You should put your post back up. Don't allow some dumbass mormon troll to dictate what you post. :)

Agreed.

It was a perfectly reasonable description of an incident we've all had. There was nothing judgmental or cruel in it.

Also, it's nice to see Susan curse. It must feel liberating to surrender the burdens of moderation!

Sometimes it's not immediately obvious to a poster that they've attracted a troll.

It's good to know it isn't a fellow board member but if we think it is then it can hurt.

I agree. Put it up. Put it up. Put it up.

And don't take it personally. You just hit somebody's sensitivities there and maybe it'll make them think. It's nothing about you and all about them. Your comments were valid.

And your thoughts and opinions are important and obviously those of us who commented in reply to the trollishness agree with you and know where you're coming from.

Absolutely! It was interesting to hear about your experience, mg. I don't often encounter mishies out and about.

And I thought the comment that someone left was full of the unreasonable and contradictory standards we've come to expect from the cult.

blackcoatsdaughter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely! It was interesting to hear about your
> experience, mg. I don't often encounter mishies
> out and about.

I encounter them from time to time but they generally avert their eyes and scamper away.

I'm not sure if it's the tattoos, the piercings, or the porn shoulders that put them off. . .

Lol! I wonder what the reaction would be if I spotted some while grocery shopping and I reached over to hold my lady's hand and then waved at them. Probably somewhat similar to your experience.

A timely smooch can go a long way!

I would like to make it clear...

1)  I hadn't a clue that one can
    take down one's own posts

2)  I would NEVER take down my
    own post, which I consider
    to be monuments to eternity!

3)  I would not prohibit someone
    from taking down his or her
    own post

4)  I would love for your post
    to reappear because I think
    it made me look good

5)  Odds are that 'Silly Me' did
    not pay into the fundraiser


My name is elderolddog, and I do
approve of this message!

Biden your time?

Oh damn, I missed it. Now I want to have it all put back up, including the troll post, so we can all respond and pile on the sniveling mormon snowflake.

(And to the mormon cultist, if you're still here — you genuinely are a sniveling snowflake. It comes with the mormon territory.)

I've been here since '97 and have never taken a single post of my own down. Susan I/S has taken a few down for me :) but I've never taken one of my own down. Do I need sensitivity training?

But you did change your name without being asked or giving me crap. SD doesn't stand for San Diego folks :)

Of course it doesn't. The eyes doth roll.

We all know it stands for South Dakota.

How long have you been here and I've never seen you post anything that was a problem.

I guess I missed something. Could someone be so kind as to give me a quick summary of the post and the troll’s response? Thanks.

Messy, or as I like to call him the board "Messi," posted about running into three inconsiderate women missionaries. He mainly compared them to the LMs of his youth.

Then some troll, Silly Me, criticized his post as being unduly critical. The offending OP and everything in train then disappeared.

Messi did nothing wrong, so we are asking--nay, demanding--that his rather tame thread be resurrected so that we may all ridicule Silly Me.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Messi did nothing wrong, so we are asking--nay,
> demanding--that his rather tame thread be
> resurrected so that we may all ridicule Silly Me.

Totally tame. Courteous. Short. Just an observation he made about three female missionaries on P-Day it sounded like, in their civvies, and one, at least, was rude in a shop.

It's definitely 100% not offensive to mention the encounter and he definitely wasn't offensive in his description.

That troll got what he wanted - for the post to go walkabout and that's too bad. Messi doesn't deserve that. While the snipey guy definitely does.

The only times Messi gets offensive is when he has the ball and is attacking the opponent's goal.

Metaphorically, of course.

Messy had deleted the content of the post. I do not believe it can be recreated. After the content was deleted, I deleted the thread per request.

A couple of comments from my experience:

Starting this site nearly 25 years ago with all the hate mail, hate fill posts and even threats on my life, have helped me. I was an extreme introvert. Now I am just an introvert. So there is a positive aspect to these kinds of experiences.

Please do not take negative comments personally. These individuals are not worth your worry or consideration. We appreciate you being here.

