Amyjo, I didn't get a chance to respond to your last post on that particular thread that went sideways. I would like to answer you.

You said:
>I understand you're not an atheist Nightingale. I also see you and I do not see eye to eye on many subjects, religion being one of them. We can agree to disagree.

You seemed to lump me in with "the atheists" you were arguing with. I needed to say I'm not an atheist. I wasn't sure if you thought I was because of not agreeing with you. Not the case.

Also, I was not really aware that you and I disagree on religion, AJ. Not sure what you mean. (There is a difference between my religious beliefs and how I view participation on this board that is meant to be non-religious).


AJ:
>That being said, let this go.

No. Not until I answer your latest comments. Maybe you can have the last word this time but you have made some remarks I would like to respond to.


AJ:
>There are people here who are hurting, really hurting.

I'm the one who said that, in effect, to you. I am well aware that is the case. I spent a lot of time explaining that. For one thing, that is the reason for the strict board rule against preaching. Many folks here have had a bellyful of it. And those are the ones that Eric started this board to help.


AJ:
>Maybe you can set aside your petty differences for just a moment and consider them instead of this bickering thread.

*MY* "petty differences? Way to be supportive. Way also to show an amazing capacity for complete and utter hypocrisy (because you don't do likewise, it would seem).


AJ:
>I'd like to see more of the threads where people are seeking assistance for their questions, and help for problems.

Well, we can't control the number of such threads but what we can do is try and respond to any we see and offer support to newbies and others who have life problems they're dealing with. And give them the room to get some meaningful feedback.


AJ:
>Since you and I can agree this isn't a therapy session, then great. But for some who are hurting, RfM may be their only source of refuge for starters to go when they have nowhere else to turn for answers. There are people in need on RfM right now who are reaching out, and this thread is taking up too much time to be of any value. I know there are some here right now seeking help, so let's try and be there for them, okay?

Good heavens, Amyjo. *I* am the one who said this, or at least strongly indicated it. I was not saying this is not a therapy session in order to criticize people who come here seeking help. I must not have been very clear. I was referring to longer-term posters who want it to be ongoing therapy instead of seeking IRL resources at some point. Or something like that. In no way did I indicate that people shouldn't come here to ask questions or seek support in the face of Mormon-related questions or problems or even any arising from non-mo sources.

You don't have to tell me to "be there for them" as I try to be when I can, if I think I have something useful to say, and if time permits due to IRL demands at the moment (and yes, one thing we agree on - your thread/topic took up an appalling amount of time - my day off and this is what I do with it. I disappoint myself).


AJ:
>Let it go. Shalom.

No. Not if you continue to make statements I can't agree with and especially if you are misunderstanding me. I seek for clarification and explanation on all things. Which at least may satisfy me if no-one else.

I will say Shalom back at ya, if your intention is sincere.

Of course that is hard to know, especially via the Net.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, maybe both of us can find something positive to do out there in the real world. I, for one thing, have to get my mom to (yet another) medical appointment tonight and figure out some amazing dinner plan for afterwards. (I am not the world's greatest cook - vast understatement). I would never have made a good Mormon wife. Fortunately, I realized that right away. The FIRST THING the missionaries said to me after my (horrific) baptism experience was "Now we have to get you married". Say what????? Nobody happened to mention that beforehand. They just started manipulating "accidental" meet-ups for me with "eligible" older men, all of whom were divorced BICs with 8 kids. Not that appealing to me, no offence intended to anyone. I didn't know until I found RfM that single women don't get into Mormon heaven, or something like that. (Thank goodness, at least regarding myself. I would like to either be completely dead when I'm dead or else at least avoid the Mormon hellish-type "heaven" of singleness demoting one to being an eternal servant. I feel like I've already done that here on Earth. Had enough of it now).

So there, now I've related this to Mormonism. Maybe that saves it. Although likely not...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 06:42PM by Nightingale.

I just saw your final response on your thread (to Reader) that was just closed, Amyjo.

You said:
>The post from Reader is in the link I provided at the top in the OP. All you have to do is CLICK on it.

I *never* would have figured that out!!

I had said in my first post that I didn't see Reader's post that you were responding to. I just meant that I had not read the original thread or post in situ before I saw your thread. You are misunderstanding my (very tiny little) point. Not that it's a big deal. But your tone!


AJ:
>Perhaps you could take a backseat and a deep breath for five seconds, and stop being so divisive?

I'm being divisive? Unbelievable! (and a few curse words besides). Don't know what you mean by taking a back seat. But no thanks. Why don't you?


Is this the same person who just told me to let it go and wished me 'Shalom'?

All righty then.


So there. You succeeded in making me lose my cool. Happy now?

Shalom indeed.

I might be talking to myself but here goes - referencing the previous thread again, just to finish off my thoughts from that discussion.


AJ: "And on RfM while Atheists are a majority doesn't mean that they own the forum to beat up believers."

I might check with Eric or CZ on this. At least when I came first to RfM there was a huge emphasis on atheism. It was a relief for many to embrace it and to have a place to discuss it. I learned a lot about it, never having considered it much previously. My high school boyfriend was an atheist, a strange and interesting phenomenon for me. I don't know how we managed to make it through a year together, perhaps because our beliefs didn't wholly define us and we liked each other a lot. And we were young. We didn't really discuss God or no god much at all. And it didn't matter to us then.


