Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Church statement on Equality Act

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Fairness for All"* is a political strategy based on the 2015 "Utah Compromise" which remains the only statewide SOGI law enacted over the last seven years.** An opposing strategy which is not oppression in the vaguest sense: protect the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom while also protecting basic civil rights for LGBT persons through congressional act. Opposing the EA while maintaining that bias and strategy is not a matter of oppression as the Constitution is upheld while the act expands the protected class.

* https://world.wng.org/sites/default/files/assets/NAEBoardResolution_0.pdf

** https://world.wng.org/2018/12/boards_back_sogi_compromise

As shown in expressing her voice and support for the Utah Compromise, I think the Church's "bias" continues to be for "wise policymakers to end this destructive conflict and protect the rights of all Americans" and "encourage mutually respectful dialogue and outcomes." It is most worthy of emulation.

 

I don’t share in the great adoration that many have for the Church’s support of the 2015 “Utah Compromise”.  It granted basic civil rights protections to the LGBTQ population while protecting the Church’s right to discriminate against them.  I don’t see that as particularly impressive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t share in the great adoration that many have for the Church’s support of the 2015 “Utah Compromise”.  It granted basic civil rights protections to the LGBTQ population while protecting the Church’s right to discriminate against them.  I don’t see that as particularly impressive.

I would say a more accurate description is that it basic civil rights protections to every LGBTQ individual in Utah while protecting every FBO in Utah those same exemptions granted under the RFRA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I wanted to post this on the other thread that is. now closed.  Too bad, It is a shame.  Because I agree with Scott, I think it was a very worthwhile topic that was being discussed in a very fair and even handed way.   And I wanted to thank all who participated in trying to understand this very emotional and volatile issue. These threads don't always go well.  And at one time, I was ready to abandon my participation.  But there were enough posters that I felt were asking sincere questions and looking for understanding.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I still wanted to post it because I think it has value.  I also think that it does address the claims the Church makes concerning being respectful to both sides.  Since it is not on topic.  I am not going do any followup comments.  It is just ment to give members something to think about in how language is used and why.  I had this all written out before the thread was post.  I thought it would still be worth posting

I get the point Scott and Klindley are trying to make about the usage of the term having SSA.  And I understand the reasons why the Church is hesitant to use the term gay.

BUT (yeah you know there would be a but) I believe this is THE CORE of the problem with the position you and the Church take.  This whole notion that if you identify as gay. then that means you are "living the lifestyle" whatever that means.  It is wrong to judge every person who identifies as gay as being immoral. It is like judging every 20 year old as someone who sleeps around.  And it is untrue.

When I came out to my family, one of the reasons they abandoned me is because they literally thought that just because I was gay, I was going to be swallowed up into "the gay lifestyle" and I would never see them again.   I would abandon my children.  I would never pay my former wife a dime of alimony.  And I would abandon any family contact with them.  (It is ironic that it was them that chose to do that very thing to me.). Where did they get this idea from?  I have always lived up to my commitments.  I have never not paid to anyone what was owed them.  I loved my children.  I am a good dad.  Why would they even think this?  Where did it come from?  

None of their assumptions turned out to be true.  And they acknowledged that eventually and even apologized to me.  In their minds, anyone who identifies as being gay must mean certain assumptions.  There are some posters who quote statistics showing the very worse of the gay community. as if we are all to be judged by the very worse of those that are gay.  Several times, on this very thread, it once again has reared it's ugly head.  Does anyone say anything?  Or do posters support those kinds of post as proof that if you are LGBT, then you probably are mentally ill, like USU78 posted on this page.  No one objects because this fits the narrative that they want to believe, the narrative the Church has created.  

Or how about this statement by Stormrider.(Emphasis mine)

Quote

I think the resistance to using other terms, such as gay, is due to the meaning of such term. It demands certain assumptions are accepted of those who use it exclusively. 

 

 Does identifying gay demand certain assumptions?  Perhaps by the Church and some members, but is that fair?  And what are those "certain assumptions'?

Or how about this assertion by Wade Englund from anotehr thread that gay marriage took away unique and equal value of women?