So it only takes 25 years to recover from being an extreme introvert to just introverted. Good to know. :P

I think it may have been not all that obvious that the response was from a troll. I think it was the first reply on the thread. Some of us who have been here a while (!) recognized it as trollish but maybe messy took it seriously as if it was valid criticism from a regular poster.

Or maybe he thought his topic wasn't worth any hassle. Too bad, as it was a good example of what's up with the Mormon Church and what and how it teaches its missionaries. They say they represent the church after all so they need to be "on" 24/7, not just when they've got their nametags on.

I hope messy isn't feeling bad because (1) they're not worth it and (2) it wasn't any regular RfM posters who were spewing general nastiness at your post. Those of us who had the opportunity to reply were all sympatico with your experience.



Edited to correct a typo. Yes, I'm a/r.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2023 08:36PM by Nightingale.

Yeah, what NG said :)

I feel bad for messy because he has come here to share with us even though he has recently suffered a great loss. He didn't deserve a troll. His post was mild and aligned well with observations I've had about frumpy sister missionaries too.

Some church members haven't exactly been sensitive to him during the loss of his wife but somehow he was supposed to be sensitive to some anonymous troll and goofy missionaries?

You keep being you, messy. I'm glad you post here. Don't let anyone get under your skin.

> You keep being you, messy. I'm glad you post here.

+100

+100 Canadian bucks.



Edit: Errrr - I just realized I should make that $200.00 CAD so there'd be about $27.00 left with the US exchange rate of Canuck bucks to Yankee bucks (as we used to call them - I hope that's not politically incorrect at this point).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2023 08:38PM by Nightingale.

I was going to say, "Canadian bucks?" That's sort of an insult, isn't it?

;-)

>> His post was mild and aligned well with observations I've had about frumpy sister missionaries too.

Frumpy, oh my word, yes. That was my biggest observation of them at the Washington, D.C. temple open house. These attractive young women were dressing like they were 80 years old. Actually, I've seen 80-year-olds dressing better than that. Their dresses and jumpers were overly long, too large, ill-fitting, droopy, and frumpy in the extreme. The male missionaries were fine, dressed in business wear. But the females looked like their moms had escaped from a FLDS compound, and never taught their daughters how to dress for modern life.

In the past, I've seen photos of the sister missionaries at Temple Square, and thought the same. How the church thinks that this is the way to "sell" their denomination is beyond me.

All of the missionaries were weirdly cliquey. I saw no effort to approach the voluminous number of open house attendees. Instead, they were hanging out with one another. Perhaps after several weeks of an open house, they were over it. But it was still odd to observe.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> His post was mild and aligned well with
> observations I've had about frumpy sister
> missionaries too.
>
> Frumpy, oh my word, yes. That was my biggest
> observation of them at the Washington, D.C. temple
> open house. These attractive young women were
> dressing like they were 80 years old. Actually,
> I've seen 80-year-olds dressing better than that.
> Their dresses and jumpers were overly long, too
> large, ill-fitting, droopy, and frumpy in the
> extreme. The male missionaries were fine, dressed
> in business wear. But the females looked like
> their moms had escaped from a FLDS compound, and
> never taught their daughters how to dress for
> modern life.

This sister missionary 'shaming' post represents more of the same kind of thing as posted and removed by messygoop. Since the original thread was unfortunately deleted, I will use this second post to further clarify my pointed objections to this kind of RfM commentary.

First, I am not a troll. I am an ex-Mormon who despises Mormonism as much as anyone else here, if not more. However, it is one thing to criticize and attack Mormonism for its doctrines, policies, beliefs, principles, practices, etc., and the leaders that support such matters, but quite another to ridicule and marginalize a few individual Mormons one encounters solely because of their unusual and 'unacceptable' appearance or demeaner.

In the messygoop thread, there was no offensive interaction involving proselytizing, and no interference at all with messygoop's own shopping agenda. These missionaries were only going about their personal business on P-day, without bothering anyone. The only noted exception was messygoop's suggestion of a minor "rudeness" offense, that he himself deemed "silly," that was at worst incidental and trivial.