AJ: "Dagny uses the excuse that I criticize Mormonism to the nth degree so this is fair turnaround. No it is not. Because as a believer I am as free to express myself against Mormonism here as she is. But she shouldn't be free to ATTACK my belief system simply for being a believer where she is an ATHEIST."

Dagny has already mentioned that she *did* mean her initial post a bit tongue-in-cheek, a lighthearted comment on a sunny day. I caught that tone. So I think you're taking it a bit the wrong way. Of course, you're Jewish and I'm not, so undoubtedly it's more serious to you.

As to being free to express oneself as a believer and atheists not being free to "attack" believers, again - I would check with Eric/CZ on that. I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of RfM. I could be wrong. If so, I'd like to be corrected by someone who knows for sure.

I'm not saying that "attack" is a posting behaviour that is tolerated here. Rather, I mean that again, connotation and interpretation come into play. If one sees any disagreement about beliefs as "attack" then yeah, I get why they'd feel attacked.

But as far as I have ever understood, this is not an equal opportunity board; i.e. that people with religious belief are free to discuss it and promote it. That is not the case. Nothing "unfair" about it and not an injunction imposed by a "posse" of posters that are nasty atheists. The emphasis is on discussing Mormonism and topics that arise from that subject and those experiences. The purpose of the board and its rules are set and defined and explained by Eric/CZ, Founder, Previous Owner, and Current Owner.

As an aside, I don't notice that non-believers spend an inordinate amount of time here expounding on their atheism. The subject doesn't come up at all often, certainly compared to the board's early days.

For one example, I read a lot of Lot's Wife's posts because I find them interesting. I didn't even know until she mentioned today that she is agnostic. So much for anybody's preconceptions about where others fall on the belief scale; i.e. LW is not an atheist.

Just like, as I said, I am not.

So I'm not ganging up with the big bad atheists against anybody here. I have been a nearly lifelong churchgoer, despite numerous roadblocks and unfortunate incidents so if anything, you'd think I'd come down on the believers' side. However, I try not to take sides from some kind of tribal imperative. I had enough of being forced to do so as a JW and then a Mormon, where you're expected to present a united front, even if you have to grind your tongue and stamp on your own toes to stay mum in the face of a word or action you can't live comfortably with.

I’ve lost my train of thought, so that is all…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 07:06PM by Nightingale.

Long term rule here - there are no sacred cows.

Another country heard from, as my English relatives often say. It's not meant to be literal!

Succinct, as always, Sus I/S, who doesn't post nearly enough. If I could do it the way you do, I'd have had a lot more time today to do other stuff!

Rushing off to medical appt now. Then supper out. So that's my exciting evening.

Yes, I've noticed you seem incapable of letting someone else have the last word, Nightingale.

That being said, you may want to revisit Tevai's reply to Dagny's post on my thread in response to her denouncement of my beliefs, my critique on Mormonism, and my right to participate here on RfM as an ex-Mormon.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2247152,2247206#msg-2247206

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I've noticed you seem incapable of letting
> someone else have the last word, Nightingale.

You don't know me at all, Amyjo. And you're the one who did get the last word on the other thread. And in it, instead of finishing in the spirit of 'Shalom', that you invoked, you took another couple of shots at me. I get to respond to that. It is a common human reaction. Especially in a forum where people are learning to stand up for themselves.


> That being said, you may want to revisit Tevai's
> reply to Dagny's post on my thread in response to
> her denouncement of my beliefs, my critique on
> Mormonism, and my right to participate here on RfM
> as an ex-Mormon.

Dagny's tongue-in-cheek (as she explained that it was), and gentle comment you characterize as a "denouncement" of your beliefs? Amyjo, you seem to be taking it way the wrong way. My understanding of what Dagny said was the epitome of what this board is about: As CZ often says, which, true enough, did come across to me in my early and more sensitive days here as a vast minority (being Christian), "this site is Christian-friendly, not Christian-safe". Meaning, if you don't want to read negative views about your faith, or receive less than effusive praise for it, maybe look for a different board. In the case of Judaism, I don't see that it is the order of the day here that people denounce it or even criticize it.

Of course, expressing less than robust support for Mormonism is de rigeur here, but even that has its limits. Being truthful for one. Maybe reasonable for another.

Amyjo, I never for one single nanosecond suggested that you are not welcome to post here. As for a "right" to post here, it is not an absolute right that any of us hold. You know how they say in your country that a person serves "at the pleasure of the President"? Well, kinda like that. If a poster doesn't follow the rules, whether it's an egregious one-time incident or after a series of warnings fails to curb improper posting behaviour, then they have no "right" to keep posting if the board owner/s instruct them to cease and desist. The only other classification of people who are not welcome, just by definition, are Mormon apologists and professional religious hucksters (I don't want to name names).

The context in which I mentioned "right" to post is that I believe your claim to have equal rights as a Jewish person (or me as a Christian believer) is not exactly accurate. It is OK to mention it in the abstract; i.e. "Mainstream Christianity teaches a triune God", as opposed to a statement of an absolute such as "God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost" or "God created the universe" (as if it's proven fact), although if phrased as a personal belief it is OK, in limited fashion. I have sometimes written a response that explains a Bible teaching and have even given the Bible verse to show where it comes from and what exactly it says. I haven't been deleted for that. I usually give a subject line warning though, as I do firmly believe that a person can be sick from religion and suffers if exposed unawares. So yes, you are welcome to post about Mormonism. But not to post personal religious beliefs and acts as an inherent right. There may be tolerance from Admin but that does not constitute free license.