Quote

However, the most serious blow to the notion of unique and equal value of women, came from gay men by way of the same-sex marriage movement, which took the ongoing devaluation of women in the workplace and public sphere,  right on into the one space that women had traditionally been held up as having particularly unique, if not greater value in some respects--i.e. the family and home. It was argued, and questionable studies commissioned for support, that two men were as capable as a man and a woman in rightly raising children. Women became expendable in the one domain where they were once considered not expendable.  

 

Women became expendable?  All because of the gays? He got two rep points for that.  

Where do members get this idea to demonize "the gays"?  Why does the Church refuse to acknowledge that you can be gay and still be celibate.  Instead they use langage to avoid the use of the word gay.  You have SSA.  You are not one of those gays.  The Church is willing to call it's members even terms that are offensive to the LGBT community in order to avoid the term G A Y.  This kind of judgement and attitude toward the gay community can be very hurtful and destructive not only to those that are trying to figure out what that means in their lives, but to their families as well. To some extent, it is what is causing these individuals and their families to question whether they can be a part of the church.  Whether there is room for them?  When you make the term gay so unacceptable that you have to use termonalogy that many find offensive and not care that it does, where does it put these individuals and their families?

Just something to think about to those who insist no matter the bad feelings it creates to hold on to the term having SSA for the sole reason to avoid the term gay.

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I would say a more accurate description is that it basic civil rights protections to every LGBTQ individual in Utah while protecting every FBO in Utah those same exemptions granted under the RFRA.

Is it every FBO or every faith-based FBO?  Just wondering.

Either way, like I said, I don't find it to be particularly impressive.  Support for a law that offers you the same protections as it offers the other guy doesn't give you any moral high ground.  And they only came around to it after losing a hard fought battle against marriage equality.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, california boy said:

I wanted to post this on the other thread that is. now closed.  Too bad, It is a shame.  Because I agree with Scott, I think it was a very worthwhile topic that was being discussed in a very fair and even handed way.   And I wanted to thank all who participated in trying to understand this very emotional and volatile issue. These threads don't always go well.  And at one time, I was ready to abandon my participation.  But there were enough posters that I felt were asking sincere questions and looking for understanding.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I still wanted to post it because I think it has value.  I also think that it does address the claims the Church makes concerning being respectful to both sides.  Since it is not on topic.  I am not going do any followup comments.  It is just ment to give members something to think about in how language is used and why.  I had this all written out before the thread was post.  I thought it would still be worth posting

I get the point Scott and Klindley are trying to make about the usage of the term having SSA.  And I understand the reasons why the Church is hesitant to use the term gay.

BUT (yeah you know there would be a but) I believe this is THE CORE of the problem with the position you and the Church take.  This whole notion that if you identify as gay. then that means you are "living the lifestyle" whatever that means.  It is wrong to judge every person who identifies as gay as being immoral. It is like judging every 20 year old as someone who sleeps around.  And it is untrue.

When I came out to my family, one of the reasons they abandoned me is because they literally thought that just because I was gay, I was going to be swallowed up into "the gay lifestyle" and I would never see them again.   I would abandon my children.  I would never pay my former wife a dime of alimony.  And I would abandon any family contact with them.  (It is ironic that it was them that chose to do that very thing to me.). Where did they get this idea from?  I have always lived up to my commitments.  I have never not paid to anyone what was owed them.  I loved my children.  I am a good dad.  Why would they even think this?  Where did it come from?  

None of their assumptions turned out to be true.  And they acknowledged that eventually and even apologized to me.  In their minds, anyone who identifies as being gay must mean certain assumptions.  There are some posters who quote statistics showing the very worse of the gay community. as if we are all to be judged by the very worse of those that are gay.  Several times, on this very thread, it once again has reared it's ugly head.  Does anyone say anything?  Or do posters support those kinds of post as proof that if you are LGBT, then you probably are mentally ill, like USU78 posted on this page.  No one objects because this fits the narrative that they want to believe, the narrative the Church has created.  

Or how about this statement by Stormrider.(Emphasis mine)

 Does identifying gay demand certain assumptions?  Perhaps by the Church and some members, but is that fair?  And what are those "certain assumptions'?

