Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am resistant to allow a space for endless gnawing on old grudges. I would ask how the Church presumably provides this same space for men. I know of no place in the church structure that men gather to complain about supposedly bad leadership and tell stories about their evil bishops. I know of such places outside the church but they are exmormon “recovery” sites. We do not want a place for it. That kind of discussion is spiritually corrosive and antithetical to the church’s mission.

Of course there is continuous interest in it. That kind of endless scab picking is rarely satiated. The key to breaking the cycle is to follow Elder Uchtdorf’s advice:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/youth/video/stop-judging-others?lang=eng&_r=1

I watch the Exponent II blog and discussion group. While there is an occasional good article, it is pretty much "endless scab picking". I think the Relief Society sisters who operated the original Exponent would be utterly horrified by the appropriation of their name for the platform they created. It is perhaps the single, clearest realization of Lehi's great and spacious building I've seen. Indeed, the site grooms women and men to turn from Christ and his Church. Here groom is used in it's truest sense, just as a pedophile grooms a child. Not all actions will be bad. Some will be kind and generous and on the face of it virtuous. Likewise, not all the discussion is bad. But, it is all a flaxen cord. So why follow it? There are occasionally insights to be gained, just not spiritual insights they suppose they promulgate. The Savior's admonition for us in the midst of wolves is to be as wise as serpents

I also follow a men's right group. This one is secular since there aren't any significant one that purports relationship to the Church that I'm aware of (that, in of itself, has a message). The similarity in tone and message and vitriol is remarkable. In my youth my father once remarked that the extreme "left" and "right" (here Exponent II and MRA group) are not so much as extreme ends of a straight line but the ends of an Ω (Omega) character. They just aren't that far apart.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Nofear

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don’t want that to be the case! As an atheist, what relevant experience do you have with hearing the voice of God?

I have experiences up to age 40, believing I was hearing the voice of God in my life as a fully believing Mormon. And that belief in divine guidance influenced me as an outsider Mormon in the Bible Belt, then as a member of the dominant religion Mormonism in Utah, and as a religious person in relatively indifferent-to-religion views in Europe. I've experienced this in wards and branches in three different states and four different countries and four languages as a believing Mormon. At the time, I found these dynamics of interest, not only as an outside, then an insider, but also experiencing the church influence at its university as a student and employee, which is much like living in a small city owned by the church and I found that edifying. It will be 3 years soon since that change in beliefs, but still too short a time for me to settle into a label, which is why I use terms probably-atheist and agnostic-atheist. And even then, I have not abandoned my belief in the existence of goodness and truth. 

I agree with Joseph F. Smith's statement below about finding truth in a variety of places. There's plenty common ground in Mormon cosmology and in my changing cosmology for mutual influence between myself and believers in Mormonism.

Quote

“We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination [or, I may say, no searcher of truth] in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” Joseph F. Smith

I would also add that I still have spiritual experiences which I would have classified as hearing the voice of God in my life as a believer then. I just may call them something else now. 

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I watch the Exponent II blog and discussion group. While there is an occasional good article, it is pretty much "endless scab picking". I think the Relief Society sisters who operated the original Exponent would be utterly horrified by the appropriation of their name for the platform they created. It is perhaps the single, clearest realization of Lehi's great and spacious building I've seen. Indeed, the site grooms women and men to turn from Christ and his Church. Here groom is used in it's truest sense, just as a pedophile grooms a child. Not all actions will be bad. Some will be kind and generous and on the face of it virtuous. Likewise, not all the discussion is bad. But, it is all a flaxen cord. So why follow it? There are occasionally insights to be gained, just not spiritual insights they suppose they promulgate. The Savior's admonition for us in the midst of wolves is to be as wise as serpents

I don't agree with your characterization. It's more like a hospital rather than endless scab-picking. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's precisely what someone who's been groomed not to listen to women would say.

I hear ya, mate.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I hear ya, mate.

Yep... so funny.  Let’s crack jokes about it!

Meanwhile, what do you think are the odds that this Bishop restricted his inappropriate behavior to the high school girls who were his driving students and never crossed any lines with the young women in his ward?

