sheilauk

Perhaps another analogy will help. in the past, I rode a motorcycle. Being a rider can be dangerous, car drivers do not notice bikes as much as they should and when accidents occur between a car and a bike, the rider will almost always come off the worst because they are in a more vulnerable position. In the UK there is a campaign called “think bike”. Which tries to raise awareness, get car drivers to think about and look for riders, so as to minimise accidents. Now, most drivers don’t collide with bikes. Most times that a rider goes out, they don’t have a collision. Most journeys are safe. But the instructor who taught me to ride told me that I should ride my bike as though every vehicle on the road was going to hit me. He didn’t mean they would, he meant each one was a potential threat and I should ride defensively, acting to protect myself even if it meant giving way when I was in the right. And I did,I rode defensively, i treated every other vehicle on the road as a threat, as something that had the potential to hit me and harm me. Almost all weren’t going to but I viewed them in that way. Despite my efforts to minimise risks to me, I was still hit twice by a car. Following each incident, I modified my behaviour further to try to minimise the risk of being hit again. It would be nice if drivers chose to modify their behaviour to minimise risk to me but, until they do, I have to behave as though any one of them will choose to harm me. When I learnt to drive, my instructor also taught me to drive defensively, to act as though a collision would occur with every vehicle on the road - it means not being aggressive, being aware of all other vehicles on the road and giving way, even if I am in the right. Every vehicle is an accident waiting to happen, a potential threat. am I prejudiced against drivers or am I sensible, acting in accordance with my direct experience and the experience of others?

I suspect this is the nub of the issue. Smac accepts it’s ok to say all men in specific circumstances can be viewed as a potential threat but he limits those circumstances to isolated areas and suspicious behaviour whereas women, based on the information they have, have a much broader definition of the circumstances in which men are viewed as a potential threat - because sexual assault doesn’t just happen in isolated areas or by men acting suspiciously. Women don’t want to have to feel at risk most of the time or in most places they go. But, stating that the short statement all men are potential rapists is prejudicial doesn’t help move the conversation on, it shuts it down. Instead of asking why women feel that way, or accepting women have good reason to feel that way and asking how it can change, a man can simply say the woman is being irrational and emotional and prejudiced and so, feeling better himself, walk away. It also denies that women are entitled to their feelings and it favours men’s feelings over women’s. And it fails to understand that such a response is infuriating to women. Women’s voices have been shut down for centuries by men claiming they are irrational (eg women who said they were sexually assaulted have been locked up in asylums and accused of hysteria). But it is not irrational to be wary/suspicious of most men in most circumstances because women know, through personal experience or hearing the experiences of others, that women have been assaulted in most circumstances by a man. but let’s humour the man. Let’s accept that the (shorthand) “all men are potential rapists” is prejudiced. What phrase do we use to describe the risk women feel (also accepting that women are entitled to feel that way due to their collective, lived experience)? “Any man, known or unknown, may be or become a threat, possibly even a rapist, in many situations that a woman finds herself and therefore a man encountered in those circumstances is a possible threat until the man proves he is safe, because it’s not possible to identify which man will actually be a perpetrator of violence”- will that do? Not very catchy! But my behaviour and feelings are predicated on that because that is my personal lived experience and it’s the experience of many other women, maybe even the majority. Does that move the conversation on? Can we address the issues that arise? Eg, how do we design spaces so women feel safe and how do we minimise male violence? (To be fair, men, especially gay men, should be wary of other men in a lot of situations too. Most violence is perpetrated by a man - though most men are not violent (I really shouldn’t have to add this as a qualifier)). It does also raise the question as to how a man proves he’s safe and when does a woman accept a man is safe, given how a trusted man can suddenly become a risk (most women at the start of a relationship don’t know that it will become abusive, until it does). so, let’s move on. Those of you who dislike the short phrase, what do you suggest we say to describe the threat posed, taking into account all the situations women can be harmed in, to warn women and to encourage men to help improve matters? (without upsetting men because the last thing a woman must do is upset a man. Part of the conversation must surely be how we stop making women responsible for men’s feelings and actions.) (btw, if a man’s experience is that women pose a threat to him, I’m ok with him saying all women are a potential threat, because, to him, they are. I’m happy to act accordingly.)

