Sigh... I am tired of attacks. At least be truthful. OK?

The temple videos can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/Newnamenoah

What gets blocked are attacks on me personally or to individuals on this site. Our primary focus is on newbies, not on trying to gain personal notoriety or fame.

Below is a repost from the last post on this thread. We usually close at 60:

Susan and I were subjected to extreme vitriol for years because we refused to link to the temple videos. I was called things which I will not post here. I have been threatened with law suits a number of times due to alleged copy right violations or for libel with posts or articles on this site. I had to delete a post from 2012 just this week for supposed libel. The person requesting it was cordial. That is not usually the case.

I worked nearly 40 years for my family so we can retire and pursue our own personal interests. To put my family's financial state in jeopardy to support someone else's activism made and still makes no sense. This linking is still conditional.

The purpose of exmormon.org is to help folks who have already discovered the fraud of Mormonism to recover and move on with their lives. Our focus will not change.

Eric



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2017 11:35AM by Eric K.

Did someone flame you for posting the link earlier or something?

If Mormons want their precious cosplay dress-up rituals to be private, they should stop lying about everything else.

They accuse RfM of not promoting or linking these videos to whatever degree the detractor thinks this should be done.

The purpose of RfM is to help those leaving mormonism in their journey. The videos might help some of these but RfM is not the only place to find this information. It's available elsewhere to anyone who is interested.

I'd hate to see this one bit of info take over as the main issue at RfM because day to day recovery problems could easily lose out to notoriety.

If someone wants a site devoted to the videos and to taking down the mormon chuch, they need to start such a site.

RfM is here to help individuals in their daily struggles and no one need claim otherwise. I don't want to see anyone edemeaned for seeing recovery as its primary goal. It is after all called a "recovery board."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2017 06:12PM by Cheryl.

The initial intent of RFM may have been to help people during recovery, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of posts of that type over the course of the last many days/week/months..... seems that cliques, agendas, positioning and arguments are much more common. Very little in the way of civil discussion and help.

This observation from someone whose been around since '98 from a recommendation of family acquaintance.

I hope that things can and will change.

Nothing stays the same here and I have seen a bit of an increase on daily recovery issues the last day or two.

So then do something about it. Start threads about some topics you think need to be discussed.

Don't just sit there and whine.

not whining .....

just offering an observation....

pretty much ended the way I figured it would...

denial and kill the messenger....

That previous comment was too uncivil to you???

That was merely advice..

"Very little in the way of civil discussion and help."

Have you been on a real political discussion blog/site???


This place is way more civil than those sites dedicated to "spirited" political discussions..

I've noticed that a lot of people here (and elsewhere too..), complain about the lack of civility in discussions here...when they post comments that are against someone else' viewpoint, but doesn't get the virtual "backup" they thought they were going to get for their viewpoint and they get hammered/flamed for their viewpoint....hence the board is no longer civil....to them

I apologize for hurting your feelings......

I came here for help .... I came here for the compassion that was listed in the title on your home screen.....

I see now that I came to the wrong place...

sighh......

Just 3 or 4 weeks ago my posts that even mentioned "Mike Norton" were deleted within minutes or hours. Now we've got Eric K. posting an actual link to NewNameNoah's temple videos? I feel like I'm taking crazy pillz!

I feel like I did when the Mormon church finally printed that photo of Joseph Smith's seer stone in the ensign back in October of 2015.

No one saw that coming! And nearly all Mormons were shocked and unprepared for it.

I do have to give thanks to Eric K. for finally realizing that Mike Norton is not the enemy, he is in fact the ultimate ally in fighting Mormonism.

It doesn't even have to be about fighting Mormonism. Some people might see these videos as an attack, but not all of them.

It's just truth. It's true that this is what happens in temples. That's really what they wear and it's really what they do. What people make of that is up to each person individually. But at least now they have the option to see it and decide for themselves.


I'm glad this information is available and becoming more widely available now that sites like this aren't afraid of posting it.

you are quite uninformed. He is a truly nasty and vile person who has threatened Eric for years including physical violence if he showed up at a Foundation Convention. He lives for attention and doesn't care if or how that impacts others. Those that KNOW him and have known him for YEARS, know just what he is. Just ask any of his ex-wives or their families.

Do the rules not apply to moderators?

Apparently if you aren't allowed to post on the board then the moderators can disparage you all they like. Mike's a personal friend of mine and he's a human. IMO Mike is a great guy who just wants to help people despite their attempts to block his messages and videos.

