was slowly coming forward, with the Queen and her consort Prince Klaus, a man who was somewhat dear, but was sitting in the common seats, said rather loudly so that everyone in the hall heard him, " Look what fat legs the Queen has got!" Everyone then stared at the legs of the Queen as she marched slowly up the aisle and ascended to the podium. This is very typical dutch behaviour. VERY typical. When the Queen was ready to speak, she looked down at that guy and retorted, "My legs have to hold up the entire House of Orange/Nassau!" The meeting then went on as usual, and our Queen showed that she was a woman of real class. We all still laugh about it, though, and she knew it til the day she died.

That was a great story. It reminds me of when I was on my mission in South America. There was a stake presidency being replaced. As is the tradition that the leaders, and sometimes their wives, get to bear their testimony during this meeting, all of them who went up (without exception, if I remember correctly) remarked how big the GA's head was that was attending. The congregation was all laughing about it, too! As the GA was hearing through his interpreter, he was just grinning widely. I can't remember if he addressed it when it was his turn to speak.

On a side note, I grew up in a very conservatively-mannered home. It was proper, and some things you just didn't say. I don't think I could really speak openly in my home, at least to my parents. Then I married my wife, and what a complete opposite side of the spectrum. She grew up in the south, and she's as direct as can be. I can't tell you how much I have appreciated her family in this entirely different experience. It's liberating and refreshing. I love talking with them. It's interesting how much emotional baggage we create when we learn how to restrict what we say; the line becomes less distinct when someone is just being mean and when you're just being open.

[Alaris]

I'd like to share a story that is relevant to this thread.

"During the time after my divorce I felt very alone and dejected. To add insult to injury my AC kept failing both before and after my divorce. I drove nearly an entire Arizona summer commuting 2 hours a day without any AC. I could not afford to pay an auto shop for the repairs as they estimated nearly $ 2,000. I would pour ice cold water down my spine before my afternoon commute to combat heat exhaustion. One day, I went to the AC repair shop to purchase some AC parts on the far side of the metro. As I walked out a man who appeared to be homeless held the door open to me. He was tall, very thin, and had long curly brown hair and a beard. There are a lot of homeless in that part of the neighborhood, so at first glance I didn't think much other than, "He sort of looks like Jesus" though he was wearing a t-shirt and jeans.

This man held open the door and waited for me to approach--he waited long enough where most would have just entered the shop without ever meeting eyes as most people do. As I walked past him, I said, 'Thank you.'

'You are very welcome,' he replied. The love I felt from this man as he spoke those words was immense. To this day I cannot figure out how he showed so much love in those four words. I still wonder if this was an angel or the Lord Himself in disguise who was somehow able to convey such deep love just by speech. I think on this experience whenever I look at my own life and consider whether I show enough love in my actions and in my words and in my deeds. I hope that some day, I can emanate love as the Savior does in even the smallest acts of kindness."

[Red]

"You are pushing a preconceived notion of a utopian society without being willing to consider the potential flaws."
The law of consecration came to mind. The law will never work without Christ. It's fulfilled in Christ. The utopian society would be fulfilled in Christ as well. The goal is to work toward that society, work toward consecration. It won't happen without Christ, but we can certainly set our sights for it.

Passionflower:
" I would leave as soon as possible, knowing there was a bigger picture than myself that is going on here."
Sometimes the bigger picture is to be kind, rather than brutally honest. Sometimes you swallow your pride and say something kind, not something brutal, because it's as you say, there's a bigger picture than yourself. You ever know what your kind words can do for someone on a bad day. You also don't know what your brutally honest words can do to someone on a bad day. What they choose to do because of your words is not your concern. Your concern should be that you helped lightened their load, as Christ would, not worsened it. We all know the Plato quote, be kind, everyone is fighting a tough battle (paraphrased obviously).

[Red]

There's so much cruelty in this world. We could all use more kindness, more positivity, more tenderness.

[shadow]

It's quite amazing how many of you can't abide a call to be kind while being doctrinally correct in your forum posts.

ab·rupt
əˈbrəpt/Submit
brief to the point of rudeness; curt.

Well that was brief and to the point and a bit abrupt. Forgot to take your own medicine today?

It's quite amazing how much coddling is required these days.

Curious, if you had to speak with Caitlyn Jenner would you refer to him as he wishes (as a woman) or would you call him a man/male?

Shadow, I have this vague memory of posts that came from you where you seemed to be in a better place personally. I remember reading posts that seemed constructive rather than destructive. Perhaps my memory is wrong as I do have newborn baby brain, however I'd be happy to listen if you need an ear.

Best wishes with the baby. I'm kinda glad those days are behind me. Our youngest is 7.
There's no I'll will from me in my posts, at least none intended. I'm of the generation where firm words weren't mean. This new PC coddle society isn't going to work. People take offense at the darndest things and claim there's a lack of charity. Charity can be rough sometimes. That little nugget gets ignored. Laman and Lemual had some not so PC (politically correct) words pointed at them. It's ok.

[Alaris]

It's quite amazing how many of you can't abide a call to be kind while being doctrinally correct in your forum posts.

Well that was brief and to the point and a bit abrupt. Forgot to take your own medicine today?

It's quite amazing how much coddling is required these days.

Curious, if you had to speak with Caitlyn Jenner would you refer to him as he wishes (as a woman) or would you call him a man/male?

Shadow, I have this vague memory of posts that came from you where you seemed to be in a better place personally. I remember reading posts that seemed constructive rather than destructive. Perhaps my memory is wrong as I do have newborn baby brain, however I'd be happy to listen if you need an ear.

Best wishes with the baby. I'm kinda glad those days are behind me. Our youngest is 7.
There's no I'll will from me in my posts, at least none intended. I'm of the generation where firm words weren't mean. This new PC coddle society isn't going to work. People take offense at the darndest things and claim there's a lack of charity. Charity can be rough sometimes. That little nugget gets ignored. Laman and Lemual had some not so PC (politically correct) words pointed at them. It's ok.

Thank you. I hear you on PC and appreciate your words.

[passionflower]

"You are pushing a preconceived notion of a utopian society without being willing to consider the potential flaws."
The law of consecration came to mind. The law will never work without Christ. It's fulfilled in Christ. The utopian society would be fulfilled in Christ as well. The goal is to work toward that society, work toward consecration. It won't happen without Christ, but we can certainly set our sights for it.

Passionflower:
" I would leave as soon as possible, knowing there was a bigger picture than myself that is going on here."
Sometimes the bigger picture is to be kind, rather than brutally honest. Sometimes you swallow your pride and say something kind, not something brutal, because it's as you say, there's a bigger picture than yourself. You ever know what your kind words can do for someone on a bad day. You also don't know what your brutally honest words can do to someone on a bad day. What they choose to do because of your words is not your concern. Your concern should be that you helped lightened their load, as Christ would, not worsened it. We all know the Plato quote, be kind, everyone is fighting a tough battle (paraphrased obviously).

I flat out disagree. And don't preach to me. Or control me.

[Red]

"You are pushing a preconceived notion of a utopian society without being willing to consider the potential flaws."
The law of consecration came to mind. The law will never work without Christ. It's fulfilled in Christ. The utopian society would be fulfilled in Christ as well. The goal is to work toward that society, work toward consecration. It won't happen without Christ, but we can certainly set our sights for it.

Passionflower:
" I would leave as soon as possible, knowing there was a bigger picture than myself that is going on here."
Sometimes the bigger picture is to be kind, rather than brutally honest. Sometimes you swallow your pride and say something kind, not something brutal, because it's as you say, there's a bigger picture than yourself. You ever know what your kind words can do for someone on a bad day. You also don't know what your brutally honest words can do to someone on a bad day. What they choose to do because of your words is not your concern. Your concern should be that you helped lightened their load, as Christ would, not worsened it. We all know the Plato quote, be kind, everyone is fighting a tough battle (paraphrased obviously).

I flat out disagree. And don't preach to me. Or control me.

As if I could

[brlenox]

Firstly no offense taken.

Secondly what is my brand of nice? I have quoted scriptures to reinforce the fact we are commanded to love one another and told that without charity we are essentially worthless to God. These scriptures suggest that if we are doctrinely correct in our discussions yet devoid of charity we are availed nothing.

I'm sorry my words anger you but I submit to you that perhaps your anger is displaced as your lengthy post suggests.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a path to Godhood we are all invited to embark on. None of us will be forced just like my invitations are only intended to elevate the conversation here and improve the fruits of charity. I'm sorry that angers you and so many here. I've not excluded myself from the invitation as none of us are perfect and therein is the point. Should we not be aiming higher each day? This concept should be welcome in an lds discussion forum.

Sorry passionflower, I am going to interject a touch when it really is yours to reply to but...

Alaris, you missed the majority of her post down to the point of claiming she is angry with you when she only claims frustration. Two completely different meanings and words. However that highlights the indoctrination of our day and what passionflower has so eloquently spoken to. She says one thing and you completely hear another and in a different spirit and tone that she intended. As I felt what she was saying, I felt she was actually being conciliatory trying to bring two different worlds together in harmony. What you got was angry...

Passionflower please correct anything I have said as I do not mean to speak for you, I am just speaking for me and what I heard.

That may be. I just want to clarify that I certainly don't want Alaris' brand of nice becoming a thing. She does make some good points, but I would be happy to make some counterpoints and suggestions if desired.

I do not mind if you make counter points however, I have to wonder if you can. She has underscored an issue that really has to do with so much more than just reading the words. When I responded to you about your comments which is quoted above I said one thing very particular, I said "As I felt what she was saying". I didn't try to just read the words. Frankly if I had of I might have concluded as you did that she was expressing anger at you. However, and this goes back to context, which others in this thread have issue with as well, in that she offset the angry tone you heard by expressing that "she liked you but"...That sentiment encapsulated every thing that was written. Then she proceeded to be direct and you read hostility without even measuring the words against what she was expressing. That is because of the nature of the preconditioning of your expectations. You can read direct language, you see the words and you understand their meanings, but you cannot feel the heart of the speaker even when they give you contextual clues to help define their intent. You are hearing how the WORDS make YOU feel, which in this case was the exact opposite of what was said.

