http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,423906

In response to Cheryl's last comment:]
>>>Yes, I get it about how the creep went balistic.

There's no way everyone who happens to attend that church would know about this special privilege without having it posted on the door in the form of a warning telling females they could use another restroom.

-------YES. That works very well.

One thing that does bother me is your repeated mindreading act which assumes so many posters unlike you are full of unjust anger. That assumption is unsubstantiated and distasteful. Attacking unstated motives isn't logical or fair minded.>>>



- - - - - -
One more point about the absurdity of the whole thing.

The husband ran around outside racing with his wife in a wheelchair to come back into the building into the bishops office to claim I had attacked him in the women's restroom.

How crazy is that? I mean..really? He thinks that's plausible?
And there the woman sat: frozen, totally silent, eyes blank.

And more craziness? They believed him?
Must have!

Well, apparently, at least one of the men realized how absurd his claim was and apologized to me, months later.

This is what is most disturbing: It seems to be the general accepted opinion that if a priesthood member says something it must be true, and the woman must be lying. That is what my daughter and I dealt with.

Somehow they had to change the events to make it my fault that he was watching women and children in partial dress thinking they had privacy.

When a bishop discounted me, her mother, that was the last straw for her also. She had enough of their absurdities.
There was no way she would ever go back either.'


And, yes, Cheryl, people who live in a state of anger toward a whole group of people interestingly, it appears, take the same position as the priesthood brethren. I find that rather humorous, actually! :-)

This man sounds more like a controlling abuser rather than a sexual predator in my opinion, but who knows, he could be getting voyeuristic kicks as a secondary motive.

I'll bet that he never lets this woman out of his sight.

I had a client when I was a therapist whose husband was abusive and insisted in sitting in the sessions. I tried to address the importance of individual therapy in addition to couples therapy, but the client allowed it. Anytime I tried to use mild confrontation to broach the issue, he got defensive. He would answer questions directed towards her often.

I did what I could but it was ultimately her choice.

Lost Mystic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think you are probably correct.
He had a vested interest in controlling her for some reason.

I knew the wife. She had always been very outgoing and friendly, and had been involved in the church activities. She wheeled herself around,everywhere at church, including in and out of the restroom, just fine. If she needed help she asked one of the ladies.

She had been in a wheel chair for years (don't know why) and from what I could ascertain, the local leaders had basically put the two of them together -- him as her caretaker for about maybe 20 years or so.

This particular day, not only was she dressed in appropriately, but she was close to catatonic. I had never, ever seen her like that before. It's possible she suffered a set back of some sort though. I would hope that adult protective services would make sure she got the proper care.

The most disturbing part to me is how you were portrayed as the villain and that the leadership defended this creep.

Kudos for not putting up with that!

Many people would have just submitted to the "authority" and feel shamed.

Lost Mystic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most disturbing part to me is how you were
> portrayed as the villain and that the leadership
> defended this creep.
>
> Kudos for not putting up with that!
>
> Many people would have just submitted to the
> "authority" and feel shamed.


Not me! I had enough training with social services, and Hospice to know that I needed to contact Adult Protective Services immediately, and this crazy behavior by the leaders wasn't going to help anyone.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> And, yes, Cheryl, people who live in a state of
> anger toward a whole group of people
> interestingly, it appears, take the same position
> as the priesthood brethren. I find that rather
> humorous, actually! :-)

Susie, I get so frustrated with this response of yours. You seem to listen past people not to them. Cheryl didn't say anything about living in a state of anger. She mentioned your seeing people full of unjust anger.

Helen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SusieQ#1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > And, yes, Cheryl, people who live in a state of
> > anger toward a whole group of people
> > interestingly, it appears, take the same
> position
> > as the priesthood brethren. I find that rather
> > humorous, actually! :-)
>
> Susie, I get so frustrated with this response of
> yours. You seem to listen past people not to them.
> Cheryl didn't say anything about living in a state
> of anger. She mentioned your seeing people full of
> unjust anger.

Well, unjust anger can be living in a state of anger. So I stated it differently. It was a meaning with overlap that worked in my view.
We're dealing with just words. That was not I phrased a statement that has similar meaning.

you sure gave me a good laugh!! I get so frustrated as you said..... with people who think they need to tell me how I'm doing it "WRONG" that I have to keep my sense of humor in tact, or I would think I was right back in the LDS Church where that kind of thing is rampant. :-) Old habits die hard, I guess! Still chuckling!!

Your jedi mind tricks don't work around here.

What are you a toydarian?

You got that right, WinksWinks!

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 02:29PM by Timothy.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
> you sure gave me a good laugh!! I get so
> frustrated as you said..... with people who think
> they need to tell me how I'm doing it "WRONG"
> that I have to keep my sense of humor in tact, or
> I would think I was right back in the LDS Church
> where that kind of thing is rampant. :-) Old
> habits die hard, I guess! Still chuckling!!

