I love to be able to share my experiences with life, my thoughts and feelings, and my point of view. I realize that my ideas are different that others', but that doesn't make them any more or less valid. It is interesting to see how we interpret other people's actions and words--we read them through the lens of our own experience, which is probably usually a little different than the original intent. Because of this, I have chosen to remove my last blog post--misinterpretations were rampant on all sides.
I still feel that I have the right to represent truth and reality as I see it. And so do you on your site.
Naptime
16 years ago
Posts
14 comments:
You should have left that last one up. I think it was creating some great open debate. The only way to find understanding is to have open communication.
Chelsea,
I realize you won't 'authorize' this comment. I suspected yesterday it would not be long before you censored comments because they don't agree with you.
Kudos for removing contention from your site. I can understand that.
However,...
I hope you will at least consider this: truth does not fear scrutiny. Only lies must cover things up.
On my journey out of the church I found that the stories learned in primary and Sunday school - and which I taught on my mission - were altered in minor or substantive ways from the original history. They were whitewashed.
Just like you did on your blog.
The easiest thing to do is dismiss reflexively thoughts that disagree with our own. But I hope you ponder things a while longer. Why do people fear other ideas if one's own ideas are solid?
Peace. And Luck on your journey.
Chelsea wrote: "I realize that my ideas are different that others', but that doesn't make them any more or less valid."
If both you and I were to read a news article and come away with different interpretations of why Dutcher left the church, I would agree with you, but when the man himself tells you that you are mistaken, your interpretation has been shown to be invalid. It is his personal experience, not merely an interpretation of another.
Many of us who have left the church feel frustrated because too often, our explanations of why we left are dismissed because the church does not acknowledge any valid reason to leave.
We do tend to interpret others through our own lens. I understand why you made the assumptions you did because I was once Mormon too and would have thought the same. Now I know that the reasons the church gives for why people leave are rarely, if ever, true.
Thank you for allowing our comments though. Increased understanding is a good thing. The people I love most in this world, my family, are Mormon, and I really strive for mutual understanding and acceptance.
K you two last people who commented don't even make sense, and your arguments are NOT even valid. There is no solid argument that you made so leave her the heck alone. Chelsea has the freakin right to say what she wants to say. IT'S HER BLOG!!!! Peace out homies. Love ya Chels and Jake.
Matthew and/or Tara: The trouble with the every-man-a-journalist idea is illustrated very well here. A blogger, is this case Chelsea, made untrue statements about a public person. There are laws to prevent this in other media, but the only avenue available to wronged persons in this medium are other bloggers and members of the general public who post to provide clarification and correction (not to mention the wronged person himself posted a correction).
To all those who say that Chelsea is gossiping or spreading untruths, get a grip. If you read the original post, you'll realize that Chelsea said that (1) Dutcher has "left" the Church (perhaps he's still technically a member, but that's not the point) and that (2) he has a desire to "make any type of movie he wants," meaning he wants to make rated-R movies and other types of movies that Mormons may not like.
If anyone can show either of those statements to be false, go ahead. Remember, though, that Dutcher himself verified both of these statements. In addition, I think Chelsea was more fair than others have been when included Dutcher's statment that he hoped or thought that he may be led back to the Church like Oliver Cowdery was.
Also, Chelsea's observation that many people who are "blessed" with fame leave the Church is just that--an observation. She said nothing about Dutcher or anyone else being a bad person. And last I checked a main purpose of blogging is the ability to express one's opinion and make observations. It's silly to tell a person not to express their own opinion on their own blog.
If I were not the respectful person I am, I might say to those criticizing Chelsea's statements to "get a clue and get a life." Sadly, it seems some people have nothing better to do than search obscure corners of the Web in order to find statements they can twist and be offended by.
In my last post, I indicated that Dutcher verified that fact that he has left the Church and that he wants to make movies that are not Mormon-friendly. Here are the quotes:
"Focus more on the presence of good acting, writing and cinematography and less on the absence of profanity, women's breasts and gunfights. Passionately adhere to the guideline that it is better to tell an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie.