Amyjo, if Dagny's very mild comment, which clearly came across to me as being said with a bit of a laugh, caused this reaction from you (feeling beleaguered, unwelcome to post in the eyes of some, and not understanding further comments to you that were not unsupportive) do you think maybe you misread things a bit? Is that possible? Or that you were a bit sensitive about it where no disrespect or intolerance was meant? Just asking.

One thing I would ask: Please do not misquote me or insist I said or meant something that I did not. Never would I tell another poster that they had no right to be on this board. (Possible exception: the two classifications mentioned above - Mormon apologists or previously informed professional religious hucksters. Except even there, I believe I would leave it to Admin to interact with that type of interloper). That does not apply to regular folks wanting to participate.

It's just that there's a way to participate. Keeping in mind that other posters have needs, that board rules are there for good reason and that many readers and posters have support needs that aren't helped if we are eternally biting each other's heads off.

From that link in your post:
"I had the bishop's wife where we live show up at my door and force herself into my house after I stopped attending with my daughter. She physically assaulted me in my livingroom because I stopped attending telling me I had no right to not let my daughter go there. Only I pulled my daughter out from there because of them undermining my parental authority (we're talking CULT here now.)".

I post my reply for anyone/everyone who may have something similar happen to them. Amy, I am sure you are well-versed in how to deal w/people like this now...

For lurkers or those deferential to church authorities....
*IF* someone pushes there way into MY house, uninvited, I will PUSH them back out.

It is YOUR house and YOU decide who comes in and who doesn't. Enough said

My point to Reader was that was the catalyst for my resigning!

It wasn't enough for me and my daughter to just stop attending. It was our not attending that brought the bishop's crazy wife to my house in the first place.

It was resigning that got them out of our crosshairs at least for the next several years until my daughter's disappearance after college to overseas. That is a different chapter for another day.

But just again in a nutshell, the Mormon church is an evil cult. Only a cult would divide and separate families the way it does and tries to do.

That was the main reason why I resigned when I did and was able to get my daughter out while she was yet a minor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 09:23PM by Amyjo.

Only a cult would divide and separate families the way it does and tries to do.




And no mainstream religion has ever done something like that. Right?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only a cult would divide and separate families the
> way it does and tries to do.

This IS a HALLMARK sign of a CULT, Jacob.

I don't know what religion you grew up in but I grew up in Mormonism, a CULT.

"Several years ago, the founder of IHOP, Mike Bickle, created a list of seven ways to recognize the difference between a religious community and a cult. Written down, the signs seem clear:

1. Opposing critical thinking

2. Isolating members and penalizing them for leaving

3. Emphasizing special doctrines outside scripture

4. Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders

5. Dishonoring the family unit

6. Crossing Biblical boundaries of behavior (versus sexual purity and personal ownership)

7. Separation from the Church"

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/the-seven-signs-youre-in-a-cult/361400/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 06:42AM by Amyjo.

I had several stances of Mormon intrusion into my home, and Mormon undermining my authority as a parent.

When the priesthood leaders broke into my house, when I was at church playing the organ, and when my sons were asleep after their early morning paper route. These grown men pulled my sons out of their beds and onto the floor, kicked them on the floor, soved them and forced them to get dressed, and kicked them in the butt while they were going up the stairs, forced them into their car, and held them at church for two hours, while the other kids jeered and ridiculed them for their bed-head appearance.

Right in front of me--I walked into my living room, and caught a big Mormon thug picking up my 12-year-old, and carrying him out of the front door. My son was crying. (This leader had called several times on the phone and my son and I both spoke to him, and told him that it was a school night, and my son had a test and a paper due, and was NOT going to "standards night." I'm a woman, so I guess the thug thought he could break in and do whatever he wanted to do.) When I yelled at the man to put my son down, he started to argue with me! I told him that I was the head of this household, and that he was trespassing, and that if he didn't put my son down, I was calling the police! The creep put my son down and ran.

The second thug, I later discovered had a criminal record, of murder, reduced to manslaughter, then his boss got him off. He was later promoted into the stake presidency and was a mission president. He's still in the neighborhood, and has 11 children.

Just to let posters know that nonmo_1 isn't the only one who has suffered criminal abuse at the hands of Mormon so-called "priesthood leaders."

Nighty, i.know you are not an atheist-not that there is anything wrong with being one,but I do understand why Amyjo thought you might be. That is because you always,as far as I can remember,defend whatever they say.Of course there are many times when they are right and deserve defense and there are certainly many times when the religious do not, but I think you need to consider why you tend to defend atheists behavior on a regular basis even when they are being offensive



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 08:28PM by bona dea.

Thank you bona dea, you are correct in your assessment.

Nightingale is wholly lopsided in her approach whether she recognizes it or not.

As for my responses to her posts, what did she expect that I was going to ignore them? Of course she didn't. She fully expected me to respond, and that is why she started this thread now since that one closed.

I wished she would have let it go because there are other subjects more important IMO than this. But evidently not to her.

This has now become all consuming to Nightingale, and she will obsess over it to its last breath with her long winded posts.

As for my thread being hijacked by dagny and some others, it's pretty obvious it was. Even if some here are wearing blinders. I have the right to my religious views and am not on trial for having them as an ex-Mormon.

