We can think for ourselves.

Someone on another thread pointed out that mormons don't see dead dunking as disrespectful so we should see it like they do.

Fine if someone doesn't mind the temple rituals, but there's no need to feel guilty for seeing them as crass and disrespectful of the dead.

Mormons see it as kind and helpful to continue to love bomb former members who ask to be left alone. Exmos can go along with this if they choose, but if they see it as harassment they are not bad people. Many nonmos and exmos value their time and privacy and wouldn't want mormon strangers and near-strangers coming by unannounced.

We all have a right to decide if we want to participate or contribute to a church. There's no moral failing to saying, "No, I won't join your church."

Or, "No, I've decided not to be in your church anymore."

Even those who are still active have rights. They can refuse callings, turn down rude HTers, or say they won't be having VTers starting next month.

Young people don't have to sign up for missions if they have the guts to say no.

That's not all. Missionaries can go home if they realize they hate being cult-controlled and living in squalor.

It's honorable to use one's mind and will. Too often recovering exmos feel guilty for doing and thinking how nonmos live every day.

I think they just meant since no disrespect was intended, people shouldn't be so quick to *take* offense. In other situations, we do give some consideration to whether someone intended to be offensive & cut them some slack if they didn't.

We don't owe mormons anything for using our dead names to extort thithes.

We never owe them gratitude for mistreating us.

Good intentions pave the road to hell.

It's about controlling your own state of mind and not letting silly Mormon rituals disturb you when there's nothing you can do about it.

You can't accept that different people can have legitimate opinions and you assume that calling mormons "silly" gives you some kind of exmo provenence.

Here's the truth:

No one here is "disturbed" because they don't go along with mormon thinking.

I said they shouldn't let things like that disturb them -- i.e., bother them.

Also, I don't think "provenance" means what you think it means.

Look, Cheryl, if you want to spend your life stewing and fretting over things you can't control, that is your choice. I just think you could be free of it if you chose. I think you would be happier if you stopped obsessing on it. I don't have a problem with differing perspectives, but it's apparent that you do, because every time someone comes to RFM and says they don't think the proxy baptisms are a big deal, you feel a need to "correct" them. Why not just let them see it their way?

Words from you or your twin in the other thread: "control freak, upset, silly issue, overemphasize."

From this one "disturbed, spend your life, fretting, obcessing, you would be happier."

Then you turn into the spelling police which is against RfM posting rules.

I am not fretting, obcessing, or unhappy. Dead dunking is not anyone's life.

You on the other hand have a need to make it such because you are an unproven psychic.

Having an opinion is acceptable in the real world. People can be adament about liking football or hating it. They can love or hate public prayer. And they can have whatever opinion is logical to them about mormon dead dunking. Having these opinions is healthy and acceptable. It doesn't mean anyone's life is damaged or that they are disturbed, fretting, obcessed or any other nasy word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2013 05:55AM by Cheryl.

Yet you feel a need to correct Cheryl rather than letting her have an opinion that differs from yours. To borrow your words, "Why not just let [her] see it [her] way?"

Look, if you want to spend your life stewing and fretting over things you can't control...blahblahblah. Clearly you DO have a problem with differing perspectives.

BTW, why not use your regular RfM name? You must have been around a long time to make your claim that "EVERY time" a poster defends proxy baptisms Cheryl comments a certain way.

Having a conversation about this subject is very different than trying to correct someone. Why can't an argument just be an argument?

To borrow your idea, clearly you also have a problem with this other poster's different perspective as well. By the wya, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you having a problem with this person's post and that person having a problem with Cheryl's post.

Clearly I have a problem with your post and your different perspective. That doesn't mean that any of us are trying to correct anybody else's behavior. It is just a discussion.

You are so adorable.

Where did I tell the poster he wasn't allowed to have his perspective or needed to change his perspective? <crickets> That's right, I didn't. My questions were pointing out that POTECN is holding Cheryl to a higher standard than he holds himself.

You admittedly have a problem with my perspective, but I think the poster-of-the-ever-changing-name gets to have whatever perspective suits him, so your post might be better directed at yourself.