Or how about this assertion by Wade Englund from anotehr thread that gay marriage took away unique and equal value of women?

Women became expendable?  All because of the gays? He got two rep points for that.  

Where do members get this idea to demonize "the gays"?  Why does the Church refuse to acknowledge that you can be gay and still be celibate.  Instead they use langage to avoid the use of the word gay.  You have SSA.  You are not one of those gays.  The Church is willing to call it's members even terms that are offensive to the LGBT community in order to avoid the term G A Y.  This kind of judgement and attitude toward the gay community can be very hurtful and destructive not only to those that are trying to figure out what that means in their lives, but to their families as well. To some extent, it is what is causing these individuals and their families to question whether they can be a part of the church.  Whether there is room for them?  When you make the term gay so unacceptable that you have to use termonalogy that many find offensive and not care that it does, where does it put these individuals and their families?

Just something to think about to those who insist no matter the bad feelings it creates to hold on to the term having SSA for the sole reason to avoid the term gay.

 

Great point, @california boy

I've been told quite a few times on this site that using "gay" implies that the individual is "acting on it".  I was shocked the first time I heard that.  I've always thought of gay as describing one's sexual orientation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I wanted to post this on the other thread that is. now closed.  Too bad, It is a shame.  Because I agree with Scott, I think it was a very worthwhile topic that was being discussed in a very fair and even handed way.   And I wanted to thank all who participated in trying to understand this very emotional and volatile issue. These threads don't always go well.  And at one time, I was ready to abandon my participation.  But there were enough posters that I felt were asking sincere questions and looking for understanding.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I still wanted to post it because I think it has value.  I also think that it does address the claims the Church makes concerning being respectful to both sides.  Since it is not on topic.  I am not going do any followup comments.  It is just ment to give members something to think about in how language is used and why.  I had this all written out before the thread was post.  I thought it would still be worth posting

I get the point Scott and Klindley are trying to make about the usage of the term having SSA.  And I understand the reasons why the Church is hesitant to use the term gay.

BUT (yeah you know there would be a but) I believe this is THE CORE of the problem with the position you and the Church take.  This whole notion that if you identify as gay. then that means you are "living the lifestyle" whatever that means.  It is wrong to judge every person who identifies as gay as being immoral. It is like judging every 20 year old as someone who sleeps around.  And it is untrue.

When I came out to my family, one of the reasons they abandoned me is because they literally thought that just because I was gay, I was going to be swallowed up into "the gay lifestyle" and I would never see them again.   I would abandon my children.  I would never pay my former wife a dime of alimony.  And I would abandon any family contact with them.  (It is ironic that it was them that chose to do that very thing to me.). Where did they get this idea from?  I have always lived up to my commitments.  I have never not paid to anyone what was owed them.  I loved my children.  I am a good dad.  Why would they even think this?  Where did it come from?  

None of their assumptions turned out to be true.  And they acknowledged that eventually and even apologized to me.  In their minds, anyone who identifies as being gay must mean certain assumptions.  There are some posters who quote statistics showing the very worse of the gay community. as if we are all to be judged by the very worse of those that are gay.  Several times, on this very thread, it once again has reared it's ugly head.  Does anyone say anything?  Or do posters support those kinds of post as proof that if you are LGBT, then you probably are mentally ill, like USU78 posted on this page.  No one objects because this fits the narrative that they want to believe, the narrative the Church has created.  

Or how about this statement by Stormrider.(Emphasis mine)

 Does identifying gay demand certain assumptions?  Perhaps by the Church and some members, but is that fair?  And what are those "certain assumptions'?

Or how about this assertion by Wade Englund from anotehr thread that gay marriage took away unique and equal value of women?

Women became expendable?  All because of the gays? He got two rep points for that.  

