I am not familiar with Ambushed but I have to say I’m kind of surprised at the childish “neener, neener” type taunting replies I’ve read here from people who SEEMED normal to me in other posts. A couple of you seem downright obsessed with acting like 4 year olds in this thread.
I do not owe that loon an apology.
Well then, you have two choices: perform your required reading, or get your little fanny on back to Dogpatch.
OoooOOOO if I complete my “required reading” and research ambushed, I too can respond like a jackass and remind him/her about his/her blue writing, improper thread starting, and other “sins” of the SDMB. I can hardly wait!
It’s only an internet messageboard
It’s only an internet messageboard
It’s only an internet messageboard
It’s only an internet messageboard
Gobear, read Ambushed’s quote. I got it right up there. He basically says that “the Church” (not “some members of the Church”, as he claims he did) told a gay friend of his that he was wretchedly evil and God-hating. Explain to me how that is a rational, reasonable comment in any way, shape, or form, and how it conforms with Ambushed’s insistence that he never condemned the entire church as a whole.
Daisy Mae…
I don’t know what thread you’re reading, darlin’, but all I see is a whole lot of people showing Ambushed that he’s being a psychotic, rabid little jackass. Care to cite any of these “neener neener” posts?
Actually, playing poker with a 51-card deck would be very cagey and sly, if you knew which card was missing, and the other players didn’t… You’d know the real odds, and the other guys wouldn’t…
It’s cheating…but it isn’t insane…
Trinopus (rumored to be a few Jacks short of a Full Court)
All I was trying to do was get him to stop making an ass out of himself… So sue me for trying to save us from another freaking meltdown :smack:
My, my. What a deliciously wicked monumental rolling ball of misdirected bullshit have we here? Dear dopers, I lurked and laughed my ass off until I could stand no more! I want in!
IIRC, the diversion occured just about the time ambushed posted the following:
“While I’m sure there’s ordinary variation from bishop to bishop, often a bishop will ask you some extremely private and personal questions which must be answered to their full gratifica…, er, satisfaction before being granted a recommend.”
Wellhellanfuckination, any sped monkey with a bus pass can see the ever so slightly naughty-yet totally on target-word play in those remarks. But not the severely incapcitated Monty! Nope, dopes! Instead, Monty dishes up this amazingly brainfried pearl of an evaluation when he concludes:
“In some Mormon questions, you made the insane assertion that those undergoing a particular interview had to answer the question for someone’s gratification.”
Monty…the word “often” means, often! Not to be confused with always. As in “ambushed often gets hot under the collar, but Monty is always a fuckhead”. See? It’s really quite easy!
abushed is guilty on 3 counts!
- Mainlining humor into a serious topic.
- Using big words that Monty can’t understand.
- Wrongfully concluding that injecting actual cites/links will result in immediate personal and/or serious revelation on Monty’s part without taking into consideration the time lag while we all tap our toes and wait for Monty to find someone to dumb it down and read them to him.
And what shall we charge poor Monty with? Is there a towaway zone for posters/posers operating a disabled brain on a public message board?
Monty, the Mormon Alliance (which ambushed conviently delivered on to your doorstep and mistakenly assumed you’d read them) exists for the sole purpose of providing legal resource, reporting and followup for LDS victims of sexual abuse by other church members… you know, like Bishops, duh. Does it surprise you, Monty, that the Morg doesn’t publicize the fact that some (not all, you embellishing freak) of their Bishops are going over the line when they interview and jerking off kids in closets?
Here, honey, get some one to read these to you:
The Mormon Alliance:
Jack:
Then after a long pause, he finally said, “How are you, Jack?” He leaned forward and started asking me the usual interview questions: “How are your folks? How’s school going? Are you keeping all the commandments? How about your personal worthiness? Are you morally clean?” Then he said it; “Are you masturbating?” I didn’t say anything. I felt too ashamed and embarrassed. He said he understood how hard it is growing up and the changes your body goes through.
I didn’t want to answer him. I didn’t know how to answer him. I felt trapped. I could feel my body flushing with the heat of frustration. If I lied to him, I lied to God. I would go straight to hell. If I said, “Yes,” my secret would be out.