It’s not that all men, or any man maybe a rapist, it’s that women need to be alert to the threat of all kinds of abusive behaviour from any man - known or unknown in any and all situations. You’re being obtuse Smac or wilfully misunderstanding. You’re hyper focused on one scenario, women are focused on every scenario, every interaction with a man. Even in a crowded area, women need to be alert, of course they don’t expect rape but there might be a comment or a wolf whistle or non consensual touching. Did that man who bumped into you do it on purpose? Will he follow you? Is he watching? I have been travelling on a crowded underground train and men have taken advantage of the proximity to touch my backside or rub against me. How do I know it wasn’t accidental? Because I’m not very tall and they had to reach down or around or they’ve moved closer. I went to view a property to rent, the only person there was the landlord’s son. I was alert to the situation, but, I was young and less confident and didn’t immediately walk away. I went in, he offered me the room if I slept with him! When I said no, he shut me in the kitchen and tried to grab me. I threatened him then and managed to get away, fortunately he didn’t follow me, probably because I made it clear I would hurt him. Even men you know can’t be trusted. Most women are killed by a man they know. I was friends with a man. I went with him in the car, just the two of us, on excursions. to me he was just a friend. he wanted to be more than a friend and when I turned him down, he became abusive. One time he came to my home, forced his way in and wouldn’t leave until our dog threatened him. I moved to another town for work, and didn’t give him my address. He tricked it out of a mutual acquaintance and came to the house. He wouldn’t leave until another man told him to. These are just a few of the instances of abuse from men. Now,I keep a physical distance as much as possible in most situations. It takes a long time and a lot of interactions before I stop thinking,in the back of my mind, how I may need to defend myself against a man I know. If I don’t know them, day or night, inside or outside, crowded or not, at the back of my mind is how to avoid abuse. I’m not frightened, I don’t avoid situations but I am wary. I shouldn’t have to be. So yes, Smac, if you walked past me in a crowded corridor, part of my mind would be assessing you and the risk you pose. I’d be amazed if most of the women you walk past, even the ones you know, who cheerily acknowledge you, don’t, on a sub conscious level, assess the risk you pose to them. It becomes ingrained,second nature, as automatic as breathing. Until men acknowledge that there is a problem with how men interact with women, women will continue to have to be wary and will continue to face abuse, violence and death at the hands of men. It’s not discrimination or prejudice, it’s a fact, its survival. None of the women I’ve interacted with have been a threat. Claiming its prejudice to say all men are potential threats, claiming its dependent on the situation, is condescending and mansplaining at its finest.

A further press release is likely soon! It was accidentally released early by LDS living, they have removed it but not before it made its way to a Facebook group I’m in. Apparently they hope to have the English version out in 2026 and worldwide by 2030. However, there will be a digital release of new songs in 2024. Also there will be only one book containing both children and adults hymns/songs!

I have just been reading this thread. But it’s late here and I need too go to bed! So I’ll revisit it tomorrow evening. I’m very familiar with the DBS so,if the guide linked to doesn’t provide answers, I’ll do my best to answer any questions.

Ah, yes, I misunderstood your point before and yes, you could say that. I think it depends on when one believes the RCC was formed. I’m going from hazy memory here btw! I was Protestant for 25 years but it’s been over 15 years since I left and I haven’t done any checking now! That said, I think the belief is, or was, that the nicene creed was determined by the church fathers when the early church was still one, catholic, apostolic church and that what became the RCC was one branch of a split in that unified church and over time, that branch became corrupt and lost its authority but that didn’t diminish the authority of the creed. A distinction was always made between what is now the Roman Catholic Church and the original early catholic church. So the RCC didn’t create the term, it was the catholic church that did and it’s that early unified church that has passed authority on to the Protestant denominations. (Many years ago, Protestant and Catholic would rarely work together, in the last couple decades, that has changed and things are much more ecumenical, with each group being much more accepting of the other, also, I’m only speaking of my experience in the UK). I don’t know if that’s where this gentleman is coming from or if he is happy to accept the authority of the RCC with regard to this. Like I said, it’s been a while since I was Protestant and beliefs could well have changed substantially! (what bluebell said!)

Yes,it’s catholic with a small c, meaning universal. It’s not the authority of the RCC but the authority of the early creeds and the fathers of the early church. They are, like the RCC, churches whose authority rests with the original Apostles and they claim the same unbroken line from Peter as the RCC. Protestant churches were, generally, about reforming practices and clarifying doctrines of the early RCC or Anglican Church and most claim the same early history as the RCC. And if they are Anglican or Anglican offshoots, then really they can’t even claim to be part of a reformation, they exist because Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope refused it! And the bible isn’t the sole authority. In practice, the local minister has a great deal of authority in what is done and how and in the interpretation of the bible. Plus most have bishops/archbishops or elders who determine, in councils, general doctrine and practice based on their interpretation of the bible and revelation. As a member of one denomination of the Protestant church, I was able to move to other denominations and be accepted as a member there without further baptism or confirmation because they all accept the nicene creed and thus all those denominations are considered as “one church”.

The term one holy catholic apostolic church comes from the Nicene Creed. It doesn’t refer to the Holy Roman Catholic Church exclusively, though it includes that church. It refers to one united global Church that follows Christ. In effect, Christianity. If you’re not part of that church, you’re not Christian. In the past, I’ve recited the phrase often as it’s part of the communion service of Methodists, it’s part of the creed recited during the service. I think it’s part of the confirmation service of the Methodists, baptists and congregationists, but it’s been a few years now since I took part in those services and my memory is hazy so that may be incorrect. In effect, this pastor is saying that we are not creedal Christians which, I believe, is correct. One reason I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!

The author is a Presbyterian pastor, presumably believing in an inerrant bible and a form of Calvinism.