I'm also glad that Eric K has lifted the veil so that we can now mention Mike's name and his videos on the board. Next step is to unban Mike from posting just like they did over on /r/ExMormon on reddit.com

"Next step is to unban Mike from posting just like they did over on /r/ExMormon"

For r/exmo to *unban* him, then he had to have been banned in the first place. To ban a poster is not a step taken lightly or casually; there must have been a damn good reason for it.

In order to be banned from two popular and unaffiliated exmo sites, a person has to really deserve it.

My original sub-line was going to be "Sorry, I'll Leave if He's Permitted to Return"

When Norton used the word he did from an open mike calling Susan I/S what he did, he sealed the deal with me. And seriously, probably the only person who's clashed with Susan more than I is Benson. His screed was, fortunately, deleted from the archives, but many of us were there in person.

I "caught wind" of what was happening and sent Eric an e-mail saying, in no uncertain terms, that I would leave RFM if Norton "bullied" his way back here. I also e-mailed Richard Packham (I've met both in person as well as CZ and Susan I/S) giving him what I knew, and Richard simply said he felt the "Temple Video" should be available for RFM "viewing." I can live with that, but it is evidence of trespassing.

Norton also once bragged on another site about "finding" a Temple Recommend and "ransoming it" to two senior missionaries…

I believe the TR was a counterfeit--this was years ago--but regardless, if you'd like to defend that action, feel free to try. I called Norton on his actions on another site (now defunct), and he defended them.

There's more that involved me personally, and the only reason for my anonymity this time is Norton--like all pathological sorts--has shown himself to be vindictive and vengeful, particularly with those who attempt to hold them accountable for their actions. I don't have time for such manure tossing, and I'm convinced the LDS Church is far more "comfortable" with "enemies" like Norton (or Ed Decker) than the likes of Richard Packham, Eric K. or the rest of us who are capable of minding our manners when need be.

What are the banned words? I left because of doctrine and didn't bother to read that CES letter that was sent to the church. Couldn't tell you the guys name. I've heard the name John Dehlin. Never listened to his podcasts.. I've never heard of Mike Norton either. I might unknowingly start a thread and get it censored or deleted.

If you put up a post and get a message --I think it's in red-- and can't post, it means a word is either found regularly in spam (the spam bots do show up here, even now) or somebody with an agenda is fond of that particular word or phrase, and the "filter" cuts down on the trolling…

Some words are in the filter at times and removed at others.

At least that's my understanding. It's frustrating, occasionally, but I've never had a problem e-mailing one of the Admin's. Sometimes really benign stuff winds up in the filter, and so it looks stupid, but there's a reason it's in place. If you've even been up late and seen a "Troll Storm" when one of the asylum inmates gets going, you'll understand.

A simple solution is to use the "preview" option and delete a paragraph to see if the message disappears. Once you find the right paragraph, try cutting out a sentence, and then individual words, and you'll be able to identify "the culprit."

I don't know anything about Norton. I do know that this is a personal attack and that others have had their posts removed for far less.

It's defense against the worst most base and violent threats and insults I've seen in print or heard from any person's mouth.

RfM keeps giving this person chances and he then goes crazy and starts trolling, telling lies and threatening mutilation and death to those who are here to help.

As I said, if I were in charge this individual would be banned from RfM and from my presences for life.

This site does not have to place pirated material gained through lies and trespassing at its focus whenever the someone using a fake name craves attention and demands it.

My point exactly.

The mods playing victim doesn't fly with me. I know Mike better than I know nearly anyone else here. The ban is childish and the personal attacks are petty. It really doesn't reflect well on this board.

"Playing victim"?

I have been here long enough to recall the original incidents (or at least what a poster would know about). My understanding, still, is that the temple ceremony was taped without permission (which obviously would not be granted). RfM has always had a policy of not permitting posts about or involving illegal activity (eg: drugs) as well as anything that could cause legal issues for Eric, Board Owner. There was a time (and may still be?) that the Mormon Church would sue for posting links to their temples, or to otherwise "trespass" in their territory. Why would Eric put himself in that position? To those that casually dismiss the policies regarding what is suitable, or not, to be posted, it's easy to criticize when it's somebody else's neck potentially on the line. Eric started a board. He didn't volunteer to be the Crusader-in-Chief against the Mormon Church, potentially putting his own livelihood, his family and his personal finances in jeopardy.