While I was trying to decide how to answer the question with the least risk to my eternal soul, I started to cry. I cried from the deepest part of my gut. How could I be so wicked, so imperfect? What was wrong with me? How could I ever face God or any of his chosen leaders with such a horrible sin crushing my soul? I felt overwhelming shame and rejection.
He leaned forward, put one hand on my knee and the other on my thigh. He ran his hand up to my genitals and it rested there in cupping shape. “You have a beautiful body,” he said. “It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I can help you with your problem.” Then he unzipped my pants, reached into my underwear, and began to fondle my penis. I was too stunned to react; too confused to resist; too unprepared to stop him from doing whatever he felt inspired to do on my behalf to purge my sins from this contemptible body.
I couldn’t figure out what was going on. He was the bishop. I was the obedient but unworthy servant. He was God’s chosen leader on earth. Whatever he did was directly authorized by God. My thoughts raced around. Was this divine intervention and I was receiving a hands-on blessing? Was this a part of some special ritual to celebrate the onslaught of puberty? Was this the secret handshake preparing me to overcome my problem? I was so embarrassed. Was I being tested, taught; teased, or tortured? 1 couldn’t understand, but I was grateful when the ceremony finally concluded and my problem possession was returned to its rightful owner. Of course, as in all church activities, we had a closing prayer and just the regular handshake in parting.
J. Scott:
He always waited to get close to me. I would be his last appointment. He would [be] in the bishop’s office at church on the floor with his back against the door. He would sit with his legs spread apart. I would sit between his legs. (Scott is demonstrating the position and starts to cry.) He would kiss me on the lips and hug me… When he would kiss me on the floor in the bishop’s office, I would keep my teeth clenched to keep him from slipping his tongue in my mouth. I felt his tongue… This [happened] for about six months two or three times a week…
I didn’t realize that what he was doing was sexual abuse.… I thought that rape was the only type of sexual abuse.
When President Fulton threatened to hold a court on me, I said, “When the voice we’ve been given to protect our children is invalidated, my rights are extinguished. So are the children’s rights to be protected. What man of God would care more about the image of a child molester than about the child who has been molested? My Constitutional rights to free speech are on the line.”
President Fulton replied, “Those laws have no effect on us in here.”
“I have no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly?” I asked incredulously.
“Not once you walk through these doors,” he said. “Those laws out there don’t apply in here.”
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/nov96_2.htm?FACTNet
One disturbing thing that has been reported to us on a number of occasions is that when some bishops have conducted worthiness interviews with members of their ward they have asked questions regarding sexual matters that go far beyond the bounds of propriety. For example, one man reported to us that when he was young, both he and the girl he was going with felt they were becoming too intimate and went to the bishop for help. Instead of just giving the counsel they needed, the bishop questioned them at great lengths, asking all kinds of questions regarding what went on. The man described the questioning as “pornographic,” and said he felt that the bishop was actually enjoying the interrogation.
Another woman reported to us that when she went to the bishop for a temple recommend she was questioned extensively regarding her sexual relations with her own husband. The questioning became very explicit. Finally, she informed the bishop that she felt the interrogation was highly improper and said that she would not answer any more questions without her husband being present. When she later discussed the matter with her husband, he stated that the bishop had not asked him about details of their sexual life. Instead, he had willingly given him a temple recommend! She, of course, felt that the bishop was grilling her to satisfy his own interest in sexual matters.
The Mormon Alliance mentioned "a bishop [that lived in Oklahoma who] had been ‘legendary’ among the youth for asking sexually explicit questions during worthiness interviews. One young woman refused to be interviewed unless her father was present. The youth sarcastically nicknamed him ‘Bishop Triple-X’ because of the types of questions he asked, and his motto was, ‘You’re not worthy until I say you’re worthy.’ (Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, Vol. 1, page 271, footnote 1)
There’s a sample for you, Monty, for your real aloud pleasure.
And the ultimate bitch of it all, is that over 150 posts or so have been directed away from the serious topic at hand, that should be of concern to anyone with at least half a brain and a voice, to this jerk off journey into clown college drop out drivel!
