Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EmseB last won the day on April 16

EmseB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,453 Excellent

About EmseB

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

563 profile views
  1. Well I guess if the issue was that she was trying to force him back to the JW for his wedding so she could go, I would find that to be so opposite to the situation described in the OP as to be a lie for all intents and purposes. It wouldn't be just a difference in perspective between her and her son. The thing about things being exactly as she said or not...she didn't give many specifics at all so was posing general questions about a general scenario. So there isn't even really any differing perspective to argue about, AFAIK. But we sure can try, lol. 🙂:shrug:
  2. A) Right, we don't know so I find answering as if that could be the case sort of useless. I find it unlikely based on the way she's talked about her religion in the past, like you say, we don't know. It didn't enter into how I answered the original questions. B) If that is the case, I still stand by everything I've said regarding boundaries and personal conscience. I may not understand religions that practice non-contact after excommunication or disfellowshipping, but I am familiar with people who cut off contact with close family for any number of reasons, religious and secular. It's painful and it sucks, but I'm not going to tell anyone they have to have contact with another person based on circumstances I know nothing about. But I still contend the general principles of the situation she asked about don't require specifics to answer.
  3. Yes, it could have been any number of things. They are each allowed to have their own personal moral or religious boundaries. However, I guess unless she was really trolling and lying about the whole scenario, I was taking her at face value when she said her son asked her to do something he knew she could not do according to some conscience issue he already knew she held to and then was/is angry at her for not doing that exact thing. IOW, I could assume she is lying and it's the second scenario you came up with, but that's not what she asked about, so I didn't answer as if that's what happened. I answered and continue to reply based on info she gave and general principles I hold to wrt religion and boundaries.
  4. Aside from the fact that I have no idea if this is the case and have no reason to speculate on this hypothetical as if that's what happened, I'll say: It's not manipulative because he doesn't have to do that. No one is saying he has to. If she was demanding he rejoin a faith that he found objectionable in order that she could go to his wedding, I would have a different take on this thread. No one here has said that would be ok for her to do. I think she flat out said somewhere that's not what happened (but I admit to losing some of the bubble somewhere in there), and I don't gather she's the type to try to manipulate her son into a JW wedding or into a religion he doesn't want to be a part of. AFAIK, she other relatives that aren't JW that she associates with. But the question in the OP was how do you handle a situation where a DC wants you to do something you find morally objectionable and is angry at you if you won't? How or can you mend the relationship? What you're speculating on is a totally different question; that is, "my child won't do X so I refuse to do Y, which of us is right?" It's just a totally different issue based on a complete hypothetical based on...idk what. It doesn't even seem like a hypothetical you could get to from all the info given unless you make a ton of mostly negative assumptions about the OP, her actions, her motivations, her religion, etc.
  5. I have thought that sometimes, but it's not any weirder than me reading along and seeing who liked my posts or other posts, I don't think. Just part of the nature of message boards. I could tell this thread was going downhill from about page four when people started speculating about what the specifics *must* be and the, "if you don't tell us, I'm going to assume the worst" comments. Curiosity is a heck of a drug, though, lol.
  6. I think you're confusing posters, or I am. Isn't Caedmyn the OP?
  7. The point of Stella's analogy is that the specifics don't matter if you're going to answer the questions in the OP. They really don't. All we know is her son asked her to do something her conscience would not allow her to do, some place she would not go, or whatever it was. There are a lot of people in this thread who keep saying they can't understand why she wouldn't give up her morals for her son for whatever it was. There are a lot of people saying they would never hold to any kind of morality that would keep them from doing something or going somewhere for their kid. 1) I find this very difficult to believe because everyone has a line they won't cross, even for their own kids. They may just find that other lines that other people hold to are silly; and 2) It is not fair in any sense for someone to say, "If you don't violate your conscience in this way it means you don't really love me and I'm going to be angry at you indefinitely." That isn't okay, no matter if it's painting pink polka dots on a t-shirt or eating pork or attending a wedding or hopping on one foot. It isn't fair to ask someone you know has a strongly held belief to violate it for you or else. It isn't mature. It's manipulative. So, hypothetically, if you wanted to have your wedding a venue you know that your mother cannot go to, that is absolutely fine. It is your choice. However, it is not fair to hang that over your mother's head and be angry that she wouldn't do what you wanted knowing that she couldn't go there. It isn't fair to say, "She could have gone