As for Nightingale's long-winded postings I really don't have the time to pour over her ramblings, so I am not going to delve further into her insinuations or how her mind works tonight. I'm just not going to go down her rabbit trail. I have other more important things to do.

Have a nice evening, bona dea! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 08:59PM by Amyjo.

She doesnt. We have been there before. Who she defends is her business, but she shouldnt be surprised if she gets lumped in with atheists if she insists on defending the bad behavior of a few. A lot of people don't read long posts so it is easy for info.to get lost. Not that there is anything wrong with long posts, but they are less likely to get read or read thoroughly. That is a fact

I don't mind getting "lumped in" with atheists. I was just correcting what seemed to be a mistaken impression. As I have zero interest in preaching, it doesn't bother me.

How is making a mild comment about a person's stated beliefs "bad behaviour"?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 09:57PM by Nightingale.

If nightingale can just let this go, then Amy Jo can go back to being mad at her rabbi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 01:53AM by jay.

I also am not an atheist and I don't even call myself agnostic. I have found atheists to not be a problem. They only come out and say something if someone starts preaching. I don't like the preaching either. I didn't like it in mormonism and I don't like it now. Someone on the board told me I'm an apatheist (spelling?).

You have always been a voice of reason, Nightingale. Many are listening to what you have said.

When I first came to the board, I had never met an atheist, so I asked what they 'believe' and I really liked everything they said. I have a lot of respect for them.

I also have a Jewish boyfriend and I never hear the stuff from him that I hear on this board. He is quite LEARNED and has studied for years. We discuss religion quite often. It is never in your face and he doesn't expect me to convert. I have heard less from him about Judaism in my almost 15 years of being with him than I've heard on this board.

Atheists reacting to preaching is not what happened on this thread. A poster made disparaging comments on Judaism when Amyjo was talking about a Mormon woman forcing her way into her house. That started a fight and Nighty took the side of the poster who made the remarks. Maybe Amyjo made remarks elsewhere that could be preaching but she didn't here.That is the bottom line.

...THIS...is what happens when you don't allow people here to talk politics.......




lol, just kidding. Just had to throw that in..






...Carry on..............

Read Dagny's brief comment on the other thread. Please tell me how that could be considered disparaging or attacking.

As for being offensive, that is in the eye of the beholder. Hence our clashes.

I do not think I *always* "defend" atheists. Most often I am trying to explain what I've known since day one here - believers are not "equal", as AJ insists, as I've outlined above.

I also don't think that AJ actually did think I was an atheist. Surely she has read enough of my posts (I know for sure by how often we have interacted) to be aware that I am a Christian.

You don't have to look back too far to see many examples of me expressing understanding and support for Amyjo's take on something.

As for always siding with "them", also incorrect, for many reasons that seem obvious to me. It's just that if they say something I do agree with, I will at times say so. I don't do that thing of only agreeing with my own flock. Not any more. No more lockstep for me.

One thing that is unassailable is that Nightingale is unflaggingly fair. She goes out of her way to be magnanimous.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing that is unassailable is that Nightingale
> is unflaggingly fair. She goes out of her way to
> be magnanimous.

Actually you are very incorrect about that. She is not unflaggingly fair. She has gone out of her way to cast stones without even knowing what she is responding to. She didn't even read my thread or my link before she jumped to wrong conclusions and took sides with the atheist who deliberately derailed my thread. That is neither fair or magnanimous. It is a cheap shot and ploy of a troupe who go out of their way to malign me because of my beliefs.

Talk about cheap shots. What about this one to me.

"Well you seem more excited about being from certain polygamists."

Like I'm "excited" about being from Utah Mormon polygamists. She has no clue and is throwing stones from I assume her ignorance. But everyone who doesn't agree with AmyJo is collateral damage.

I like that RfM tolerates people like her but I'm done replying to her. It is exhausting.

How could it not be considered disparaging?? Even if she was joking, it was still out of line and very unfunny IMO. You are supportive at times, but when a battle comes up between believers and radical atheists you usually side with atheists. I haven't read all your posts, of course, so there may be exceptions, Defending Dagny who has never met a religion she doesn't mock and saying that she was not disparaging and was just joking ( ha ha) kind of makes my point.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 09:25PM by bona dea.

I got the impression it was tongue-in-cheek before Dagny said so. Calling it a joke was my word.

I'll try to emphasize this again. I do not choose a "side" Rather it's a case of which opinion I agree with.

Regardless, you seem to agree with the same people a lot. That your right. I am simply pointing out what I have observed.As for the other issue, I dont care whether it was tonque in cheek or dead serious, I found it offensive and it did hijack the thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 10:16PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless, you seem to agree with the same people
> a lot.

There's a lot of that going around. You do too. So does AJ. Some can agree to disagree more agreeably than others, apparently.

I guess we just naturally agree with the same folks who are discussing the same general topics we emphasize here who share our viewpoints. No big mystery about why that occurs, here and IRL too.

That your right. I am simply pointing out
> what I have observed.As for the other issue, I
> dont care whether it was tonque in cheek or dead
> serious, I found it offensive and it did hijack
> the thread.

I didn't say it was OK because it was a joke. I offered no opinion in that regard. I was just trying to say that AJ seemed to be deeply offended by something that I don't think was meant to be offensive. People are going to criticize religious beliefs here. It kind of comes with the territory. After a while, we should get used to it, just out of becoming accustomed to the arguments of both sides. Too, I doubt it will change so better to accept the reality of this board. I used to get very upset when people would say "grow a thicker skin" if someone felt offended. I thought it was a dismissive and abrupt comment, not helpful to newbies especially.

