I’m Back, Did You Miss Me? Appropriateness of Singing I am a Child of God

[bsjkki]

I think the answer's yes! Nine pages on this post is a definite yes. Everyone missed you and they are glad you are back.  Your witty diatribe got you in a bit of trouble and I find my misplaced sympathies lie with you. I've been thinking a lot about misplaced sympathies lately and these posts have triggered mine for you and Tacenda but since the offensive meme is deleted--my sympathies could be truly misplaced.  I read your initial post yesterday and found it funny because my very faithful husband would have the exact same reaction. If he was about to die and someone started singing ANY church song, it would add to his distress (especially if they were off key). He would have put his head in his hands and rolled his eyes. We all react to stress differently and a public, musical display is not everyone's cup of tea (herbal of course). 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I think the answer's yes! Nine pages on this post is a definite yes. Everyone missed you and they are glad you are back.  Your witty diatribe got you in a bit of trouble and I find my misplaced sympathies lie with you. I've been thinking a lot about misplaced sympathies lately and these posts have triggered mine for you and Tacenda but since the offensive meme is deleted--my sympathies could be truly misplaced.  I read your initial post yesterday and found it funny because my very faithful husband would have the exact same reaction. If he was about to die and someone started singing ANY church song, it would add to his distress (especially if they were off key). He would have put his head in his hands and rolled his eyes. We all react to stress differently and a public, musical display is not everyone's cup of tea (herbal of course). 

My oh my.

Here we go again. I point you to my comment immediately preceding yours.

The diatribe was anything but witty. And the follow-up comments confirm that no wit was intended. It's hard to imagine that the distress one might feel while plummeting into the ground at 500 mph could be exacerbated by a fellow about-to-die-traveller's last hymn. Seems like that situation would cause one to focus on one's own manner of dealing with the end rather than getting heartburn over someone singing a song in the next row. During those few moments of final panic it seems religious animus could be suspended.

What if it were a mother singing a hymn to her sobbing child? Would the eye roll be reserved just for a Mormon singing his death song?   I truly don't understand this aversion to Mormons singing a hymn before dying. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bsjkki]

55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My oh my.

Here we go again. I point you to my comment immediately preceding yours.

The diatribe was anything but witty. And the follow-up comments confirm that no wit was intended. It's hard to imagine that the distress one might feel while plummeting into the ground at 500 mph could be exacerbated by a fellow about-to-die-traveller's last hymn. Seems like that situation would cause one to focus on one's own manner of dealing with the end rather than getting heartburn over someone singing a song in the next row. 

What if it were a mother singing a hymn to her sobbing child? Would the eye roll be reserved just for a Mormon singing his death song?   I truly don't understand this aversion to Mormons singing a hymn before dying. 

After my many years of marriage, I have learned people view events through very different lenses. People can sing or seek comfort in any way they choose but that doesn't mean it will be appreciated by everyone.

Some even think it's appropriate to sing Jesus Take The Wheel during fast and testimony meeting while for others, this makes them want to flee.

I found clues in the OP that it wasn't 100 percent serious and found an underlying humorous tone to a terrifying event. I tend to laugh inappropriately during high anxiety and stressful times-I can understand if you would glare at me disapprovingly. We're just all different.

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

After my many years of marriage, I have learned people view events through very different lenses. People can sing or seek comfort in any way they choose but that doesn't mean it will be appreciated by everyone.

Some even think it's appropriate to sing Jesus Take The Wheel during fast and testimony meeting while for others, this makes them want to flee.

I found clues in the OP that it wasn't 100 percent serious and found an underlying humorous tone to a terrifying event. I tend to laugh inappropriately during high anxiety and stressful times-I can understand if you would glare at me disapprovingly. We're just all different.

Well, that doesn't address my questions. Comparing a death song with an innaproptiate sacrament meeting song is simply a distraction. I don't glare at anyone disapprovingly, but especially not when they would fear they are soon going to die violently. At that moment I would extend as much compassion and empathy as I could muster, hoping it would be reciprocated. Rolling my eyes, gagging at their expressions, or laughing at them? No, I don't think so. At that critical moment, worrying about what someone might or might not appreciate seems a bit trivial. 

Rolling eyes or gagging are signs of dismissal and contempt. Is this what you intend to be expressing? And if the singing weren't up to certain standards, that would be even more revolting. Really? Would this aversion be for anyone singing, or reserved just for Mormons?

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

My husband sings beautifully. He has had many people tell him he should sing in the tabernacle choir. When my two oldest were babies he were lay them on his chest and sing and it would easily put them in a deep sleep. 