Adam yax hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
“The one thing that ambushed doesn’t realize is that nobody cares if he is correct or not.”
Fuckmewithachainsaw, stamp out ignorance? Lay down Monty, and let us tap dance on your back and start with you! Oh, and BTW, congratulations! You’ve just been nominated for the “Cyber Contortionist of the Year Award” for posting with your head straight up your ass! ROTFLMFAO!
Sheerdee Light
My, my. What a deliciously wicked monumental rolling ball of misdirected bullshit have we here? Dear dopers, I lurked and laughed my ass off until I could stand no more! I want in!
IIRC, the diversion occured just about the time ambushed posted the following:
“While I’m sure there’s ordinary variation from bishop to bishop, often a bishop will ask you some extremely private and personal questions which must be answered to their full gratifica…, er, satisfaction before being granted a recommend.”
Wellhellanfuckination, any sped monkey with a bus pass can see the ever so slightly naughty-yet totally on target-word play in those remarks. But not the severely incapcitated Monty! Nope, dopes! Instead, Monty dishes up this amazingly brainfried pearl of an evaluation when he concludes:
“In some Mormon questions, you made the insane assertion that those undergoing a particular interview had to answer the question for someone’s gratification.”
Monty…the word “often” means, often! Not to be confused with always. As in “ambushed often gets hot under the collar, but Monty is always a fuckhead”. See? It’s really quite easy!
abushed is guilty on 3 counts!
- Mainlining humor into a serious topic.
- Using big words that Monty can’t understand.
- Wrongfully concluding that injecting actual cites/links will result in immediate personal and/or serious revelation on Monty’s part without taking into consideration the time lag while we all tap our toes and wait for Monty to find someone to dumb it down and read them to him.
And what shall we charge poor Monty with? Is there a towaway zone for posters/posers operating a disabled brain on a public message board?
Monty, the Mormon Alliance (which ambushed conviently delivered on to your doorstep and mistakenly assumed you’d read them) exists for the sole purpose of providing legal resource, reporting and followup for LDS victims of sexual abuse by other church members… you know, like Bishops, duh. Does it surprise you, Monty, that the Morg doesn’t publicize the fact that some (not all, you embellishing freak) of their Bishops are going over the line when they interview and jerking off kids in closets?
Here, honey, get some one to read these to you:
The Mormon Alliance:
Jack:
Then after a long pause, he finally said, “How are you, Jack?” He leaned forward and started asking me the usual interview questions: “How are your folks? How’s school going? Are you keeping all the commandments? How about your personal worthiness? Are you morally clean?” Then he said it; “Are you masturbating?” I didn’t say anything. I felt too ashamed and embarrassed. He said he understood how hard it is growing up and the changes your body goes through.
I didn’t want to answer him. I didn’t know how to answer him. I felt trapped. I could feel my body flushing with the heat of frustration. If I lied to him, I lied to God. I would go straight to hell. If I said, “Yes,” my secret would be out.
While I was trying to decide how to answer the question with the least risk to my eternal soul, I started to cry. I cried from the deepest part of my gut. How could I be so wicked, so imperfect? What was wrong with me? How could I ever face God or any of his chosen leaders with such a horrible sin crushing my soul? I felt overwhelming shame and rejection.
He leaned forward, put one hand on my knee and the other on my thigh. He ran his hand up to my genitals and it rested there in cupping shape. “You have a beautiful body,” he said. “It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I can help you with your problem.” Then he unzipped my pants, reached into my underwear, and began to fondle my penis. I was too stunned to react; too confused to resist; too unprepared to stop him from doing whatever he felt inspired to do on my behalf to purge my sins from this contemptible body.
I couldn’t figure out what was going on. He was the bishop. I was the obedient but unworthy servant. He was God’s chosen leader on earth. Whatever he did was directly authorized by God. My thoughts raced around. Was this divine intervention and I was receiving a hands-on blessing? Was this a part of some special ritual to celebrate the onslaught of puberty? Was this the secret handshake preparing me to overcome my problem? I was so embarrassed. Was I being tested, taught; teased, or tortured? 1 couldn’t understand, but I was grateful when the ceremony finally concluded and my problem possession was returned to its rightful owner. Of course, as in all church activities, we had a closing prayer and just the regular handshake in parting.