Let me guess, as per your frequent disclaimer, you didn't read the entire OP or the replies, did you? See, having a discussion requires having read (or listened to) what the other perspectives are.

Hah, laughable accusations. It is clear you dislike me. While I am not trying to troll you by any means, your dislike of me is very amusing.

Still, it is interesting where arguments like this end up. One person has a perspective, then another has a perspective, then they are accused of trying to correct one another by someone who is trying to also trying to correct. Then when someone points that out, that person is also accused of trying to correct others.

And round and round and round it goes.

It reminds me of your next point. The constant battle over who read completely and who didn't read completely or which of two people have poor reading comprehension is banal.

"I guess you didn't read the entire post because..."

"No, YOU didn't read my post."

"No, YOU are the one who isn't reading the post."

Which reminds me of this:

"Where did I tell the poster he wasn't allowed to have his perspective or needed to change his perspective?"

I guess you have poor reading comprehension skills because I never accused you of telling him he wasn't allowed to have his perspective. You invented that part of my argument.

And round and round it goes...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2013 02:54PM by snb.

I neither like nor dislike you. I don't know you well enough to make that determination. Really interesting that you would jump to that conclusion and that something that isn't true is "clear" to you. Might you be projecting? In my world, whether I agree or disagree with a person has nothing to do with liking them. Your mileage may vary.

"You must be projecting"

"I think you are projecting about my projecting"

and so on and so on...

Okay, so you say that you neither like nor dislike me. I disbelieve you and my evidence is every time you have ever responded to one of my comments. I will continue to be amused.

I didn't say "You must be projecting." I asked, "Might you be projecting?" Big difference. It doesn't occur to me when someone disagrees with me that they don't like me because it's not a consideration I make when listening to others' opinions. It appears that it's a consideration for you.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't matter enough to me to invest the energy it requires to dislike a person. I would rather invest that energy elsewhere. If you need to believe that I dislike you, I'm okay with that. If you get something out of making it about you, have at it. What IS true is that I rarely agree with you, but so what?

This is my last post on this topic because it's turned into a thread highjack. Sorry about my part in that, Cheryl.

Haha, sure.

You might cut someone some slack the *first* time they are offensive, but not if they are repeatedly offensive. That goes for institutions as well.

How many times have the Mormons been told that dead dunking of Jews is offensive to the Jewish community? And yet they continue to do it.

It would go a long way if Mormons were limited to dead dunking their own direct ancestors. I guess my question for temple-going Mormons is, why on Earth are you doing ordinances for someone you don't even know? For someone who isn't even a family member to you? Why do you have to vomit over my family line? Because you think it's "helpful?" Quit being so helpful, okay?

We all know the answer to that. If Mormons were limited to doing ordinances only for direct ancestors, they would soon run out of temple work to do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2013 08:30AM by summer.

"You might cut someone some slack the *first* time they are offensive, but not if they are repeatedly offensive."

Yep.

I used to not understand why people were offended by a fake silly ritual as well until I realized what summer just pointed out. It never has offended me, but the constant repetition of the behavior and disregard for other people's feelings on the matter is what really gets at it.

Edited for clarity, oops :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2013 02:52PM by snb.

1 using our loved ones's info without our consent is disrespectful and merits an official apology. I know TSCC no longer allows unrelated individuals to submit names, but they should apologize for what happened before that rule was instituted.

2 it's like finding out TSCC bishops interviewed our teenage, TBM children about masturbation when our TBM spouses allow it to happen. are we not supposed to feel angry? it is questionably legal and downright disrespectful.

The rules for dead dunking fluctuate wildly and are not well monitored or enforced. Most members don't know the rules since there are never lessons or talks reviewing them, and there are no consequences for breaking them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2013 05:53AM by Cheryl.

so, lets all control our minds and be at peace with whatever TSCC does, including dead dunking; otherwise, it is our fault, right?

so, let them love-bomb us since it doesn't hurt anyone and we can't do anything about it, right? after all, it's just phone calls and mindless God-talks, right?

if we can't get over that, it's our fault, right?

allow me to add my two cents and this is perhaps somewhat OT to many of you.

recovery for me includes:
recognizing and letting go of the toxic mental and behavioral patterns of the Morg, such as blaming the victims, etc.