My youngest is unique in many ways. One of those is his feeling for sound. When my husband layed him on his chest to sing to him he would cry till my husband stopped. He doesn't deal with sound well, often times the sound that most others want to hear. It would not surprise me at all if the singing on the plane really bothered him.

The difference I see with him and Johnnie is either the contempt that Johnnie was showing or the lack of understanding in how to interact with people - over and over again. Perhaps both at the same time. 

Like I mentioned there is a history here. One of the things we can do is look at that history. Look at Nehor. Occasionally someone will not get his joking, but Nehor posts enough that most see the jokes and see the other serious stuff of support he writes. One of the differences between him and Johnnie is his support of the church. So the joking and the support work in a Mormon based board. If Johnnie was joking then the jokes plus what seems to be a constant tear down of the church tell a different story to members. This time it comes out to poking the puppy. 

I'm willing to go with the idea that Johnnie had more lack of understanding of human interaction than contempt.  I recognize my history is much shorter with Johnnie than other people have so it may be easier for me.

But at some point you have to look at what is happening. My son is 15. We explain to him why music is important and while it can still bother him he understands that it isn't the same for everyone else.  Johnnie is an adult. If I understand right he has been a bishop. At some point it is important for him to see that if he pokes the puppy and he has a history of poking, it will bite back. 

There have been studies shown that marriages need to have 5 times the positive interactions as negative to survive. If Johnnie wants to see change on this board and in the church then it would be wise to remember that, but with the history that ratio is going to have to raise to 10 times or more positive to be effective.

It isn't the song that bothers everyone. It isn't the idea that the music bothered him that everyone takes issue with. It is the history. The constant poking. It would be wise to keep in mind the positive/negative ratio when speaking on this board. (Also keeping in mind that saying one negative thing in a positive post may make the whole post negative for those who have a history).

Edited April 16, 2017 by Rain

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Really? Gagging at a Mormon missionary's innocent response to imminent death, breathlessly reporting it here, and then doubling down with even more deprecating comments? What reaction were you hoping to get? What kind of feelings should one have while hearing other human beings make their final utterances in the face of an impending violent death? How sensitive is it to make them an object of contention and ridicule?

I'm guessing by everyone's reaction to my op that the divide is just too wide plus where did I make it an object of contention or ridicule?  I merely shared my reaction to the event. Nothing more

Edited April 16, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

My husband sings beautifully. He has had many people tell him he should sing in the tabernacle choir. When my two oldest were babies he were lay them on his chest and sing and it would easily put them in a deep sleep. 

My youngest is unique in many ways. One of those is his feeling for sound. When my husband layed him on his chest to sing to him he would cry till my husband stopped. He doesn't deal with sound well, often times the sound that most others want to hear. It would not surprise me at all if the singing on the plane really bothered him.

The difference I see with him and Johnnie is either the contempt that Johnnie was showing or the lack of understanding in how to interact with people - over and over again. Perhaps both at the same time. 

Like I mentioned there is a history here. One of the things we can do is look at that history. Look at Nehor. Occasionally someone will not get his joking, but Nehor posts enough that most see the jokes and see the other serious stuff of support he writes. One of the differences between him and Johnnie is his support of the church. So the joking and the support work in a Mormon based board. If Johnnie was joking then the jokes plus what seems to be a constant tear down of the church tell a different story to members. This time it comes out to poking the puppy. 

I'm willing to go with the idea that Johnnie had more lack of understanding of human interaction than contempt.  I recognize my history is much shorter with Johnnie than other people have so it may be easier for me.

But at some point you have to look at what is happening. My son is 15. We explain to him why music is important and while it can still bother him he understands that it isn't the same for everyone else.  Johnnie is an adult. If I understand right he has been a bishop. At some point it is important for him to see that if he pokes the puppy and he has a history of poking, it will bite back. 

There have been studies shown that marriages need to have 5 times the positive interactions as negative to survive. If Johnnie wants to see change on this board and in the church then it would be wise to remember that, but with the history that ratio is going to have to raise to 10 times or more positive to be effective.

It isn't the song that bothers everyone. It isn't the idea that the music bothered him that everyone takes issue with. It is the history. The constant poking. It would be wise to keep in mind the positive/negative ratio when speaking on this board. (Also keeping in mind that saying one negative thing in a positive post may make the whole post negative for those who have a history).

I'm having doubts as to whether the story even happened as told in the OP.  I think it was embellished and modified so that when he "came back" to the board, he'd have the perfect story to open with.  That's what bothers me the most, the entire point was just to get a rise out of other posters--and then the real gag inducing feigning of innocence in the follow up posts.