As long as you intend to continue to read everything as if it is YOU speaking according to the nature of what your heart would feel if you were to utter the words spoken then you will never understand many of us who tend to be very direct. It is not your desire to be direct; it seems you see it as flawed behavior and that taints your interpretation whenever you encounter directness.

Now for the coup de grâce and where my boldness may exceed tolerances typical to Americans. This is the same issue with why two people can read the same scripture and get entirely different meanings. They read from a self based interpretive perspective when the spirit that guided those words when originally spoken is the only source that truly knows what was the intended meaning. In the absence of that spirit we hear what we want it to be. Now, another stretch of boldness, you feel attracted and compelled to the charity based verses. And the truth is they are some of the most important in all of scripture, however if they become the singular filter through which a person hears everything else then they are only right some of the time and even that is compromised because they are not right from knowledge of the principle involved but only by accident - broken clock scenario.

When a filter becomes too dominate then it defines the nature of what degree others can trust your counsel. For instance my wife is the tidiest cleanest person you ever met. Everything she does and in practically all of our counseling together she runs everything through the filer of what is the mess going to be like. Should we let the kids invite friends over for dinner - nope, nope, nope I just vacuumed and it will just mean more dishes. I am required then to evaluate the filter...is cleanliness the priority, is my wife's need for cleanliness the priority or are the friends more important. Cleanliness has a way of excising people out of the picture and so I must work and encourage that we consider other angles to evaluate what is the very best thing we can do. Sometimes I see this clamoring for what I see as religious political correctness, or the Alaris niceness doctrine as a only sometimes useful filter but certainly not every time.

There are other factors that must be considered. As I stated earlier, I don't care what people believe or teach UNLESS I feel that in some way their efforts are not benign but are contrived to lead people astray and calculated to create doubt in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, and by default Christ Himself. A well known verse speaks to my concerns:

Acts 20:28-30

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I may also make mistakes in my interpretations of when others may not have those intentions but as of yet I have not noted any. In fact the record is pretty good.

Once I feel like I am observing the behaviors of ravenous wolves then I feel I have an obligation. Please consider:

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Now my approach is not a opinion laced diatribe of personal interpretation that I flail with wildly flapping arms and wild eyed terror and spit and drool oozing down my chin. I do not fight opinions and sophistry with more of the same. Nor do I plead for gentle treatment as truth stands on its own. Without the words of scripture and the prophets, I lack in every conceivable way the capacity to correctly teach anything however, at great pains and hours, days, months and years studying and pondering I am well prepared to address those works of darkness that Paul warns the Ephesians to take no part in and to expose.

I take to heart the clear encouragement found in 2 Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:15-16

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Rightly dividing the word of truth is extremely important to me as I seek to expose the works of darkness. As well I recognize the warning in verse 16 that carried too far the process devolves into bad behaviors.

Because that is the predominate nature of my efforts it certainly might appear that I am always battling and yes that would not be a mistaken interpretation but I do not as a rule do it in any other way than with sound scriptural support and by aligning myself with the Lords chosen servants and a spirit of direct and precise language. Usually the only intended element is my candor and directness but there is no intent to be condescending, prideful or arrogant, though I do get charged with that not infrequently. In most cases, I hope to hit the spot where some will reconsider and other's will draw strength when needed. I try to measure and back away before my heart begins to feel any sense of contention. However, contention is something quite different than most want to claim.

I cannot be you. You seem to have that under control and I respect the hope that you express. However, it does seem a bit naive and perhaps lacking in hearing the heart of mine and others messages. We are not lacking in charity and love but it is the core of what drives us. We care and we hope to do what needs to be done to preserve the true Gospel in the hearts of His children - albeit with a measure of imperfection that I am always hoping to improve upon.

[Finrock]

Alaris, everything you said frustrates me.

The common fault I see here is the assumption that everyone on the planet sees things like this exactly the same. With how you describe Zion, I would have to conclude you think I am "bad", my culture is "bad", my family is "bad", and my personal adjustment to the world is "bad", and I had just better get an Alaris style make over so I can go to Zion.

I am dutch. The Dutch are known for being blunt and honest to the point of absolute brutality. In my world, this is just ordinary conversation and is not considered unkind or uncharitable, But you would say it was awful, and we could not be a "zion" people and insist something is "wrong" with us. Also, we do NOT hug. Yet you paint a picture of Jesus embracing us. I would not like this. I do not want to be welcomed into the arms of Jesus. Dutch people kiss each other to show affection, we do not embrace. Do you insist I must desired to be embraced or I am not a Zion person? That would be uncomfortable and mean nothing to me. Looks like I do not "fit" into your Zion, and I must be excluded as defective.

Where I come from, no one has a meltdown because someone said their haircut wasn't good, their clothes don't fit, their kids are complete monsters, their yard is a mess, their talk in church was boring, or heaven forbid, their tattoos are ugly and incongruent to a church member. No one goes on Facebook crying about the horrible judgmental person who fat shamed them, etc. demanding sympathy and validation for their personal weaknesses. To me, acting this way is just too hilarious.

Dutch people do not take everything said to them personally, as every american does and to the max. Are you insisting that we should? We do not personally identify with being fat, old, our political persuasions, our country, tattoos, body jewelry, our sexual orientation, or even our religion. I do not personally identify as a Mormon, something I find very peculiar and weird to do. I am first me, and I identify very strongly with that, and then I have a religion, which I regard as a very private matter.

I grew up in a world where I didn't have to lie. I didn't have to say someone was pretty when they weren't, and I didn't have to hold anything in to please someone else's touchy feelings. With american mormons, every virtue must bow and pay homage to the hypersensitive feelings of others. Everything about you is judged on how well you protect the "feelings" of others. It is a world where no one means a thing they say, and you can't say "no" without guilt. If this is Zion, I am outta here. I would rather be real, genuine, and have my relationships above board. Totally.

One of the most difficult things I encounter is the american greeting "How are you?" or "How are you doing?". It took me quite a while to get it that no one who says that really cares how you are doing and no one asked answers back honestly. I once listened in a small town grocery store as everyone came in knew each other and constantly said, " how you doing?" and every answer back was "great" "glorious" "perfect" and "couldn't be better!" I had the very bad manners of actually answering honestly, expecting them to care, only to see downcast eyes that said, " I am sorry I asked". The way I look at it, if you don't want to know how I'm doing, and you don't really care, then DON'T ask me. If this kind of insincerity is considered good enough for "Zion", then I don't want any part of it,

Missionaries going to the Netherlands have to be apprised of the very direct and abrupt nature of the dutch. But they are not told to make us over into phony make nice americans who want Jesus to embrace us so we can be a zion people, too. I might add that once missionaries get "used" to telling it like it is, they love it and find that a great relief comes over them. They find the dutch to be the most genuine people who really care about others and willingly help strangers ( that's why the dutch took in the pilgrims ). They work well as a group with no one trying to exalt themselves over others ( even CEO's don't get a private secretary and have to get their own cup of coffee ( copje Koffe ) and are probably the last country in Europe to be strongly family centered with mom still at home.

Nevertheless, if I don't talk your brand of "nice", And if I don't look forward to Jesus embracing me, I am NOT a Zion person and need to be fixed.

( please don't take this personally. As you can see, if I meant it personally, I would SAY i meant this personally. I like you quite a bit. I am just venting out how a foreign person can react to threads such as this.)

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

[passionflower]

Alaris, everything you said frustrates me.

The common fault I see here is the assumption that everyone on the planet sees things like this exactly the same. With how you describe Zion, I would have to conclude you think I am "bad", my culture is "bad", my family is "bad", and my personal adjustment to the world is "bad", and I had just better get an Alaris style make over so I can go to Zion.

I am dutch. The Dutch are known for being blunt and honest to the point of absolute brutality. In my world, this is just ordinary conversation and is not considered unkind or uncharitable, But you would say it was awful, and we could not be a "zion" people and insist something is "wrong" with us. Also, we do NOT hug. Yet you paint a picture of Jesus embracing us. I would not like this. I do not want to be welcomed into the arms of Jesus. Dutch people kiss each other to show affection, we do not embrace. Do you insist I must desired to be embraced or I am not a Zion person? That would be uncomfortable and mean nothing to me. Looks like I do not "fit" into your Zion, and I must be excluded as defective.

Where I come from, no one has a meltdown because someone said their haircut wasn't good, their clothes don't fit, their kids are complete monsters, their yard is a mess, their talk in church was boring, or heaven forbid, their tattoos are ugly and incongruent to a church member. No one goes on Facebook crying about the horrible judgmental person who fat shamed them, etc. demanding sympathy and validation for their personal weaknesses. To me, acting this way is just too hilarious.

Dutch people do not take everything said to them personally, as every american does and to the max. Are you insisting that we should? We do not personally identify with being fat, old, our political persuasions, our country, tattoos, body jewelry, our sexual orientation, or even our religion. I do not personally identify as a Mormon, something I find very peculiar and weird to do. I am first me, and I identify very strongly with that, and then I have a religion, which I regard as a very private matter.

I grew up in a world where I didn't have to lie. I didn't have to say someone was pretty when they weren't, and I didn't have to hold anything in to please someone else's touchy feelings. With american mormons, every virtue must bow and pay homage to the hypersensitive feelings of others. Everything about you is judged on how well you protect the "feelings" of others. It is a world where no one means a thing they say, and you can't say "no" without guilt. If this is Zion, I am outta here. I would rather be real, genuine, and have my relationships above board. Totally.

