Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women


JAHS

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

The question wasn't about secondary witness, was it?

however it is very difficult to come up with a scenario without secondary witnesses to at least some of the facts in question. 

 

By secondary, I'm referring to anyone other than leader and member. 

Ecclesiastical abuse can occur in private interactions between a leader and member.

Of course there would be witnesses in the example I gave to Ahab, and I cited the dad as a witness. He was responding to her FB post multiple times at length, not denying what she said happened. He defended the church structure despite what happened to her, although he did concede that her leaders made mistakes.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I listen to women and their stories are important, especially the ones that remain unheard, or are not appropriately addressed. If you want to dismiss my report to this board of an example of what I am hearing as responses to the OP article, that's your perogative. 

 

Listening is one thing, Spreading obviously incomplete or factually untrue statements on public forums is  completely different. 

I listen to a lot of stories of my clients, many of them untruthful.  I have to make sure these stories are at least believable, or if not believable, I have to offer up some outside evidence of their truthfulness, if not I would be sanctioned for fraud upon the court.  It is unfortunate that there are no such sanctions on these public forums. 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I wouldn’t view it like that.  I think it would be a positive.  Why do men receive callings vs. women?  (I know some need to be filled by someone holding the priesthood, but why others?)  It’s not only to get a man’s perspective.  So why take the negative spin of it only being a token female if she gets the same calling?

Isn't it better to have one sister in meetings (if not more), than none (only men)?

I've been talking about having a woman in a bishopric meeting. I'm not entertaining the idea of a woman being called as a bishopric counselor because right now that would require her to be ordained and, as far as I've been aware, that's not what is being discussed here.

So, why am I taking the spin that a woman in a bishopric meeting would only be there as a token woman?  Because that's why she would be there.  If she's not a president of an auxiliary (I've already said that I support presidents of auxiliaries being invited), and we aren't talking about ordaining women so they can hold priesthood callings, why else would this woman be invited to a bishopric meeting except to provide a woman's opinion?

Men get callings so they can fulfill the duties of that calling, which as far as I can tell have never included "providing a man's opinion."  A woman who is called to attend bishopric meetings because it's better to have a woman there, and for no other reason, is being treated in a way that no man has ever been treated in the church and I don't personally think it would turn out well.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, why am I taking the spin that a woman in a bishopric meeting would only be there as a token woman?  Because that's why she would be there.

I honestly do not see it that way, bluebell.  I'd welcome a sister into our meetings and wouldn't consider her "a token woman", but someone who would add a balance to many discussions regarding all ward members (male and female).  I understand what you're saying and I respect your right to feel that way, but personally, I would never think of it that way.  If some want more females in leadership roles within the ward, this would be a step in that direction and I'm not sure how to get there if we don't at least start somewhere (if it ever happens).  This has just been one suggestion.

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

By secondary, I'm referring to anyone other than leader and member. 

Ecclesiastical abuse can occur in private interactions between a leader and member.

Of course there would be witnesses in the example I gave to Ahab, and I cited the dad as a witness. He was responding to her FB post multiple times at length, not denying what she said happened. He defended the church structure despite what happened to her, although he did concede that her leaders made mistakes.

Secondary witnesses are all over the place in most interaction between a leader and member.

Most interviews are arranged by an executive secretary.  There are the church membership records to record if the person was a leader, there are statements made to others (present state of mind statements that would be admissible in court.) There are other members of the ward that interact with both the leader and the member who could offer circumstantial evidence.  

Even if the interaction was some random occurrence on the street, you would at least have the obligation of carefully interviewing each person to make sure you have as much of the facts that are available instead of making a judgment based on the statement only.  There is a reason affidavits are usually inadmissible in court.  you need to have the witness available to answer questions  in order to find out the complete truth.