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/crime/drivers-ed-teacher-mormon-bishop-bur****-abuse/283-4c74cac3-a6cf-43c8-baa7-31c2cbc8b6a5

[Rain]

2 hours ago, truth a la carte said:

Your poor friend. I see this as terrible and painful. I don’t believe the story is false. However, I believe the pain involved has led to a partial understanding. Such an awful situation for her.

First, Church policy is very clear that children cannot be baptized without the permission of both parents. I suspect the child’s father has not given consent for the child’s baptism.

Second, the subject of adoption was clearly discussed with the bishop in a manner that was extremely painful to your friend. I’ll list three possible variations of how adoption may have been brought up**:

1)    After a long and discouraging discussion about why the child couldn’t be baptized without the consent of both mother and father, the bishop may have said that there is no way around the issue at the current time; the only way to avoid it would have been to place the child for adoption years ago with an active LDS couple.
2)    The bishop may be horribly awkward, and said something like, “This is one of the reasons why adoption is often recommended.”
3)    The bishop may be horribly prideful, and seen this is an opportunity to chastise your friend about raising a child on her own.

The bishop’s telling of the situation view would, I’m sure, be some variation of #1. 
Your friend understandably viewed the discussion as #3. 
I’m inclined to think the answer is closer to #2 . And #2 isn’t any better than #3 from the point of view of your poor friend. I’m so sorry.

** Please forgive the blatant supposition here.

If I could give you a rep point for this I would.

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... so funny.  Let’s crack jokes about it!

Meanwhile, what do you think are the odds that this Bishop restricted his inappropriate behavior to the high school girls who were his driving students and never crossed any lines with the young women in his ward?

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/crime/drivers-ed-teacher-mormon-bishop-bur****-abuse/283-4c74cac3-a6cf-43c8-baa7-31c2cbc8b6a5

While I was reading this thread Sister Gui came in to say goodbye as she prepared to leave for school. After a minute or so I looked up and said, “Sorry. Did you say something?” 

I’ll be sleeping in the garage tonight.

I’m fairly certain the bishop didn’t learn to do those things in the stake bishops council.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

First, you've elevated what I've said (anger, pain, frustration, dissent) to "spewing anger and bile," to "hatred." You're creating a strawman.

Second, I don't come here asking you to take my word for it, rather I am presenting arguments to show that church leaders understand female perspectives less.

Third, I need not promise loyalty to the church to have something valuable to contribute. I can't say that I sustain the prophet and other leaders, but I do hope that learning and kindness can be beneficial to the church, in the short and long-term.

First, I did not elevate what you said. I went to the site and realized what you said was softpedaling what was going on there. My definition is more accurate.

Second, your arguments are based on faulty data. If there is a problem that is not the way to discuss it.

Third, you are opposed to the fundamental mission of the church or at least find it worthless. Why would anyone care how you want to improve it? It is the equivalent of a blind person trying to give tips on color combinations or a eunuch offering sex tips. “Learning and kindness?” Stop trying to turn the venom of this hate into sweetness and light. There are faithful sisters in the church who have communed with God and see problems in the church structure in regards to women. Some are on this board. They sacrifice for the cause of Zion and love God and want to spread the gospel. Many are my friends. I listen to them and want to help them.

I do not want to help the barbarians at the gates who are faithless and care nothing for the faith I adore and whose desires, if fulfilled, would lead to the weakening or destruction of something I love. You and those you want to represent do not understand who we are and what we stand for. Have you considered listening to what we want?

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've read it.  A number of times.

I assumed you did, as you are the one who posted the link in repsonse to me. That question was for Nehor.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Surely you agree with this?

Yes, I agree that voicing legitimate civic criticisms are part of civic society. It is wisdom older than any of us.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume you disagree with this.  May I ask you to elaborate as to your reasoning?