One of the most difficult things I encounter is the american greeting "How are you?" or "How are you doing?". It took me quite a while to get it that no one who says that really cares how you are doing and no one asked answers back honestly. I once listened in a small town grocery store as everyone came in knew each other and constantly said, " how you doing?" and every answer back was "great" "glorious" "perfect" and "couldn't be better!" I had the very bad manners of actually answering honestly, expecting them to care, only to see downcast eyes that said, " I am sorry I asked". The way I look at it, if you don't want to know how I'm doing, and you don't really care, then DON'T ask me. If this kind of insincerity is considered good enough for "Zion", then I don't want any part of it,

Missionaries going to the Netherlands have to be apprised of the very direct and abrupt nature of the dutch. But they are not told to make us over into phony make nice americans who want Jesus to embrace us so we can be a zion people, too. I might add that once missionaries get "used" to telling it like it is, they love it and find that a great relief comes over them. They find the dutch to be the most genuine people who really care about others and willingly help strangers ( that's why the dutch took in the pilgrims ). They work well as a group with no one trying to exalt themselves over others ( even CEO's don't get a private secretary and have to get their own cup of coffee ( copje Koffe ) and are probably the last country in Europe to be strongly family centered with mom still at home.

Nevertheless, if I don't talk your brand of "nice", And if I don't look forward to Jesus embracing me, I am NOT a Zion person and need to be fixed.

( please don't take this personally. As you can see, if I meant it personally, I would SAY i meant this personally. I like you quite a bit. I am just venting out how a foreign person can react to threads such as this.)

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

[brlenox]

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

Passionflower, I very much appreciate your perspective. Over my lifetime, I have found that I can still be me even though me is a hard pill to swallow for some who always to a fault are the easily offended types. The value of this has been that while I tend to very few true friends at any given time in my life, the ones I have are the highest caliber of people I know - the ones you would willingly give your life for. Lately they keep dying on me but I am excited for their new experience as men of their caliber continue to do great things I'm sure. One of the foundational points of friendship is beyond doubt that we can speak in full honesty one with another.

I can remember one time when an attorney friend and I were discussing some atonement material I had been working on for many years. He and I often engaged in very deep conversations. For some reason in this instance it became frustrating because he slipped into attorney mode and it become more like a cross examination and the spirit simply fled. We hardly made it to the second point and simply could not move beyond it after an hour and a half of discussion because of the interrogation. A few days later he wanted to continue the conversation and I told him to forget it. There was no way to teach anybody anything who was going to treat it like a court case and couldn't distinguish when it was appropriate to be an attorney such as in a courtroom and when he needed to be a student and just shut up and listen until he could catch the spirit of the conversation and points of doctrine we were discussing. I mentioned that in his need to be the big powerful dude handling the courtroom his largeness was compromising his spirituality. He was making it all about him and was loosing the chance for the discussion. Unlike most attorneys I know, he was immediately humbled, and very graciously accepted the critique and was thankful for the reminder. We spent the last year of his life having the deepest discussions on the atonement he had ever had. He was a rare friend.

Anyway the point is that I hope you do not always compromise your gift for integrity. It is true that most Americans will reject it as too harsh but there are a few who appreciate the integrity and they will be true friends.

I especially found your observation that in the states the person being honest gets attacked by everyone else claiming they are being rude. Shadows link to the Ben Shapiro conversation was illustrative of that very issue. Anyway in my mind you are a breath of fresh air - I guess I should have been born Dutch.

[Red]

Alaris, everything you said frustrates me.

The common fault I see here is the assumption that everyone on the planet sees things like this exactly the same. With how you describe Zion, I would have to conclude you think I am "bad", my culture is "bad", my family is "bad", and my personal adjustment to the world is "bad", and I had just better get an Alaris style make over so I can go to Zion.

I am dutch. The Dutch are known for being blunt and honest to the point of absolute brutality. In my world, this is just ordinary conversation and is not considered unkind or uncharitable, But you would say it was awful, and we could not be a "zion" people and insist something is "wrong" with us. Also, we do NOT hug. Yet you paint a picture of Jesus embracing us. I would not like this. I do not want to be welcomed into the arms of Jesus. Dutch people kiss each other to show affection, we do not embrace. Do you insist I must desired to be embraced or I am not a Zion person? That would be uncomfortable and mean nothing to me. Looks like I do not "fit" into your Zion, and I must be excluded as defective.

Where I come from, no one has a meltdown because someone said their haircut wasn't good, their clothes don't fit, their kids are complete monsters, their yard is a mess, their talk in church was boring, or heaven forbid, their tattoos are ugly and incongruent to a church member. No one goes on Facebook crying about the horrible judgmental person who fat shamed them, etc. demanding sympathy and validation for their personal weaknesses. To me, acting this way is just too hilarious.

Dutch people do not take everything said to them personally, as every american does and to the max. Are you insisting that we should? We do not personally identify with being fat, old, our political persuasions, our country, tattoos, body jewelry, our sexual orientation, or even our religion. I do not personally identify as a Mormon, something I find very peculiar and weird to do. I am first me, and I identify very strongly with that, and then I have a religion, which I regard as a very private matter.

I grew up in a world where I didn't have to lie. I didn't have to say someone was pretty when they weren't, and I didn't have to hold anything in to please someone else's touchy feelings. With american mormons, every virtue must bow and pay homage to the hypersensitive feelings of others. Everything about you is judged on how well you protect the "feelings" of others. It is a world where no one means a thing they say, and you can't say "no" without guilt. If this is Zion, I am outta here. I would rather be real, genuine, and have my relationships above board. Totally.

One of the most difficult things I encounter is the american greeting "How are you?" or "How are you doing?". It took me quite a while to get it that no one who says that really cares how you are doing and no one asked answers back honestly. I once listened in a small town grocery store as everyone came in knew each other and constantly said, " how you doing?" and every answer back was "great" "glorious" "perfect" and "couldn't be better!" I had the very bad manners of actually answering honestly, expecting them to care, only to see downcast eyes that said, " I am sorry I asked". The way I look at it, if you don't want to know how I'm doing, and you don't really care, then DON'T ask me. If this kind of insincerity is considered good enough for "Zion", then I don't want any part of it,

Missionaries going to the Netherlands have to be apprised of the very direct and abrupt nature of the dutch. But they are not told to make us over into phony make nice americans who want Jesus to embrace us so we can be a zion people, too. I might add that once missionaries get "used" to telling it like it is, they love it and find that a great relief comes over them. They find the dutch to be the most genuine people who really care about others and willingly help strangers ( that's why the dutch took in the pilgrims ). They work well as a group with no one trying to exalt themselves over others ( even CEO's don't get a private secretary and have to get their own cup of coffee ( copje Koffe ) and are probably the last country in Europe to be strongly family centered with mom still at home.

Nevertheless, if I don't talk your brand of "nice", And if I don't look forward to Jesus embracing me, I am NOT a Zion person and need to be fixed.

( please don't take this personally. As you can see, if I meant it personally, I would SAY i meant this personally. I like you quite a bit. I am just venting out how a foreign person can react to threads such as this.)

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

So what you're saying is that you're just breathing all over the forum? ;)

[Alaris]

Response in red

Firstly no offense taken.

Secondly what is my brand of nice? I have quoted scriptures to reinforce the fact we are commanded to love one another and told that without charity we are essentially worthless to God. These scriptures suggest that if we are doctrinely correct in our discussions yet devoid of charity we are availed nothing.

I'm sorry my words anger you but I submit to you that perhaps your anger is displaced as your lengthy post suggests.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a path to Godhood we are all invited to embark on. None of us will be forced just like my invitations are only intended to elevate the conversation here and improve the fruits of charity. I'm sorry that angers you and so many here. I've not excluded myself from the invitation as none of us are perfect and therein is the point. Should we not be aiming higher each day? This concept should be welcome in an lds discussion forum.

Sorry passionflower, I am going to interject a touch when it really is yours to reply to but...

Alaris, you missed the majority of her post down to the point of claiming she is angry with you when she only claims frustration. Two completely different meanings and words. However that highlights the indoctrination of our day and what passionflower has so eloquently spoken to. She says one thing and you completely hear another and in a different spirit and tone that she intended. As I felt what she was saying, I felt she was actually being conciliatory trying to bring two different worlds together in harmony. What you got was angry...

Passionflower please correct anything I have said as I do not mean to speak for you, I am just speaking for me and what I heard.

That may be. I just want to clarify that I certainly don't want Alaris' brand of nice becoming a thing. She does make some good points, but I would be happy to make some counterpoints and suggestions if desired.

I do not mind if you make counter points however, I have to wonder if you can. "I have to wonder if you can." I need to point out that your "I wonder if you can" comment is both rude and completely unnecessary. That said, no offense taken as I am familiar with your "brand of candor." See what I did there? If you reference Red's second post where she quotes you - again I don't know the context - but those comments were insulting and unnecessary. There seems to be a lot of effort on your part to justify behavior that is unjustifiable. There is no part of the gospel of Jesus Christ that justifies you insulting fellow latter-day saints who err on doctrine by your estimation. She has underscored an issue that really has to do with so much more than just reading the words. When I responded to you about your comments which is quoted above I said one thing very particular, I said "As I felt what she was saying". I didn't try to just read the words. Frankly if I had of I might have concluded as you did that she was expressing anger at you. However, and this goes back to context, which others in this thread have issue with as well, in that she offset the angry tone you heard by expressing that "she liked you but"...That sentiment encapsulated every thing that was written. Then she proceeded to be direct and you read hostility without even measuring the words against what she was expressing. That is because of the nature of the preconditioning of your expectations. You can read direct language, you see the words and you understand their meanings, but you cannot feel the heart of the speaker even when they give you contextual clues to help define their intent. You are hearing how the WORDS make YOU feel, which in this case was the exact opposite of what was said. So you understood Passionflower's words better than I according to your estimation. That may be possible. I made some counter points based off what she was saying that I hoped would help her think. No insults necessary.

As long as you intend to continue to read everything as if it is YOU speaking according to the nature of what your heart would feel if you were to utter the words spoken then you will never understand many of us who tend to be very direct. It is not your desire to be direct; it seems you see it as flawed behavior and that taints your interpretation whenever you encounter directness. I was very direct in my reply to passionflower. I told her that her anger may be displaced. Though she said she liked me, she also expressed that my words made her angry. My suggestion was that even all the reasons she gave, perhaps there was yet something else below the surface causing the anger. Let's be clear - it is my desire to work towards elevating treatment of by fellow LDS to others (mostly other fellow LDS) and to expose this pretext of being "Direct" or "abrupt." What this boils down to, in my estimation, is your apparent attempt to justify your continued condescension so you won't have to change and be able to sleep better at night. I will not help you in that effort. Is that direct?

