Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women


JAHS

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

There are always witness.  The abuser and the victim. These are the primary witnesses.  these are people who can be questioned.  

It is my job to look for evidence, You would be surprised on how much secondary evidence can be available if you look.  many people have been convicted based on this secondary evidence, if enough of it can be found. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

That definition seems both very elastic and very subjective.  It could be applied to pretty much any act by any bishop.

I am not sure we can have a productive or meaningful discussion about a topic that is so subjectively defined and ambiguous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

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 be and act better. Not all of the time, but much more than the 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. 

Go to that online magazine and you will find inspiring stories. And go to the series I linked, and usually at the end of each grouping of accounts there are suggestions for improvement. So the link I gave does explicitly follow through on trying to improve people's experiences in church. 

Also, I have suggested including women explicitly as a way to mitigate harm. You can question my motives all day if you like, but I will, with my criticism, suggest improvements or mitigations and I will argue for actions that will improve peoples' experiences in and with the church.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There are always witness.  The abuser and the victim.

Well, now you're moving the goalposts.  You're original statement was "There are always other witnesses".  

Of course the abuser and the abused are witnesses.  But there are definitely not always "other witnesses" when abuse occurs.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

That would seem to cover a huge spectrum of behavior.

A bishop failing to pay sufficient attention to a particular member of his ward can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop being absentmindedly curt with Sister Jones in the hallway right after Sacrament Meeting can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop neglecting to follow up with a member of the ward on an important personal issue can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop being biased and unduly partial to one side in a dispute between spouses can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop declining to authorize a fifth month of rental payments for a fellow who is chronically unemployed, never comes to Church, and never keeps his prior commitments to the bishop can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop asking inappropriate questions during an interview "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

And on and on and on.

"Ecclesiastical abuse" gets thrown around alot online.  But it's so subjective and malleable that it can be applied to almost any conduct by an ecclesiastical leader.  It can mean just about anything, and hence ends up meaning nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Go to that online magazine and you will find inspiring stories. And go to the series I linked, and usually at the end of each grouping of accounts there are suggestions for improvement. So the link I gave does explicitly follow through on trying to improve people's experiences in church. 

Also, I have suggested including women explicitly as a way to mitigate harm. You can question my motives all day if you like, but I will, with my criticism, suggest improvements or mitigations and I will argue for actions that will improve peoples' experiences in and with the church.

I hope you continue to participate at church and suggest improvements. I find that speaking directly to the bishop is the most effective ways to improve things.  If you participate in ward council, you can also suggest ways to improve. I know that many practices in our ward have been improved through such input.  

Your input will be much more respected if you use real, relevant stories, instead of made up, weird, sensational stories.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That definition seems both very elastic and very subjective.  It could be applied to pretty much any act by any bishop.

I am not sure we can have a productive or meaningful discussion about a topic that is so subjectively defined and ambiguous.

Thanks,

-Smac

Try D&C 121:36-37

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

I hope you continue to participate at church and suggest improvements. I find that speaking directly to the bishop is the most effective ways to improve things.  If you participate in ward council, you can also suggest ways to improve. I know that many practices in our ward have been improved through such input.  

Your input will be much more respected if you use real, relevant stories, instead of made up, weird, sensational stories.

I have not made anything up. I gave an example of what I was reading from my friends. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A bishop declining to authorize a fifth month of rental payments for a fellow who is chronically unemployed, never comes to Church, and never keeps his prior commitments to the bishop can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

Put a trigger warning on that. I am having angry flashbacks. ;) 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, now you're moving the goalposts.  You're original statement was "There are always other witnesses".  

Of course the abuser and the abused are witnesses.  But there are definitely not always "other witnesses" when abuse occurs.

I was responding to this statement 

 

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

As far as evidence, in member-leadership situations where there might be out-of-bounds leadership, we have only our personal experience and direct observation, besides hearsay. (With exceptional cases, perhaps, that hit the news or are digitally recorded.)

 

when I said

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

There are always other witnesses, especially in theses situations.  You could ask the other witnesses, you could ask the bishop, you could ask the stake president, the ward executive secretary, the missionaries, etc. 

Meadochik was implying that there is only personal experience,  direct observation and hearsay as evidence of these situations.

 

My point was that there is at least one other witness (the alleged perpertrator) that could be questioned (not hearsay). and in her example, there were many more witnesses (Dad, Stake President, Boy) that could be questioned as to the actual events and even more witnesses(Ward council members, Primary presidency, Primary teacher, home teachers, etc) that could be used to back up the basic facts of the story.