No, I don't necessarily disagree with legitimate criticisms of church leaders sometimes requiring special, quieter care. They might, but I disagree with it as a general rule. I think that a spiritual community can be more robust than Oaks implies, and that individuals can be outspoken at times and even critical while still being supportive of individuals and the whole, and that groups can support difficult conversations.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I assume you disagree with this counsel.  Could you elaborate?

Oaks limits acceptable responses to the five options to either overlook it, postpone judgment or response, speak to the leader, speak to the leader's leader, and/or pray. I think that people often need other people to help work through a painful or difficult situation. This need cannot always be met by speaking to the leader in question or the leader's leader. 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you mean by "less heard?"

I think this is obvious, but voicing publicly means that criticism can be heard by any number of people. Voicing according to these instructions of President Oaks means that only a handful of people will hear it: the leader in question, then maybe their leader (or perhaps their leader's leader, then I think in the hierarchy, it goes rather quickly to the First Presidency from there.) Thus, in this instance by "less heard" I mean that less people are likely to hear them.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I have a disagreement with my wife, should I air my grievances against her to the world?  Should I treat her like I would a politician?  By being publicly and openly critical of her?

.Not normally, no. I don't think proper behavior in a marriage relationship compares perfectly to proper behavior in a church leader/church member relationship.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Surely not all disputes in a person's life can or ought to be treated in the exact same way?

Surely. And there are many possibilities between the extremes of that of public airing of grievances and Oaks' five options. Furthermore, a concern with a leader, by nature of their position, can have direct impact on other members who have essentially the same type of pastoral relationship with that leader. 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure how this pertains to individualized instances of disagreement in the Church.

This is going back to the systemic structure of the church that Riess has described and its overall impact on women: So, as set forth by Oaks' model, grievances are airable in an extremely limited context. Then, because those people a woman can speak to are only the leader or perhaps an officer above them, the only people who will hear her will be maybe a couple priesthood leaders. And since their perspectives mean they have less understanding of women than of men, the woman in the church tends to be generally less heard, not just heard by less people, but qualitatively, or heard less by her leader.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... so funny.  Let’s crack jokes about it!

Meanwhile, what do you think are the odds that this Bishop restricted his inappropriate behavior to the high school girls who were his driving students and never crossed any lines with the young women in his ward?

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/crime/drivers-ed-teacher-mormon-bishop-bur****-abuse/283-4c74cac3-a6cf-43c8-baa7-31c2cbc8b6a5

Based on reading extensively about predators pretty good odds. Not 100% obviously but many predators focus on only one area of their life to find victims, at least at first. It allows psychological distancing. When the behavior escalates (it does not always do this) it tends to generalize and this is also often around the time they get careless and get caught. 

It is actually disturbingly easy to be a predator and never get caught or at least have low risk of being caught. Adopt or have children. Live out in the boonies. Home school. Very few predators are smart enough and disciplined enough to walk that line. There are a few though. If you want to lose some sleep read some of the instructions for how to pull off predatory behavior like this from places like the darkweb. For bonus fun you can read how to get away with rape and generally make it unprovable and how to kill and get away with it. This is not a nice world.  

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Based on reading extensively about predators pretty good odds. Not 100% obviously but many predators focus on only one area of their life to find victims, at least at first.

The allegations range over a six year period.

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It allows psychological distancing. When the behavior escalates (it does not always do this) it tends to generalize and this is also often around the time they get careless and get caught.

And it appears that he was a bishop with one-on-one access to young women at the time he got caught.

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The allegations range over a six year period.

And it appears that he was a bishop with one-on-one access to young women at the time he got caught.

 

Has anyone come forward from his ward with allegations or accusations?

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

First, I did not elevate what you said. I went to the site and realized what you said was softpedaling what was going on there. My definition is more accurate.

I disagree.

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Second, your arguments are based on faulty data. If there is a problem that is not the way to discuss it.

What data is faulty?

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Third, you are opposed to the fundamental mission of the church or at least find it worthless. 