Now for the coup de grâce and where my boldness may exceed tolerances typical to Americans. This is the same issue with why two people can read the same scripture and get entirely different meanings. They read from a self based interpretive perspective when the spirit that guided those words when originally spoken is the only source that truly knows what was the intended meaning. In the absence of that spirit we hear what we want it to be. I have noticed that you do this very thing. We all have our filters and our agendas--some better aligned with God's than others.Now, another stretch of boldness, you feel attracted and compelled to the charity based verses. And the truth is they are some of the most important in all of scripture, however if they become the singular filter through which a person hears everything else then they are only right some of the time and even that is compromised because they are not right from knowledge of the principle involved but only by accident - broken clock scenario. First of all charity is right all the time. Even when you are being sharp with someone you should always have charity for that person. And again, you state that all I use is the charity verses when I have already stated when sharpness is the right response. However this whole thread is about the lack of charity, and immediately several LDSFF jump in to trammel Red's call for greater charity. Don't you see the irony??? Imagine if the first page was full of "You're right we can all do better" replies. There would only be one page! Meanwhile you have spent a great deal of time trying to point out the flaws in what I have been calling for which only reads like a personal brlenox justification endeavor so you can go ahead and keep making "abrupt" comments under the umbrella of "fighting darkness." I'm pretty sure I already posted the definition of abrupt.

D&C 121:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

No influence can be maintained ... especially in these forums where we are still required to honor our Priesthood. Gentleness & Meekness do not equal abruptness.

D&C 121:43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

Even when we are sharp, we are commanded to show love afterwards. Anything less than this is not maintaining any sort of power or influence by virtue of the Priesthood.


When a filter becomes too dominate then it defines the nature of what degree others can trust your counsel. For instance my wife is the tidiest cleanest person you ever met. Everything she does and in practically all of our counseling together she runs everything through the filer of what is the mess going to be like. Should we let the kids invite friends over for dinner - nope, nope, nope I just vacuumed and it will just mean more dishes. I am required then to evaluate the filter...is cleanliness the priority, is my wife's need for cleanliness the priority or are the friends more important. Cleanliness has a way of excising people out of the picture and so I must work and encourage that we consider other angles to evaluate what is the very best thing we can do. Sometimes I see this clamoring for what I see as religious political correctness, or the Alaris niceness doctrine as a only sometimes useful filter but certainly not every time. Religious political correctness seems like it would suggest an effort to control speech to push an agenda. Let's break that down. Nobody is controlling you or anyone or attempting to do so. You can continue to post abrupt comments, and you likely will given the time you've spent here excusing it, and I won't ever report you to the moderator. I will likely continue to do my best to help you see the error (aiming for long-suffering, patience--which is a weak spot) in your ways as you help others see the error in their ways after your own manner. Secondly, there aren't any words that are outlawed as PC proponents do. I can only speak for myself and say that mine is an invitation only and I haven't precluded myself either--let's all be more charitable! Finally, I do have an agenda - it is to elevate the treatment of others and do what I can to help facilitate an online ZION here. Some see hypocrisy in my efforts -that may be true, but I have never excused myself from feedback while giving it to others. I have had several success stories and have seen people treat others more kindly after being sharp with them when I was moved upon by the Holy Ghost. I have written more abrupt replies and I always pray before posting them - if I don't feel it's write I delete the post or change it until I do, as I have done with this post.

There are other factors that must be considered. As I stated earlier, I don't care what people believe or teach UNLESS I feel that in some way their efforts are not benign but are contrived to lead people astray and calculated to create doubt in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, and by default Christ Himself. All the more reason to have charity all throughout these efforts. If those who err (the irony) don't feel the pure love of Jesus Christ, then your words alone won't do much to effectuate change. A well known verse speaks to my concerns:

Acts 20:28-30

28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I may also make mistakes in my interpretations of when others may not have those intentions but as of yet I have not noted any. In fact the record is pretty good. There are many who have stated otherwise, and you listed a few yourself in this thread. It seems to me that you are a little too overzealous in seeing wolves when perhaps we should look at each other like fellow children of God - brothers and sisters. If you spot a wolf, pm me and I would be happy to add my witness to yours and listen to the spirit in dealing with them.

Once I feel like I am observing the behaviors of ravenous wolves then I feel I have an obligation. I have seen the mistreatment of others is far more a problem here than ravenous wolving. I have seen perhaps a fundamentalist or two push Adam God "Doctrine" which is easily dealt with by sticking to truth. I was not here for the Snufferite exodus, so perhaps that is a factor worth considering. If you see the fruits of one, please pm me and I would be happy to stand by your side for truth. Please consider:

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Now my approach is not a opinion laced diatribe of personal interpretation that I flail with wildly flapping arms and wild eyed terror and spit and drool oozing down my chin. I do not fight opinions and sophistry with more of the same. Nor do I plead for gentle treatment as truth stands on its own. Yes! No insults are required. Truth doesn't need anyone to condescend anyone else ... Without the words of scripture and the prophets, and the Spirit, I lack in every conceivable way the capacity to correctly teach anything however, at great pains and hours, days, months and years studying and pondering I am well prepared to address those works of darkness that Paul warns the Ephesians to take no part in and to expose.

I take to heart the clear encouragement found in 2 Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:15-16

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Rightly dividing the word of truth is extremely important to me as I seek to expose the works of darkness. As well I recognize the warning in verse 16 that carried too far the process devolves into bad behaviors.

Because that is the predominate nature of my efforts it certainly might appear that I am always battling and yes that would not be a mistaken interpretation but I do not as a rule do it in any other way than with sound scriptural support and by aligning myself with the Lords chosen servants and a spirit of direct and precise language. Usually the only intended element is my candor and directness but there is no intent to be condescending, prideful or arrogant, though I do get charged with that not infrequently. Since you are charged with that not infrequently, perhaps it's time to self examine and internalize some suggestions. I would be happy to help you. PM anytime. I love editing, and would love to assist you in working to stand a little taller. In most cases, I hope to hit the spot where some will reconsider and other's will draw strength when needed. I try to measure and back away before my heart begins to feel any sense of contention. However, contention is something quite different than most want to claim. The moment two people start arguing instead of discussing or debating the spirit leaves and no conversion or convincing can take place. It only takes one person to invite contention. This is one reason I contend against contention (the irony) -
not an easy task to do while maintaining charity. I'm certainly not perfect at it but I am working on it! Sharpness when moved upon certainly seems to yield a similar result - however the Spirit is there. The Spirit seals your efforts and works on that individual because you followed the model of D&C 121. I know you have followed this model Brelnox and have seen these results. You are a good man with a lot of great knowledge as witnessed by many in this thread and elsewhere. You can stand to be less abrupt - as also witnessed here and elsewhere. Imagine the powerful force you would be then!

I cannot be you. Maybe some day with a lot of hard work ;) :ymhug: You seem to have that under control and I respect the hope that you express. However, it does seem a bit naive and perhaps lacking in hearing the heart of mine and others messages. I promise you there is no naivete. We are not lacking in charity and love but it is the core of what drives us. Do you realize the problem with that last statement? You are basically saying you've made it. By saying you do not lack in charity you are saying there is no room to improve. We all lack charity in comparison to the Lord and we should always be working in that direction until the perfect day. We care and we hope to do what needs to be done to preserve the true Gospel in the hearts of His children - albeit with a measure of imperfection that I am always hoping to improve upon. Good! I agree and hope you receive this in that same spirit.

To sum up my counterpoint to you Brelnox, you have made the suggestion that I am somehow overplaying charity. I suggest to you that you are underplaying charity. Charity should be ever present. I'm glad you used some great scriptures, but as often the case with the various sects who disagree on points of doctrine - it's not one or the other. It's both.

Here is the logical conclusion--is it not safer to overplay charity than underplay?

[Finrock]

Alaris, everything you said frustrates me.

The common fault I see here is the assumption that everyone on the planet sees things like this exactly the same. With how you describe Zion, I would have to conclude you think I am "bad", my culture is "bad", my family is "bad", and my personal adjustment to the world is "bad", and I had just better get an Alaris style make over so I can go to Zion.

I am dutch. The Dutch are known for being blunt and honest to the point of absolute brutality. In my world, this is just ordinary conversation and is not considered unkind or uncharitable, But you would say it was awful, and we could not be a "zion" people and insist something is "wrong" with us. Also, we do NOT hug. Yet you paint a picture of Jesus embracing us. I would not like this. I do not want to be welcomed into the arms of Jesus. Dutch people kiss each other to show affection, we do not embrace. Do you insist I must desired to be embraced or I am not a Zion person? That would be uncomfortable and mean nothing to me. Looks like I do not "fit" into your Zion, and I must be excluded as defective.

Where I come from, no one has a meltdown because someone said their haircut wasn't good, their clothes don't fit, their kids are complete monsters, their yard is a mess, their talk in church was boring, or heaven forbid, their tattoos are ugly and incongruent to a church member. No one goes on Facebook crying about the horrible judgmental person who fat shamed them, etc. demanding sympathy and validation for their personal weaknesses. To me, acting this way is just too hilarious.

Dutch people do not take everything said to them personally, as every american does and to the max. Are you insisting that we should? We do not personally identify with being fat, old, our political persuasions, our country, tattoos, body jewelry, our sexual orientation, or even our religion. I do not personally identify as a Mormon, something I find very peculiar and weird to do. I am first me, and I identify very strongly with that, and then I have a religion, which I regard as a very private matter.

I grew up in a world where I didn't have to lie. I didn't have to say someone was pretty when they weren't, and I didn't have to hold anything in to please someone else's touchy feelings. With american mormons, every virtue must bow and pay homage to the hypersensitive feelings of others. Everything about you is judged on how well you protect the "feelings" of others. It is a world where no one means a thing they say, and you can't say "no" without guilt. If this is Zion, I am outta here. I would rather be real, genuine, and have my relationships above board. Totally.