To me, the "without permission" part of filming the ceremony was enough to understand why any links to the video would be banned. It is totally in line with board policy re other illegal acts, substances, etc.

In any case, as said by others, Eric has no responsibility to publicize anything he doesn't want to. End of.

As for the filmer, again, I recall that a lot happened, in public and behind the scenes, that many did not know about and currently may still not be aware of. I saw some outstandingly terrible comments about Eric, posted by Norton, recurring over long periods, that were understandably deleted. He didn't leave Sus I/S (former chief mod/Admin member) out either. This would not be the way to make oneself welcome to participate on a privately owned board whose founder and assistants are not compelled to allow you to join in despite disregarding many rules, many times. I understand that the behaviour behind the scenes (away from the board) was even worse and impacted Eric and his family (as has occurred frequently with other issues, trolls and rude and nasty people).

If it's a matter of letting bygones be bygones (which would be an amazingly gracious stance by Eric, as has apparently occurred) that's one thing. But don't be too hasty in concluding that the original long term ban was not well earned by Norton.

A lot of posters and problems and incidents have come and gone in my now many years here and I can't remember 3/4 of them. But I remember Norton. And his appalling tirades against Eric and Sus and constant attempts to troll RfM. If he has apologized, I missed it. If anyone thinks that kind of long term abuse can be easily overlooked and chance after chance given despite causing ongoing real life problems for Eric (and Sus?), they have not been the subject of such nasty campaigns.

RfM won't stand or fall on one special link. Neither will someone's choice of whether to leave or stay in the church. Nor someone's eventual "recovery". I don't think so, anyway. And as mentioned by others, that link is available elsewhere. What is Norton's obsession about getting it on RfM I wonder? Who would expect to be granted that access after causing so many problems here? There has to be give and take in any healthy relationship. Eric isn't the only one who should do all the giving.

If you do not know all the details (and who needs to at this point) please at least consider refraining from calling Admin folks "whiners" etc. There have been some colossal growing pains and major challenges for Eric et al in keeping RfM going. As I recall/understand, Norton is on record as saying he would bring down the board if he could.

I'm not saying there should never be "forgiveness" but neither should somebody else's encounters and problems and interpersonal experiences (eg: Eric's and Sus', in this case) be discounted without thought and reason and understanding. I try not to take sides (too often, anyway) but in this case, I don't cry for Mike Norton.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2017 06:17PM by Nightingale.

We do have one particularly nasty troll that oozes in on occasion, calling Eric a bunch of names, and one time threatening to bring down RFM "within 6 months" as a "hate site" as I recall (this may have been 8-9 months ago, LOL). He also turns on regulars who challenge him and call him out on his assholery.

Could this troll possibly be Norton?

He created problems and trolled time after time. Was given chance after chance. He doesn't care about anyone's legal liability, he will use who ever he can. There are good reasons he has been booted from pretty much every board out there that tries to adhere to any kind of standard. He even got booted from the ExMormon Foundation email list because of persistent bad conduct and refusing to follow the very very simple rules there.

I don't think New Name Noah's taping inside mormon temples is illegal. Because the LDS church says it is? Does someone have a citation to back up the illegal claim?

I agree. It's not illegal.

Please feel free to go into any movie theater and record the movie your watching and then post the results on Youtube. See what kind of response you get.

Copyright laws do exist, even for the church. Just because we don't like the church doesn't mean that laws exist for them.

Susan and I were subjected to extreme vitriol for years because we refused to link to the temple videos. I was called things which I will not post here. I have been threatened with law suits a number of times due to alleged copy right violations or for libel with posts or articles on this site. I had to delete a post from 2012 just this week for supposed libel. The person requesting it was cordial. That is not usually the case.

I worked nearly 40 years for my family so we can retire and pursue our own personal interests. To put my family's financial state in jeopardy to support someone else's activism made and still makes no sense. This linking is still conditional.

The purpose of exmormon.org is to help folks who have already discovered the fraud of Mormonism to recover and move on with their lives. Our focus will not change.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point exactly. The mods playing victim doesn't fly with me. I know Mike better than I know nearly anyone elsewhere. The ban is childish and the personal attacks are petty. It really doesn't reflect well on this board.

What admin on ANY board needs to tolerate someone swearing at them or threatening them? It's basic netiquette. If you don't like how a board is administered, or you can't resolve your issues in a civil manner, pick up your ball and go play elsewhere. Or start your own #$%^ board. It's not rocket science.

Name any other religion where simply showing a video of their
worship services is considered a highly offensive insult.