I am reminded of the bullying scene in the movie "Witness" with Harrison Ford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DkDGCI9fkc

Now, of course, this is an extreme comparison, where unlike messygoop's account, an actual offensive physical confrontation was involved. However, one can imagine a prior scene where the townspeople meet as a group outside of the Amish presence, to ridicule and make fun of their appearance and lifestyle. Such group think and group talk would of itself marginalize the Amish community, and through the force of ridicule, indirectly encourage adverse treatment of individuals that might be encountered, as happened in the movie.

Now, to be clear, I am all for noting peculiarities in a group of people, and even having a joke or two at their expense. (Note the musical, The Book of Mormon) After all, that is what comedians routinely do. Moreover, I am O.K. with marginalizing Mormonism and Mormons generally for what they teach and believe that is contrary to a modern, social values. So, then, what is my problem?

My problem is two-fold: First, in the messygoop case, appearance ridicule was directed to specific individuals who were doing nothing offensive, except existing. This strikes me as a kind of dehumanizing reaction that sister missionaries (and others) do not deserve, absent their own personal, offensive behavior. Consider a transgender person whose transition, for whatever reason, is obvious by their appearance. One may well believe that gender identity change is morally wrong, or misguided, and publicly proclaim such gender-related views as a matter of free speech. But that is different from pointing out specific transgender persons and ridiculing them, and making fun of them, for their peculiar appearance. For me, a line has been crossed.

Second, this kind of tactic refocuses attention from Mormon doctrines and principles which are directly harmful to others to physical appearances that are not. Such a tactic makes the accuser seem lame and small in such accusations. I would like to think that RfM is better than that, but so far--from the responses to this thread--such a hope seems naive.

I think many of us give all the credit to mormonism for its members' 'off-putting' behavior.

What are the odds that those three would be hanging out, much less living together, were it not for mormonism?

What are the odds that they'd be dressed as they were had they accepted calls as mormon missionaries?

What are the odds that they'd be doing their shopping together on a Monday morning if it weren't for their mormon missionary rules?

They were being 'ridiculed' because they were exemplars of a system that too often has that effect on its members.  Seeing them satisfied the storyteller that the assumptions we all have remain valid.  That everything wasn't all sunshine and daffodils was the whole point!  Because of who we are, the point was being made, "the church sucks!!  Look what it's doing to this trio!"

Why didn't you express yourself in that first post as you have in this post?  I submit that the tone of your first post was not that of a reasonable man, bringing to light a salient fact, but was instead a put-down, a 'look at me be a better person!' post.  

So you and I each have an interpretation of Messy's first post, and I get how 'valid' yours is, how worthy of mention you believe it to be ... And good for you for sticking up for yourself ... behind a fake name.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why didn't you express yourself in that first post
> as you have in this post?  I submit that the
> tone of your first post was not that of a
> reasonable man, bringing to light a salient fact,
> but was instead a put-down, a 'look at me be a
> better person!' post.  

This. Exactly.

I too thought it was a troll post and I'm really slow to recognize trolls. Speaking of being courteous, you weren't to messy. There's a way to make a valid point to a fellow poster.

I see no malice in messy. Definitely no cause to castigate him.

Even with summer's post above re the appearance of the sister missionaries - yes, she calls them frumpy. Etc. But, as EOD ably explains, it's not an insult to them as individuals - they won't ever read it or know about it and have no cause to take it personally. Rather, it's a commentary on the church for causing this phenomenon, that you can recognize the missionaries even on their P-Day just by the way they dress which sets them apart from everyone else. They may say that's their goal or a badge of honour but really it's counterproductive to their 24/7 proselytizing intentions.

It's fine, and unavoidable, to disagree with fellow posters. There's no need to make it personal, especially out of the blue and targeting a quiet poster who, certainly by the standards here, wrote a completely inoffensive post.

Were you to have stated your point of view on messy's thread the way you have here, instead of attacking him from out of the blue, that could have been an interesting and valid exchange of views.

The instant reaction from everyone, including a long time poster and former admin, that you were a troll demonstrates all you need to know about how your post came across.

EOD has explained very well what the general intent is when we write about our impressions of Mormonism and our interactions with its people.

Plus, in general, I don't blame anybody, anywhere, any time, for reacting with emotion when it comes to their negative experiences with and conclusions about Mormonism.