One of the most difficult things I encounter is the american greeting "How are you?" or "How are you doing?". It took me quite a while to get it that no one who says that really cares how you are doing and no one asked answers back honestly. I once listened in a small town grocery store as everyone came in knew each other and constantly said, " how you doing?" and every answer back was "great" "glorious" "perfect" and "couldn't be better!" I had the very bad manners of actually answering honestly, expecting them to care, only to see downcast eyes that said, " I am sorry I asked". The way I look at it, if you don't want to know how I'm doing, and you don't really care, then DON'T ask me. If this kind of insincerity is considered good enough for "Zion", then I don't want any part of it,

Missionaries going to the Netherlands have to be apprised of the very direct and abrupt nature of the dutch. But they are not told to make us over into phony make nice americans who want Jesus to embrace us so we can be a zion people, too. I might add that once missionaries get "used" to telling it like it is, they love it and find that a great relief comes over them. They find the dutch to be the most genuine people who really care about others and willingly help strangers ( that's why the dutch took in the pilgrims ). They work well as a group with no one trying to exalt themselves over others ( even CEO's don't get a private secretary and have to get their own cup of coffee ( copje Koffe ) and are probably the last country in Europe to be strongly family centered with mom still at home.

Nevertheless, if I don't talk your brand of "nice", And if I don't look forward to Jesus embracing me, I am NOT a Zion person and need to be fixed.

( please don't take this personally. As you can see, if I meant it personally, I would SAY i meant this personally. I like you quite a bit. I am just venting out how a foreign person can react to threads such as this.)

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

It appears that you and I are talking about two different things. Let me provide some examples to distinguish between the two:

What Passionflower is Talking About:

Person A: Passionflower, do you like my haircut?

Passionflower: Honestly, I don't. I think it looks kind of silly.

Person A: You are so rude and mean!

Passionflower: No I'm not. You asked me what I thought and I honestly told you what I thought. I don't mean it as a personal attack.

What Finrock is Talking About:

Mormon: The Book of Mormon is a true book which testifies of Jesus Christ.

Anti-Mormon: Old Joe was a polygamist and used magic stones to peep for treasures. He just copied the Book of Mormon from another author. He's a plagiarist. You Mormons are following a false Jesus, believing in a false prophet. It doesn't matter what the Book of Mormon says because Ol' Joe was an evil, wicked man who plagiarized the Book and practiced the occult. I'd be really careful reading the Book of Mormon. You've got to take everything in it with a grain of salt.

Remember, this is an example to illustrate a principle or an idea. Attacks against the person during the course of a discussion can happen in various ways and with various severity. But, the point is that instead of addressing the content or the substance of what someone is saying, one is attacking the person personally. To do such a thing is an unethical and an immoral way of communicating and interacting with others. That is why it is against the forum rules because most people recognize that ad hominem tactics are immoral and unethical.

We can prove our points, we can discuss things, we can defend truth without ever resorting to personal attacks against another. Being blunt and straightforward does not constitute attacks against a person and nobody that I'm aware of on this thread is saying that.

-Finrock

[passionflower]

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

Passionflower, I very much appreciate your perspective. Over my lifetime, I have found that I can still be me even though me is a hard pill to swallow for some who always to a fault are the easily offended types. The value of this has been that while I tend to very few true friends at any given time in my life, the ones I have are the highest caliber of people I know - the ones you would willingly give your life for. Lately they keep dying on me but I am excited for their new experience as men of their caliber continue to do great things I'm sure. One of the foundational points of friendship is beyond doubt that we can speak in full honesty one with another.

I can remember one time when an attorney friend and I were discussing some atonement material I had been working on for many years. He and I often engaged in very deep conversations. For some reason in this instance it became frustrating because he slipped into attorney mode and it become more like a cross examination and the spirit simply fled. We hardly made it to the second point and simply could not move beyond it after an hour and a half of discussion because of the interrogation. A few days later he wanted to continue the conversation and I told him to forget it. There was no way to teach anybody anything who was going to treat it like a court case and couldn't distinguish when it was appropriate to be an attorney such as in a courtroom and when he needed to be a student and just shut up and listen until he could catch the spirit of the conversation and points of doctrine we were discussing. I mentioned that in his need to be the big powerful dude handling the courtroom his largeness was compromising his spirituality. He was making it all about him and was loosing the chance for the discussion. Unlike most attorneys I know, he was immediately humbled, and very graciously accepted the critique and was thankful for the reminder. We spent the last year of his life having the deepest discussions on the atonement he had ever had. He was a rare friend.

Anyway the point is that I hope you do not always compromise your gift for integrity. It is true that most Americans will reject it as too harsh but there are a few who appreciate the integrity and they will be true friends.

I especially found your observation that in the states the person being honest gets attacked by everyone else claiming they are being rude. Shadows link to the Ben Shapiro conversation was illustrative of that very issue. Anyway in my mind you are a breath of fresh air - I guess I should have been born Dutch.

I think I am becoming a good example of why multiculturalism doesn't work. As soon as I come out of the closet, conflict ensues, as you can see.
I was just trying to tell Alaris, whose intentions are probably really good, that on a forum like this that is available internationally, some people could read his or Finrocks ideals for a Zion society, and feel a sense of being forced into a kind of conformity. I did, and I was not happy X( !

[Alaris]

I think I am becoming a good example of why multiculturalism doesn't work. As soon as I come out of the closet, conflict ensues, as you can see.
I was just trying to tell Alaris, whose intentions are probably really good, that on a forum like this that is available internationally, some people could read his or Finrocks ideals for a Zion society, and feel a sense of being forced into a kind of conformity. I did, and I was not happy X( !

:ymhug: Oh wait ... sorry I forgot. No hugs. How about a nice big smile?

Here is a great talk about ZION -

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

it discusses many of the themes in this thread as well as how we unite and how we treat each other is a key definition of ZION. There is no forcing ... that is the devil's plan. This is a society built by work and effort - by sweat and tears - by invitation and acceptance rooted in free agency.

I personally believe that we must become ZION wherever we are geographically - let's get a leg up on that first. That way if the Lord's servants (or directly) ever send out the Lord's command to gather here or gather there, we will be ready.

[Red]

Passionflower,

A good counselor can help you with your feelings of frustration (I am assuming frustration) and give you tactics on engaging across cultural platforms. It's no fun to be that frustrated. It can bring you a great amount of peace to learn how to engage and how to tolerate others. While it's normal to be frustrated occasionally, it sounds like you feel like you can't reveal your culture because "conflict ensues". It doesn't have to be that way. A counselor can help you learn how to talk to others in different cultures without feelings of frustration or anger. Just knowing the essence of who you're talking to can alleviate a lot of those feelings too. Sometimes knowing the traits of certain cultures and allowing a bit of lenience for it as long as the trait isn't unChrist-like can also alleviate frustration.

[brlenox]

Response in red

Sorry passionflower, I am going to interject a touch when it really is yours to reply to but...

Alaris, you missed the majority of her post down to the point of claiming she is angry with you when she only claims frustration. Two completely different meanings and words. However that highlights the indoctrination of our day and what passionflower has so eloquently spoken to. She says one thing and you completely hear another and in a different spirit and tone that she intended. As I felt what she was saying, I felt she was actually being conciliatory trying to bring two different worlds together in harmony. What you got was angry...

Passionflower please correct anything I have said as I do not mean to speak for you, I am just speaking for me and what I heard.

That may be. I just want to clarify that I certainly don't want Alaris' brand of nice becoming a thing. She does make some good points, but I would be happy to make some counterpoints and suggestions if desired.

I do not mind if you make counter points however, I have to wonder if you can. "I have to wonder if you can." I need to point out that your "I wonder if you can" comment is both rude and completely unnecessary. That said, no offense taken as I am familiar with your "brand of candor." See what I did there? If you reference Red's second post where she quotes you - again I don't know the context - but those comments were insulting and unnecessary. There seems to be a lot of effort on your part to justify behavior that is unjustifiable. There is no part of the gospel of Jesus Christ that justifies you insulting fellow latter-day saints who err on doctrine by your estimation. She has underscored an issue that really has to do with so much more than just reading the words. When I responded to you about your comments which is quoted above I said one thing very particular, I said "As I felt what she was saying". I didn't try to just read the words. Frankly if I had of I might have concluded as you did that she was expressing anger at you. However, and this goes back to context, which others in this thread have issue with as well, in that she offset the angry tone you heard by expressing that "she liked you but"...That sentiment encapsulated every thing that was written. Then she proceeded to be direct and you read hostility without even measuring the words against what she was expressing. That is because of the nature of the preconditioning of your expectations. You can read direct language, you see the words and you understand their meanings, but you cannot feel the heart of the speaker even when they give you contextual clues to help define their intent. You are hearing how the WORDS make YOU feel, which in this case was the exact opposite of what was said. So you understood Passionflower's words better than I according to your estimation. That may be possible. I made some counter points based off what she was saying that I hoped would help her think. No insults necessary.

To sum up my counterpoint to you Brelnox, you have made the suggestion that I am somehow overplaying charity. I suggest to you that you are underplaying charity. Charity should be ever present. I'm glad you used some great scriptures, but as often the case with the various sects who disagree on points of doctrine - it's not one or the other. It's both.

Here is the logical conclusion--is it not safer to overplay charity than underplay?

Alaris,

Whoa! Looky there. You gotta feel like a big wet dog climbing out of the neighbors pool. Shaking himself, throwing water everywhere and feeling super fine. Good for you!

And you deserve Kudos for writing a compelling response that is actual communication...and not an ounce of it wrong for the directness and clarity of your tone. Beautifully done.

Of course, you know how this goes. Now I get the opportunity to respond. I'm not sure the best format but I'll try to copy germane portions and respond to them.