They will murder you for it.

Okay, I'm new here, but I hope this comment is an anomaly. Not really looking for a SL Trib comments section level of Islamophobia which has nothing to do with Mormonism.

Auntiemormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I'm new here, but I hope this comment is an
> anomaly. Not really looking for a SL Trib comments
> section level of Islamophobia which has nothing to
> do with Mormonism.

This entire thread is about video photography of religious services, and whether this is or is not acceptable from a variety of perspectives.

Although there is an aspect of Islamophobia in the post you are referring to, the inclusion of Islam in this discussion is appropriate since Islam is a religion, and there are prohibitions in Islam against "creating likenesses" in the sense of statues, certain kinds of paintings, etc. Discussing possible parallels between videos of Islamic religious services and Mormon religious services is valid.

The "Islamophobia aspect" is the quite understandable assumption that if ONE kind of representation (an engraving on stone, for example), is prohibited by Islam, then surely making a video of Islamic religious services would be prohibited as well, but this turns out to be, in fact, NOT true.

The person posting did not know this (and I did not know this either), and likely most of the people here on RfM have never thought about the (according to Muslim perspective) religiously/"legal" differences between different forms of art and visual representation that Islamic religious/legal authorities "see," because to US, these appear to be all the "same" thing. (The same as there are reported to be a sizable number of different words for "snow" in Eskimo languages, with each different "snow" name referring to some specific and distinct KIND of snow that people not familiar with that area don't even "see," because to US, it is all just "snow.")

This kind of real discussion is what this board is all about.

Welcome to RfM, Auntiemormon! :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2017 10:22AM by Tevai.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They will murder you for it.

I have been bothered by this response ever since it was posted, because my own experience, beginning as an adolescent (as a viewer of documentaries, films, TV, the news media, etc.) plainly refutes this assertion that videos/films of Muslim services are prohibited, and "could," at least possibly, result in the photographer being murdered.

I Googled, and a fairly quick once-over of the info provided seemed to indicate that the answers (plural) to the question are complex. This is not surprising, since contemporary Islam itself appears to me to be getting even more complex as we get deeper into this century.

Here is a post, which appears to be authoritative, from 1995:

Question: Does Islam prohibit the use of video cameras or taking pictures, for any purpose? Could you cite any reference to such a prohibition in the Qur'an or the Hadith?

The answer (which is quite complex in itself, and discusses issues I never even realized existed before ;) ) seems to indicate (I was skimming) that photography (such as, specifically, videotaping) is not included in Islamic prohibitions for a variety of reasons, some of which have to do with there not being a prohibition to see someone (yourself, or someone else) in a mirror. (To my Jewish eyes, the reasoned explanation given appears very similar to Talmudic reasoning, and seems logical to me within the structure of Islamic thought and theology provided. YMMV.)

http://www.islamicity.org/qa/action.lasso.asp?-db=services&-lay=Ask&-op=eq&number=4893&-format=detailpop.shtml&-find

Scientology?

I have had posts deleted for far less. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but the cliquishness is evident. I checked this board for the first time in months and who knows if I'll come back to it. I was going to the Catholic church for a while and felt out of place for not being an atheist.

Whatever.

+1

fordescape Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I was going to the Catholic
> church for a while and felt out of place for not
> being an atheist.
>
> Whatever.

I'm not an atheist either, and some of the atheists here can be evangelical, but then, so can a few of the theists.

Lots of religions involve people dressing up in weird costumes and enacting strange rituals in funny language.

But do they also involve keeping those rituals a secret from members who grow up in it and from members who convert until they have been paying money for at least a year? How often is money associated with attendance of those rituals?

Maybe someday mormons will be like our local native Americans, performing their dances and rituals in full costume at elementary schools.

That would be awesome! Haha

It exists solely to defraud.

Hi Eric,

It's way possible to leave without knowing what is in the temple ceremony. But I've always thought people have a right to know what they are getting into BEFORE they make promises in the temple. So good on you for helping with that.

Thanks for all you do. Wish I'd had a site like this many years ago when I left.

It was a clandestinely pirated video you must keep in mind.

Wow, this is the first time I have seen real video of any of the pre-1990 tokens, along with their accompanying "name, sign, and penalty" from a real mormon temple ceremony, shown on-line. Someone had some real bravery to sneak the camera in to a temple and film that.

I also liked the little girl's testimony saying that god made her gay.

Good link!