But it turns out that it is a useful way to approach RfM. Because so very often what we find offensive is not intended to be nor is it terribly out of line. It's more about our take on something than the other poster's intent - usually.

Anyway, there's a way to discuss differences that is much more enlightening than other ways. Sometimes we achieve it, other times not so much.

Exhibit A.

There was no "tongue-in-cheek" with Dagny's remark on my thread. It was more "barbed-wire-in-tongue" and Dagny knows it. She knew full well what she was doing when she posted that to my thread and look at what you're doing now. You didn't even read my post in the first place to know what she was responding to!

You didn't even read the link that I provided to give you more facts. You just jumped to a wrong conclusion, and again, I really don't have time for all your nonsense. If you really wanted to understand both sides of the thread you were responding to you would have read it in the first place. Since you did not, it is obvious to me you don't really care about anyone else's position besides your own or that of Dagny's. You certainly aren't interested in mine you've made that much obvious.

My original post was to READER, who is nowhere to be found now. It was never about circumcision (dagny's term "male mutilation," another hateful insulting term she uses,) my Jewish faith or the hijacking of my thread, or Dagny's hatred toward my beliefs or religion in general. Add to that: your patronizing of Dagny.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 08:18AM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't even
> read my post in the first place to know what she
> was responding to!
>
> You didn't even read the link that I provided to
> give you more facts. You just jumped to a wrong
> conclusion, and again, I really don't have time
> for all your nonsense. If you really wanted to
> understand both sides of the thread you were
> responding to you would have read it in the first
> place. Since you did not, it is obvious to me you
> don't really care about anyone else's position
> besides your own or that of Dagny's. You certainly
> aren't interested in mine you've made that much
> obvious.

Amyjo: You are misunderstanding my (simple) comment - again. I said, on one of my replies on your thread (the subject of this thread):


"I didn't see the post that caused you to start this thread."

I don't see how that is difficult to comprehend. That is why I did not state this particular thought in great detail. It means "I did not see the post - on the previous thread - that you are referencing on your thread (re a post by Reader on another thread). I saw it, iow, on the follow up thread you started. It was not a big point - I merely said - I did not see the previous thread. (Implied: But I have seen it now, on your follow up).

Second point: I obviously read your thread, Amyjo. I responded to points you had made as well as those of others.

Why are you interpreting my comments to mean I read neither thread? That is incorrect. Especially if I had not read your thread (to/about Reader) how would I have been able to respond to specific comments of yours and others on that thread?

So here you are taking a misconception - of yours - and using it to make (even more) negative personal comments about me.

In all of our interactions, Amyjo, and in all mine to other posters, in all the years I've posted here, I can confidently, and accurately, say that I have **never** taken a discussion into the arena of personal remarks. I do not attack a person's character, directly or implicitly, but rather respond to their comments and ideas.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same about you, on this thread or others.

Also unfortunate is the fact that I have often had pleasant exchanges with you and have agreed with you often and have so stated. One time I agree with someone else's very neutrally phrased opinion and this is how you react? By making numerous negative personal comments against me? I am sorry you feel that is necessary or a good way to respond to what was intended to be a neutral discussion of a spin-off topic that is related to your subject matter, on that and other threads. You seem to have reacted with such anger that you are misunderstanding what others, including me, have said.

Also, as I did already explain, often, just as in face to face exchanges, topics will expand and sometimes flow naturally into tributaries away from the initial specific topic. There is no malice in that, usually. And it is not disallowed here. You mentioned religion, others responded with their comments about religion in a broader sense. That is allowed here. It happens every day. I do not see how you think that is anti-you or your new religion.


> My original post was to READER, who is nowhere to
> be found now. It was never about circumcision
> (dagny's term "male mutilation," another hateful
> insulting term she uses,) my Jewish faith or the
> hijacking of my thread, or Dagny's hatred toward
> my beliefs or religion in general. Add to that:
> your patronizing of Dagny.

No, but it was a topic referenced by a responder on your thread. As I've said, that is not against board rules. Nor was it necessarily meant as a dread insult to you or your faith.

And if anybody *does* have negative comments about religion, any religion, well, this would seem to be the place for them. It is not a place only to discuss Mormonism. That should go without saying. If people see a connection between Mormonism and other faiths, well, that's because there is one. They are all religion. Which is a topic that is, obviously, allowed here.

It's unfortunate if you feel it derailed your thread. That happens sometimes. It is usually not by intent. And, as you do, you can always start a follow up.

Nobody guarantees that one's sacred ox will not be gored here. In fact, I would expect it to be. People are stating how their beliefs have changed, altered, progressed or regressed - depending on your POV. That is the essence of this board. Disagreement on the subject matter is allowed, expected, part of the fabric of RfM. Just as you claim the "right" to say what you want and how you believe, so do others. There is no mystery there, and no grand scheme. Just people exchanging ideas. I'm sorry if that threatens you or makes you feel oppressed, or whatever reaction you have towards any expression of queries or lack of belief in your new faith. ALL religion is subject to discussion here and statements of lack of belief in them. Just as you claim the right to state your opinion and beliefs, so do others, and they will absolutely not always align with yours. That does not mean someone is against *you* or that they should be subject to personal insults because you didn't like what they said.

