Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, Scott, this thread turned into a "battle-of-the-sexes thing" some time ago.

"Mansplaining," despite being insulting and offensive to numerous male posters, is fine and dandy.

Further, members of the Church publicly slandering a stake president despite A) lacking information and context, B) lacking stewardship, C) violating clear counsel from general authorities (see, e.g., this excellent 1987 Ensign article by Elder Oaks) is likewise fine and dandy because . . . the dictionary.  Or something.  

However, a reference to "feminist dudgeon" will be first materially mis-read as "feminist dungeon" (what does that even mean?), which in turn will be declared to be a categorical slur against all women everywhere (um, what?).  And then when the error is caught, "feminist dudgeon" will also be declared to be a categorical slur against all women everywhere (again, what?). 

These are the . . . rules?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes these are the rules.

Wow.  "These are the rules."

Well, okay.  

...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand.

Yes, it sure seems that way, doesn't it?  Despite the objections of numerous men to the use of the term.  So their voices . . . don't matter?

We know that some of the mods are men, and also not all the male posters agree with those who find the use of the term mansplaining insulting.  So it seems more accurate to say that it seems like some posters' objections don't matter to mods, more so than trying to say that male voices don't matter.  The board seems to support the majority of male voices just fine.

Quote

So we should refrain from judgment because we lack context and information.  Is that your point?

My point is that I don't see the point in uselessly wasting time trying to come up with reasons for the mods behavior when there is no evidence to base those conclusions on.

Quote

I just wish it could have been applied to the stake president whose character and reputation has been slandered quite a bit in this thread.  After all, "there is no way to figure out exactly what the {stake president} meant," such that "{a}ny conclusions {about the stake president's conduct} will just be guessing."

When evidence has been provided that can be discussed and examined, I don't believe discussion is a waste of time.  

Quote

the mod gets the benefit of the doubt, but the stake president (who is not even on this board) does not?  Mormons are at liberty to slander the character and reputation of a stake president even though "there is no way to figure out exactly what the {stake president} meant?"  Is that how things are working on this board?

It seems like you are conflating two different topics.  Are you suggesting that disagreeing with the mods is comparable to disagreeing with the stake president?  That's a weird comparison.  Maybe i'm misunderstanding you though.    How is the 1) mods decisions about what is or isn't insulting language comparable to 2) disagreeing with a SP's decision to make obedience to his counsel an issue of apostasy?  

Quote

What are the rules?  Are there any?  You lack the time or interest to address these concerns, despite the fact that numerous posters have expressed them.  So be it.  Perhaps someone else will hear my voice and care enough to respond.

The rules are listed at the top of the board under "guidelines." 

Quote

 

"This issue" being . . . what?

"This topic" being . . . what?

-Smac

 

The topic of discussions that involve gender issues.  I've noticed that there are a few male posters who repeatedly come under condemnation by the mods whenever a conversation turns to gender issues.  And then there are other male posters who take part in those discussions but never have any trouble from the mods.  I'm suggesting maybe those male posters can give some guidance to the few male posters who struggle with discussing gender issues without being reported. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They can, they just don’t do it to the same extent.  Society and our culture has not trained women to believe they are more capable than men so we don’t have to fight against that conditioning as much. 

And like I said earlier, if someone is being condescending to another because they have been conditioned by society to believe (usually subconsciously) that they are more capable than that gender, pointing it out so they can re-evaluate their behavior is doing them a favor. 

Its silly to pretend that centuries of patriarchy in our society has not impacted each gender negatively.  Being an ostrich with its head in the sand helps no one. 

Sorry, but this smells too much like the odious “white male privilege” trope that is in vogue of late for it to be impressive to me. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 2/16/2018 at 9:36 AM, bluebell said:

THat's insane.  How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy.  

From the article, did you see this part, Disagree with me all you want, but to not follow council direction from your priesthood leaders there's a name for that that' called apostasy,” the stake president said.

