"Mothers Who Know": the Modern Offense Translation

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this, but:

No one controls meaning.

A speaker, such as Sister Beck, can provide a "preferred encoding," but any number of decodings (reasoned interpretations) are not only possible (including those that scholars call "negotiated" and "oppositional,"), but are inevitable and even desirable.

The search for authorial intention as some kind of definitive pronouncement as to what a particular artifact--like a speech--means has been debunked for decades. Don't believe me? Research the intentional approach to meaning.

The search for meaning in objects themselves has been debunked for even longer.

Meaning is constructed much like human beings are. It takes something from authors and something from receivers, but is ultimately its own creature. Meaning is zygotic.

Trying to discover, let alone capture and articulate, what Sister Beck "means" or "intends" is impossible, for you, me, and Sister Beck herself. Do people understand their own intentions? I assert that in many instances the answer to that is "no."

Still, a competent speaker tries to anticipate the range of plausible interpretations. Certainly Sister Beck should have done this, and it's quite possible that she did.

The "shot birds flutter" business is ridiculous, except that it introduces the disturbing idea of Church leaders as hunters, Church members as dehumanized prey, and the process of speaking at conference as "shooting at people."

Even a comparison such as "Lost sheep bleet" would be better, although it presumes that the speaker is correct (or not "lost") and that those who disagree are wrong, which, as I've implied above, does not speak to the "meaning" of something such as a speech.

This is certainly something for me to consider.

I still don't think that the statement "This dish is red" should be interpreted to mean other dishes aren't also red.

[Spaz]

I'm out for the day. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

It's time to play mother with my daughter

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tex and Indy in this thread and the "Shot Birds Flutter" thread have exhibited all that is worst about faithful LDS culture.

They accuse anyone who does not take every word directed at them by Ms. Beck of being easily offended. They have assumed that anyone who disagrees with any word of Ms. Beck does so out of unrighteousness and a lack of the Spirit. They have told all those troubled by her words that they are spiritual midgets without discernment. They have condemned any who felt Ms. Beck went too far as sorely lacking in intellectual prowess.

Anyone who disagrees with them in the least must be a sinner. Anyone who is not on their side is clearly on Satan's side.

There is no use arguing with those who start the conversation with this position. Your trying to explain your view will only result in more self-righteous insults and condescending condemnation being hurled down upon your head.

Beck's talk isn't really my issue. I was not greatly bothered by it. But I have compassion for those who were hurt by it. I understand how certain sentences, however carefully crafted to be vague and defensible, were hurtful to many. Instead of condemning those who thus suffered as unrightous, I think Christ would embrace them and love them and understand them.

And that is the difference between the Tex's and Indy's of the world and me--how we view Christ. Is he the angry Israelite God throwing down fire from heaven to fry the wicked? Or is he the compassionate Jesus who embraced the adulterous woman and condemned her not.

Of course in reality he can be both, but which one is he to you in your life today? The answer is clear for all to see in how you react to those who are, in your mind wrong. When you mock them, and push them into the "unrighteous" corner, you show which God is your God.

It is right that by that judgment which you judge, so shall you also be judged.

I thought it was a silly talk and it created lots of internet fodder, but I'm not offended, as it doesn't apply to me, and I am free to disagree with the finer and not so fine points being made.

[MikeWaters]

Like I've said, the guilt trips are laid on men all the time, what's the big deal about telling the women that they are failures as well?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Tex Tex Tex

It is not as long and complicated as your post. The irratation with Sis Beck's talk is simple. Her rhetoric was unfortunate. By saying "mothers that know" do such and such, she is implicitly saying that if you don't do such and such you must not "know". Few of us believe that the implication was intended, but the implication was there none the less.

it's easy to take offense or take things out of context to conform to your own 'chip'.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this, but:

No one controls meaning.

A speaker, such as Sister Beck, can provide a "preferred encoding," but any number of decodings (reasoned interpretations) are not only possible (including those that scholars call "negotiated" and "oppositional,"), but are inevitable and even desirable.

The search for authorial intention as some kind of definitive pronouncement as to what a particular artifact--like a speech--means has been debunked for decades. Don't believe me? Research the intentional approach to meaning.

The search for meaning in objects themselves has been debunked for even longer.

Meaning is constructed much like human beings are. It takes something from authors and something from receivers, but is ultimately its own creature. Meaning is zygotic.

Trying to discover, let alone capture and articulate, what Sister Beck "means" or "intends" is impossible, for you, me, and Sister Beck herself. Do people understand their own intentions? I assert that in many instances the answer to that is "no."

Still, a competent speaker tries to anticipate the range of plausible interpretations. Certainly Sister Beck should have done this, and it's quite possible that she did.

The "shot birds flutter" business is ridiculous, except that it introduces the disturbing idea of Church leaders as hunters, Church members as dehumanized prey, and the process of speaking at conference as "shooting at people."

Even a comparison such as "Lost sheep bleet" would be better, although it presumes that the speaker is correct (or not "lost") and that those who disagree are wrong, which, as I've implied above, does not speak to the "meaning" of something such as a speech.