Actually I can agree with the fundamental mission of the church in the sense of bringing people to Christ, which would be, in my view, Love and Truth, kindness and learning. There is common ground. I do not find the church worthless. I think it can bless people and I do believe that there are people who need it, and that the church addresses fundamental human needs. I believe that something transformative can happen when more than one person is gathered together for a common good, and that such ritual can strengthen and edify the human soul.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Stop trying to turn the venom of this hate into sweetness and light. There are faithful sisters in the church who have communed with God and see problems in the church structure in regards to women. Some are on this board. They sacrifice for the cause of Zion and love God and want to spread the gospel. Many are my friends. I listen to them and want to help them.

Why would some people care what I think? Good question. I'd say, people can answer that for themselves. You certainly don't have to care.

You equating understandable anger, dissent, frustration, and pain to venom is your choice. I see no need to equate difficult emotions or challenges into enemies.

There are faithful sisters in the church who participate at Exponent II as well. I think it's great that you want to support your sisters in the church and I am happy that many are your friends, and some of them may also participate at Exponent II. 

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not want to help the barbarians at the gates who are faithless and care nothing for the faith I adore and whose desires, if fulfilled, would lead to the weakening or destruction of something I love. You and those you want to represent do not understand who we are and what we stand for. Have you considered listening to what we want?

Is there a specific reason why you identify me as an enemy? Is it all non-believers on this board that you consider enemies?

I don't represent anyone except me. I think this is probably part of your issue, you seem to be conflating me with other people and imagined causes and agendas.

You have utterly no idea what I understand. You have utterly no idea what I have sacrificed for the church as a believer, what I sacrificed for the church since I stopped believing, nor what I am willing to continue to sacrifice for the church.

I am Mormon. The Mormon church is a major part of my life, including my past, present, and future. 

As far as listening to what you want, if you want to express it, go ahead and speak. I would guess there is room for more posts on this board.

 

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The allegations range over a six year period.

And it appears that he was a bishop with one-on-one access to young women at the time he got caught.

 

Yes, and there is a strong possibility his predations were confined to one arena of his life. It is not a certainty though.

One on one access with them only in an interview setting with someone always right outside the door (assuming policy was followed). Another reason that if I had to bet I would say it probably did not happen there. Again, not a certainty.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Has anyone come forward from his ward with allegations or accusations?

Unknown. That’s why I think it’s relevant to this thread. 

It is entirely possible that he kept his predatory behavior compartmentalized to his “work life”. 

But could it be that there was inappropriate behavior with young women from the ward but nobody felt comfortable reporting it?  Or they did and nobody listened?

And why was he left in as bishop after his 2016 arrest?

[juliann]

All the talk aside, this is the reality. In more than one LDS forum I am in, the women have formed their own subgroup. So whatever is said and asserted and objected to, by men when it comes to women,  a whole lot of women don't feel comfortable with men who are directing them or telling them what women's experiences mean or feel like.  This is why there is generally freer discussion in RS than GD. 

Until that sinks in, I find these debates useless. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Unknown. That’s why I think it’s relevant to this thread. 

It is entirely possible that he kept his predatory behavior compartmentalized to his “work life”. 

But could it be that there was inappropriate behavior with young women from the ward but nobody felt comfortable reporting it?  Or they did and nobody listened?

And why was he left in as bishop after his 2016 arrest?

All good questions.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I disagree.

What data is faulty?

Actually I can agree with the fundamental mission of the church in the sense of bringing people to Christ, which would be, in my view, Love and Truth, kindness and learning. There is common ground. I do not find the church worthless. I think it can bless people and I do believe that there are people who need it, and that the church addresses fundamental human needs. I believe that something transformative can happen when more than one person is gathered together for a common good, and that such ritual can strengthen and edify the human soul.

Why would some people care what I think? Good question. I'd say, people can answer that for themselves. You certainly don't have to care.

You equating understandable anger, dissent, frustration, and pain to venom is your choice. I see no need to equate difficult emotions or challenges into enemies.

There are faithful sisters in the church who participate at Exponent II as well. I think it's great that you want to support your sisters in the church and I am happy that many are your friends, and some of them may also participate at Exponent II. 

Is there a specific reason why you identify me as an enemy? Is it all non-believers on this board that you consider enemies?