>But, as EOD ably explains, it's not an insult to them as >individuals - they won't ever read it or know about it and >have no cause to take it personally.

Suppose you were with a group of friends on an outing somewhere, and you encountered a transgender female whose appearance and demeanor were rather masculine and unusual. Now, further suppose that observing such person, your friends immediately join in group merriment to ridicule and make fun of the person, perhaps some expressing derogatory comments about transgender people generally. Then, the whole incident is shared on some social media.

Now, would you be offended at your friends' behavior? Would you call out your friends for engaging in such behavior?

What this shows is that it makes no difference whether the person who was the object of such behavior witnessed any of this behavior or not. The conduct itself is offensive. The same would be true in racial or other contexts where individuals are singled out for ridicule because of their supposed stereotyped appearance.

Have you bothered to think through what you are saying?


------------------
> . . . it makes no difference
> whether the person who was the object of such
> behavior witnessed any of this behavior or not.

By that token it would be "offensive" to criticize or make fun of any member or leader of the LDS church here. It would be wrong to criticize Warren Jeffs. Is that where you want us to go?

Furthermore, it would be wrong to traduce the dead, for in your words "it makes no difference whether the person who was the object of such behavior witnessed any of this behavior or not." It follows from that pronouncement we may not uninhibitedly joke about Joseph Smith or even Joseph Stalin.


---------------------
> The conduct itself is offensive.

Since when has the offensive conduct standard applied to you? If you can say stupid things about MG, why should anyone balk at criticizing people who are not here?


-------------------
> The same would be
> true in racial or other contexts where individuals
> are singled out for ridicule because of their
> supposed stereotyped appearance.

You see? Twice now you have reached for images that are the reflexive fixation of right-wingers. So we know about you and your values.

But putting that aside, you are still stuck with the irrational notion that criticizing Mormons and their behavior is inappropriate on a board established, in part, for the purpose of criticizing Mormons and their behavior.

That isn't silly: it's stupid.

-Absolutely wrong because I am the judge of my own actions and perceptions. And if I feel offended it is not only my privilege but right to speak my mind.

"In the messygoop thread, there was no offensive interaction involving proselytizing, and no interference at all with messygoop's own shopping agenda. These missionaries were only going about their personal business on P-day, without bothering anyone. The only noted exception was messygoop's suggestion of a minor "rudeness" offense, that he himself deemed "silly," that was at worst incidental and trivial."

My shopping was interrupted. I waited for three impatient young women to pass by. While stopped, the second young lady banged my cart with a box. It was enough force that my right hand slipped off; the hand which is very weak from a stroke. I use the shopping cart to steady my balance. A man who I didn't know from Adam, came over and asked if I was ok. A complete stranger witnessed the incident and expressed his concern. He had some choice words and was going to tell the ladies off. Very nicely, I told the man to leave them alone. See what charity I carry in my heart.

And what do you do?

Try to assassinate and belittle my character.

And you know very little about me, save for my criticism of how LDS Missionaries dress- their is a policy that dictates which grooming standards they must adhere to. Yes, it's a policy ordered by LDS Corp.

And do you know how many times I have called a suicide hotline because I allowed the church to determine my self-worth?

And how I managed to survive 50+ years as a sexual assault victim?

And that a have hormone deficiency in which I may identify as transgender?

No you don't!!!!!

Go ahead and keep your opinions, but don't try to tell me what I perceive as minor or trivial.

This is my experience and I'm telling you to butt-out.

We're glad you're back and engaged, MG.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> They were being 'ridiculed' because they were
> exemplars of a system that too often has that
> effect on its members.  Seeing them satisfied
> the storyteller that the assumptions we all have
> remain valid.  That everything wasn't all
> sunshine and daffodils was the whole
> point!  Because of who we are, the point was
> being made, "the church sucks!!  Look what it's
> doing to this trio!"

That's a nice rewrite. I guess that means that if we can attribute a person's appearance to a dress code that is prescribed by some group authority (like the Amish dress code), or otherwise use our imaginations to attribute some personally offensive appearance to a group influence (a particular P-Day missionary appearance as being "Mormon"), it is O.K. to ridicule such people at will. Sounds good. Thanks for the tip.