I love how we are expected to default into believing the best intentions of anonymous posters, but these same people won't extend that same benefit of the doubt when discussing the intentions of church leadership elsewhere...

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

My husband sings beautifully. He has had many people tell him he should sing in the tabernacle choir. When my two oldest were babies he were lay them on his chest and sing and it would easily put them in a deep sleep. 

My youngest is unique in many ways. One of those is his feeling for sound. When my husband layed him on his chest to sing to him he would cry till my husband stopped. He doesn't deal with sound well, often times the sound that most others want to hear. It would not surprise me at all if the singing on the plane really bothered him.

The difference I see with him and Johnnie is either the contempt that Johnnie was showing or the lack of understanding in how to interact with people - over and over again. Perhaps both at the same time. 

Like I mentioned there is a history here. One of the things we can do is look at that history. Look at Nehor. Occasionally someone will not get his joking, but Nehor posts enough that most see the jokes and see the other serious stuff of support he writes. One of the differences between him and Johnnie is his support of the church. So the joking and the support work in a Mormon based board. If Johnnie was joking then the jokes plus what seems to be a constant tear down of the church tell a different story to members. This time it comes out to poking the puppy. 

I'm willing to go with the idea that Johnnie had more lack of understanding of human interaction than contempt.  I recognize my history is much shorter with Johnnie than other people have so it may be easier for me.

But at some point you have to look at what is happening. My son is 15. We explain to him why music is important and while it can still bother him he understands that it isn't the same for everyone else.  Johnnie is an adult. If I understand right he has been a bishop. At some point it is important for him to see that if he pokes the puppy and he has a history of poking, it will bite back. 

There have been studies shown that marriages need to have 5 times the positive interactions as negative to survive. If Johnnie wants to see change on this board and in the church then it would be wise to remember that, but with the history that ratio is going to have to raise to 10 times or more positive to be effective.

It isn't the song that bothers everyone. It isn't the idea that the music bothered him that everyone takes issue with. It is the history. The constant poking. It would be wise to keep in mind the positive/negative ratio when speaking on this board. (Also keeping in mind that saying one negative thing in a positive post may make the whole post negative for those who have a history).

CFR that I have a history of tearing down the church. CFR that I exhibited any contempt...yes I had a visceral reaction...where did I express contempt? 

There is a lot of jumping to judgement by board members towards my post. Yes I ask tough questions because I have questions, but you're judging this post on some assumed history I'm supposed to have...again many are ju,ping to conclusions and judgements based on some imagined history. So again please provide evidence of your claim that I have a history of tearing down the church

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I'm having doubts as to whether the story even happened as told in the OP.  I think it was embellished and modified so that when he "came back" to the board, he'd have the perfect story to open with.  That's what bothers me the most, the entire point was just to get a rise out of other posters--and then the real gag inducing feigning of innocence in the follow up posts.

I love how we are expected to default into believing the best intentions of anonymous posters, but these same people won't extend that same benefit of the doubt when discussing the intentions of church leadership elsewhere...

Check the news many flights were diverted Thursday night plus why would I make this up? To what purpose?  Geezze

[SteveO]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Check the news many flights were diverted Thursday night plus why would I make this up? To what purpose?  Geezze

I said I have my doubts that it happened as you told it...

 

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I'm having doubts as to whether the story even happened as told in the OP.  I think it was embellished and modified so that when he "came back" to the board, he'd have the perfect story to open with.  That's what bothers me the most, the entire point was just to get a rise out of other posters--and then the real gag inducing feigning of innocence in the follow up posts.

I love how we are expected to default into believing the best intentions of anonymous posters, but these same people won't extend that same benefit of the doubt when discussing the intentions of church leadership elsewhere...

Another leap in logic

[Johnnie Cake]

Just now, SteveO said:

I said I have my doubts that it happened as you told it...

 

It was a harrowing experience I tried my best to share the event as I experienced it...what I did not anticipate was how it would be received here...nor did I expect such a visceral attack.  I've learned much about the makeup of this board through this post.

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It was a harrowing experience I tried my best to share the event as I experienced it...what I did not anticipate was how it would be received here...nor did I expect such a visceral attack.  I've learned much about the makeup of this board through this post.

Must be terribly frustrating to have people believe the worst in your intentions...I've never felt frustrated after reading some of the more critical posts here about the church and it's leadership...