Savannah is a very brave young person to stand up to the Mormon cult the way she has. I'm glad she has a good support system.

every couple of months or so, I have one of my posts that are automatically blocked for an unapproved word as that post contains very benign language and very benign subject matter.

the automatic censor has apparently engaged for no real reason, after that, I can edit the offending post down to zero words and zero content and it still will not pass,

that is in contrast to some of my comments that do contain edgy language, and there are plenty of them, but are allowed to post

then there was the time that RFM gave me an spam prevention code that contained an obscenity

here is photo proof

http://imgur.com/a/BbxZS

I do remember that spam prevention post of yours. It was GREAT!

Given the hostilities of a lot of the posts, enabling the word censor feature provides zero benefit but it certainly must make somebody feel good.

RadEric!
Horray for RFM.

You know what I like?
You can come here and go there, all at the same time: New Name Noah allows many to view the "'sacred' truths" about LDS temple ceremonies and rituals. Glad I know what goes on there. No longer have to wonder. He has a pretty big mouth, probably to go with his equally big head,and I hear, heart.

With love 4 EVER and Ever and eternal happiness and infinite blessings for everyone for infinity.

To be who they want to be. To BE THEMSELVES. TO be who they are. Or at least to be someone... or no one, even anonymous, if that's who they want / need to be.

And to not be bothered by the damn Mormons, or TMC (the mormon church) or anyone or anything, for being WHO THEY ARE.

The mormonites have spoiled agendas, soured habits, backwards rules, lost laws, mixed up principles, a perverted doctrine and weird and polluted ways of wonder.

Recovery From Mormonism hopefully would include people nicely discussing just that, and whatever else pertains (or doesn't [seem to] pertain)...

I like (RFM) coming here on occasion.
It is a big giant batch of passionate Ex-Mormons, including a mix of great minds, revolutionary reformers, mad survivors, totally talented tee toddlers, truth seekers, book worms and scribes, glorious musicians, fabulous cooks, entertaining artists, former "saints", allies and otherwise beautiful readers and posters. Humans. Beings. People.
"CoGs", Children of God (and Goddess), Circles of Glory, Clouds of Goo...

I like learning about LDS temples, weird as they are. People can now say they saw it here first.

Thanks OP!

M@t

Thank you so much Eric. I just had a Lutheran friend out in Salt Lake City that asked me to link her to some videos of what went on in the temple. I have picked out a few to send along to her. I really appreciate the link.

All successful operations need to protect themselves from mission creep.

Newbies don't come here for information, they come here for support. They have a computer and hands, they can now google for information.

What this site does that none of the many social media support sites do is provide a large number of people online at any time of day or night, from any part of the world, that have had the same experience you have.

People come here and ask if they are losing their minds, or is Joseph Smith a complete con-man (for example). Their answer may contain information which is helpful, but the important contribution is to touch another human being who knows what you are going through--the pain, the shock, the shame.

It's like being raped. We're not the rape kit, we're the arm around the shoulder.

That's our number one mission.




Kathleen

That is a very good point, anagrammy.

It is heartwarming to see RfMers rally 'round and make supportive comments so often when new posters arrive. It takes time and effort and even a walk through their own pain to reach out to another person but day after day, year after year, many people here continue to do it. They may never hear back that their words helped someone out but it is likely that they have not only done so for a newbie poster but also for many longer-timers here, including the vast body of lurkers.

Just like a warm smile to a person passing on the street or in a shop, a response to a post, especially to those asking for info or support,can truly make somebody's day and ultimately affect their life in positive ways.

When you are inculcated in an atmosphere that denies the opportunity to ask questions and even seeks to forestall them in one's own mind it is incredibly freeing to be able to blurt out to an understanding reader/listener some of your foremost queries.

As a former lay counsellor in my community I saw this in action IRL. Not too often did I have answers to someone's dilemma but I could listen while they talked it out and mostly analyzed and solved their own problems. I just provided an hour and an ear for them to mull things over and often get past the stuck place themselves so they could solve the situation and move on. I see that happening in many interactions here and it is lovely. I especially love it when people from vastly different viewpoints (say, atheists and believers) can reach out to give strangers support in times of need, no matter their positions on different topics.

There are a lot of human moments like that around here.

However, the tone that particular person (NNN) uses in his personal agenda (which he's entitled to have) is not constructive. It feeds into the church's agenda of how sinful and dark the apostates are.

I admire Eric K.'s stand for setting the standard for what he wants represented here and he is within his rights to decide if a particular point of view helps or hinders his purpose.