Where do members get this idea to demonize "the gays"?  Why does the Church refuse to acknowledge that you can be gay and still be celibate.  Instead they use langage to avoid the use of the word gay.  You have SSA.  You are not one of those gays.  The Church is willing to call it's members even terms that are offensive to the LGBT community in order to avoid the term G A Y.  This kind of judgement and attitude toward the gay community can be very hurtful and destructive not only to those that are trying to figure out what that means in their lives, but to their families as well. To some extent, it is what is causing these individuals and their families to question whether they can be a part of the church.  Whether there is room for them?  When you make the term gay so unacceptable that you have to use termonalogy that many find offensive and not care that it does, where does it put these individuals and their families?

Just something to think about to those who insist no matter the bad feelings it creates to hold on to the term having SSA for the sole reason to avoid the term gay.

 

I don't think you do understand that I've tried to say. One of your last comments implied I was comparing childhood experimentation with sexual orientation.  Not even close. The 6% is adults in last 12 months. Not ever. But that is even less meaningful to me. I'm talking about the 20% who say they are attracted to the same sex compared with the 2% who say they are gay. That means 90% of people who are attracted to the same sex don't identify as gay. 

There are assumptions packaged in the word gay, not from the Church. I don't think anyone is talking about assumptions about the person. I certainly am not. I'm talking about assumptions about the nature of sexual orientation. Is it fixed? Do most teens who identify as gay understand that they are more likely later identify as bisexual or even straight? That is what research shows, but I don't believe most people realize that. Do most people who use the term gay exclusively accept the scientific consensus that sexual orientation is the result of a combination of environmental and biological factors, or do they believe people are born gay?   Those are the kinds of assumptions and baggage I'm talking about, not assuming people are sexually active. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, california boy said:

Or do posters support those kinds of post as proof that if you are LGBT, then you probably are mentally ill, like USU78 posted on this page.  No one objects because this fits the narrative that they want to believe, the narrative the Church has created.  

I point out the fact that mental illness**** cannot be applied to the whole group when USU or anyone else does this given it is a small minority of the group.  I think these types of argument are reprehensible (small minority's difficulties or worse attributes applied to the whole).  I have done this in the past and intend to do it in the future.  My memory is others generally protest as well (search function is poor, so I can't show this), but perhaps they were trying to avoid the derailment this time around.  It moved on relatively quickly with USU changing his position to a broader accusation which was based on speculation I saw as useless to engage as there was no way to prove or disprove it unlike claims of mental illness applied to the whole group.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71870-“why-not-say-you’re-gay”-choosing-a-self-identifier/?do=findComment&comment=1209906654

Is it really appropriate in your view to apply what a few do to the whole?  Isn't this part of what you dislike in USU's post, extrapolating from a few to the whole?

It would probably help if everyone stopped stopped assuming motives for others, whether in conversations like this or applied to activist groups, church members, etc.

I know enough people who identify as gay and who are celibate or married in an opposite sex marriage, I don't assume identifying as gay means actively engaging in same sex romantic or sexual relationships.  I don't feel comfortable using "gay" as a global descriptor for anyone who has expressed attraction to the same sex because I keep seeing research and commentary that show many do not identify as "gay" and even actively reject that identifier. I think Daniel's post in the other thread summarizes the situation well.

****And having a history of mental illness does not equate to being irrational in all or most or even a few categories anyway...depends on the person, so it is a crap argument to dismiss other people's arguments based on that.  I would be eliminated myself from discussions if that were true given my history of panic attacks and chronic depression and anxiety.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t share in the great adoration that many have for the Church’s support of the 2015 “Utah Compromise”.  It granted basic civil rights protections to the LGBTQ population while protecting the Church’s right to discriminate against them.  I don’t see that as particularly impressive.

I'm not crazy about it either, though for different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Is it every FBO or every faith-based FBO?  Just wondering.

Either way, like I said, I don't find it to be particularly impressive.  Support for a law that offers you the same protections as it offers the other guy doesn't give you any moral high ground.  And they only came around to it after losing a hard fought battle against marriage equality.