 

Does it matter that her conducting as affecting - in a negative manner - the Ward?  Does it matter that she outright refused to cease the conduct that was negatively affecting the ward?

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know, Smac.  Sometimes I think people can over complicate things.  I try to choose not to be offended (but of course we all take offense at times).  I actually appreciate Juliann's straight forward approach (even if I disagree with her at times).

I don't find the word "mansplaining" to be demeaning....I honestly don't.  I believe it's a real thing and that it definitely takes place in conversations (less often than it used to, gratefully).  

How about choosing not to insist that someone put words in your mouth or misquoted you when, in fact, no such thing happened?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, why is it insulting to observe that a “class of people” — any class of people — gets indignant or resentful over one thing or another? Doesn’t that sometimes happen to feminists?

And apparently that wasn’t even the problem initially, as the phrase was misperceived — by the moderator, the one reporting the post, or both — as “feminist dungeon,” whatever that was supposed to mean. 

I'm not sure why I would need to explain to you why overgeneralization (a fallacy) is insulting.  It's seems obvious.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  "These are the rules."

Well, okay.  

I've been on this board since 2004.  But if "these are the rules," I think it is perhaps time to move on.

So, does anyone have any recommendations for another board?

Thanks,

-Smac

There's no better than this board, I especially love the large print format. Smac, just let this ride, there are other days how can you let one thread throw you for a loop?  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about choosing not to insist that someone put words in your mouth or misquoted you when, in fact, no such thing happened?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the post you responded to (?)....but, it looks like you agreed with me:

Quote

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, provoman said:

Ok so we expand the gender-phobic pejorative to include what you have just presented.

Your addition makes it all the more gender-phobic pejorative ment to silence. Your addition also requires   assumptions that are gender-biased within themselves. Your addition requires - without proof that a male who dared speak did simply because the audience was female. The term is a pejorative and it is ment as an insult.

So how about we stop using pejoratives and het back to topic?

 

Does it matter to you that someone outright to refused to cease conduct that was damaging a ward?

Men are the only ones using it now from what I can see. If the complaining continues it will be a thread ban. 

I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, provoman said:

From the article, did you see this part, Disagree with me all you want, but to not follow council direction from your priesthood leaders there's a name for that that' called apostasy,” the stake president said.

 

Does it matter that her conducting as affecting - in a negative manner - the Ward?  Does it matter that she outright refused to cease the conduct that was negatively affecting the ward?

I'm just going off of the words of the SP.  He said that he was removing her temple recommend because she was not being obedient to him and disobedience to him was apostasy.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure why I would need to explain to you why overgeneralization (a fallacy) is insulting.  It's seems obvious.  

I quite agree.  Gender-based overgeneralizations are indeed both fallacious and obviously insulting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't even know it was me that was called a "feminist dungeon" or other, before today, haha! So I know I didn't report it. In all the years I've been a member of this board I've never reported a soul. :)

I don’t see that you were called a dungeon or a dudgeon. And don’t doubt your word that you’ve never reported anyone. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anyone who doesn't believe that white male privilege exists is in serious denial.

"I'm not sure why I would need to explain to you why overgeneralization (a fallacy) is insulting.  It's seems obvious."

Do you see any discrepancy between the above two statements?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  Gender-based overgeneralizations are indeed obviously insulting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then we completely agree.  But, I thought that you had posted earlier disagreeing that using the term feminist dudgeon was actually an insult.  Did I misunderstand that earlier post? 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm just going off of the words of the SP.  He said that he was removing her temple recommend because she was not being obedient to him and disobedience to him was apostasy.  

Hmm, that is not what you have posted, and it is not what was quoted.

On 2/16/2018 at 9:36 AM, bluebell said:

THat's insane.  How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy.  

 

On 2/16/2018 at 9:45 AM, bluebell said:

It's not too much to expect that church leaders are mature enough to know that not agreeing with their counsel is not the same as opposition to the leaders of the church.  This story is crazy.  