"I have to wonder if you can." I need to point out that your "I wonder if you can" comment is both rude and completely unnecessary. That said, no offense taken as I am familiar with your "brand of candor." See what I did there? If you reference Red's second post where she quotes you - again I don't know the context - but those comments were insulting and unnecessary. There seems to be a lot of effort on your part to justify behavior that is unjustifiable. There is no part of the gospel of Jesus Christ that justifies you insulting fellow latter-day saints who err on doctrine by your estimation.

Of course I knew how you would take the "I wonder if you can" quote, however, as it relates specifically to this post you have easily fallen into the exact same issue that warranted the context observation in the first place. "I wonder if you can" became the majority of the explanation that I provided. There was absolutely no intent to be rude but to highlight the critical issue I was about to explain. In other words, if you had wanted to you could have felt that "I wonder if you can" was not a comment on intellectual capacity, instead I develop several points that all explain why I wonder if you can. I will list them. First the quote:

I wonder if you can provide [valid] counter points because - She has underscored an issue that really has to do with so much more than just reading the words. When I responded to you about your comments which is quoted above I said one thing very particular, I said "As I felt what she was saying". I didn't try to just read the words. Frankly if I had of I might have concluded as you did that she was expressing anger at you. However, and this goes back to context, which others in this thread have issue with as well, in that she offset the angry tone you heard by expressing that "she liked you but"...That sentiment encapsulated every thing that was written. Then she proceeded to be direct and you read hostility without even measuring the words against what she was expressing. That is because of the nature of the preconditioning of your expectations. Then she proceeded to be direct and you read hostility without even measuring the words against what she was expressing. That is because of the nature of the preconditioning of your expectations. You can read direct language, you see the words and you understand their meanings, but you cannot feel the heart of the speaker even when they give you contextual clues to help define their intent. You are hearing how the WORDS make YOU feel, which in this case was the exact opposite of what was said.

a.) What this means is, I know you can read the words, but that is not what is missing. I am saying that within the context of her response were additional contextual clues that I am saying you missed. Now I get to say it again because this entire comment is about why I'm not sure you can and you have validated it by missing the entire context of what follows "my I don't think you can statement".

I don't think at that moment with her response or at this moment with mine that you were letting the spirit let you feel what I meant. You judged me and in that moment it became you interpreting my arrogance, my rudeness and with passionflowers statement it was the same.

However, what do I imply in my response? Or what is the context that might provide insight if you had been open to the response after you took offense:

1.) "It's more than reading the words." I am starting to explain, "I am not sure you can".

2.) "You are not feeling what is said":

This is reference to allowing the elements of the message to move in you to form an overall sense of intent. Sure the spirit should be a part of the process but really I am more inclined to think that it is a state of not making it all about you and simply letting them speak the message before you start with the judgments. True communication is a series of elements being considered in tandem to create understanding. Internetting removes the body language element which means we have to be even more astute in letting the textual clues convey what the body language would if it were visable. This is what relates to context being critical in the online discussion forum.

3.) "You are hearing how the WORDS make YOU feel, which in this case was the exact opposite of what was said."
This targets the "don't think you can statement" completely wrapping it up in one sentiment. You are so completely steeped in the ideology that certain phrases and words and references are racist or stereotypical, or otherwise rude or undermining or whatever, that just hearing certain phrases, or a certain style of communication automatically controls a certain response in you. You never even stay to the end of the conversation to fully gauge intent because some one (society) has taught you that no matter what someone may really mean if they use certain words or a certain tone this is what "I jump to the conclusion" they mean. The context of the statement is completly worthless because you have already made incorrect interpretations. I'll just say it plain - this is Satan's tool and device for instigating 90% (made up number, it may be higher) of the social conflicts we see in the world today. Preconceived, socially defined expectations dominate actual listening and charitable allowances for the challenge that language provides for each of us to say what we really mean.

Yes, you may have caught that, I am saying that you may be missing the actual application of charity in your heart. Now you do not answer hardly ever with the sort of directness you have me but in doing so it highlights a more accurate picture of your true feelings instead of a scripted I want to make my response feel charitable approach. Neither were you charitable when you responded to passionflowers post. The words moved you to offense, or judgment or whatever you want to call it but because of responding to her directness and not casting a mantle of charity over it you missed the entirety of the intent of her message.

You can hide behind scripting the response to be "nice" but that is not a charitable response it is a façade to cover my true feelings and I have convinced myself that how I place the words defines my charity. I think we saw more of your true feelings in how you have responded to me and I would be sadly disappointed if you ever went back to playing the "game" of charity in your responses to me. I am not saying you overplayed your efforts at charity, I am saying that you missed being charitable at all. Being honest with yourself, We both know you could have written this entire response of yours within the constraints of your "be nice" mantra but instead because of a bit of tension that I brought out in you a much more honest response was forthcoming. You have already responded three or four times in the "be nice" mentality in this thread, I'm sure hoping to model for me the proper tone I should use with others.

Now that we are at this point I will say the hard piece that may engender more of that desired directness from you. True charity is not in a form or style or manner of scripting your message. It is letting others do their very best within the constraints of their ability. The one is telling them how to build the façade in order that they will comply with a style to be perceived charitable the other is letting them be who they are and charitably
accepting them flaws and all as God's children.

Now, I must caveat this entire post. This is relative to adult interactions and conversations between such folks who are simply exploring for understanding. This has very little to do with dealing with hypocrites and liars and those that speak evil of the Lords anointed.

I will cut off here, but I know you provided much more material for us to consider...I 've just got to get some things done...I'll be back

[brlenox]

I think I am becoming a good example of why multiculturalism doesn't work. As soon as I come out of the closet, conflict ensues, as you can see.
I was just trying to tell Alaris, whose intentions are probably really good, that on a forum like this that is available internationally, some people could read his or Finrocks ideals for a Zion society, and feel a sense of being forced into a kind of conformity. I did, and I was not happy X( !

Oh, but the conversation you have initiated is worth its weight in Gold...

[passionflower]

Alaris, everything you said frustrates me.

The common fault I see here is the assumption that everyone on the planet sees things like this exactly the same. With how you describe Zion, I would have to conclude you think I am "bad", my culture is "bad", my family is "bad", and my personal adjustment to the world is "bad", and I had just better get an Alaris style make over so I can go to Zion.

I am dutch. The Dutch are known for being blunt and honest to the point of absolute brutality. In my world, this is just ordinary conversation and is not considered unkind or uncharitable, But you would say it was awful, and we could not be a "zion" people and insist something is "wrong" with us. Also, we do NOT hug. Yet you paint a picture of Jesus embracing us. I would not like this. I do not want to be welcomed into the arms of Jesus. Dutch people kiss each other to show affection, we do not embrace. Do you insist I must desired to be embraced or I am not a Zion person? That would be uncomfortable and mean nothing to me. Looks like I do not "fit" into your Zion, and I must be excluded as defective.

Where I come from, no one has a meltdown because someone said their haircut wasn't good, their clothes don't fit, their kids are complete monsters, their yard is a mess, their talk in church was boring, or heaven forbid, their tattoos are ugly and incongruent to a church member. No one goes on Facebook crying about the horrible judgmental person who fat shamed them, etc. demanding sympathy and validation for their personal weaknesses. To me, acting this way is just too hilarious.

Dutch people do not take everything said to them personally, as every american does and to the max. Are you insisting that we should? We do not personally identify with being fat, old, our political persuasions, our country, tattoos, body jewelry, our sexual orientation, or even our religion. I do not personally identify as a Mormon, something I find very peculiar and weird to do. I am first me, and I identify very strongly with that, and then I have a religion, which I regard as a very private matter.

I grew up in a world where I didn't have to lie. I didn't have to say someone was pretty when they weren't, and I didn't have to hold anything in to please someone else's touchy feelings. With american mormons, every virtue must bow and pay homage to the hypersensitive feelings of others. Everything about you is judged on how well you protect the "feelings" of others. It is a world where no one means a thing they say, and you can't say "no" without guilt. If this is Zion, I am outta here. I would rather be real, genuine, and have my relationships above board. Totally.

One of the most difficult things I encounter is the american greeting "How are you?" or "How are you doing?". It took me quite a while to get it that no one who says that really cares how you are doing and no one asked answers back honestly. I once listened in a small town grocery store as everyone came in knew each other and constantly said, " how you doing?" and every answer back was "great" "glorious" "perfect" and "couldn't be better!" I had the very bad manners of actually answering honestly, expecting them to care, only to see downcast eyes that said, " I am sorry I asked". The way I look at it, if you don't want to know how I'm doing, and you don't really care, then DON'T ask me. If this kind of insincerity is considered good enough for "Zion", then I don't want any part of it,

Missionaries going to the Netherlands have to be apprised of the very direct and abrupt nature of the dutch. But they are not told to make us over into phony make nice americans who want Jesus to embrace us so we can be a zion people, too. I might add that once missionaries get "used" to telling it like it is, they love it and find that a great relief comes over them. They find the dutch to be the most genuine people who really care about others and willingly help strangers ( that's why the dutch took in the pilgrims ). They work well as a group with no one trying to exalt themselves over others ( even CEO's don't get a private secretary and have to get their own cup of coffee ( copje Koffe ) and are probably the last country in Europe to be strongly family centered with mom still at home.

Nevertheless, if I don't talk your brand of "nice", And if I don't look forward to Jesus embracing me, I am NOT a Zion person and need to be fixed.

( please don't take this personally. As you can see, if I meant it personally, I would SAY i meant this personally. I like you quite a bit. I am just venting out how a foreign person can react to threads such as this.)

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

It appears that you and I are talking about two different things. Let me provide some examples to distinguish between the two:

What Passionflower is Talking About:

Person A: Passionflower, do you like my haircut?

Passionflower: Honestly, I don't. I think it looks kind of silly.

Person A: You are so rude and mean!

Passionflower: No I'm not. You asked me what I thought and I honestly told you what I thought. I don't mean it as a personal attack.

What Finrock is Talking About:

Mormon: The Book of Mormon is a true book which testifies of Jesus Christ.