My criticism of her was that she published  a sensational and weird story (denial of baptism due to non adoption). without any corroborating evidence, even when such evidence should be available based on the story she told. She was called out for relying on hearsay and she said hearsay was the only evidence, which is not true on its face.  There is at least one other witness in all of these cases (along with other witness that can testify to circumstantial evidence). Circumstantial evidence can be quite powerful and many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Try D&C 121:36-37

Okay:

Quote

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

So far, so good.

Quote

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins,

How does "ecclesiastical abuse" relate to "cover[ing] our sins?"

Are there frequent and widespread instances of bishops "covering" their sins in a way that could reasonably be described as "ecclesiastical abuse?"  I'm having difficulty conceptualizing that.

Quote

or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition,

Same as above.  How does "ecclesiastical abuse" relate to "gratify{ing} our pride" and "vain ambition?"

What sort of frequent and widespread conduct by bishops in the Church "gratify{ing} {their} pride" and "vain ambition" in ways that could reasonably be described as "ecclesiastical abuse?" 

Quote

or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness,

Bishops have very little ability to "exercise control or dominion or compulsion."  They have no civil authority.  They can, at most, limit a person's activity in the Church, and in extreme circumstances remove membership.  But that's about it.  Bishops can't punish an individual any more than the individual is willing to accept.  And the individual has the ability to object to purported mistreatment by a bishop by reporting it to the stake president.

D&C 134:10 comes to mind:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

So "ecclesiastical abuse" seems vague and ambiguous and subjective, and hard to apply in any coherent, meaningful way.

It seems more like a weaponized catchphrase, rather than a legitimate descriptor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not made anything up. I gave an example of what I was reading from my friends. 

you are sharing it,  which is the same.  You don't have to repeat everything you read (especially when the validity of the example to make your point is directly related to it's truthfulness).

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you are sharing it,  which is the same.  You don't have to repeat everything you read (especially when the validity of the example to make your point is directly related to it's truthfulness).

 

The validity of the point stands, women are hurting or have been hurt and feel like they are not being heard.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JulieM said:

So why take the negative spin of it only being a token female if she gets the same calling?

But it wouldn’t be the same calling if she wasn’t given counselor duties.  So just adding a woman to be at meetings would need to only be part of it. She would need to be given delegated responsibilities as the counselors currently are. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay:

So far, so good.

How does "ecclesiastical abuse" relate to "cover[ing] our sins?"

Are there frequent and widespread instances of bishops "covering" their sins in a way that could reasonably be described as "ecclesiastical abuse?"  I'm having difficulty conceptualizing that.

Same as above.  How does "ecclesiastical abuse" relate to "gratify{ing} our pride" and "vain ambition?"

What sort of frequent and widespread conduct by bishops in the Church "gratify{ing} {their} pride" and "vain ambition" in ways that could reasonably be described as "ecclesiastical abuse?" 

Bishops have very little ability to "exercise control or dominion or compulsion."  They have no civil authority.  They can, at most, limit a person's activity in the Church, and in extreme circumstances remove membership.  But that's about it.  Bishops can't punish an individual any more than the individual is willing to accept.  And the individual has the ability to object to purported mistreatment by a bishop by reporting it to the stake president.

D&C 134:10 comes to mind:

So "ecclesiastical abuse" seems vague and ambiguous and subjective, and hard to apply in any coherent, meaningful way.

It seems more like a weaponized catchphrase, rather than a legitimate descriptor.

Thanks,

-Smac

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'?   

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The validity of the point stands, women are hurting or have been hurt and feel like they are not being heard.

Like I said, the truth of the story is secondary, it always is when these types of gossip are shared. 

you can make the point without the sensational story. In fact it would give you, and your point more credibility.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay:

So far, so good.

How does "ecclesiastical abuse" relate to "cover[ing] our sins?"

Are there frequent and widespread instances of bishops "covering" their sins in a way that could reasonably be described as "ecclesiastical abuse?"  I'm having difficulty conceptualizing that.

Same as above.  How does "ecclesiastical abuse" relate to "gratify{ing} our pride" and "vain ambition?"

What sort of frequent and widespread conduct by bishops in the Church "gratify{ing} {their} pride" and "vain ambition" in ways that could reasonably be described as "ecclesiastical abuse?" 