> Why didn't you express yourself in that first post
> as you have in this post?  I submit that the
> tone of your first post was not that of a
> reasonable man, bringing to light a salient fact,
> but was instead a put-down, a 'look at me be a
> better person!' post.

That's probably a fair point. Except I don't consider myself a better person than messygoop or anyone else on RfM. Quite the contrary; You should see how critical I am of myself!

> ... And good for you for sticking up for yourself
> ... behind a fake name.

Back at you. You mean "elderolddog" is not fake? My compliments to your extraordinarily imaginative parents. :)

First, it's hardly a "shaming" if the subjects of said shaming aren't present to be shamed. In that situation, it's merely an observation – an accurate one, as I have personally witnessed.

Second, you respond to a perceived (thus far only by you) "shaming" by doing your own actual shaming post. Something about pots, kettles and hypocrites come to mind.

Dallin Ox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, it's hardly a "shaming" if the subjects of
> said shaming aren't present to be shamed.

Says who?

> Second, you respond to a perceived (thus far only
> by you) "shaming" by doing your own actual shaming
> post. Something about pots, kettles and hypocrites
> come to mind.

Maybe. But then I am shaming because of perceived objectionable behavior. I am not shaming because I have a pre-existing agenda to target participants on RfM, and my shaming is a pretext for such targeting.

>> However, it is one thing to criticize and attack Mormonism for its doctrines, policies, beliefs, principles, practices, etc., and the leaders that support such matters, but quite another to ridicule and marginalize a few individual Mormons one encounters solely because of their unusual and 'unacceptable' appearance or demeaner.

The young female missionaries are not freely choosing their attire. This is attire that is (more or less) mandated by the church. I am not criticizing individuals so much as a church culture that is so badly out of step.

Why is there such a discrepancy in how the men and the women dress? The men, in dress pants, belts, woven shirts, and ties could pass muster in just about any bank or office setting. I stand by what I said about the women looking like FLDS escapees who never figured out modern dress. Why can't they dress to bank and office standards as well? Why can't they look smarter and more fashionable? I doubt that anyone walks into a bank and thinks, wow, those tellers sure are dressing immodestly! How about dresses and skirts that are knee length or slightly above (as opposed to hitting weirdly at mid-calf or below.) How about clothes that fit correctly? And why, oh, why, can't the women wear dress pants as well? It's 2023. Shouldn't they have the option whenever they see fit?

The missionaries are salespeople for the church. When I worked in sales, I never would have dreamed of dressing as the women do. I was expected to dress as a proud, and reasonably fashionable representative of my company. I would argue that the difference in dress standards is off-putting to potential converts.

I am simply asking that the men and women dress to the *same* starndard, i.e. acceptable bank/office wear for 2023. The way that the female missionaries dress to me, is indicative of the poor attitude that the Mormon church has towards women.

As for their behavior, my observation in the past is that more than half of the male missionaries that I have seen have seemed somewhere between unhappy and miserable. I'm wondering if the women are starting to have the same experience. *Also* -- if they have their nametags on, they are representing the church, meaning they *should* be on their best behavior.

Internet etiquette 101, don't wander in off the street and start telling people how and what they should post. If you don't want to be seen as some trollish rando who wandered in off the street, don't be one. I did read what you wrote and it was rude and judgmental. If you have a problem with people saying negative things about mormons and mormonism, you will have a hard time here. Read the guidelines up top, if something oversteps those, report it to admin. It's their job to deal with, that is why they get paid the big bucks.

People here have big hearts. I am sure they will give you another chance to introduce yourself and make a better impression.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Internet etiquette 101, don't wander in off the
> street and start telling people how and what they
> should post.

I didn't do that, of course. As far as I am concerned, people can post what they want. Are people allowed to "wander in off the street" to criticize a post? Or do you have to stick to the prescribed anti-Mormon gospel narrative?

>If you don't want to be seen as some
> trollish rando who wandered in off the street,
> don't be one.