Thanks, another example of your not listening. No where did I say you did it wrong. I expressed my frustration that you don't seem to listen. You answer from your own agenda.

I don't even understand your sense of humour.

Maybe this will make you laugh....sometimes you talk like a self-help book but minus the empathy.

Helen
STOP reading my posts if you don't find anything of value and must be negative.

Ignore me.
I'll ignore you also! :-)

Talk about a thread jack. My goodness. People have such a great sense of humor. I have no idea what it's about, but that's OK. Laugh away. Enjoy yourself. Life is short.
The same people don't have a grasp on what I am sharing. But that's OK too.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 02:38PM by SusieQ#1.

Sure seems that way, but I don't hang around ladies restrooms so how would I know?

Timothy

OK folks. KEEP up the personal attacks. I'm enjoying it!
LOL

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK folks. KEEP up the personal attacks. I'm
> enjoying it!
> LOL

With the board being up and down for upgrades yesterday, I didn't get a chance to join in on the personal attacks. Is it too late now?

I had a real juicy one that took all of my creative ability to construct (admittedly that's not all that much, but it did cause me to perspire some), and then when I went to post the message, the board was down again, causing me to say out loud: "Dang it."

In case it isn't too late, I'll post what I can remember of the now lost forever message.

How DARE Susie and her daughter look in the mirror before getting their hands completely washed and dried after using the toilet!!! After all, we can probably all figure out what they were doing in those stalls, probably either #1 or #2 or MAYBE BOTH!!! I find it interesting that Susie left this important detail out of her original narrative---she's obviously hiding something.

[I can't remember any more of yesterday's post, but I think it made reference to Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, the Beatles "Blue album," and Adlai Stevenson's 1952 run for the US presidency as a democrat. These references will be obvious to anyone who follows this board closely, so I won't explain them now, but if anyone wants more info, ask a long-timer (just don't ask SL Cabbie---he's kinda sensitive about the subject) and be prepared for a VERY long explanation.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2012 10:31AM by Flat Lander.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Of course, Cheryl.... it is just silliness! Show off nonsense. Same people do the same things. They sure do not like me. And do I care?? NOPE. I know what it all really means! And when I'm done laughing, I feel sad for all of them. What a shame.

"And do I care? NOPE. I know what it all really means."

There's only one reason you repeat that incessantly in all your posts. You are still trying to convince yourself. I'd swear that was written by a first grader.

When Helen said you sound like a self-help book minus the empathy she hit the nail on the head.

blueorchid
GOOD GRIEF! STOP!!!!
Don't read my threads if you can't find anything useful and must be negative.
Ignore me.
I'll ignore you also!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 08:24PM by SusieQ#1.

Real communication could happen, but instead we get hysterical glee and then flip! now we're meanie heads, go away!

Im shocked it doesn't happen more often. Priesthood power and woman as subordinates et all. There has to be lines to not cross. Woman have rights, I wish the morg would put more power in woman

abacab08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im shocked it doesn't happen more often.
> Priesthood power and woman as subordinates et all.
> There has to be lines to not cross. Woman have
> rights, I wish the morg would put more power in
> woman


I posted a reply but it must have gotten lost when the board went down, or I forgot to click:Post message! :-)
Misuse of their priesthood power is very disturbing.
Even they teach about it... D&C 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

And that is most often, in my observation about how they treat women, certainly, not with equality.

I'm more convinced than ever that this person does not exist. It sounds too much like somebody in character. I believe SuzieQ is a fiction. Are there any good writers that frequent the Board?

But, I like it. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 11:35PM by thingsithink.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm more convinced than ever that this person does
> not exist. It sounds too much like somebody in
> character. I believe SuzieQ is a fiction. Are
> there any good writers that frequent the Board?
>
> But, I like it. :)


You're silly.:-)
I'm: SusieQ#1 (Those other spellings are other posters that come and go).

I am a writer. I write some satire/parody on the subject of Mormonism. I have several articles on Salamandar Society . com.

I'm also on Facebook.

I'm still confused about why you were adjusting your underwear in front of the mirrors. Matt's condescending reply on the other thread notwithstanding, I find that really strange. As a woman, I have never adjusted my underwear outside of the stall, nor have I seen any other woman apart from at the gym do so. Tugging on the dress to make it sit right, yes, but not lifting it up to adjust the underwear. It's not like you need a mirror to know where your panties go. Just one strange aspect of a strange story.



"AnonExMo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "When we came out of stalls and were washing our
> hands and had pulled up our dresses to adjust our
> underwear, she saw a man in the double mirrors!
> She alerted me while quickly putting her dress
> down."
>
> Why didn't you fix that stuff in the stall?

Do you not THINK before commenting?

Women often like to use mirrors in restrooms to adjust their dresses.

Are their mirrors in the stalls? No."

AnonExMo:

You are a woman and you have NEVER left a cramped stall to find your pantyhose/panties twisted...?