J. Scott:
He always waited to get close to me. I would be his last appointment. He would [be] in the bishop’s office at church on the floor with his back against the door. He would sit with his legs spread apart. I would sit between his legs. (Scott is demonstrating the position and starts to cry.) He would kiss me on the lips and hug me… When he would kiss me on the floor in the bishop’s office, I would keep my teeth clenched to keep him from slipping his tongue in my mouth. I felt his tongue… This [happened] for about six months two or three times a week…
I didn’t realize that what he was doing was sexual abuse.… I thought that rape was the only type of sexual abuse.
A member questions her rights:
When President Fulton threatened to hold a court on me, I said, “When the voice we’ve been given to protect our children is invalidated, my rights are extinguished. So are the children’s rights to be protected. What man of God would care more about the image of a child molester than about the child who has been molested? My Constitutional rights to free speech are on the line.”
President Fulton replied, “Those laws have no effect on us in here.”
“I have no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly?” I asked incredulously.
“Not once you walk through these doors,” he said. “Those laws out there don’t apply in here.”
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/nov96_2.htm?FACTNet
One disturbing thing that has been reported to us on a number of occasions is that when some bishops have conducted worthiness interviews with members of their ward they have asked questions regarding sexual matters that go far beyond the bounds of propriety. For example, one man reported to us that when he was young, both he and the girl he was going with felt they were becoming too intimate and went to the bishop for help. Instead of just giving the counsel they needed, the bishop questioned them at great lengths, asking all kinds of questions regarding what went on. The man described the questioning as “pornographic,” and said he felt that the bishop was actually enjoying the interrogation.
Another woman reported to us that when she went to the bishop for a temple recommend she was questioned extensively regarding her sexual relations with her own husband. The questioning became very explicit. Finally, she informed the bishop that she felt the interrogation was highly improper and said that she would not answer any more questions without her husband being present. When she later discussed the matter with her husband, he stated that the bishop had not asked him about details of their sexual life. Instead, he had willingly given him a temple recommend! She, of course, felt that the bishop was grilling her to satisfy his own interest in sexual matters.
The Mormon Alliance mentioned "a bishop [that lived in Oklahoma who] had been ‘legendary’ among the youth for asking sexually explicit questions during worthiness interviews. One young woman refused to be interviewed unless her father was present. The youth sarcastically nicknamed him ‘Bishop Triple-X’ because of the types of questions he asked, and his motto was, ‘You’re not worthy until I say you’re worthy.’ (Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, Vol. 1, page 271, footnote 1)
There’s a sample for you, Monty, for your real aloud pleasure.
And the ultimate bitch of it all, is that over 150 posts or so have been directed away from the serious topic at hand, that should be of concern to anyone with at least half a brain and a voice, to this jerk off journey into clown college drop out drivel!
Adam yax hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
“The one thing that ambushed doesn’t realize is that nobody cares if he is correct or not.”
Fuckmewithachainsaw, stamp out ignorance? Lay down Monty, and let us tap dance on your back and start with you! Oh, and BTW, congratulations! You’ve just been nominated for the “Cyber Contortionist of the Year Award” for posting with your head straight up your ass! ROTFLMFAO!
Sheerdee Light
I don’t know the LDS’s specific position on homosexuality other than that they really disapprove, but it is not unreasonable to say that the Church as an institution tells gay people that they are sinners. The church in which I was raised, the Roman Catholic Church, definitely disapproves of homosexual acts and does tell gay people that it is forbidden conduct, and so too does the Mormon Church, according to Religioustolerance.org. If I am mistaken in my understanding I am sure I will be set, if you’ll forgive the expression, “straight.”
As I understand it, the Mormons, like the Catholics, have a solid hierarchal structure in which the leader of each church, the President and the Pope respectively, make the rules that their subjects must follow. In this view it doesn’t matter if there are some liberal Mormons and Catholics or even gay-friendly Mormon and Catholic groups. They are not the leaders, and they do not set policy. In any event, it is my understanding that gay-tolerant factions in the LDS Church are a tiny segment of the membership, and that most Mormons agree that homosexuality is a grave sin.