Bishops have very little ability to "exercise control or dominion or compulsion."  They have no civil authority.  They can, at most, limit a person's activity in the Church, and in extreme circumstances remove membership.  But that's about it.  Bishops can't punish an individual any more than the individual is willing to accept.  And the individual has the ability to object to purported mistreatment by a bishop by reporting it to the stake president.

D&C 134:10 comes to mind:

So "ecclesiastical abuse" seems vague and ambiguous and subjective, and hard to apply in any coherent, meaningful way.

It seems more like a weaponized catchphrase, rather than a legitimate descriptor.

Thanks,

-Smac

You keep transferring the ecclesiastical context to a civil one, as if the spiritual and religious definition must bear the scrutiny of a civil court of law. But this is not a civic context, it is the church context, where leadership decisions can impact people on a spiritual level. If the church has ability to uplift people spiritually, it follows that it has the ability to do the opposite, especially when it acts inappropriately.

So, I think you are correct that you and I don't have much to discuss.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Like I said, the truth of the story is secondary, it always is when these types of gossip are shared. 

you can make the point without the sensational story. In fact it would give you, and your point more credibility.

Thanks for your input. I'll return the favor.

You could decrease your defensiveness when hearing such an example, and instead consider the stated request given when it was shared:

"In the absence of being able to record and tally such instances and create an informative dataset, we have the male-dominated leadership structure of the system to evaluate. Can you please try to consider how the structure impacts women in such situations?"

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it wouldn’t be the same calling if she wasn’t given counselor duties.  So just adding a woman to be at meetings would need to only be part of it. She would need to be given delegated responsibilities as the counselors currently are. 

She may just be given different duties or responsibilities. That’s the case now within presidencies too.  Counselors are over different things and have different responsibilities.  

I wouldn’t view it as a token calling on that basis.  I do see why some feel as they do though. 

I think it would be important how it’s presented and if there was ever this change made, I’m sure the leaders would take care to never represent it as a token calling for women.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

I suspect that in the story you shared the hurt was self-inflicted.

So, in the absence of being able to record and tally such instances and create an informative dataset, we have the male-dominated leadership structure of the system to evaluate. Can you please try to consider how the structure impacts women in such situations?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

some want more females in leadership roles within the ward, this would be a step in that direction

But it isn’t a leadership role itself unless actual leadership duties are added and therefore feels like a hollow gesture to me. (Posters are saying may be added, it needs to be definite imo with details that show she has ways of being informed about the ward in some fashion beyond the typical member).

For example, Sister Roberts (I believe that is the name used before) is in a bishopric meeting and is asked “what do you think of Brother Michaels as Gospel Doctrine teacher”.  Brother Michaels has been in YMs since he moved into the ward and outside ward parties and seeing him in SM, Sister Roberts has no interaction with him. So her input is “Well, the kids seem to like him from what I can tell from the way they talk to him in the hall and at parties, so check for friendliness and he appears to be involved in his own family, sharing caring for the young ones with his wife so check for being responsible.  And he gave a good talk last year if I recall correctly though it is rather vague, so check for decent speaker...sounds like a good call.”  On the question of budget needs, she answers “as far as I can tell from the paperwork here presented, this amount seems appropriate”.  Welfare....”Sister Daniels was telling me as we walked down the hall that she just wasn’t able to get her kids new clothes for school this year and her youngest was upset, maybe the bishop should ask her if it is a money or time issue and if the first, see if there are more difficult limitations for her family.”  On the needs of an inactive family “never met them, who are they?”

I don’t see a relatively uninformed opinion as enough value to offset the cost of complication of adding a person to the decision making process.  Since her calling is just being in the bishopric meetings, her knowledge of the ward would be based on basic observations of those around her at church and the very limited interactions with most of them. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for your input. I'll return the favor.

You could decrease your defensiveness when hearing such an example, and instead consider the stated request given when it was shared:

"In the absence of being able to record and tally such instances and create an informative dataset, we have the male-dominated leadership structure of the system to evaluate. Can you please try to consider how the structure impacts women in such situations?"

It is not defensiveness. It is disbelief and probably contempt for what is almost certainly an outlandish lie. It is hard to care about the relatively minor influence of male dominated leadership in an organization compared to someone literally trying to send themselves to hell. Yet you want us to focus on the feelings behind that act?

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

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