Women's Restrooms are most definately designed and built by men without knowing or maybe even caring just how ill-designed they are.

>Too few stalls for the female population of the building
>Stalls are too small and cramped when dealing with self much less with small children
>doors of stall open right into the face of anyone walking to and from other stalls
>inadequate exhaust system, if one even exists
>One or two sinks for six to ten stalls...how does that equate?
>Line of women waiting to wash hands blocks line of women waiting to use stalls
>No waiting area inside of restroom for when facilities are full

...and the worse thing is that Heavenly Father's design for his daughter's restrooms are just as inadequate as those in the non-LDS world.

...in ladies restrooms as I don't frequent said establishments. What I do know is that the story in question has been blown way out of proportion by its author.

Hokay, let's say I'm an old geezer and my wife is in a wheelchair and we're at church and she has to go to the bathroom. Its not a simple or easy routine, but because I've had to deal with it for a number of years, its become second nature to me. We're likewise very familiar with one-another which makes me the most qualified and trusted aid.

Looking at it from my wife's POV, she probably doesn't want to bother anyone or walk anyone through the process when she already has a very capable and willing assistant. The only hang-up is my presence in the ladies restroom. We understand the potential problems, so we make prior arrangements and do our best not to surprise or otherwise disturb anyone. Even so, we are still constantly reminded by the arrogant, ignorant and uniformed that its not appropriate for a man to be in the ladies restroom.

No s**t, Sherlock! Do you really think my wife and I enjoy this? Perhaps it would be more "appropriate" in your eyes if I just let my wife crap all over herself in full public view! Thanks for making an already embarrassing situation all the more uncomfortable. Oh, and did I mention mind your own f**king business?

In switching the roles, I suspect "wheelchair" SusieQ would be applauding her husband instead of berating him. Likewise, should my panty parade be interrupted for the reason cited, my first question would be "Why is a man in the ladies restroom?"

Seeing his wife in a wheelchair would answer that question as well as dispel other concerns. I could understand Susie's knee-jerk had the old fart been peeping under the stalls or gazing in the mirror with his tongue on the ground, but that wasn't the reported case in this case, so I would be inclined to grant the old folks benefit of the doubt and report the incident rather than make a scene.

Of course, I'm not a drama queen so what do I know.

Indeed, folks should think before they go-off half-cocked. A lesson the poster in question would be wise to learn.

Timothy

I definitely see your take, but it wasn't just a case of a man helping his disabled wife use the ladies room. If I read it right, it was that he was occupying the ladies room/mother's lounge during sacrament meeting while his wife was snacking on some crackers.

I could understand if it were just as you've described-- an old dude helping his disabled wife use the restroom so she doesn't have to bother anyone else. But, he wasn't there just to help his wife to the stall-- he had parked himself there to hang out during the meeting. I think respect for the privacy of others in the ward should figure into the whole picture-- he should have taken measures to notify those in the restroom. Snacktime in the ladies' room doesn't cut it. Plus, his overreaction sounds like a man who just got caught-- and knew it.

Of course, this is the internet, so whatever. :-)

With all the bandwidth this topic is getting I couldn't help myself and went and read all the posts, I hadn't even read the original post. Anyway here is my two cents.

- I was very surprised at the post, coming from SusieQ I expected it to be a more 'faith promoting' story but I was glad to see she did have at least one bad experience in the lds church.

- I felt bad for all involved, for SusieQ/daugther/grandchild who felt uncomfotable in the situation. for the man who probably felt attacked by SusieQ (as he told the leaders later), but mostly for the woman in the wheelchair who, to me, was the real victim of the whole situation. Can you imagine what kind of day she had for the rest of that Sunday?

- The whole situation was handled poorly. From no sign advising women of the possibility of a man in the mother's lounge, to SusieQ's reaction through the whole episode (yelling, running, refusing to discuss the situation in private, calling the authorities, etc.), the man's immediate defensive attitude and reaction, and well, all involved well emotionally charged which is not good in conflict resolution. I'd like to think I would have handled the situation better, but I probably wouldn't have.

- This could have happened anywhere of course, but in the lds church it seems everyone is constantly on police mode, checking the actions of those around and in my experience, little consideration and empathy. I've noticed in the lds church that the communication is not very good either and everyone's favourite excuse is 'the bishop knows' even if everyone else doesn't.

- My favourite posts were by Bluechild, by Rebekka and by Timothy.

- Finally, I've surprised myself. I think I must be deprogramming quickly. When I first came to this board I think SusieQ was my favourite poster as her posts often reflected this doubting mormon's feelings, I still value a lot of her advise. I was a fraid of Timothy's posts, I could never be THAT skeptical. Today I, a deconverted mormon, seem to favour and value Timothy's opinions.

D

Maybe Timothy-appreciation is a sign of a healthy recovery. I remember feeling intimidated by Timothy's posts at first, but now he's one of my favourite posters.