"Stop trying to make movies that you think the General Authorities would like. General Authorities buy very few movie tickets. Make films that the rest of the human family will enjoy. Stop being afraid that if you put something "edgy" in your films then maybe you won't get any important callings. Who cares? Someone else can be in the bishopric or the Relief Society presidency, but no one else can make those films, those very personal films, that only you can make...
"As many of you know, I am no longer a practicing member of the church."
"Richard Dutcher: 'Parting words' on Mormon movies," Daily Herald, 12 April 2007.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/217694/
Her exact words were that Richard "Left the Church a couple of years ago because he felt the desire to be able to produce whatever kinds of movies he wanted to. He wrote in a Salt Lake newspaper that he feels a close kinship to Oliver and hopes that maybe one day the Church will find its way back into his life."
Correlation is not causation. This is a typical logical fallacy. Fact: Richard left the church. Fact: Richard also wants to make his own kind of films. Putting those two facts together and assuming that one is the cause of the other is easy to do, but is inaccurate.
The reason that so many exmormons are jumping in on this is that we go through this individually and as a group on a fairly regular basis. It's painful when the people who supposedly love and care for you are the ones who make nasty assumptions and gossip about you. Instead of taking the time to have an honest discussion with somebody about things, it seems to be easier to make assumptions that back up your preconceived ideas and ignore the reality of the matter.
"I realize that my ideas are different that others', but that doesn't make them any more or less valid." In this case, you cannot comment on what it is like to be another person, as you have no clue what Richard has been through, his spiritual experiences, or what goes on in his head. Almost all exmormons leave for much more complicated reasons than wanting to sin, ego, being hurt, etc. "Observations" aside, Chelsea outright was wrong and should apologize as she's spreading lies about a good man. It's not a matter of "he should just it roll off his back", Jake. How would you feel if people were telling outright untruths about you or your church? Would you step in and try to help them understand where you were coming from? Would you try to have an open conversation? Honestly, I think Richard (as well as the others who've addressed that post) have been more than classy about it. The best thing that the two of you could do is apologize for spreading untruths about people you do not even know, and maybe consider actually trying to find out people's motivations before you start talking smack about them? Or even classier (and a better example), perhaps you ought to just not gossip about people at all.
FYI, Jake... This is indeed gossip.
Noun
1. idle talk, usually about other people's private lives, esp. of a disapproving or malicious nature
To be quite clear, and to settle the disputes once and for all, I am going to clarify some details that apparently have been overlooked in nearly every comment made. Originally, I did falsely write that Richard Dutcher left the church because of the movies he wanted to make. I honestly felt that was what he meant when I read his article. HOWEVER, as soon as I read his comment, I changed my post--it no longer linked his movies with his choice to not participate in the Church. There was no malicious intent. I'm not sure why so many of you refuse to include that bit of information in your comments. I changed the post.
Apparently, many of you copied my first article (which I have deleted, so I'm not sure where it is coming from) and are now misquoting me. Thank you for doing the very thing that you are accusing me of: twisting the truth. At least I tried to correct my error the very moment I read that I was wrong.
I did not mean to insinuate that all people who are in the public eye lose their testimonies, or that people who leave the Church are somehow bad people, or that I am in any way, shape, or form a better person than anyone else on the planet. I wasn't trying to comment on people who leave the Church (and if you read my entire post you noticed that the focus was not even about Church members), I was commenting on the effect of being in the public eye and it's possible relation to a change of beliefs and/or morals. I used these public examples because I had news articles and interviews written and given by these people in their own words. I merely discussed a topic that I have seen played out in the lives of many of my close friends. Is there a correlation? I don't know. It was merely meant to be an open-ended observation.