Not that this in any way means that Ambushed is not a total loon, I’m just sayin,’ is all.
And we have a new entry in the Total Freaking Loon (lightweight) category! Introducing…Sherdee!
Short on words, Monty? No big surprises there.
Sheerdee Light
Yes, and you appear to be in it.
Sorry Sheerdee, but anytime I see this I’m inclined to think – newbie, lightweight, moron, amateur, dumbass, not worth my time, etc.
well, after 10 pages (if you count the thread in GQ and Monty’s pitting of Ambushed’s lunacy, we finally get to talk about the mormon church’s stance on sexuality.
As I posted on page 2 of the main thread in GQ,
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=210889&perpage=50&highlight=mormon&pagenumber=2
when I was a young mormon 20 to 30 years ago, I was interviewed with a couple specific questions regarding my sexuality. **
Abby** was on defensive autopilot and did not see that I was stating facts as an uninterested party in the interest of facts, and went on a counter-attack to an attack that never happened. Living in Utah, I’m used to mormons doing that, so I let it slide. When I was a good little mormon youth it was taught by the mormon church that sexuality is only to be practriced in the confines of marriage, and marriage is defined as a heterosexual monogamous union.
In the 70’s, divorce was considered a sin, and by the late 80’s was regarded by the community (Provo, Utah; home of BYU and mormon cultural capital) as nothing short of a shame. It being so much more common today, I doubt that it carries the same cultural stigma.
Homosexuality was and is still considered a very grevious sin and sometimes a mental disease. Unmarried couples living together was and still is considered sinful. Men wearing earrings is still frowned upon, as was ‘long hair’ (below the collar in back or the middle of the ear) and beards in the 70’s. These were positions stated by the church presidency, not ‘just a few isolated bishops’.
In the 70’s, families were commanded by the church presidency to keep a year’s supply of food, water, toilet paper and other commodities on hand. This was not for ‘emergency preparedness’ (I never heard that term used by The Church® until after the Northridge earthquake of 1989), but in preparation for the times immediately before ‘The Second Coming©’, when trade would be controlled by the Mark of the Beast™. I’m just spouting out my ass from memory, I don’t have any hard copy on this. This position is now reserved for polygamists and other splinter groups embarrassing to the main church. The fact is that the polygamists & other ‘fundamentalist’ mormons practice beliefs that were once held by the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS and have been abandoned by them.
There was a time, in the mid 70’s to the late 80’s, when mormons prided themselves on being ‘a peculiar people’. I recall hearing general authorities use this phrase in addresses at general conference.
Now, Monty, I’m well exposed to the mormon gift of tongues, with which you’ve been blessed. I know this makes you very good at debate and insinuation. Most mormons I’ve seen with this gift use it to ridicule by insinuation. I know that you’ll be along to make me look silly, but I had to say this anyway. I want you & Abby to know that I’m not making personal attacks on either of you. I’m not attacking your church either, I’m just reporting how things have changed in the general attitude of your church. I have family members whom I love dearly who are practicing members of your church and I wouldn’t say or do anything to harm them or their reputations by association. I know that the LDS church has been trying since the early 90’s to mainstream their public image.
WTF are you channelling there, jack@ass? Granted that the Pit isn’t GQ or GD, but does it really require that much fiction in one post?
Roundguy writes:
quote:
ROTFLMFAO!
Sorry Sheerdee, but anytime I see this I’m inclined to think – newbie, lightweight, moron, amateur, dumbass, not worth my time, etc.
Great honey, if I cared that would bother me. And finally, an honest LDS poster offers up pertinent information:
well, after 10 pages (if you count the thread in GQ and Monty’s pitting of Ambushed’s lunacy, we finally get to talk about the mormon church’s stance on sexuality.
As I posted on page 2 of the main thread in GQ,
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...on&pagenumber=2
when I was a young mormon 20 to 30 years ago, I was interviewed with a couple specific questions regarding my sexuality.