This is the kind of psychobabble that makes coming to CG everyday truly worthwhile.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tex and Indy in this thread and the "Shot Birds Flutter" thread have exhibited all that is worst about faithful LDS culture.

They accuse anyone who does not take every word directed at them by Ms. Beck of being easily offended. They have assumed that anyone who disagrees with any word of Ms. Beck does so out of unrighteousness and a lack of the Spirit. They have told all those troubled by her words that they are spiritual midgets without discernment. They have condemned any who felt Ms. Beck went too far as sorely lacking in intellectual prowess.

Anyone who disagrees with them in the least must be a sinner. Anyone who is not on their side is clearly on Satan's side.

There is no use arguing with those who start the conversation with this position. Your trying to explain your view will only result in more self-righteous insults and condescending condemnation being hurled down upon your head.

Beck's talk isn't really my issue. I was not greatly bothered by it. But I have compassion for those who were hurt by it. I understand how certain sentences, however carefully crafted to be vague and defensible, were hurtful to many. Instead of condemning those who thus suffered as unrightous, I think Christ would embrace them and love them and understand them.

And that is the difference between the Tex's and Indy's of the world and me--how we view Christ. Is he the angry Israelite God throwing down fire from heaven to fry the wicked? Or is he the compassionate Jesus who embraced the adulterous woman and condemned her not.

Of course in reality he can be both, but which one is he to you in your life today? The answer is clear for all to see in how you react to those who are, in your mind wrong. When you mock them, and push them into the "unrighteous" corner, you show which God is your God.

It is right that by that judgment which you judge, so shall you also be judged.

Very well said. Internet posters who know don't call this "psychobabble."

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tex and Indy in this thread and the "Shot Birds Flutter" thread have exhibited all that is worst about faithful LDS culture.

They accuse anyone who does not take every word directed at them by Ms. Beck of being easily offended. They have assumed that anyone who disagrees with any word of Ms. Beck does so out of unrighteousness and a lack of the Spirit. They have told all those troubled by her words that they are spiritual midgets without discernment. They have condemned any who felt Ms. Beck went too far as sorely lacking in intellectual prowess.

Anyone who disagrees with them in the least must be a sinner. Anyone who is not on their side is clearly on Satan's side.

There is no use arguing with those who start the conversation with this position. Your trying to explain your view will only result in more self-righteous insults and condescending condemnation being hurled down upon your head.

Beck's talk isn't really my issue. I was not greatly bothered by it. But I have compassion for those who were hurt by it. I understand how certain sentences, however carefully crafted to be vague and defensible, were hurtful to many. Instead of condemning those who thus suffered as unrightous, I think Christ would embrace them and love them and understand them.

And that is the difference between the Tex's and Indy's of the world and me--how we view Christ. Is he the angry Israelite God throwing down fire from heaven to fry the wicked? Or is he the compassionate Jesus who embraced the adulterous woman and condemned her not.

Of course in reality he can be both, but which one is he to you in your life today? The answer is clear for all to see in how you react to those who are, in your mind wrong. When you mock them, and push them into the "unrighteous" corner, you show which God is your God.

It is right that by that judgment which you judge, so shall you also be judged.

a petition? What is the purpose of that? I would say that those that started the website, didn't have the spirit.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Like I've said, the guilt trips are laid on men all the time, what's the big deal about telling the women that they are failures as well?

right? And if someone points out areas for improvement, they are considered laying a guilt trip on you? sounds paranoid to me.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tex and Indy in this thread and the "Shot Birds Flutter" thread have exhibited all that is worst about faithful LDS culture.

They accuse anyone who does not take every word directed at them by Ms. Beck of being easily offended. They have assumed that anyone who disagrees with any word of Ms. Beck does so out of unrighteousness and a lack of the Spirit. They have told all those troubled by her words that they are spiritual midgets without discernment. They have condemned any who felt Ms. Beck went too far as sorely lacking in intellectual prowess.

Anyone who disagrees with them in the least must be a sinner. Anyone who is not on their side is clearly on Satan's side.

There is no use arguing with those who start the conversation with this position. Your trying to explain your view will only result in more self-righteous insults and condescending condemnation being hurled down upon your head.

Beck's talk isn't really my issue. I was not greatly bothered by it. But I have compassion for those who were hurt by it. I understand how certain sentences, however carefully crafted to be vague and defensible, were hurtful to many. Instead of condemning those who thus suffered as unrightous, I think Christ would embrace them and love them and understand them.

And that is the difference between the Tex's and Indy's of the world and me--how we view Christ. Is he the angry Israelite God throwing down fire from heaven to fry the wicked? Or is he the compassionate Jesus who embraced the adulterous woman and condemned her not.

Of course in reality he can be both, but which one is he to you in your life today? The answer is clear for all to see in how you react to those who are, in your mind wrong. When you mock them, and push them into the "unrighteous" corner, you show which God is your God.

It is right that by that judgment which you judge, so shall you also be judged.

Since you seem compelled to mention me repeatedly, would you care to actually provide a direct quote of anything I said that is that objectionable other than the stretch where I was deliberately trying to get Norcal's goat?