Anti-Mormon: Old Joe was a polygamist and used magic stones to peep for treasures. He just copied the Book of Mormon from another author. He's a plagiarist. You Mormons are following a false Jesus, believing in a false prophet. It doesn't matter what the Book of Mormon says because Ol' Joe was an evil, wicked man who plagiarized the Book and practiced the occult. I'd be really careful reading the Book of Mormon. You've got to take everything in it with a grain of salt.

Remember, this is an example to illustrate a principle or an idea. Attacks against the person during the course of a discussion can happen in various ways and with various severity. But, the point is that instead of addressing the content or the substance of what someone is saying, one is attacking the person personally. To do such a thing is an unethical and an immoral way of communicating and interacting with others. That is why it is against the forum rules because most people recognize that ad hominem tactics are immoral and unethical.

We can prove our points, we can discuss things, we can defend truth without ever resorting to personal attacks against another. Being blunt and straightforward does not constitute attacks against a person and nobody that I'm aware of on this thread is saying that.

-Finrock

Wow. Truly, And my own DH just said something to me like this just the other day. He said I was "apple and orangeing him".
Lets see if I can get with you better this time.
Heck yeah, throwing out personal insults and attacks is the MO of those who are the losers in a debate. It is a last resort for those who show themselves to be inadequate in winning the real argument. Yes, anti mormons do this all the time. It is like character assassination. When I see this, not only do I think it a low blow, but it tells me the person delivering the blow is out is out of ammunition.

Am I with you now?

Thanks for straightening this out. Very intelligent of you.

[passionflower]

I think I am becoming a good example of why multiculturalism doesn't work. As soon as I come out of the closet, conflict ensues, as you can see.
I was just trying to tell Alaris, whose intentions are probably really good, that on a forum like this that is available internationally, some people could read his or Finrocks ideals for a Zion society, and feel a sense of being forced into a kind of conformity. I did, and I was not happy X( !

:ymhug: Oh wait ... sorry I forgot. No hugs. How about a nice big smile?

Here is a great talk about ZION -

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

it discusses many of the themes in this thread as well as how we unite and how we treat each other is a key definition of ZION. There is no forcing ... that is the devil's plan. This is a society built by work and effort - by sweat and tears - by invitation and acceptance rooted in free agency.

I personally believe that we must become ZION wherever we are geographically - let's get a leg up on that first. That way if the Lord's servants (or directly) ever send out the Lord's command to gather here or gather there, we will be ready.

I applaud you for your noble goal.
And I dare you to kiss me!

[Finrock]

I think this post represents a hasty generalization about Americans. Are there many Americans that fit the description that you present? Of course. Does your post represent ALL Americans as a class? Not even close.

Not to mention the issue here isn't about being abrupt, direct, straightforward, brutally honest, etc. As a Finn I can appreciate what you are saying. I've had the same conversation with my Finnish friends and relatives. However, the issue that I understand this thread to be about and specifically what I have been speaking to has nothing to do with coddling people's feelings or hypersensitivity. It is about attacking a person personally (ad hominem). Classifying ad hominems or classifying attacking another person personally as abruptness, directness, and brutal honesty are red herrings. To be direct, its a lie and doing so attempts to excuse or make okay behavior that is unethical and immoral.

So, let me be clear I understand your position and you understand mine. Are you saying that during the course of a discussion, debate, or conversation it is okay in your mind to personally attack the person you are speaking to as opposed to addressing the substance and the content of their posts?

From my personal experiences with the Dutch I have found them to be very reasonable people. I have had the pleasure of knowing two Dutch missionaries who served in my ward. Out of all of the missionaries that I've met in the last 15 years, these two missionaries I connected with most easily. Yes, they didn't "beat around the bush" a lot, however, they certainly didn't go after people, ridicule them, mock them, call them names, use sarcasm, or any other such tactics during discussions and conversations or in their daily communications. At least I didn't witness such. These Dutch missionaries understood the principles of reasonable discourse better than most of my American associates and that is one reason why I liked being around them and why we connected so well.

In any case, being honest is a good thing. I've been accused by many in my life for being very direct. I am not a very social person and I don't always get all of the social rules of engagement and how to politely interact with others. I didn't learn those skills as a child. I generally speak things as I see them and I don't think I'm a bad person for doing that and I admire that. Now, I have also tried to tone some of that down a bit as I've gotten older just because in many situations being very direct is the least helpful way to interact or to persuade a person.

It is never okay in the course of discussion to start personally attacking another person in an attempt to make yourself appear to be right or to discredit the message of your opponent, etc. It is not okay to personally attack others when discussing or debating a point.

Anti-Mormons are known to use these underhanded tactics to try and show how Mormons are evil or of the devil. They don't accurately represent our views. They don't try to. They use mockery and sarcasm to discredit us. They twist and turn what we say to appear sinister. They attack us personally, they make accusations, etc. I know that Mormons don't appreciate the tactics that anti-Mormons use when discussing Mormonism and Mormons. If we don't appreciate it when anti-Mormons use these unethical tactics, then we should not use them against others either. Or it is hypocritical for us to complain about how anti-Mormons treat us and our message, but then turn around and use the same tactics against those with whom we might disagree with. Yes, people do this things. Yes, the internet can be a rough place. Yes, we can expect that people will not be kind and people seem to like to debate and to argue, trying to be witty and many people get their kicks from putting others down, etc. However, as disciples of Jesus Christ we should/ought to be different. We really should. There is no excuse for us to engage in certain behaviors or conduct. And, at the end of the day, this particular forum has a rule against attacking a person personally or against ad hominem arguments. Regardless of our culture, our background, our personal preference, we should respect the forum rules. But, we shouldn't need forum rules to tell us that we ought to be kind and respectful towards others.

-Finrock

I definately will insist that americans act in a hypersensitive manner and tend to take everything said or perceived very personally. Women especially will go to great lengths to gain emotional validation and sympathy in order to avoid taking responsibility and accepting honest feedback. I see this all the time and almost never see anything else. I could spend an hour or more telling you stories of such things I have experienced. It is a great but unusual relief to find someone who is more straightforward whom you can actually really talk to.

When someone like myself makes an unflattering type comment about someone else, and directly to them, I do not mean it as a personal attack. As I said, this is just ordinary normal conversation for me. Dutch people don't hold things in, and in the case they are actually irritated, can get pretty rough on another person at times I remember one time In GD, my mother lost her patience with a women in class who was kind of annoying. and told her outright some things some things about herself, that if said in church here in the states, would have had everyone flying to her rescue. It wouldn't have mattered if what my mother said was true or not, it would have mattered a whole lot more that she might have been feeling bad. But in our ward, no one reacted, and class went on as usual and everyone went home afterwards like nothing happened.

This is what I was telling Alaris. There are different values in different cultures and peoples, so you can't actually have some one way street that defines the direction and definition for everyone about what is charitable and respectful and what isn't. For myself, I put a higher value on truthful and genuine interaction than on protecting everyones ego, especially when I really mean no harm to their ego. But even if I saw they got hurt over something I said, I would consider that bad form, and not be terribly sympathetic. You might not like that, but I am what I am. At least you know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say, and all my praise is completely real.

Just because a dutch person is blunt and direct, doesn't mean they aren't nice in some other very meaningful ways. Like the missionaries in your ward. If you and I got to know each other better, we would probably get on very well, too.

Now, it isn't like I don't know that when in Rome I have to do as the Romans do, and this is forum is Rome and not the Netherlands. But trying to hold things in and trying to "make nice" is like holding my breath. It is really difficult for me and quite the strain, and sometimes I just have to breathe.

It appears that you and I are talking about two different things. Let me provide some examples to distinguish between the two:

What Passionflower is Talking About:

Person A: Passionflower, do you like my haircut?

Passionflower: Honestly, I don't. I think it looks kind of silly.

Person A: You are so rude and mean!

Passionflower: No I'm not. You asked me what I thought and I honestly told you what I thought. I don't mean it as a personal attack.

What Finrock is Talking About:

Mormon: The Book of Mormon is a true book which testifies of Jesus Christ.

Anti-Mormon: Old Joe was a polygamist and used magic stones to peep for treasures. He just copied the Book of Mormon from another author. He's a plagiarist. You Mormons are following a false Jesus, believing in a false prophet. It doesn't matter what the Book of Mormon says because Ol' Joe was an evil, wicked man who plagiarized the Book and practiced the occult. I'd be really careful reading the Book of Mormon. You've got to take everything in it with a grain of salt.

Remember, this is an example to illustrate a principle or an idea. Attacks against the person during the course of a discussion can happen in various ways and with various severity. But, the point is that instead of addressing the content or the substance of what someone is saying, one is attacking the person personally. To do such a thing is an unethical and an immoral way of communicating and interacting with others. That is why it is against the forum rules because most people recognize that ad hominem tactics are immoral and unethical.

We can prove our points, we can discuss things, we can defend truth without ever resorting to personal attacks against another. Being blunt and straightforward does not constitute attacks against a person and nobody that I'm aware of on this thread is saying that.

-Finrock

Wow. Truly, And my own DH just said something to me like this just the other day. He said I was "apple and orangeing him".
Lets see if I can get with you better this time.
Heck yeah, throwing out personal insults and attacks is the MO of those who are the losers in a debate. It is a last resort for those who show themselves to be inadequate in winning the real argument. Yes, anti mormons do this all the time. It is like character assassination. When I see this, not only do I think it a low blow, but it tells me the person delivering the blow is out is out of ammunition.

Am I with you now?

Thanks for straightening this out. Very intelligent of you.

Indeed you are. Character assassination is a good term to describe it. Wish I would have thought of it earlier. You succinctly described the issue and what it means about the attacker!

Thanks for taking the time to understand.

-Finrock

[Alaris]

I'm pretty sure someone commented subsequently at behaviors that reflect weakness in ability to make a substantive argument. Character assassination is one. Belittling / shaming / insulting - all reflect a position of insecurity and weakness. But guess what Brlenox? I'm not insulted or angry. I'm just extremely tired (my wife accidentally drugged me with melatonin - long story.) So perhaps this post will make zero sense, but I promise you it has nothing to do with my inferior intellect ;) Well maybe somewhat.

