Gentle readers,
I ask you all a question. This last week, I was speaking with a fellow member of the Church when he said something I found borderline outrageous and at the very least, suspicious. I would like to see if others have seen similar comments.
I was explaining that a friend of mine had been in a physically abusive relationship. Often, the response is that the conversations becomes more grave (and rightfully so). The fellow member, however, responded: "Was it closed-hand? Because if so, I want to kill him." I respond that I saw no moral difference between the two. Meanwhile, I'm thinking: "So if it was open-hand, then what would you do?"
Have you all seen this response among fellow members of the Church? This was not my first time, though it certainly is not common. I just wonder though how often the male members of our faith absorb such assumptions. What have you all heard? Do share. Maybe this guy was an exception, but maybe not. We have too many blessings to let such a silly distinction reak havoc in our homes.
Monday, June 9, 2008
A Survey...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That response is not only sad and disgusting, but also perhaps a sign that he has a very skewed idea of healthy human relationships.
It seems very possible from your telling of the story that your Mormon semi-friend could have seen BOTH types of hitting as morally reprehensible, but felt ESPECIALLY enraged at a closed-hand hit, for instance, "Was it closed-hand? If so, I want to kill him... otherwise I would just beat him senseless," thus seeing one as wrong and another as especially wrong.
To automatically come to the conclusion that being angry at one means he would accept the other excludes several possible meanings of his statement.
I see what you're saying...and you're quite possibly right...I suppose there was a certain element of his intonation that I can't quite convey on the blog...and it was this element that seemed to communicate it to me.
Post a Comment