This sounds far more like what you said the newsroom article sounds like than the newsroom article does!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, california boy said:

I wanted to post this on the other thread that is. now closed.  Too bad, It is a shame.  Because I agree with Scott, I think it was a very worthwhile topic that was being discussed in a very fair and even handed way.   And I wanted to thank all who participated in trying to understand this very emotional and volatile issue. These threads don't always go well.  And at one time, I was ready to abandon my participation.  But there were enough posters that I felt were asking sincere questions and looking for understanding.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I still wanted to post it because I think it has value.  I also think that it does address the claims the Church makes concerning being respectful to both sides.  Since it is not on topic.  I am not going do any followup comments.  It is just ment to give members something to think about in how language is used and why.  I had this all written out before the thread was post.  I thought it would still be worth posting

I get the point Scott and Klindley are trying to make about the usage of the term having SSA.  And I understand the reasons why the Church is hesitant to use the term gay.

BUT (yeah you know there would be a but) I believe this is THE CORE of the problem with the position you and the Church take.  This whole notion that if you identify as gay. then that means you are "living the lifestyle" whatever that means.  It is wrong to judge every person who identifies as gay as being immoral. It is like judging every 20 year old as someone who sleeps around.  And it is untrue.

When I came out to my family, one of the reasons they abandoned me is because they literally thought that just because I was gay, I was going to be swallowed up into "the gay lifestyle" and I would never see them again.   I would abandon my children.  I would never pay my former wife a dime of alimony.  And I would abandon any family contact with them.  (It is ironic that it was them that chose to do that very thing to me.). Where did they get this idea from?  I have always lived up to my commitments.  I have never not paid to anyone what was owed them.  I loved my children.  I am a good dad.  Why would they even think this?  Where did it come from?  

None of their assumptions turned out to be true.  And they acknowledged that eventually and even apologized to me.  In their minds, anyone who identifies as being gay must mean certain assumptions.  There are some posters who quote statistics showing the very worse of the gay community. as if we are all to be judged by the very worse of those that are gay.  Several times, on this very thread, it once again has reared it's ugly head.  Does anyone say anything?  Or do posters support those kinds of post as proof that if you are LGBT, then you probably are mentally ill, like USU78 posted on this page.  No one objects because this fits the narrative that they want to believe, the narrative the Church has created.  

Or how about this statement by Stormrider.(Emphasis mine)

 Does identifying gay demand certain assumptions?  Perhaps by the Church and some members, but is that fair?  And what are those "certain assumptions'?

Or how about this assertion by Wade Englund from anotehr thread that gay marriage took away unique and equal value of women?

Women became expendable?  All because of the gays? He got two rep points for that.  

Where do members get this idea to demonize "the gays"?  Why does the Church refuse to acknowledge that you can be gay and still be celibate.  Instead they use langage to avoid the use of the word gay.  You have SSA.  You are not one of those gays.  The Church is willing to call it's members even terms that are offensive to the LGBT community in order to avoid the term G A Y.  This kind of judgement and attitude toward the gay community can be very hurtful and destructive not only to those that are trying to figure out what that means in their lives, but to their families as well. To some extent, it is what is causing these individuals and their families to question whether they can be a part of the church.  Whether there is room for them?  When you make the term gay so unacceptable that you have to use termonalogy that many find offensive and not care that it does, where does it put these individuals and their families?

Just something to think about to those who insist no matter the bad feelings it creates to hold on to the term having SSA for the sole reason to avoid the term gay.

I wasn't part of that thread, but I would not recommend the weaponizing of any label whether verbally, socially, economically/politically, etc. (e.g. "any manner of -ites") because it runs against being "one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God." As far as the EA, I would use whatever label(s) facilitates simplification and compromise in resolving a complex, multi-layered problem through legislation (and it requires far more than just legislation).

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This sounds far more like what you said the newsroom article sounds like than the newsroom article does!

If you are someone who finds the Church worthy of adulation for its role in the 2015 “Utah Compromise”, then I would anticipate you would also see the Church’s statement on the Equality Act as worthy of praise. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/17/2019 at 12:03 AM, Wade Englund said:

While you are processing my last post, please permit me one more example of how subsequent "equal rights" initiatives have undermined the women's movement.

At the core of feminism, at least in its early days, was the rightful objective to elevate the value of women in society from second class status to equal that of men. It was argued that women offer unique talents, perspectives, and insight that were/are just as beneficial as the same that were/are unique to men. And, on this rational basis, it was convincingly argued that women should be allowed to vote and to hold public offices and own property and participate in and run businesses, etc., thereby expanding the roles of women.