if she really loved me," or, "She could have gone if she really wanted to." That's manipulation. Even if they had a super good reason for holding the wedding somewhere Scarlett couldn't go, that's okay! But it means she can't go there and part of being a mature adult is recognizing that in a mature way, which doesn't include being angry and holding a lifelong grudge. It might be a super sad situation where everyone is grieved that things didn't work out and mom couldn't be at the wedding. But it's not okay for either party to hold the other person in contempt and be angry for not violating their consciences, especially if that was a known quantity long before any of this ever came up. I would say the same if Scarlett were the one getting angry and holding a grudge at her son for having his wedding somewhere she couldn't go. He gets to have his wedding where he wants. People (even mothers!) can choose to attend or not based on their own boundaries. The relationship needs to be mended on the idea that it is okay for people (even mothers!) to have lines they will not cross, even for their kiddos. I guarantee everyone has one or several, even if you (general) think Scarlett's are silly or unreasonable based off of what you know of her religion.
  8. You are turning this into a debate about political stances on a specific issue. This thread isn't even about that. It's about an individual choosing not to do something (we don't even know what) and how those personal, individual boundaries should be handled. I feel like your posts are trying to litigate this specific issue (to what end, I'm not sure), and societal outcomes to activism that isn't even mentioned by Scarlett or Murphy...which is a good discussion to have in a lot of other places , but I'm afraid is going to get this thread nuked for politics.
  9. The point is that the choice to attend a wedding and what that means is an individual one. The relationships involved are between those individuals. The fact that you don't see anything immoral about it or grandma doesn't mind attending has nothing to do with anyone else's personal decisions on the matter or their personal moral beliefs about any given issue. Mutual respect could also be to decline to accept an invitation to any given event and the hosts being okay with the invitee having different beliefs about weddings, celebrations, ceremonies, religion, sacraments, or any number of issues.
  10. Olivia Jade was on record pretty much saying she wasn't planning on going to class...just wanted the "college experience". I think probably a lot don't end up finishing.
  11. I think a better ceremony example would be a bris. Where it's possible to believe at least one of the people involved are being actively harmed by what's happening in the ceremony. Or a wedding of a different religion where someone is marrying an underage bride or a second wife or something. It's not the difference of religion that is the issue. I know many people who wouldn't attend that type of ceremony, and they wouldn't do so because of the commandment to love their neighbor as themselves. They view a wedding or other ceremony as a celebration, and they cannot in good conscience celebrate, even if they might support one party, they don't, and can't under any possible view point, support the event itself. It is possible that the loving thing to do in a situation is to distance oneself or hold fast to a personal ethical boundary. Again, it's very manipulative behaviour to insist that if someone loves you they'd cross any boundary of personal ethics or behaviour. We can disagree as individuals on what those exact lines should be, but that doesn't make someone else's line unloving in and of itself.
  12. I think this is a selective reading of scripture. He also literally threw people out of his house who were doing things against the law. He called people to repentance with acts of mercy, but didn't sin. I think this line of thinking in your post can be used to manipulate people into doing things they don't want to do (if you really loved me, you would X. If your God is love, you would do Y for me because you love God. If you really loved Jesus you'd stay in this bad marriage with me). I also think (religion aside) sometimes the loving thing to do, for others and oneself, is to have a boundary. I think it can really hurts if that boundary affects a close family member.
  13. I swam competitively for over 10 years and have had my DC on a couple different swim teams the past couple years and I have to say all this is baffling to me. The idea that there are competition suits that would ride up *that* much, even on a curvy girl, when properly fitted/sized is baffling. I know there are high-cut suits, I've just never seen any cut so high they cause anything more than a wedgie if there's a malfunction. To have them ride up so high they create a thong where butt cheeks are touching? Long enough for someone to notice? It seems like improper sizing and something you'd want fixed asap because how do you swim, say, a breaststroke race with that going on? Then idea that girls are hiking their suits up on purpose? Again with the discomfort but also...I guess that seems just weird for the swim culture I'm familiar with. I keep reading trying to figure this out and I can't square any of it in my puny brain.
  14. If I were Lori Laughlin (sp?), I'd be scared because FH was pretty contrite about the whole thing and she's still doing jail time. It doesn't seem too light to me considering it's a non-violent crime, but I'm no expert.
  15. You could get into the White House without a tour? I only visited DC once prior to 9/11 (early 90s), but I remember the WH tour was the strictest access (and pretty lame, honestly). I didn't realize there was ever a time you could just go into the WH.
  • Create New...