Your definition of a troll is anyone who dares to criticize any form of attack on Mormonism or Mormons. In other words, stick with the community narrative, or be a troll!

>I did read what you wrote and it
> was rude and judgmental.

Probably so. And certainly, we do not want anything rude and judgmental on RfM, do we? Unless, of course, such rudeness is properly directed.

> If you have a problem
> with people saying negative things about mormons
> and mormonism, you will have a hard time here.

No, but if I have a problem with a lack of tolerance for criticism of anything negative said about Mormonism, I definitely will have a problem here.

> Read the guidelines up top, if something oversteps
> those, report it to admin. It's their job to deal
> with, that is why they get paid the big bucks.

But, to your credit, you did not delete the original thread, messygoop did. And my guess is that until he was over-whelmed by group love, my point was well-taken.

> People here have big hearts. I am sure they will
> give you another chance to introduce yourself and
> make a better impression.

If I wanted big hearts in a 'gospel doctrine' community-type setting, where fitting in was of utmost importance, I would have remained in Mormonism. My interest now is in associating with minds that are bigger than the petty, narrow-minded, group-think offered by Mormonism. I guess we are all sometimes disappointed in our search for post-Mormon community.

That said, I will now go quietly. Clearly, I have nothing to offer here. My best to all of you--Sincerely. Especially to messygoop in his recent challenges, of which I was not previously aware.

If you leave after finding out the rest of the story then you are leaving not because you needed clarification and were to quick to judge Messy but for reasons not related to Messy, his tale, or a valid pointing out that people can be too harsh on these kids which I think is valid.

You're sounding like you are leaving because you were offended?

If that is the case, he or she will not be able to leave us alone.

Too bad silly didn't just want to sin with you.

... Thus we cannot fault his or her taste.

It was a simple observation that the three sister missionaries marched down the aisle despite other shoppers (myself included) were in their way. I felt they could not be bothered to be polite as one of them bumped my shopping cart and said nothing. I was flabbergasted that I didn't receive a "Sorry or Excuse me".

I have always believed that a smile goes a long ways. They all had a frown seared into their "face plates". That's why I didn't think they were missionaries until I saw the church name tags.

I was indeed critical of their P-Day clothing as their choice of clothing was frumpy and dowdy. If wearing shorts and tennis shoes aren't their thing, then how about jeans and a proper sized t-shirt?

Oh and after going to the pet food aisle to buy a bag of food for my pair of furballs, I slowly looked looked down each aisle as I made my way to check out. And I saw all 3 in the shampoo aisle so I smiled again. And two of them still had that look of extreme disgust (the other one was facing the other way).

I think young women feel more pressure nowadays to serve. They don't have the historical precedent nor the cultural pressure but they have some kind of popular Mormon culture thing going and so I think many of them are serving because it is cool more than family pressure.

This seems to even the playing field and now more crappy unhappy kids are out there.

We used to think sisters were better dinner guests but now any Mormon missionary is a crap shoot.

is BIG. My daughter even says that. She has a lot of friends who are younger than her as she worked in YW for a while. It is hard to think of her as 37!!!! But she has told me. It seems men don't want them if they haven't been on a mission. BUT the pickings are few for the girls in Utah. Worse than ever. My aunt is MANY granddaughters and many of them aren't married yet. Good mormon girls. All been on missions. And nice looking. One is getting married in May and she is about 28 or so. I was 27. What a burden to carry.

So I tend to wonder how happy the women AND MEN are to be out on missions. Thankfully my daughter married a guy who didn't care. She almost went on a mission. She was hiding it from me and I guessed it.

It is a ridiculous SUPPOSED requirement for all the young men and young women.

Interesting. I have many nieces and nephews. To read their emails some of them are a piece of work but I think Mormonism and youth are a potent combo and that is what Messy was posting about.

Yeah, rude is rude Messy. It doesn't matter what their nametag says. Shame their parents didn't raise them better.

And I would complain if some priest or some big guy wearing Trust Jesus T-shirt ran over my foot with a shopping cart without apologizing to me.

Plus the fact that we can say anything we want about mormons and mormonism here. We don't need a Net Nanny. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2023 11:35PM by Susan I/S.