Carburettor’s dismissals of Amy

Carb seems to come and go – active for a bit, then we don’t hear from him for a long while. I think as Nibbler indicates, Carb’s biggest problem is that he’s not dealing with the huge cognitive dissonance he has. He’s trying to walk both sides of the line and it’s unsurprisingly not working. It’s almost like a “split personality” where one side knows the truth and the reality but the other continues to spout the old conservative party line (because he can’t seem to let go of it despite how much it has hurt him). Enough diagnosing for me.

I’m not opposed to a PM to him, I think he sometimes doesn’t realize how he comes off (or maybe he does and doesn’t care). In truth, Amy can be the same way – she’s out there some times, but she’s generally non-offensive. I also think Amy is fairly thick skinned and/or maybe doesn’t fully comprehend some messages. PM’ing Carb may help him recognize that this isn’t a conservative church forum, although that viewpoint is welcome when appropriately framed in a respectful manner. Then again, he may not care. But tact is a learned behavior, and I’m living proof that old dogs can learn new tricks (or maybe I’ve just mellowed with age – but I still think lots of things I don’t say). He’ll likely take a break again soon.

Yes, I agree that Amy’s feminine and neurodivergent voice is valuable and her participation is important to the forum. I would not want her to be offended and go away (and that’s why I sometimes don’t comment on some of her stuff). Actually I really miss Mom, but I understand she is on the path that’s right for her.

I am adding this comment here, rather than creating a new post, since it deals directly with the same person.

The post about the Pope and Elder Oaks violates our rule about writing posts that attack individual leaders. That clearly is the intent of his post – essentially, the Pope is bad, but Elder Oaks is worse.

I could have written a thesis on some of the issues in the post, but that also would not be appropriate here. I just wanted to respond to a few things and add the Admin Note about our rule.

This is a second issue of attacking individuals, and can’t let it continue.

I would appreciate any feedback, especially if I have over-reacted.

It’s a tough situation.

The site is to help people stay LDS. I know many people that will struggle to stay LDS once Oaks takes the reigns. It’s going to be hard to tell people to not talk about Oaks when Oaks is the driving force behind people’s struggles.

First, Ray, I don’t think you overreacted and as Nibbler says it’s a tough situation.

I think some people will struggle when Oaks becomes president of the church for several reasons, his outspoken stance on LGBTQ+ issues among them. Carburettor has clearly stated it’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back for him. Honestly while I am not overly found of DHO myself I don’t fully understand Carb’s stance – I don’t think Oaks will change (although becoming president does seem to mellow people) but I don’t think the overall teachings or stance of the remaining Q15 will change either. In other words, no matter who is at the head of the table not much will really change in regard to Carb’s biggest concern (LGBTQ).

Carb did respond to your warning Ray. I think the argument could be made either way as to whether his initial post was a direct attack on Oaks or, as he asserts, just a statement of facts (at least as he sees them). Again, it is clear Carb does not like Oaks, but this may have been more of an attempt at a veiled attack rather than an open one and I don’t disagree with Carb (and Nibbler) that it was not the sort of direct attack that would seem to get one in trouble under the latest known apostacy guidelines. We can disagree without outright saying a leader is wrong (and my own comments may have come closer to that than some of Carb’s did).

Carburettor came to us initially seeking support in his very convoluted situation. We tried, but in addition to feeling very marginalized he is also very stubborn and seemed unwilling to take to heart any advice he was given. I know it’s not that simple and there are many other factors in play. Nevertheless, Carb is a bit stuck in a very conservative, even authoritarian, church viewpoint with that one big sticking point – LGBTQ+. Despite his age and apparently very good health for that age, Nelson’s days are numbered just like the rest of us. I myself have been giving a lot of thought to my own mortality of late (for no known reason), and I think that might be what’s happening with Carb relating to Nelson’s mortality. He fears the day Oaks takes the reins, and that moment gets closer by the minute. I think he is seeking support for that time because that’s going to put him in crisis mode.

All that said, I think you’re right Ray, and I am taking it to heart myself. At the same time, this is a member who is seeking support from those he thinks may be best suited to offer it – given his mindset and past interactions here we just need to be careful in how we do that.

One last word regarding Oaks. While I am not fond of him and I do believe some of the stuff he teaches are more his personal beliefs than actual doctrine (and he’s not the only one to ever be guilty of that), some of what he teaches is spot on, and most of what he says he supports with relevant scripture and teachings of past prophets. Forgiveness, grace, and mercy are not the focus of his teachings, and that is unfortunate.

He just had to take a shot in a post that didn’t attack any LDS leader in any way. *sigh*

Thanks for the way you all responded.

I saw that there was a new post in this thread and assumed it was about Carburettor saying that SD’s musical tastes make him “cringe and heave.”

I had never heard of Afterglow, went for a listen, managed to keep my lunch down (barely ) but I’m not going to tell SD that his music sucks.

As I was reading his comments in the Husband/father thread that he turned into a temple discussion, it hit me what has been bugging me about his participation generally:

He had been using passive-aggressive language followed by almost gaslighting techniques in previous threads, but in that thread he was mocking people directly – including fellow ward members over the way they saw things and even how they spoke. The comments were not just condescending but actually mocking. He not only appears to have very black-and-white views, but he appears to mock people actively who see things differently or even just have verbal patterns that he thinks are ignorant or even just silly – to the point of laughing out loud in church at them.

That summarizes my sense from the beginning: He wants a place to complain and mock and dismiss and be condescending without any sense of responsibility to look for any degree of charity or perspective.

I understand that is common for many in the beginning phases of a faith crisis and that it can continue naturally as time passes, but it is one thing we try to address here as a way to change our own expectations and responses to find a degree of charity.

The most recent comments bothered me greatly, so I didn’t respond directly to them. I needed some time to think about how to address that, and I needed to write this comment in this section.