In the example you state, the dad is not a corroborating witness unless he makes a statement to offer what he witnessed otherwise you are arguing for and admission based on silence (only admissible in court if the dad were a party, and even then of dubious value). 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I honestly do not see it that way, bluebell.  I'd welcome a sister into our meetings and wouldn't consider her "a token woman", but someone who would add a balance to many discussions regarding all ward members (male and female).  I understand what you're saying and I respect your right to feel that way, but personally, I would never think of it that way.  If some want more females in leadership roles within the ward, this would be a step in that direction and I'm not sure how to get there if we don't at least start somewhere (if it ever happens).  This has just been one suggestion.

 

Yeah, but imagine this position was created. A sister is called to a calling where her job is to give a woman’s view to Bishopric meetings. She has no authority and no real responsibilities. Wouldn’t you feel like it was a token assignment? Imagine if they brought someone from a minority cultural or ethnic group under the same reasoning. Wouldn’t it be kind of demeaning? I am not saying the people would treat the person with contempt. I just think they would find the position a little silly.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I honestly do not see it that way, bluebell.  I'd welcome a sister into our meetings and wouldn't consider her "a token woman", but someone who would add a balance to many discussions regarding all ward members (male and female).  I understand what you're saying and I respect your right to feel that way, but personally, I would never think of it that way.  If some want more females in leadership roles within the ward, this would be a step in that direction and I'm not sure how to get there if we don't at least start somewhere (if it ever happens).  This has just been one suggestion.

 

I really do get that.  I honestly don't see it the way you do.  

Having a female auxiliary president in your meetings is one thing (and I've repeatedly said that I have no problem with that).  Having a female who isn't in a leadership calling in your meeting so that a woman's perspective can be heard is something different.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Secondary witnesses are all over the place in most interaction between a leader and member.

That's definitely not true if we are talking about abuse (physical or emotional).  

There may be those who are told about the abuse, but would you consider them to be an actual witness?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but imagine this position was created. A sister is called to a calling where her job is to give a woman’s view to Bishopric meetings. She has no authority and no real responsibilities. Wouldn’t you feel like it was a token assignment? Imagine if they brought someone from a minority cultural or ethnic group under the same reasoning. Wouldn’t it be kind of demeaning? I am not saying the people would treat the person with contempt. I just think they would find the position a little silly.

And can you imagine how the other women in the ward might react to one woman being given such a calling?  And to be that poor woman. Yuck.  Would any man want to have to speak for all men in the ward in a meeting of women?  You'd have to spend most of the time say "this is just my opinion, I can't speak for all the men/women in the ward" anytime they asked you anything.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but imagine this position was created. A sister is called to a calling where her job is to give a woman’s view to Bishopric meetings. She has no authority and no real responsibilities. 

Who is saying that as a counselor, she'd have "no authority and no real responsibilities"?  I can't imagine her being there only to attend Bishopric meetings.  

Calm had some excellent insight regarding how a calling like that would be effective within ward leadership

I know we're speaking hypothetically, but if this change was ever announced, I have to believe a sister would be called with strong leadership skills just as any other counselor (Bishopric, YW, Primary, RS, Elder's Quorum, etc.).  Why would you think the calling of a counselor would have "no real responsibilities", just because it would be a woman?

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wouldn’t it be kind of demeaning?

Only if you think of it or describe it as you have, IMO.  

But....let's move on.  I disagree that it would be a token calling or demeaning to a woman.  I think it would very much be a step in the direction of involving women more in ward leadership.  However, I am very supportive of how things currently are too.  I know in our ward, we consult with the sisters who are serving in leadership positions on a regular basis and that works well (so far.... :) )

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's your perogative. But hopefully you are not wholesale denying the existence of ecclesiastical abuse in the church.

I think you would first need to define "ecclesiastical abuse."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, ALarson said:

Who is saying that as a counselor, she'd have "no authority and no real responsibilities"?  I can't imagine her being there only to attend Bishopric meetings.  

I know we're speaking hypothetically, but if this change was ever announced, I have to believe a sister would be called with strong leadership skills just as any other counselor (Bishopric, YW, Primary, RS, Elder's Quorum, etc.).  Why would you think the calling of a counselor would have "no real responsibilities", just because it would be a woman?