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Check the news many flights were diverted Thursday night plus why would I make this up? To what purpose?  Geezze

I have no doubt it happened, but I am puzzled why you brought it up. To what purpose?  From my point of view, it was jumping to judgment to make repeated critical posts about the feckless Mormons who were apparently so terrified of dying in a plane crash (screaming and crying) just as if they had no faith at all, while you with no faith rode it down like Slim Pickens on the bomb in Dr. Strangelove. Then when one of them has the gall to softly sing a chilren's song, it causes you to gag and feel contempt for her and the others who sought comfort from it. How disgusting and insensitive of her!

You have described how hard it is to get away from Mormonism and Mormons even in your potential dying moments, but you live in SLC. Is that correct? I live in western Washington. We have had about 8 days of sunshine since November and continual rain for months. It's not a friendly place for religious conservatives like me. If that truly bothered me so much as to make me hate the place and the people I would leave. Complaining about the clouds and rain and progressive politics makes about as much senses as complaining about all the Baptists in Nashville or the Catholics in Rome. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Johnnie Cake]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are reading emotion into my posts that aren't there. It's understandable since tone is really hard to judge. 

You wanted us to discuss your experience and whether it was appropriate for someone to sing a religious song when fearing for their life. 

That's all I'm doing. I'm not upset or angry. I'm trying to understand your reaction. 

But since you brought it up, what would be the appropriate reaction for members to have when they are told that one of their most popular songs caused an ex member to want to throw up when sung in a frightening situation?

Sincere question. 

First don't exaggerate what I said my reaction was. I said gag not throw up. 

As to an appropriate reaction.  I don't know if I can answer that question but based on the reaction of board members do you consider their reaction appropriate? 

Put yourself in my place. I'm sitting on a plane making a third attempt to land, I have confidence in the design of the plane and in the training of the pilot to make the best decision to either land safely or abort and go to another airport.  But I'm also well aware that I am powerless to control events. It will be what it will be and I was at peace. All around me are my fellow passenger some calm but many expressing fear in various ways, crying, screaming, praying etc....we were all individuals in a common experience.  Then the sister missionary decides to sing.  I felt that under the circumstances it was a completely inappropriate over reaction to the situation and an inappropriate expression of religion imposed on the entire plane. Had I been sitting next to her I would have held her hand and calmly told her that everything would be ok that she had nothing to fear. But I wasn't  so that was how I processed it... my reaction was a gut reaction, a rolling of my eyes, an oh brother, really and yes a gag

For the record, I like the song...this has nothing to do with the song but the appropriateness of publicly bursting into song at that time and under those circumstances 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Gray]

JC, might I suggest that you won't find peace in your own heart until it stops bothering you when people take comfort in their own spiritual traditions.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

First don't exaggerate what I said my reaction was. I said gag not throw up. 

As to an appropriate reaction.  I don't know if I can answer that question but based on the reaction of board members do you consider their reaction appropriate? 

Put yourself in my place. I'm sitting on a plane making a third attempt to land, I have confidence in the design of the plane and in the training of the pilot to make the best decision to either land safely or abort and go to another airport.  But I'm also well aware that I am powerless to control events. It will be what it will be and I was at peace. All around me are my fellow passenger some calm but many expressing fear in various ways, crying, screaming, praying etc....we were all individuals in a common experience.  Then the sister missionary decides to sing.  I felt that under the circumstances it was a completely inappropriate over reaction to the situation and an inappropriate expression of religion imposed on the intire plane. Had I been sitting next to her I would have held her hand and calmly told her that everything would be ok that she had nothing to fear. But I wasn't  so that was how I processed it... my reaction was a gut reaction, a rolling of my eyes, an oh brother, really and yes a gag

For the record, I like the song...this has nothing to do with the song but the appropriateness of publicly bursting into song at that time and under those circumstances 

Then there was this...

Quote

I'm sure it says more about me then them. I respect the screaming, tears, crying and panic but when she burst into song I thought (this isn't what I thought but I'll put in words appropriate for MD&D) "good grief really". All I wanted to do was die in peace but no even this was going to be taken away from me by the freaking mormons on board 

Singing softly or bursting into song? Which was it? Would you gag at any other religious utterance expressed at the moment of death or is that reserved just for the Mormons? Why didn't you just tell them to knock off the repulsive singing and let you die in peace?

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For the record, I like the song...this has nothing to do with the song but the appropriateness of publicly bursting into song at that time and under those circumstances 

I'm having a really hard time understanding how one can judge the appropriateness of other people's reaction to an impending, terrifying, violent death. If instead of a missionary it were a mother singing to her terrified child, would that be appropriate? 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

As to an appropriate reaction.  I don't know if I can answer that question but based on the reaction of board members do you consider their reaction appropriate? 