 

On 2/16/2018 at 9:46 AM, bluebell said:

Like i said, if church leaders are interpreting this to mean that members can't disagree with their counsel, then the church is in more trouble than any of us realize.

You repeatedly pushed an agenda that was ignored basic facts of the first post of this thread.  The SP clearly is quoted that disagreement is allowed.

Again, does it matter that she refused to refrain from behavior that was having a negative affect on the ward?

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
1 minute ago, provoman said:

Hmm, that is not what you have posted, and it is not what was quoted.

 

 

You repeatedly pushed an agenda that was ignored the basic facts of the first post of this thread.  The SP clearly is quoted that disagreement is allowed.

Again, does it matter that she refused to refrain from behavior that was having a negative affect on the ward?

I'm sorry, it's really hard to take this post seriously.  Next time i will try to be more clear.  She did not obey his counsel because she disagreed with it.  If she had agreed with it, she would have done it. Saying that she wasn't being disciplined for not agreeing with him is a distinction without a difference.  

But to answer your question, no I don't believe that behaving in ways that has a negative affect on a ward equals apostasy.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the post you responded to (?)....but, it looks like you agreed with me:

 

I didn’t agree with you, and you know it. Suggesting what you ought to have said to come closer to the truth is neither misquoting you nor putting words in your mouth. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry, it's really hard to take this post seriously.  Next time i will try to be more clear.  She did not obey his counsel because she disagreed with it.  If she had agreed with it, she would have done it. Saying that she wasn't being disciplined for not agreeing with him is a distinction without a difference.  

But to answer your question, no I don't believe that behaving in ways that has a negative affect on a ward equals apostasy.

So it is ok to misrepresent the facts?
 

But your response is a cop-out. People do many things they do not agree with. People do not do many things they agree.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see that you were called a dungeon or a dudgeon. And don’t doubt your word that you’ve never reported anyone. 

Well I was one of many females that Kiwi was referring to I guess. Or maybe I read it wrong.

What is up with posters on here using words that are not even practical to use, or words that are so rarely used they might as well be in a "Balderdash" game. ;)

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm just going off of the words of the SP.  He said that he was removing her temple recommend because she was not being obedient to him and disobedience to him was apostasy.  

I think the following: 

1. The SP brought her in on a referral from the Bishop. 

2. During one or more sessions with the SP and/or the Bishop, the instant media attention seeker was given specific counsel and advice. 

3. When she ignored or was defiant [or both] in the face of that counsel and advice, the SP measuredly demanded she surrender her temple recommend, at least in part, as penance for the behavior leading to the SP referral and/or for her ignoring or being defiant to the counsel and advice.

4. Thereupon the instant media attention seeker sought media attention.

5. No priesthood disciplinary council has been invoked.

This much we either know or may safely infer from the information published by the instant media attention seeker. 

A Bishop or SP may, without invoking a council, impose certain measured acts of penance.  Surrendering the temple recommend for a time is one of these.  Withholding the sacrament for a time is one of these.  Neither a SP nor a Bishop exceeds authority by imposing such acts of penance.  And when one seeks guidance through prayer and an invocation of divine response, the penitent really ought not to ignore it or be defiant towards it.

This SP by all appearances is not demanding obedience to himself.  Personalizing this in this way, as has been done by several posters in this thread, is a mistake.  He seeks guidance [we must assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary], and the penance arrived at is G-d's voice through His servant.  It is thus obedience to G-d that the instant media attention seeker ignores or defies.

The Bishop or SP is tasked with engaging in a collaborative solution to a specific problem.  In this case the discrete problem is the instant media attention seeker's behavior which led to the SP referral in the first place.  If a congregant is defiant towards or ignores the counsel of the Bishop or SP, no effective collaboration is possible.  Being defiant towards or ignoring Bishop or SP counsel on a matter of penitence is fundamentally wrong for a Saint.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...