Love him or hate him, NewNameNoah is back with another video

[_brotherjake]

What you've written above fails to address the comments of Runtu, Rockslider, Jesse Pinkman, and Kishkumen, who all voiced similar concerns and view points.

So please spare me the exclusionary rights to hold and voice an opinion speech on this topic, limiting them only to LDS who have "been there", because folks who have indeed "been there" have already voiced the same or similar concerns, and I don't need to have "been there" to be able to relate to what betrayal, manipulation, deceit, pain or suffering are.

Yes, you do need to have "been there." Well, I think you do, anyway. This thread has waded into a discussion of ethics, and those defending what NNN has done are doing so (as milwut stated) from the lens of care ethics, centered around the idea that young people being pressured into temple attendance should have the ability to see what they're signing up for. The core concept is an ethical tradeoff--yes, NNN violated the parameters set up by the church for these rituals, but the upshot is that the fruits of his labors allow people in an otherwise compromised situation to make an informed decision.

The thing is, you can't really evaluate the merits of the tradeoff unless you've been on both sides of that coin, and by "that coin," I'm talking about a very specific situation--i.e. the role of temple attendance in the Mormon upbringing along with the secrecy and eventual the disorientation of the ritual itself. You may think that your background gives you enough insight to judge the issue just fine, but I don't. Sorry. You're absolutely entitled to voice your own opinion on the matter, but I just don't think it holds much weight because (again, in my opinion) you don't have the background to properly judge the merits of the opposing argument.

That being said, there are those (albeit in the minority) that did go through the Mormon upbringing/temple experience and feel similarly to you about this video. I disagree with their conclusions, but their opinions carry more weight to me because they are in a position to properly judge the ethical tradeoff that others are defending. I'm of the opinion that discussions of ethics aren't just about getting the "right" answer, but how you get there.

So, yes, what I'm saying is exclusionary. There are a lot of aspects of Mormonism that outsiders can observe closely enough to have as informed a viewpoint as any Mormon. However, I think that due to their secrecy, temple rituals and their role in a Mormon's life aren't one of them.

[_mentalgymnast]

But yet I feel almost obligated to do what I do.

Of course you do. You wouldn't do it otherwise, right? It takes all types to make this world go round. Including you.

MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I rank this kind of cheap denigration of religion up there with the prejudiced and ignorant activities of the anti-cult ministries, which tend to treat anything that is odd as Satanic. There is a real ends-justifies-the-means mentality underlying this behavior. As long as people leave the "cult", it's OK to behave unethically. I see the same kind of reasoning in Norton's activities, and people's approval of those activities.

by the way, don't let me be misunderstood in what I said on my entry post into this thread. I am not in any way approving what Mike Norton is doing.

I've appreciated your comments on this thread, Kishkumen.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

There are no easy answers here, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone tell me that I don't have the right to hold and voice an opinion on this topic because I don't belong to a special group or class of people.

I can respect/understand that. I've enjoyed your posts on this thread along with a number of others.

Not much else to say...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...Analytics makes a great point about Mormon youth having the temple pounded into their skulls from the time they're young, and then forces them to make choices without having anything like the information required to make a reasonably informed choice. As Analytics mentioned, at the beginning of the endowment they do offer people a chance to back out, but A) they have no real idea yet what they're backing out from, and B) they've been so pressured to be there in the first place, and the perceived social cost of backing out is so high, that it's not a realistic course of action for almost anyone, even if they actually wanted to back out.

That is/was a common experience/scenario. Especially for those that made their first visit to the temple before the age of the internet.

Regards,
MG

[_Sethbag]

Jersey Girl, you absolutely, 100% have the right both to have and to express an opinion on this stuff, whether you've been there or not.

And Mormons who've been there absolutely, 100% have the right to take your opinion with a grain of salt. Some might think you're not having been their renders your opinion nigh on meaningless, and others may disagree with that. It's their right though.

How do you account for folks here with LDS experience, many or most, BIC who have expressed the same or similar viewpoints? That's what some people are missing here. And yet, I'm directed to get off the thread. Like that's gonna happen. Is that an attempt to reduce the amount of opposition here? I'm not sure...

I don't account for them. It's their opinion. Thing is, the question we're asking is whether a particular end justifies a particular means, when that means is otherwise undesirable. We can't just say that the ends never, ever justify the means because we know, if we argue the absurd, that they sometimes do.

