Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23,066 Excellent

About bluebell

  • Rank
    Creates Worlds Without Number
  • Birthday 10/26/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

7,833 profile views
  1. From my perspective it's mose like: a. Certainty that one-on-one interviews have caused harm, and b. Certainty that one-on-one interviews have helped someone, So there is no question of certainty over hope from my perspective. Both options have potential to be bad (and have certainly been bad in some cases) and both options have potential to be good (and have certainly been good in some cases). And that's why I like the church's current option where youth can choose one-on-one interviews if they want, but can also ask that someone else go in with them. And parents can request to attend interviews as well (though in cases where parents are abusive, that can cause it's own harm, but there isn't really any way around that).
  2. I get it. Reasonable people will always disagree about how best to deal with these kinds of issues.
  3. My bishop has told everyone that if they don't take the training by the 22nd (the deadline given by the church) that they will be released (as per instructions from the stake). That has helped a little bit. People mean well, but it just becomes one more thing to do that's easy to put off.
  4. Has anyone come forward from his ward with allegations or accusations?
  5. Some thoughts: 1. We're not having this discussion on Meadowchic's website though so I'm not sure that what is happening over there is relevant to us over here. I agree that there are less-effective places to have certain types of discussions; we can make sure we aren't having them at such places while still having them in places that can be more effective, like hopefully on this website. 2. We have been specifically told not to write letters to the church, and also told that if we do, they will be sent back to our stake president. Given that, I'm not sure how 'write a letter' is a valid answer to the question of how do we tell the church about our issues. 3. Meadowchic is providing examples of people who are claiming to have been hurt by bishops and how the hurt came to be. If the stories are true they aren't disparaging or badmouthing, they are honest. Now, i'm not saying that we have a duty to assume they are true. I'm only saying that just because someone says something negative about a bishop, it's not automatically disparaging. We don't have enough information to judge either way (and thankfully, we don't have to or need to). 4. I agree. That's why I leave them alone for the most part. I'm not going to risk calling good evil, or evil good, by judging random experiences published on the internet. That doesn't mean though that I'm not going to discuss the issue as it pertains to experiences that I can verify or collaborate. Some bathwater is sketchy and needs to go, but the baby's still in there and shouldn't be ignored.
  6. That's what I was thinking. I think you have to get the number from a leader though.
  7. I remember being told that anyone can call that hotline, but I can't remember where I heard that from. @Calm, does that sound familiar to you?
  8. We haven't had any issues on Sundays yet because all of the sisters in the RS are always so excited to go and sit in with the YW that I just go in there and say that I need an extra sister and then let them duke it out among themselves on who gets to do it. In our stake, we also don't have to have two adults in each car, we just have to make sure that's it's never one-on-one with a girl. Having to have two adults in each car would be very difficult and I know that some stakes do require that. We still give girls a ride home but if it's not feasible for the last two left to be dropped off together in a central location near both of their houses (which usually only works in Utah wards) then we'll have another leader hop in the car and do the drop-offs together. Kind of a pain but so far it hasn't been too bad. But I completely agree with your assessment. There will be good things lost with these new rules, there's no way around that. They protect the majority but they don't address the things that used to happen that helped the minority. Would it be possible for you to still text the girls who need it but add a leader or a parent to make it a group text (asking them not to respond but that they are being included for safety reasons?).
  9. I agree with the bolded statement. Has anyone here implied that we should construed them as such though? I could have missed it, but if that hasn't been implied, then we don't really need to spend a lot of time talking about how it shouldn't be implied. Let's focus on things that we do need to talk about. I agree with the underlined statement very much. God knew that too, even when He gave us D&C 121:37. I have only ever had wonderful bishops, but not everyone has had that experience. When leaders abuse their priesthood authority it can cause a tremendous amount of harm. All the wonderful amazing godly bishops in the world can't change or negate that. As to the italicized statement, a bishop's discretion doesn't need to be near plenary to still cause harm or to exercise unrighteous dominion or authority. Please provide the means on how we do that. How do we present issues to 'the church'? That is the title of the thread, but it's not the topic of the thread. The topic of thread is evaluating Jana Reiss' evidence for the article she wrote where she made that statement. Many posters have called her out for her use of that phrase. Sure, but trying to provide that as a reason not to ever apply the term comes across like deflection. That some invalid accusations are made does not mean that it's that the majority of accusations are vague, ambiguous, and impediments, nor that accusations shouldn't be discussed. That hasn't been my experience on here. I can't think of any threads on the subject that have devolved into gossip/backbiting/faultfinding. (further, the definitions of gossip/backbiting/faultfinding are ambiguous, vague, and often enough misapplied that someone could easily argue that they become useless as accusations against others. They are certainly no more useful, as far as accusations go, than the term "ecclesiastical abuse" is, so if you want to argue that one shouldn't be used we probably shouldn't use the others either). In my experience, when things start to go that way there is a lot of pushback against it. We can see that happening even here, where Meadowchic is probably getting more pushback for some of the examples that she has shared than support. Can you provide examples in this thread that show that the discussion as a whole hasn't been reasonable in intent?
  10. I agree with Cal, I don't think the responses to that story have anything to do with gender. It's an incredible story that is difficult to believe and I don't think that would change if it had happened to a guy. (I don't think that Meadow made it up though, but I still question it's accuracy).
  11. Not if we want to remain in good standing in the church. Well, we are talking to bishops because some bishops post here, but hopefully this discussion doesn't stop here but continues in places where other bishops can take part. It shouldn't be an either/or narrative. And we can't really present issues to 'the church,' so no one can be faulted for not doing something that's essentially impossible. And I disagree that this thread is about disparaging and badmouthing the church and local leaders. Some examples of local leaders have been brought up, but that is because such examples are always asked for. We can believe them or not, but it isn't the topic and hasn't ever been the topic though. Have you ever been in a discussion trying to talk about possible solutions to the harms caused by porn and the discussion gets bogged down in trying to define what pornography actually is? Some discussions are difficult to have, and there will always be people trying to deflect or going to extremes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. Often.
  12. But obviously those kind of offenses are not the only kind of abuse out there, otherwise the warning in D&C and the consequence of of 'amen to the priesthood of that man' would be unnecessary. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, and imply that priesthood holders never use their callings to exercise control, dominion, or compulsion. God knew they would do that, and that's why we have those verses in D&C. The lack of civil authority really doesn't have any relevance when we are talking about abusing their priesthood authority. Everything, even the Atonement of Christ, is susceptible to becoming weaponized though. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it's real impact and consequences in our lives.
  13. Do you think that those verse in the D&C are talking about exercising control or dominion or compulsion in regards to civil authority? Because I don't, and if they aren't, then the fact that bishop's have no civil authority has no bearing whatsoever on their (and other leaders) ability to exercise control, dominion, and compulsion. I also have to ask, do you think that these verses in the D&C are 'vague and ambiguous and subjection and hard to apply in any coherent, meaningful way'?
  • Create New...