I would hope to be compassionate enough to allow them their own reaction to their deaths, and not insist they heve mine.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It was a harrowing experience I tried my best to share the event as I experienced it...what I did not anticipate was how it would be received here...nor did I expect such a visceral attack.  I've learned much about the makeup of this board through this post.

Now this post was extremely predictable...

And given how your stories have been received in the past as well as the evidence of your obvious intelligence, it comes across to me as drama queen.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You have described how hard it is to get away from Mormonism and Mormons even in your potential dying moments...

Which makes it even stranger he comes on a board full of Mormons to share his criticism of a sister missionary and self congratulation of his own bravery and then is shocked that he gets criticized himself for his less than kind portrayal of believers as  intrusive cowards.

If he feels Mormons are intruding in every part of his life, even in the leaving of it, then why in the world is he seeking out Mormons in his free time?

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

CFR that I have a history of tearing down the church. CFR that I exhibited any contempt...yes I had a visceral reaction...where did I express contempt? 

Gagging is the physical response of revulsion.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

First don't exaggerate what I said my reaction was. I said gag not throw up. 

As to an appropriate reaction.  I don't know if I can answer that question but based on the reaction of board members do you consider their reaction appropriate? 

Put yourself in my place. I'm sitting on a plane making a third attempt to land, I have confidence in the design of the plane and in the training of the pilot to make the best decision to either land safely or abort and go to another airport.  But I'm also well aware that I am powerless to control events. It will be what it will be and I was at peace. All around me are my fellow passenger some calm but many expressing fear in various ways, crying, screaming, praying etc....we were all individuals in a common experience.  Then the sister missionary decides to sing.  I felt that under the circumstances it was a completely inappropriate over reaction to the situation and an inappropriate expression of religion imposed on the entire plane. Had I been sitting next to her I would have held her hand and calmly told her that everything would be ok that she had nothing to fear. But I wasn't  so that was how I processed it... my reaction was a gut reaction, a rolling of my eyes, an oh brother, really and yes a gag

For the record, I like the song...this has nothing to do with the song but the appropriateness of publicly bursting into song at that time and under those circumstances 

First, gagging is what someone does when they get the urge to throw up or are trying not to, so my use of that word was not an attempt at exaggeration but an attempt to use a synonym (I looked it up and it's listed as a synonym for gag).

Second, it's hard to want to put myself in your shoes when you don't seem to want to put yourself in her's. 

I tend to come at discussions from the same direction that the originator of the discussion comes from. Maybe it's not great, but I tend to assume that the OP believes their actions or beliefs are acceptable so I use that as the standard or baseline for how to engage the topic. 

You haven't been charitable to the singing woman. You haven't seemed to want to cut her any slack or take into account what she was feeling or going through.  You believe (based on the OP) that it is ok to judge her actions without mercy.

So, the reaction you've gotten here (from me-I haven't read everything that has been said to you) seems reasonable, given the standard that you set in your opening post.

To be honest, I don't think I would have appreciated the singing either. But since I do things all the time that people don't appreciate I would probably have just let it go.  

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

For the record, I like the song...this has nothing to do with the song but the appropriateness of publicly bursting into song at that time and under those circumstances 

This is laugh worthy. There are rules for what is appropriate if Mormons think they are about to die a horrible death? I thought I'd seen everything demanded of Mormons....this is a new one. And a memorable one that I am sure will find future use. 

What surprises me the most is that you just keep digging the hole deeper......

As to you behavior on your other board, it is consistent with your behavior here. You, along with your pals,  are here to post "honest" threads that make us cringe. For our own good. But when you are challenged and questioned with honest responses to a quite icky remark, it is an attack and misunderstanding.

Quote

There is a group of us who do keep posting honest threads that challenge the status quo and evidentially is causing some of the believers to cringe. But I believe that that is a good thing...each of us should be willing to have our POV challenged and our conventional wisdoms questioned

And you know the worst part, aside from the two faced stuff? It is that you and your pals congregate on another board to brag, back slap, and congratulate yourselves over your cringe worthy comments. You then silently watch the despicable comments you have generated there. Why in the world you think that you are invisible can only speak to the same arrogance that allows you to think you are tutoring needy people who have told you in no uncertain terms to knock off the ugly comments. 

You and your honest post posting pals have accomplished something spectacular, however. We squabble amongst ourselves, but you have managed to pull us together because enough is enough. When all is said and done, we squabblers will protect what holds us together.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then there was this...

Singing softly or bursting into song? Which was it? Would you gag at any other religious utterance expressed at the moment of death or is that reserved just for the Mormons? Why didn't you just tell them to knock off the repulsive singing and let you die in peace?

Ok I give up...