As for me writing long posts, yes I do. If you can be objective for a second, you will see that so do you on many occasions. On this thread, in amongst all the negative personal comments you have directed at me, for the mere fact that I agreed with someone's opinion that you didn't like, are at least one or two long posts written by you. Yet you make dismissive and negative comments about me for something you do yourself, here and elsewhere.

Can you see that?

And me pointing it out is not anti - anything. Not anti-Amyjo. Not anti-Jewish. It's an opinion. In some cases, a fact.

Another fact is that you, very unfortunately, attack a person's character for writing something you don't like. That is not an effective method of meaningful communication.

It also happens to be against board rules.

And if you don't like where your "Reader" thread went, that's the nature of this place. I bet many participants here would like to get as many responses as your threads generate. But if anybody expects 100% agreement for everything they write they're very much in the wrong place. It can take some getting used to - this lack of agreement - as in Mormonism and other groups, as I've said, we're more accustomed to uniformity and if people disagree they are not free to express their true thoughts and opinions but rather squelch it down and present a united, if false, front of agreement.

I'm not going to go through and refute the many negative comments you have expressed towards me. Merely for the capital crime of saying I agreed with something another poster wrote.

I actually feel sorry that you feel so put upon by people's lack of agreement with some of your comments and your religious faith. You don't like that - fair enough - I know it can be difficult to face opposition. But nobody that I have seen (emphasis on **that I have seen**, or remember) turns against you personally by making numerous extremely negative and dismissive comments about you. As you do to others. As you have done to me.

It's not a very pleasant way to discuss significant issues or to interact on this board, a place where people are seeking recovery from who knows what extremely negative experiences.

You're the one who said let it go and shalom.

And then you do this.

Even if I was seeking to insult you or denigrate your beliefs, which I decidedly was not, maybe you could find a minute to ask yourself what is behind your apparent over-reaction and extreme sensitivity. You seem to interpret remarks in ways they aren't meant and then you run with the misunderstanding. You have fundamentally misunderstood the simple concept of me not having read Reader's comment ON THE ORIGINAL THREAD. Then you use your misconception to attack my character. You conclude, incorrectly, that I *never* read the link or your post.

I'm sorry things had to go that way. Unnecessarily. And rule-breakingly.

Then you tell me to let it go. And you say shalom. And then you make all these negative comments about me. For what? Does it make you feel better?

If you only want people who agree with you to interact on your threads maybe you could so state.

However, you will find that it doesn't work that way, either here or in life.

You also say:

"...(dagny's term "male mutilation," another hateful insulting term she uses..."

Below I have mentioned a professional article on the topic of circumcision. I pointed out that the writer references "the many" [professionals] who consider circumcision to be "mutilation". So it's not just Dagny or others here who say that in (imaginary) expressions of hatred towards you or your faith. The article further states that it is a complex issue because of the cultural and religious beliefs involved. So it's not "anti".

You also stated:

"Add to that: your patronizing of Dagny."

I don't understand your point here. You'd have to give me an example or explanation of what you mean.

So, here's another long post that you apparently won't read. Meanwhile, you're likely going to create one yourself sometime soon. I promise I won't call you names and denigrate your character for that.

Unlike how you react.

I wish you well.

I honestly do.

And when I say shalom, I actually mean it.

Unfortunately, the same doesn't seem to hold true for you. If you feel it necessary to attack me, I feel sorry for you. Because I was never against you, Amyjo.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 10:31AM by Nightingale.

to reason. ...

Thanks bona dea, again, for a voice of reason in the wilderness and sea of noise and confusion here on RfM.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 09:03PM by Amyjo.

Thanks so much, cl2. Sorry, rushing off. Running out of time to get to my appt on time. That's interesting about your bf and his Judaism.

Take care. Talk to you soon.

Oh the internal peace that comes with being self aware and emotionally honest.

Two things that Mormonism hates.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two things that Mormonism hates.

Two things ignorance hates. It makes it harder to argue from those.

I haven’t followed the entirety of the particular posts referenced, but just to respond to what I have seen, without agreeing or disagreeing with anyone specifically, but seeing as this is a follow on from the ones that are closed.

It does seem to me that posts do sometimes get hijacked on this site. I say that because I experienced this earlier today and ended up defending something that had very little to do with the original subject. The other poster was determined to be offended anyway because he/she was really triggered/already feeling that way, and it turns out there was a reason for it - But - it had nothing to do with the original subject. It was an opportunity to criticise a sore point. I understand, but it went nowhere. And I then felt slammed for my nationality, which even if the accusations held merit, it was as if I represented my whole country.

I was left thinking that as triggered as I was by it, and justified in defending myself etc, it might have been better not to respond to that. Sometimes people can’t agree to disagree, and I should have seen it sooner.

On the other hand, I do think it’s perfectly fine to share traumatic experiences we have had or are still having, as related to the mormon church. I thought that was half the point of this site - to support one another with the one thing we do have in common. I admit I’ve done this because Ive felt emotionally in crisis by some really upsetting stuff from tbm relatives even though I left the mormon church 10 years ago. When that happens it triggers everything that happened way back then too. Most people were supportive and I can’t tell you how much it helped. Those few who weren’t for whatever reason hurt my feelings and it just seemed unnecessary to have a dig when I was already down.