I see this as mormonthinksplaining. I do no believe that they teally don't inted to be direspectful in their proxy rituals, because, lets face it, they don't just deaddunk, they perform other temple ordinances as well for those who have no say.

Its the same kind of BS as "We all have a right to our own opinions" when they are actually referring to cold, hard facts.

Mormons do no care if its disrespectful of non members. They do not allow themselves to even consider how they might feel about this proxy stuff. They don't care. It does not matter. They're gonna do it anyways, by golly.

And THAT, dear friends, is what I find so irksome. They don't care, they know best, and they're going to do it anyway. That is disrespectful.

Someone to remind you that just because you are active for whatever reason - you can still be a person and say "no."

Growing up Mormon - you are constantly told that you have to bury your own feelings and not only say "yes" to everything the church asks of you - but to do it "happily."

That's not healthy or realistic - and sometimes it takes a reminder that you can say "No," and it doesn't make you evil.

It's also nice to be able to have your own feelings about things after leaving the church, and allow others to have feelings too.

I wouldn't mind if the missionaries stopped by. In fact, I think it would be hilarious.

Other people feel differently - and they can have those feelings without it affecting me whatsoever.

I don't think I need to think like anyone about anything. I love reading or discussing other perspectives and developing my own take on things. I also like talking over issues with people who are not threatened by my ideas, nor I theirs.

I have found that my best relationships are based on my ability to understand, at least on some level, the other person in regards to their beliefs, their customs, their family, their particular familial dynamics, their history, their particular language, and on and on.

One of the reasons my marriage to a believing Mormon lasted for over 50 years is my willingness to understanding his perspective and religious culture as I had been immersed in it until the last 15 or so years of our marriage. I was a convert when we married in the temple. It wasn't my familial, social, cultural background. It required that I get well acquainted with his.

Later in life, I could change my mind and let him be.I understood that he would always be a believing Mormon, no matter what I chose to believe or what I shared with him. It was not always smooth sailing, but the more I let go of what I could not control, the better things were. I understood what was about him and what was about me.

He could live the 11th Article of Faith as he promised. And we could respect each other's different opinions and beliefs and perspectives.

I can understand the perspective of many different religious views. As a convert, I had some understanding of other religions before I joined the LDS Church, having grown up in a different kind of home and been very active in the church of my youth. My DNA is filled with religion: Christian ministers and missionaries for several generations.
Yes, I have a good idea of their perspective and understanding of the world. That works to my advantage.

My husband and I were such opposites, I don't think we thought alike about much of anything! I learned early on that it was imperative that I gain some understanding of his perspective of how he saw everything in his life, including Mormonism. I think he did the best he could to understand me, but I think I still baffled him, at times !:-)

Of course, I understand the perspective of LDS folks as well as possible as I was a convert. I lived the religion for over three decades as an adult as I understood it.

I may be an odd-ball here, but I have never used the term: recovery for my process leaving the LDS Church. I have called it an"Exit Process from Mormonism" which was a result of changing my mind about what I wanted to believe. I don't know anyone personally that uses that term about themselves either. Maybe it's our age group, or our perspectives.

There is no right or wrong way to leave the LDS Church/Mormonism. We do it our way. This is how I do it. It's my way.
A posting board is a very interesting place.
We share snippets of our lives - some larger than others.
We try to make sense of our lives after we changed our mind and left Mormonism for any number of reasons.
We have dozens of variables in our lives.
Many factors made my change reasonable in the most part, with a few wild and crazy parts, that I weathered.

I'm so grateful that my family has been so supportive of me and each other. It was difficult to lose their father and my husband. But, we are adapting and remembering the funny times, the fun times, and the special times.

Life is so, so, so short. My view is to find a way to make peace with all of our life.Forgive everyone everything (helps to have a bad memory)!

because some of us @#$!ing hate that. :)