Yet, in later waves of feminism, the notion of unique but equal value of women began to be supplanted with the notion that women and men are the same--i.e. they are equal in that they are not different in talents, perspectives, insights, etc.. It was argued that women should be equally represented in public offices and business, not because they add unique value, but because it is their right. In other words, women's equality of value was stepped on or crushed by women's "equal rights."

Whether intended or not, this new notion devalued women.  No longer were they assessed on their admirable individual merits, but rather on government enforced group classification. 

If interested, there is scientific evidence for what I suggest:

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

It is an hour long...time stamp for scientific evidence please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

It is an hour long...time stamp for scientific evidence please.

No, that's okay. The video isn't really designed that way. Its intent is to introduce the scientist and provide brief context for her work on the topic, and not to lay down an exhaustive analysis and support. . So, the bulk of the scientific evidence isn't in the video but in the authors books., and what little there is, is scattered throughout. I posted the video to provide an avenue of self education to follow if people are interested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

She is a relationship coach and author of popular books, so how do we know her science is rigorous?

https://www.suzannevenker.com/

First thing you see on her website

"I free women from feminist lies so they can find lasting love with men".

There is nothing listing any scientific training on her website.  This is her "about" on her website.

Quote

Suzanne Venker stems from a long line of women trailblazers and activists, a group that’s typically associated with feminist thinkers. But the women in Suzanne’s family weren’t feminists. While they were highly accomplished, professional women, they were, first and foremost, wives and mothers whose conservative, or classically liberal, ideals underpinned their worldview.

As a result, Suzanne grew up with a view of women and men that was decidedly different from the status quo. First and foremost, she was not taught that American women are oppressed by the so-called patriarchy. On the contrary, she knew women could do whatever they set their minds to because the women in her family proved it in spades.

Second, Suzanne was not taught that women who took time out of their professional lives to raise a family were letting down the Sisterhood. On the contrary, she was taught that nothing in life is more important or valuable than raising children.

Third, Suzanne was not taught to view men as the enemy. On the contrary, most men are a woman’s greatest asset for those who understand the male psyche and how vastly different it is from women’s.

This countercultural worldview made Suzanne’s understanding of sex and dating, marriage and motherhood, work and family refreshingly different and resulted in her success in all of these domains. She believes strongly that women today are misled when it comes to these issues and has thus made it her mission to fight feminist narratives that undermine women’s happiness.

Suzanne’s message is not only inspiring, it’s empowering, for it helps women embrace their inherent self-worth rather than feel the need to prove their value to men and to society or become a man’s “equal,” as feminists repeatedly insist women do.

Suzanne is a columnist at the Washington Examiner, as well as an occasional Fox News contributor. She also contributes to The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and PJ Media. Suzanne's 2012 article, “The War on Men,” is one of Fox News’ most read op-eds in history.

Suzanne’s work has appeared in publications such as Time, USA Today, Parents and the New York Post and has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Atlantic, Forbes, The Huffington Post and London’s Daily Mail.

Her TV credits include Fox & Friends, STOSSEL, The View, CNN, ABC and more. She has appeared on hundreds of radio programs throughout the country, and her work has been featured on “The Dr. Laura Program,” “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and “The Rush Limbaugh Show.”

A former middle school English teacher, Suzanne was born in St. Louis, MO, and graduated from Boston University in 1990. After ten years on the East Coast, where after college she made the unfortunate decision to marry the wrong man and subsequently learned what not to do in love, Suzanne returned to the Midwest, where she now lives with her husband of 21 years and their two teenagers, one of whom is in college.

She is not a scientist.

This is how she qualifies to be a coach...because people write her emails.

Quote

I get a lot of emails from readers who are struggling in their marriage or relationship. Unfortunately, the help an individual or couple needs can rarely be answered in a series of back-and forth-emails—nor does time permit me to help people using that mode of communication. For this reason, I now offer coaching for individuals who are struggling in their marriage or relationship and for couples whose marriage feels “stuck” in a negative cycle and may even be headed for divorce.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

She is a relationship coach and author of popular books, so how do we know her science is rigorous?

https://www.suzannevenker.com/

First thing you see on her website

"I free women from feminist lies so they can find lasting love with men".