I’m an atheist and it’s an interesting discussion to have, but if other people believe in god that’s fine. If it sounds preachy I won’t read it - just as a believer might not be interested in discussing certain atheist philosophies. The only reason to engage where we disagree is surely because it’s interesting to us, rather than because it triggers something in us that results in the need to be disparaging.

Everyone already knows this, I’m just saying what I’ve experienced myself as a relative newcomer / returner.

That's a good place to be where you can respect others views and beliefs and still be able to criticize Mormonism here on RfM. That is what RfM was created for, ie, a "safe haven" supposedly to be able to do that regardless of where you are now in your religious walk insofar as you are no longer in the cult of Mormon.

If we can't be free to kvetch on RfM about Mormonism though, where is "safe" to do that? This is where I come to kvetch about having been one for the first half of my life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 09:10PM by Amyjo.

Yes of course. This is the place to vent, and to get support and understanding. I even swore in my posts before I read the rules on that (oops, sorry). Of course there’s my therapist, but I don’t want to give her a nervous breakdown - I have enough other problems!

:D

I've been seeing my therapist now for 15 years! I wonder what anniversary that would be? ;)

He's helped me through some serious chapters of my life, including our family getting the heck out of the cult.

Fact is that she didn't mention God, Judaism or anything else touching religion other than posting about a bishop' s wife forcing her way into her home. Cathy said it wasn't any worse than Jews circumcision babies or deciding how to determine who is Jewish. That was hijacking exhilarating to Jews which Amy did not bring up and which had nothing to.do.with her post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2019 09:19PM by bona dea.

I don't know why there isn't a rule against hijacking threads here on RfM. It was a measured act and others joined in.

Moderator Tevai tried to bring some balance and decorum into the thread by countering Dagny's punch and explaining why we don't attack others religious views o/s of Mormonism on RfM to maintain standards, but instead the thread devolved further into a seeming oblivion and now we have this one.

Oh well, I need to get some rest here eventually because I have a pup that will be up before me if I don't at the crack of dawn. Maybe someday we can exchange puppy tales.

Luvs to you, Bona Dea. ❤️

You too.

Having the last word has pumped out pages of RfM content from day one as I can attest.

Hell, Benson could close a thread in one evening getting that last word.

I on the other hand was no match in any such war of wits.

I soon learned that the only way I would ever have the last word is with an apology.

Nice to see you now and then.

You're right about Benson and his having to have the last word!

I've seen a few of those nipped a few times by the mods here and there. :)

Just to clairify my comment:
Amyjo was talking about HOOPS the religion requires to leave. That was all I was responding to. I used the word hoops specifically which was in her subject line.

The Jewish religion has plenty of hoops, like circumcision and maternal membership (or conversion) so I don't know what was so offinsive about that. Mormon hoops to leave the church don't seem so unusual by comparison. That was it. Period.

I think this has escalated into an excuse to be a victim and call people names. I'm the one called anti-Semite and a bigot and I'm not going on post after post acting all offended and butthurt.

Christians and atheists alike get challenged all the time here, including in points made tangentially in their threads. Readers can judge whether a person resorts to name calling or can actually refute the point that was made.

Amyjo can dish it out about Mormons but acts all offended over the slightest honest criticism of her own unsubstantiated claims. Yes, I know this board is about Mormons but IMO it serves us better if we are not hypocrites pointing at Mormon specks in their eyes with beams in our own. It hurts our credibility and justifies the negative opinion of ex-mormons held by Mormons who visit. Recovery from Mormonism goes well beyond just Mormonism for many of us.

I hope this helps explain AGAIN what my issues are. Good gawd, I can't believe I responded but felt Nightingale's thread should have an explanation from me, the big mean villian.

Dagny, substantive explanation isn't going to help for the simple reason that the argument was never about substance. Your error was in challenging, even jocularly, Amyjo; something that she finds intolerable. And once she was engaged, others with other grievances joined in.

Nightingale and you are not going to make any headway treating this as a rational disagreement. It was never that.

I believe with Amyjo it never will be. Shalom indeed.

Using terms such as mutilation in regard to circumcision isn't the least bit offensive . Whatever.

Male genital mutation definition:
Male genital mutilation (MGM), often referred to as ‘male circumcision’, comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external male genitalia or other injury to the male genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.

It is still insulting, but I don't expect you to see why. It is aloaded term



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 12:29AM by bona dea.

It's the actual definition.

This demonstrates again why religion should not get away with sugar coating without calling it out.

It's insulting?

Sure. It's okay to call the cutting of female genitalia for religious reasons "mutilation," but using that term to describe the cutting of male genitalia for religious reasons is "insulting."

There's no parochial religious bias there, now is there?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 12:40AM by Lot's Wife.

You are comparing cutting out the clitoris and possibly cutting off labia so a woman will not have any sexual pleasure to cutting off the foreskin??. Nice. One is a minor procedure which doesnt affect a man's sex life and which may have some medical benefits with often major and useless surgery which prevents a woman from having a fulfilling sex life. Yeah, there is no difference there. I am done. You are trying to pick a fight and I am not going there. Whatever you think about circumcision, and there are arguments on both sides, comparing it to FMG is isulting to women.

Major mutilation of a girl is horrible but minor mutilation of a baby boy is okay. Go ahead: hang your hat on that.

It's not surprising. You have shown your reverence for established Judeao-Christian religions to the detriment of children before. Now you do it again.