Abby was on defensive autopilot and did not see that I was stating facts as an uninterested party in the interest of facts, and went on a counter-attack to an attack that never happened. Living in Utah, I’m used to mormons doing that, so I let it slide. When I was a good little mormon youth it was taught by the mormon church that sexuality is only to be practriced in the confines of marriage, and marriage is defined as a heterosexual monogamous union.
In the 70’s, divorce was considered a sin, and by the late 80’s was regarded by the community (Provo, Utah; home of BYU and mormon cultural capital) as nothing short of a shame. It being so much more common today, I doubt that it carries the same cultural stigma.
Homosexuality was and is still considered a very grevious sin and sometimes a mental disease. Unmarried couples living together was and still is considered sinful. Men wearing earrings is still frowned upon, as was ‘long hair’ (below the collar in back or the middle of the ear) and beards in the 70’s. These were positions stated by the church presidency, not ‘just a few isolated bishops’.
In the 70’s, families were commanded by the church presidency to keep a year’s supply of food, water, toilet paper and other commodities on hand. This was not for ‘emergency preparedness’ (I never heard that term used by The Church® until after the Northridge earthquake of 1989), but in preparation for the times immediately before ‘The Second Coming©’, when trade would be controlled by the Mark of the Beast™. I’m just spouting out my ass from memory, I don’t have any hard copy on this. This position is now reserved for polygamists and other splinter groups embarrassing to the main church. The fact is that the polygamists & other ‘fundamentalist’ mormons practice beliefs that were once held by the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS and have been abandoned by them.
There was a time, in the mid 70’s to the late 80’s, when mormons prided themselves on being ‘a peculiar people’. I recall hearing general authorities use this phrase in addresses at general conference.
Now, Monty, I’m well exposed to the mormon gift of tongues, with which you’ve been blessed. I know this makes you very good at debate and insinuation. Most mormons I’ve seen with this gift use it to ridicule by insinuation. I know that you’ll be along to make me look silly, but I had to say this anyway. I want you & Abby to know that I’m not making personal attacks on either of you. I’m not attacking your church either, I’m just reporting how things have changed in the general attitude of your church. I have family members whom I love dearly who are practicing members of your church and I wouldn’t say or do anything to harm them or their reputations by association. I know that the LDS church has been trying since the early 90’s to mainstream their public image.
To which the loquacious Monty responds:
WTF are you channelling there, jack@ass? Granted that the Pit isn’t GQ or GD, but does it really require that much fiction in one post?
Yup, lightweight, moron, amateur, dumbass, not worth my time, etc. Not new, though! Tiresome perhaps, definitely nothing new.
Sheerdee Light
Sheerdee, honey, you don’t have to cut & paste my entire post, especially if you’re just 2 posts down. Go check out About This Message Board, where they’ll show you how to quote & cool shit like that. You’ll do OK around here. 
BTW, I’m not a mormon anymore.
Monty, you disappoint me. I was anticipating a real good one from you & you just dismissed everything I said without addressing anything. I can understand that, it was kind of a rambling post and reads like Abe Simpson. I wouldn’t know where to begin addressing all that either. You’re a convert, right? How long have you been a mormon? Were you a mormon in the 70’s? Were you alive in the 70’s? After a few years in your church, you’ll see the changes accumulating. I’m not saying that it’ll change your mind or that you’ll leave your church, but you’ll see what I mean. Dude, I’m not your Stake Patriarch, but I’m telling you, you’ve got the gift of tongues.
(You’re gonna hack on me for calling you ‘dude’, right?)
Nah, jack@ass. I won’t hack on anyone for calling me dude. After all, I do live in California (and quite near Sacramento!).
I was alive in the 1970s. I converted in 1981. I am majoring in Linguistics.
Thanks, jack@ass,
I intentionally copied and pasted your post in it's entirety to contrast Monty's short-on-words-long-on-denial- reply. And thank you for shedding light on what is truly a problem in not only the Mormon church, but many other churches as well. I do think, the patriarchal structure of the Mormon church lends itself to insidious misuse of power and authority, but it's surely not alone in that! Thank you for your honest and forthcoming comments! I'll be glad to join the discussion of origin and get out of this pit!
Sheerdee Light