There is nothing listing any scientific training on her website.  This is her "about" on her website.

She is not a scientist.

This is how she qualifies to be a coach...because people write her emails.

 

Some may ask, "how knoweth this woman letters, having never learned?" Or, how can she be called a scientist if she calls herself a "coach?"

The answer depends upon whether one judges based on scholastic accolades or current job description or the merit of a person's work. 

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

he merit of a person's work. 

And as far as I can tell from what she has written it is anecdotal and extrapolations for her conclusions.

I said she is not a scientist as you described her ("the scientist") because no one else, including herself describes her that way, and nothing I have seen suggests she herself does research using the scientific method.  She collects anecdotes.  She uses other people's research to extrapolate from...I do that all the time.  Just don't write popular books or claim to be a relationship coach charging $250 for a 90 minutes by phone or computer session.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

And as far as I can tell from what she has written it is anecdotal and extrapolations for her conclusions.

How many of her 12 or so books have you read?

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I said she is not a scientist as you described her ("the scientist") because no one else, including herself describes her that way, and nothing I have seen suggests she herself does research using the scientific method.  She collects anecdotes.  She uses other people's research to extrapolate from...I do that all the time.  Just don't write popular books or claim to be a relationship coach charging $250 for a 90 minutes by phone or computer session.

Scientists don't rely on other people's research?

If you wan't to quibble over my use of the word "scientist," and dismiss Suzanne's work as merely "anecdotal," that is your choice. For my part, I am fine with the "science" label, and will let other people judge for themselves however they wish.  They can take or leave her work as they see fit and as they may be interested.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

How many of her 12 or so books have you read?

Scientists don't rely on other people's research?

If you wan't to quibble over my use of the word "scientist," and dismiss Suzanne's work as merely "anecdotal," that is your choice. For my part, I am fine with the "science" label, and will let other people judge for themselves however they wish.  They can take or leave her work as they see fit and as they may be interested.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I read a couple of her articles and stuff on her website, which is why I said "as far as I can tell".

Scientists do build on others' research as well as doing their own.

I am perfectly happy to use the label she chooses for herself of author, columnist, and relationship coach.  If she doesn't see herself as a scientist, I don't see why I should.

But if you want to label someone who thinks her best selling point is she helps women find love with men a scientist, I don't really care, though it does affect how I will perceive anyone else you call scientist (I will have to check out their credentials and self descriptions like I did here).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I read a couple of her articles and stuff on her website, which is why I said "as far as I can tell".

Scientists do build on others' research as well as doing their own.

I am perfectly happy to use the label she chooses for herself of author, columnist, and relationship coach.  If she doesn't see herself as a scientist, I don't see why I should.

But if you want to label someone who thinks her best selling point is she helps women find love with men a scientist, I don't really care, though it does affect how I will perceive anyone else you call scientist (I will have to check out their credentials and self descriptions like I did here).

If you assume that since she doesn't use the word "scientist" on her website to describe herself, this somehow means she doesn't "see herself as a scientist,"  then  with that kind of fallacious assuming, then why should I care how you may perceive anyone else I call a scientist?  I wouldn't care even if your assumption wasn't fallacious. Clearly, we have different ways of assessing her qualifications. That is why I repeatedly said, "to each their own." 

Thanks,, -Wade Enlgund-

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

If you assume that since she doesn't use the word "scientist" on her website to describe herself, this somehow means she doesn't "see herself as a scientist,"  then  with that kind of fallacious assuming, then why should I care how you may perceive anyone else I call a scientist?  I wouldn't care even if your assumption wasn't fallacious. Clearly, we have different ways of assessing her qualifications. That is why I repeatedly said, "to each their own." 

Thanks,, -Wade Enlgund-

If she doesn't see the need to promote herself as a scientist...that better?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If she doesn't see the need to promote herself as a scientist...that better?