Of course I knew how you would take the "I wonder if you can" quote, however, as it relates specifically to this post you have easily fallen into the exact same issue that warranted the context observation in the first place. "I wonder if you can" became the majority of the explanation that I provided. There was absolutely no intent to be rude but to highlight the critical issue I was about to explain. In other words, if you had wanted to you could have felt that "I wonder if you can" was not a comment on intellectual capacity, instead I develop several points that all explain why I wonder if you can.

This is tiresome brlenox and beyond silly. Of course you knew how I would take it and did it anyway? So it was premeditated rudeness? That excuses it then. Where's the thumbs up emoji? I really hope what you said is true because the Spirit is suggesting to me otherwise...that you just made that up to save face to my extremely awesome counterpoint above. If you're feeling that tingling deep in your soul, that's the spirit confirming the unmasking.

a.) What this means is, I know you can read the words, but that is not what is missing. I am saying that within the context of her response were additional contextual clues that I am saying you missed. Now I get to say it again because this entire comment is about why I'm not sure you can and you have validated it by missing the entire context of what follows "my I don't think you can statement".

Didn't I already admit that perhaps I missed the full intent and tone of her post? I certainly didn't miss it to the extent you suggest - humorously, you are missing the points of my posts in order for you to conclude I've missed hers - especially since you keep bringing it up. yawn.

I don't think at that moment with her response or at this moment with mine that you were letting the spirit let you feel what I meant. You judged me and in that moment it became you interpreting my arrogance, my rudeness and with passionflowers statement it was the same.

Where did I judge passionflowers statements as rude? Again you are humorously misjudging my comments to come to the above conclusion. You do make rude comments, and I point them out to help you not in the "waa I'm angry because you're rude" sentiment. I like you Brlenox. You keep this silly facade going that you have this superior interpretation of everyone's intent and are even able to judge my misunderstanding of other's...and are even able to predict how I will react. Truly amazing. Yet your counter-counterpoint to my counterpoint reveals reality - My counterpoint got a bit under your skin because the guilty take the truth to be hard for it cutteth them to the very center. (1 Nephi 16:2) And I'm really getting tired of making this counter-counter-counterpoint. Melatonin!!!

However, what do I imply in my response? Or what is the context that might provide insight if you had been open to the response after you took offense:

Who took offense? Are we still talking about me? LOL. Wait LOL's are rude. lol.

1.) "It's more than reading the words." I am starting to explain, "I am not sure you can".

2.) "You are not feeling what is said":

This is reference to allowing the elements of the message to move in you to form an overall sense of intent. Sure the spirit should be a part of the process but really I am more inclined to think that it is a state of not making it all about you and simply letting them speak the message before you start with the judgments. True communication is a series of elements being considered in tandem to create understanding. Internetting removes the body language element which means we have to be even more astute in letting the textual clues convey what the body language would if it were visable. This is what relates to context being critical in the online discussion forum.

Fascinating

3.) "You are hearing how the WORDS make YOU feel, which in this case was the exact opposite of what was said."
This targets the "don't think you can statement" completely wrapping it up in one sentiment. You are so completely steeped in the ideology that certain phrases and words and references are racist or stereotypical, or otherwise rude or undermining or whatever, that just hearing certain phrases, or a certain style of communication automatically controls a certain response in you. You never even stay to the end of the conversation to fully gauge intent because some one (society) has taught you that no matter what someone may really mean if they use certain words or a certain tone this is what "I jump to the conclusion" they mean. The context of the statement is completly worthless because you have already made incorrect interpretations. I'll just say it plain - this is Satan's tool and device for instigating 90% (made up number, it may be higher) of the social conflicts we see in the world today. Preconceived, socially defined expectations dominate actual listening and charitable allowances for the challenge that language provides for each of us to say what we really mean.

This is yet another silly attempt to excuse yourself for being accountable to your words. Tone / intent are important elements to communication, but the words you choose do matter. I won't list more examples of your words that are unmistakably condescending. You know it's wrong. And these overlong posts are justification by shaming / belittling. Truly unhealthy behavior. And please don't misread my tone. I'm not angry or offended. I truly just feel sorry for you.

Alma 12:14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

Yes, you may have caught that, I am saying that you may be missing the actual application of charity in your heart. Now you do not answer hardly ever with the sort of directness you have me but in doing so it highlights a more accurate picture of your true feelings instead of a scripted I want to make my response feel charitable approach. Neither were you charitable when you responded to passionflowers post. The words moved you to offense, or judgment or whatever you want to call it but because of responding to her directness and not casting a mantle of charity over it you missed the entirety of the intent of her message.

This really is exhausting. There are so many more fun and interesting topics we could discuss. My sharp response to you was just as much a reflection of me and my true feelings as are my more kind posts. D&C 121 gives us what should be our default - gentleness and meekness. longsuffering. I wasn't charitable when I responded to PF's post? She seemed to take it OK by my estimation ... and she dared me to kiss her! If that's not a reflection of charity, I don't know what is (though I may be viewing that through the lens of american culture =\ .) I'd call that a success good sir. You keep going back to my missing the intent of her message. I just reread my post. It starts with "Firstly no offense taken." Are we talking about the same post? Please don't answer that.

You can hide behind scripting the response to be "nice" but that is not a charitable response it is a façade to cover my true feelings and I have convinced myself that how I place the words defines my charity. I think we saw more of your true feelings in how you have responded to me and I would be sadly disappointed if you ever went back to playing the "game" of charity in your responses to me. I am not saying you overplayed your efforts at charity, I am saying that you missed being charitable at all. Being honest with yourself, We both know you could have written this entire response of yours within the constraints of your "be nice" mantra but instead because of a bit of tension that I brought out in you a much more honest response was forthcoming. You have already responded three or four times in the "be nice" mentality in this thread, I'm sure hoping to model for me the proper tone I should use with others.

Being kind is not a facade. You can express your true feelings in a charitable way. I dare ya! If you don't feel it, the Lord has left us a way to obtain said charity!

Moroni 7:48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

I promise there is no tension Brlenox, but I'm starting to worry that bringing out tension is your aim to somehow prove that your abrupt way is the right way by getting me to stoop. Having charity is not a game. My last sharp response was not to "win" but to teach you there is a better way. Honesty and kindness are not enemies, antonyms, or games. The melatonin is starting to show through my writing. =\

Now that we are at this point I will say the hard piece that may engender more of that desired directness from you. True charity is not in a form or style or manner of scripting your message. It is letting others do their very best within the constraints of their ability. The one is telling them how to build the façade in order that they will comply with a style to be perceived charitable the other is letting them be who they are and charitably
accepting them flaws and all as God's children.

Again charity is not a perception. Charity is the pure love of Christ. Love can be expressed in so many ways, but they can be classified into five categories. Do you know the five love languages? Each of those love languages can be used for expressing love or can be used to harm others. Words is one of the love languages. It happens to be my third, which is why I can tell you that your attempts to bait me into anger (which is a pretty sad tactic by the way - and is yet another proof that it's time for a course correction) don't affect me like it would someone whose primary love language is words. Charity is to learn to love others in languages that are not natural to yourself. My father's primary language is gifts, which is dead last for me. It's taken me years to give good, meaningful gifts that show him how much I love him. It's been a truly amazing learning experience. Likewise, using meaningful loving words can truly bring you happiness brlenox. This is the plan of happiness of all - to love one another. Excusing our abruptness as "true charity" is certainly not the Lord's way.

Now, I must caveat this entire post. This is relative to adult interactions and conversations between such folks who are simply exploring for understanding. This has very little to do with dealing with hypocrites and liars and those that speak evil of the Lords anointed.

I will cut off here, but I know you provided much more material for us to consider...I 've just got to get some things done...I'll be back

I went to the temple tonight for the first time in a long time. I learned so much! I want to discuss these things and shout them from the rooftops. After the melatonin kicked in I said a quick prayer about responding to you tonight. I figured the spirit would confirm I should just go to bed, but I felt compelled to answer. My first intent was to just tell you about the temple and about Heavenly Father loves you, but as I wrote the spirit guided me in a rather alarming direction given my usual default charitable way. I testify to you that Heavnely Father does love you Brlenox. However you are trapped and an internal, unhealthy cycle of pride. I see there is a need in you to belittle others and insult their intelligence to inflate your own. I'm guessing you learned this behavior from a parent or close parent-figure. Certainly you are intelligent, so I'm sure my words are not lost on you ... or their truthfulness. Please don't let this second sharp post dissuade you from our otherwise positive interactions. But we are how many words deep now in a thread debating on how to be charitable? Here's a quote to consider the next time you think you need both sophistry and belittling to inflate the appearance of your intelligence:

"A child can tell you the truth, in childlike language, while falsehood requires the lawyer and the priest to tell it to make it at all plausible; it requires a scholastic education to make falsehood pass for truth." ~ Brigham Young

And this:

2 Nephi 9:28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Finally, for anyone who don't think they could stand to show more charity:

Luke 15:3 ¶ And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

[Red]

This is tiresome brlenox and beyond silly. Of course you knew how I would take it and did it anyway? So it was premeditated rudeness? That excuses it then. Where's the thumbs up emoji? I really hope what you said is true because the Spirit is suggesting to me otherwise...that you just made that up to save face to my extremely awesome counterpoint above. If you're feeling that tingling deep in your soul, that's the spirit confirming the unmasking.

You said the above and then mentioned something like he was justifying his words. I believe the word you're looking for is manipulation. Something kept niggling at me when I read the "I wonder if you can" explanation post. Then I realized why it bothered me. He took a phrase clearly intended to be rude and when he was called out on it, he manipulated it into something more benign. Classic manipulation.

I have paused before submitting this to be sure I wasn't pointing fingers. It's really just an observation by an amateur psychologist. I could be absolutely wrong. It's just how it appears considering we don't have the body language or tone Alaris mentioned earlier.