*GODWIN ALERT*
(forgive me, please)

While most of us would deem it otherwise unethical to lie or purposefully withhold information from government investigators, few would argue that it wouldn't be justified to lie to the Gestapo about harboring jews in your attic during WWII.

I'm not saying the LDS Church are like the Gestapo here at all, so nobody flip their crap. I'm merely reminding folks that utilitarian arguments for ethical dilemmas are sometimes justified. It's not obvious to me that this situation with NNN isn't one of these situations, though I'm open to the idea. I certainly acknowledge that it's a horrifying breach of these peoples' privacy, and expectation of privacy. If he didn't blur their faces I'd say this was clearly over the line. If the people aren't easily recognizable then I allow that it might be justified by the need for Mormons and prospective Mormons to receive some accurate information before they're put into situations where they have to make important decisions. I justify this on my opinion that the LDS temple system is otherwise an ethically corrupt system, and that Mormons and prospective Mormon temple goers are victims of this system.

[Guest]

I stayed up until 11pm EST to write a poem in the (new) name of Noah and chose to model it after Edward Lear's owl and pussy-cat marriage absurdity. I'm not really a metric gal, but these moments in Mormon history ought to be memorialized on message boards somehow.

I
The MoPig and the exMo-one went to sea
   A fanatical be-lief boat,
They look’d all funny, and gave all their money,
   Just trying to stay up afloat.
The Mo one said praise to the stars above,
   And sang a pioneer hymn,
"O exMo Scummy! O exMo, Scummy,
    What a presum’chus Sinner you are,
         You are,
         You are!
What a presum’chus Sinner you are!"

II
ExMo Scummy said to the Mo, "You f***in’ prowl!
   How ‘scustingly sweet you sing!
O let you be married! the secrets have tarried:
   And I shall choose you for the sting.”
Noah went astray, in the temple next day,
   In that land where the Bong-Tree grows
And there at the alter Piggy-wig knelt and
    Noah had a cam-ra in his nose,
             His nose,
             His nose,
    Noah had a cam-ra in his nose.

III
"Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling
   Your name?” Said the Piggy, "I won’t.”
Then I’ll take it away, and your marriage display
   On my channel that shouts out shrill.
Your sweet little wife on her special day,
   I'll make her look a swine-ly buffoon;
And hand in hand — show your grip to the land,
    And I’ll dance by the light of the moon,
             The moon,
             The moon,
And I’ll dance by the light of the moon.


EDIT: formatting and change of one word

[_Dr. Shades]

A lot of people make a lot of assumptions about me that aren't even remotely based on reality, let alone true. . . Just because I'm a sarcastic sonofabitch to my detractors sometimes doesn't mean that I'm a POS. I do what I do because I care.

It's morally imperative that I speak up and verify that the last part is indeed true. I know NewNameNoah personally and have met him face-to-face several times. He owes me nothing, but he voluntarily located and identified my biological father for me--without my even asking--and even called him to get the information I was after. He did this with no expectation of payment or reward from me; he just saw a need, asked me if I'd be interested in his assistance, and jumped in.

So, I personally vouch for NewNameNoah. I know, from direct experience, that his motives are precisely what he says they are.

[_MetalSlasher]

A lot of people make a lot of assumptions about me that aren't even remotely based on reality, let alone true. . . Just because I'm a sarcastic sonofabitch to my detractors sometimes doesn't mean that I'm a POS. I do what I do because I care.

It's morally imperative that I speak up and verify that the last part is indeed true. I know NewNameNoah personally and have met him face-to-face several times. He owes me nothing, but he voluntarily located and identified my biological father for me--without my even asking--and even called him to get the information I was after. He did this with no expectation of payment or reward from me; he just saw a need, asked me if I'd be interested in his assistance, and jumped in.

So, I personally vouch for NewNameNoah. I know, from direct experience, that his motives are precisely what he says they are.

I'm sure even Ted Bundy did some nice things for people he liked.

[Guest]

Things I've learned after 17 pages.

The OP's title covered 99% of the discussion in one sentence.

A photo of a Mormon temple marriage elicits responses from people on a Mormon-related message board that says something about Mormon temple marriages.

Some people think this something needs to be highlighted more.

Some people think this makes Mormons targets for bigotry and other poor behavior.

People generally seem to have a hard time talking about those whose opinions are opposed to their in ways that don't vilify and become examples of the thing they complain about. Doesn't seem to matter which position one holds.

Once positions have been staked out, sometimes some fights have to be fought to the death on the internet. Ok. Most of the time. This one just happens to be a real knock down drag-out one.