Here's a Canadian article from 2004 on the subject from a medical viewpoint:

https://canadiancrc.com/circumcision/Male_Circumcision_Policy_Statement_College_Physicians_BC_JUN04.aspx


It includes the following:

"Medical Perspectives

"Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."


"Human Rights Considerations

"The matter of infant male circumcision is particularly difficult in regards to human rights, as it involves consideration of the rights of the infant as well as the rights of the parents.

"Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, *****many consider it to be unwarranted mutilating surgery.***** [emphasis mine]

"Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision. They claim that an infants rights should take priority over any parental rights to make such a decision. This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non-therapeutic procedure.

"Others argue that this stance violates the parents right to religious or cultural expression, and that adherence to their religious and cultural practices would be in the best interests of the infant."

----------

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Both my brothers were circ'd, just through common practice. However, one brother did not circ his son, due to changing/updated practices. It used to be more common for drs (at least in my world) to advocate doing the same thing for all males in a family - if father was done, so should sons be, if one son was circ'd, so should all other sons be. But I have the circ'd brother with his older son (a step-) done and the younger son (bio) not done. So far, the family hasn't fallen apart due to the differences. And now many drs ask parents to opt into doing it, rather than opting out as previously.

I can understand a religious practice that continues the practice. It would be a massive cultural change for some. Such is often s.l.o.w.

I was just interested in pointing out that it's not just a couple of people in these few threads that are questioning the need for routine circumcision. This professional article, with good sourcing, states that "many" consider the practice to be "unwarranted mutilating surgery". They use the word 'mutilating'. It's not meant to be offensive but rather is a statement of fact from a medical paper.

Other papers I have read on the subject specifically state that male circumcision is not akin to female genital mutilation (seems fairly obvious). However, I can see where people consider that the general *principle* is similar.

I don't think it ever hurts to examine one's cultural practices and preferences. So often we go along with something without giving it the consideration it is due. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say. IOW, once a generation is accustomed to a certain practice the following generation/s may follow suit without thinking it through.

The more emphasis we can give on human rights being extended to everyone, including children and in this case, even babies, the more advanced we will become, I believe. Practices and opinions that were thought to be permissible or even advisable when I was a kid have gone out of style now, thankfully for some of them, such as "children should be seen and not heard", corporal punishment, being done to, rather than included in, etc. Obviously, the widespread practice of "amputating" a portion of a baby's penis (terminology used in some of the articles I checked out) is being re-thought and now, at the least, medical necessity is seen as a primary factor in the decision-making.

But a lot of room is still given for cultural and religious practice and preference. That may change and pressure to change brought to bear. But here in Canada there is wide latitude given for diverse cultures and faiths. So I can't see change being mandatory any time soon.

It's interesting to check out both sides, at least to me.

The position that circumcision is inappropriate is not limited to the Canadian authorities: it is shared by much of Europe and even by some of the major US medical associations. Why? Because it is wrong unnecessarily to mutilate anyone, let alone in such a physically and psychologically important way.

To wit, bona dea's assertion that circumcision does not affect a man's sex life is risible. The part of the penis that is "removed," to put it euphemistically, is particularly sensitive. So cutting it off significantly and permanently reduces sexual pleasure. For some reason many men find that objectionable.

Different than female mutilation? Yes, but only as A MATTER OF DEGREE.

The notion that religiously mandated mutilation of girls is morally wrong but that of boys is morally right, or even morally tolerable, is utter nonsense. No one has the right to mutilate any child for any reason. Nor do third parties have any right to substitute their judgment for that of the child--a fact that says as much about parents as it does about "disinterested" retirees.

Why is there a distinction in some people's minds between cutting up boys and cutting up girls? Ethnocentrism. Islam is a repressive, evil religion while Judaism and Christianity are virtuous, progressive religions. That is the only logic that leads to the conclusion that mutilating little boys is okay.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 03:19AM by Lot's Wife.

Yes, the article includes the UN Declaration of Human Rights and authorities in the US and elsewhere as sharing the change in knowledge and decisions. I didn't get into FGM but it's gruesome.

In nursing school we had to observe every procedure, if not participate, so I attended circs. Contrary to stated claims in some articles, the babes were not given anesthetic. At most they got a sugar dummy to suck on. They cried. But they couldn't otherwise vocalize, of course, so it was apparently assumed that it was no big deal. And that it was a lot easier when so young than as they got older.

Poor babies. As the lowest of the low in the hierarchy I got the job as comforter in chief. True enough they didn't cry long. So that's all right then. Even the rationale has been adjusted. Protection against infection and AIDS they said. Now they think not. Not too many absolutes. There's so often new light coming around the corner.

I have been invited to a few britot (plural, I'm told, of bris). In those ceremonies they gave the babies a few drops of wine. I don't know if that is sufficient as anesthesia.

The events were joyous, to be sure. I shared my friends' celebration of family and tradition, but that was because they were my friends. Stripped of familial, religious, and cultural trappings, as such things probably should be inasmuch as the beneficiary/victim's opinions are not divined, circumcision is an act of violence.

One day the child may decide that he approves of what happened to him. But what if he does not? Then it remains an act of violence.

Well I cannot seem keep away from here for too long ya know.

After all, someone's gotta keep an eye on you now that Steve isn't here to hold your faith up to scrutiny.

To me Benson is much like religion itself in that both can be highly useful as long as you don't take them too seriously.