I don't know if it is better or not. I can't read her mind. It is possible that she didn't see the need, and it is also possible that she determined not to use the label so as to avoid petty quibbles over labels, even though she may view herself as a scientist based on the merits of her work.  Who knows? 

If you wan't to restrict yourself to using only those labels she uses on her website, that is fine. I, on the other hand, have no problem using other labels as I deem appropriate.

After all, I don't recall her using the label "human" to describe herself on her website (which hardly suggests that she doesn't see herself as human), and so I don't see why that would prevent me from rightly viewing her as such. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/17/2019 at 5:07 PM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, this is very similar to Adam God doctrine, and its similar to a lot of what I heard earlier in my life, without the "Adam" label being put to it, the idea that there are generations of God's going backwards in time is part of Mormon history, even if its somewhat out of favor today.  

Thanks for the additional comments on this.  So it sounds like you don't believe that the 2015 policy was revelation, even though President Nelson explicitly said it was?  If it was revelation, how do you explain God changing his mind less than 4 years later?  Wouldn't God have had the foresight to know what would happen with to increasing acceptance of alternative lifestyles?  

I think God lets people make mistakes. President Uchtdorf spoke about this before at a Gen Conf a few years ago. 

The 2015 policy seems to me to be an extension of the existing policy that was already in place for Muslim and polygamous children. 

Seems like policies can be updated - as can revalations when God says so.

If you're hoping I'll see the mistakes of the GA's as signs of a false church, all I can say is they havent' killed anyone, like Moses and Elisha did (2 Kings 2:23); Pretty sure they don't have 1,000 wives and concubines like Solomon did (his father David had what 300 or so?) 

I'm not as familiar with where the 2015 policy ranks as in levels of policy/revelation.

Will it matter much when polygamy is re-instituted though?  Imagine the board discussions we'll have here at that great day.  

" 'Come on, dear Hope, since the war is past, for friends at first, (shall be) friends again at last.' "

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I think God lets people make mistakes. President Uchtdorf spoke about this before at a Gen Conf a few years ago. 

The 2015 policy seems to me to be an extension of the existing policy that was already in place for Muslim and polygamous children. 

Seems like policies can be updated - as can revalations when God says so.

If you're hoping I'll see the mistakes of the GA's as signs of a false church, all I can say is they havent' killed anyone, like Moses and Elisha did (2 Kings 2:23); Pretty sure they don't have 1,000 wives and concubines like Solomon did (his father David had what 300 or so?) 

I'm not as familiar with where the 2015 policy ranks as in levels of policy/revelation.

Will it matter much when polygamy is re-instituted though?  Imagine the board discussions we'll have here at that great day.  

" 'Come on, dear Hope, since the war is past, for friends at first, (shall be) friends again at last.' "

So it sounds like you are characterizing the 2015 policy as a mistake, and the roll back of that policy as inspired.  Just curious, but before the policy was rolled back, did you personally feel like it was inspired or not?  

As for my intentions, I'm not saying the church is false or true.  I personally don't believe it is true or false, and I think that binary view of the church is a big problem.  

If polygamy is ever reinstated, that will certainly spell the permanent relegation to marginal status for the church.  I don't see that ever happening.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

f polygamy is ever reinstated, that will certainly spell the permanent relegation to marginal status for the church.  I don't see that ever happening.  

It is unlikely in my view polygamy will be reinstated unless there is widespread (as in multinational) governmental approval of it.  I can see it as possible opening up polygamy in countries where it is legal, though unless there is a huge change in concentration of Saints, I think it will be necessary for the US to be one of those countries...at least take the antipolygamy laws off the books...which may be happening sooner than later.

Are there not mainstream Christian groups that already do this (allow members of polygamous families to join their congregations) and if so, has this impacted how they are viewed?  Lutherans appear to allow polygamists to be baptized, but in most places once members cannot marry more wives if I understand the rule correctly.  Anglicans as well.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#Lutheran_Church

If the Church starts expecting It of leaders or calling people to the practice as in the past, that might impact people's perception...but if there is widespread acceptance of it already in the culture, who knows imo.  Cultural acceptance changes both much slower (racism) and much faster (SSM) than I would expect.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...