Only if you think of it or describe it as you have, IMO.  

So you're talking about ordaining women then, since counselors have to be high priests?  Or are you talking about overhauling church teachings on what is or isn't a calling that requires ordination?  Because both of those topics are outside of and separate from what I'm discussing.  I'm staying out of the women should be ordained/we don't need ordination arena in this thread.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

So you're talking about ordaining women then, since counselors have to be high priests? 

No...that's not what I'm suggesting at all.  

But time to move on....I've expressed myself several times regarding how a calling like this may work. 

This is all just hypothetical anyway ;)

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's definitely not true if we are talking about abuse (physical or emotional).  

There may be those who is told about the abuse, but would you consider them to be an actual witness?

yes, the people who are told about the abuse would be witnesses.  Doctors and medical staff and other first responders would be witnesses to any evidence they discovered.  You could also have witnesses that could be alibis to the alleged perpetrator. You could have witnesses to show the alleged perpetrator was in the area,or had a meeting with a victim.   you could have witnesses to the victim's state of mind after the incident. 

This is why it is so important to report abuse as soon as it happens, there is a lot of evidence and witnesses that could be used when everyone's memory is fresh.   

For example the dennison case that was so much discussed on this board.  If the alleged abuse had been reported immediately, there could be witnesses that saw them in the hallway together, or her going to his "office" in the basement.  Someone could have checked the Video player in the basement.  All of this evidence is lost because the accuser waited, but if the abuse hadn't waited there would have been many secondary witnesses that could have shed light on the case. 

 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Listening is one thing, Spreading obviously incomplete or factually untrue statements on public forums is  completely different. 

I listen to a lot of stories of my clients, many of them untruthful.  I have to make sure these stories are at least believable, or if not believable, I have to offer up some outside evidence of their truthfulness, if not I would be sanctioned for fraud upon the court.  It is unfortunate that there are no such sanctions on these public forums. 

I understand if someone does not want to believe the accuracy of the example I gave. Fine. Hopefully you can believe that there are women who are hurting and who have been hurt in church, and that is the essential point.

If you would like an opportunity to hear women's stories, the Exponent II magazine has a series of prieststood leader overreach. There are several accounts on each clickable link. It appears that each link usually includes one named account with several anonymous or partially-named accounts:

https://www.the-exponent.com/tag/hearldswomen-priesthood-leader-overreach/

There are plenty of what seem trivial stories, which for whatever reason had an impact on the person, but there are some that are more serious in nature.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've attended about 8 years worth of bishopric meetings -- never had an RS president invited.

I have seen it happen several times. Usually the Relief Society President and EQP are invited if we do this and the meeting usually focuses on welfare.

We do something similar - only it's a regular thing and we don't do it during bishopric meetings.

Instead, the triumvirate gets together over at the bishop's house every other Sunday night, usually on the weeks where there is no ward council, and discusses things together. 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Doctors and medical staff and other first responders would be witnesses to any evidence they discovered.  You could also have witnesses that could be alibis to the alleged perpetrator. You could have witnesses to show the alleged perpetrator was in the area,or had a meeting with a victim.   you could have witnesses to the victim's state of mind after the incident. 

These are not always involved though.  You stated that there are always witnesses.  There aren't.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who is saying that as a counselor, she'd have "no authority and no real responsibilities"?  I can't imagine her being there only to attend Bishopric meetings.  

I know we're speaking hypothetically, but if this change was ever announced, I have to believe a sister would be called with strong leadership skills just as any other counselor (Bishopric, YW, Primary, RS, Elder's Quorum, etc.).  Why would you think the calling of a counselor would have "no real responsibilities", just because it would be a woman?

Only if you think of it or describe it as you have, IMO.  

Because the position as discussed was to be a female perspective and not to be a counselor. Even if they called her a counselor she cannot do most of the things counselors do without the Priesthood (collect donations, process donations, preside, extend callings, set apart people to callings, go to High Priest quorum meetings (including Bishopric training), etc. So what does she do?