I did all I could to fix my mistake (including apologizing, which no one seems to remember), but no matter what I do, my words are twisted. By changing the post to alleviate tension and correct the statement, I was ignored. By deleting the post to stop the contentious and often blatantly rude comments, I was told I was whitewashing my lies. By not commenting, I was told I needed to stand up for myself. By commenting, every word I use has been scrutinized and twisted and used against me.
For some of you, no matter what I say, you will never be satisfied. We could go on arguing about this for years. But it has to stop somewhere, and that is here. I would appreciate it if everyone would take all contentious and hurtful comments elsewhere. If you have been offended, I am sorry. My blog was not meant to offend.
By the way, Peach, to use your own definition of gossip, I was doing nothing of the sort. I was not engaging in "idle" [lacking worth] talk. It was something I felt to be important and compelling--if it is something I feel might be true and something I wish to avoid in my own life, I need to work through the information. And it was not "about other people's private lives"--it was all information taken from their own mouths in very public places (one from a news article written by Dutcher for a major Salt Lake newspaper, one from an interview with Swenson in "New York Entertainment" magazine, and one from three separate interviews with the Gosselins in various newspaper and magazine articles). And to repeat this for the hundredth time, it was not meant to be "malicious".
Thanks for hearing me out.
If I were less polite, I would say that Peach is an idiot who for some reason feels compelled to stir up contention and misunderstanding. It is truly pathetic when a person (like Peach and so many others) cannot forgive another and when she admits she made a mistake, apologizes, and corrects herself. Ignoring an apology and retraction and choosing to continue to be offended is your own fault, and it's silly. Sometimes I am surprised at peoples' ignorance. Oh, by the way, Peach, that's:
ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; refusing to see the truth.
She posted an opinion parroting the party line on the interwebz. She was corrected. It happens. i post my heartfelt, inaccurate opinions all over the net all the time and... i get corrected all the time. It usually just means i get to open my mind a bit more and am free of that particular inaccurate opinion.
Finding out we're wrong just means we have the opportunity to search for truth. The best way to insure you'll never find the truth is to be sure you have it.
i understand its difficult for you guys. We're a hard crowd to argue with because we've been in your shoes. We've sat though the meetings and towed the line. We know what that is about. i know the prozac and the fake smiles... the perfect loneliness. Mormonism felt like complete and utter spiritual and emotional isolation to me. i could share almost nothing of who i was with anyone close to me to the point i pretended to be something else for so long that person almost disappeared entirely.
i didn't leave because i wanted to drink coffee or alcohol or swear or watch rated R movies. i left because my soul was slowly dissolving in a sea of quilts and scrapbooks and recipes... in a perfect suburban utopia where ultimately all i could think of was ending it. Yes it really was that bad and yes i tried LDS social services. i was a good little mormon wife. i knew the rules.
Ultimately i did not want what they were offering but i spent several more years pretending and trying to convince myself i did. i'm just not interested in their version of an afterlife.
i'm still in the burbs with my 4 kids and wonderful husband but i no longer need medication and i don't think about ending it all. In fact, life is rather great :)
It does offend me when my reasons for leaving are flippantly ignored by folks who remain but i try not to take it to hard cuz yeah... i used to think all that stuff.
Wow people, get a life! It's a blog not a debate board. I'm sorry to hear about Kerrielou, as members of the church we still love you and all others out there who choose to live different lives. We're not judging anyone, simply stating our opinions as has been mentioned so many times. Go find a freakin debate team and argue with them. Leave Chelsea and her family ALONE FOOLS!
Maybe I'm just slow, but I thought you were just saddened by events in the news and tabloids and were expressing your own thoughts about it. I mean, I'm no stranger to sharing my opinion, and mine are usually controversial in some manner... but I thought your original post was just fine. You don't even have to be accurate when posting on a personal blog because you're not a news reporter of any kind, so you could post that the sun was blue this morning and that you hated blue and now you hate the sun because it decided to be blue, and it wouldn't much matter because a blog is for your own ramblings. But, as I said, I may just be slow and unable to follow.
Post a Comment