Some of those can be changed via policy decision but others require priesthood. I just do not think it will happen unless and until the Priesthood can be held by women.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because the position as discussed was to be a female perspective and not to be a counselor.

That's not what I saw suggested (or what I thought we were discussing).  

Either way....this is all speculative....I'm moving on since I'd just be repeating myself if I posted more :) 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Secondary witnesses are all over the place in most interaction between a leader and member.

Most interviews are arranged by an executive secretary.  There are the church membership records to record if the person was a leader, there are statements made to others (present state of mind statements that would be admissible in court.) There are other members of the ward that interact with both the leader and the member who could offer circumstantial evidence.  

Even if the interaction was some random occurrence on the street, you would at least have the obligation of carefully interviewing each person to make sure you have as much of the facts that are available instead of making a judgment based on the statement only.  There is a reason affidavits are usually inadmissible in court.  you need to have the witness available to answer questions  in order to find out the complete truth.

In the example you state, the dad is not a corroborating witness unless he makes a statement to offer what he witnessed otherwise you are arguing for and admission based on silence (only admissible in court if the dad were a party, and even then of dubious value). 

And yet the way the church counsel to member would minimise the opportunity for the witnessing of ecclesiastical abuse. As I said (to SMAC) in response to President Oaks' talk entitled "Criticism:"   

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

To summarize the points I found pertinent (please feel free to discuss your own): Oaks counsels against petty, nitpicky criticism of church leaders or anyone as a matter of course. He also speaks of legitimate criticism that is an important element of civil society. Yet he reserves legitimate criticism of church leaders as requiring special treatment. According to him, we have five options: 1. Overlook it.  2.  Reserve judgment and postpone action. 3. Speak to them privately. 4. Go to the church officer over them. 5. Pray to the Lord for help.

So, as a matter of course as regular members, from within the church, it is not structured so that we know know about ecclesiastical abuse, unless we experience it or directly witness it.

 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

We do something similar - only it's a regular thing and we don't do it during bishopric meetings.

Instead, the triumvirate gets together over at the bishop's house every other Sunday night, usually on the weeks where there is no ward council, and discusses things together. 

 

I like that!

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I understand if someone does not want to believe the accuracy of the example I gave. Fine. Hopefully you can believe that there are women who are hurting and who have been hurt in church, and that is the essential point.

If you would like an opportunity to hear women's stories, the Exponent II magazine has a series of prieststood leader overreach. There are several accounts on each clickable link. It appears that each link usually includes one named account with several anonymous or partially-named accounts:

https://www.the-exponent.com/tag/hearldswomen-priesthood-leader-overreach/

There are plenty of what seem trivial stories, which for whatever reason had an impact on the person, but there are some that are more serious in nature.

The point is spreading gossip and unverified stories that are designed to hurt the church.  It really doesn't matter if any of these stories are complete, or true,  the message is what is important. 

This is what I find so off putting about this type of gossip. It's always the message that is important, not the truth. 

It's not, "Something bad happened, how can we get help for the injured and what should this person do and how can we help them"

It's "Bad things are being reported as evidence the church is harmful,  it doesn't really matter if the the report is true or not, or whether all of the facts have been reported or even if that particular event is common,  If this report isn't true than another one is and it doesn't matter anyway, its the message that is important."

No one is denying that priesthood holders can do bad things, anyone who reads the scriptures can find that out. Anyone who knows a leader can attest to that. Any one who has been a leader can attest that they do bad things sometimes. 

The wonder of the gospel is that it helps people be and act better. Not all of the time, but much more than they would do otherwise. I am sure if we were inclined to have a blog with stories of all the good things that have happened as a result of the church that it much bigger and much more inspiring than anonymous gossip on how bad people behave at times. 

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you would first need to define "ecclesiastical abuse."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

An unrighteous exercise of authority, or abuse of of power or perceived power. 

 

I'd define it as any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship.

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

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