I don't represent anyone except me. I think this is probably part of your issue, you seem to be conflating me with other people and imagined causes and agendas.

You have utterly no idea what I understand. You have utterly no idea what I have sacrificed for the church as a believer, what I sacrificed for the church since I stopped believing, nor what I am willing to continue to sacrifice for the church.

I am Mormon. The Mormon church is a major part of my life, including my past, present, and future. 

As far as listening to what you want, if you want to express it, go ahead and speak. I would guess there is room for more posts on this board.

 

The data on that website is anecdotal and almost certainly exaggerated. Hence, faulty. Your disagreement that that is a hate site does not sway me and I am not going to pretend that this is a matter of opinion where honest people can disagree.

The Worth you ascribe to the church is all of a secular nature. We are not seeking different things and using different verbiage. Our goals are fundamentally different. If you do not agree with the desired end result your prescriptions for improvement are just as likely to be poison.

I identify you as an enemy because you want to water down the gospel. You are like the historical Nehor and Sherem. You do not want to destroy the church. You want to fix it. The problems is that your desired would pervert it.

I did not read any of the “women speak out” pieces on that site where I could be convinced the writer was faithful. They might attend but faithful? Not buying it.

As to your professions of faithfulness How are you doing? Tithing? Fast Offerings? Calling? Ministering? Pretty obvious you are not following the prophet on the topic of the name of the Church. I do not expect you to or even want you to answer and I would have no right to demand an answer in any case but I have heard many protestations of belonging from those who do not. I encourage you to belong. Dive in. Read the scriptures Start reading the Come Follow Me lessons. Go to those meetings. Listen to General Conference for insights instead of things to critique.

If you do not do any of this why is it a major part of your life? Should it be? There are hundreds of churches out there that actually adhere to your stated beliefs. Why are you trying to alter this one?

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

All the talk aside, this is the reality. In more than one LDS forum I am in, the women have formed their own subgroup. So whatever is said and asserted and objected to, by men when it comes to women,  a whole lot of women don't feel comfortable with men who are directing them or telling them what women's experiences mean or feel like.  This is why there is generally freer discussion in RS than GD. 

Until that sinks in, I find these debates useless. 

I hope I did not cross over into this problem area. If I did I apologize. It tried to keep it more general.

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you do not do any of this why is it a major part of your life? Should it be? There are hundreds of churches out there that actually adhere to your stated beliefs. Why are you trying to alter this one?

My argument is not dependent on that website.

The church is still a part of my life because it formed me in many ways, and because my parents and extended family are still members, along with some of my siblings and many of my friends, and because my teen son is an active member. He has Asperger's and needs a bit more help getting places. I got him to church for many months when the only way was by car. I translated the lessons and talks into English for him. I accompanied him to church on the bus so he could learn how to take the bus. He has specific challenges and I have met with his bishop on multiple occasions so that the bishop and I could meet his needs with each others' input. I expect that some of the most important events of my future life will be held in the Mormon context, and that also some of my dearest relationships will be largely dictated by the overall church context of my believing loved ones.

I would hope that you could consider people like me part of the Mormon circle, because we really are, even if we are admittedly on the margins. The church does impact my life, too, because of the way it impacts people in my life who still believe. It does impact the way people treat me as a woman. I do think that the structure of the church impacts how everyone listens to women, not just how men do. Even if it cannot change a lot, being aware of that tendency can in my opinion help members better meet each others' needs.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I don't necessarily disagree with legitimate criticisms of church leaders sometimes requiring special, quieter care. They might, but I disagree with it as a general rule. I think that a spiritual community can be more robust than Oaks implies, and that individuals can be outspoken at times and even critical while still being supportive of individuals and the whole, and that groups can support difficult conversations.

Okay.  I respect that viewpoint, but I mostly disagree with it.  We've seen, over and over and over again, the fruits of what you characterize as "outspoken{ness}" in a Gospel setting, particularly in the age of the everyone-has-a-soapbox Internet.

John Dehlin

Kate Kelly

Bill Reel

Sam Young

Jeremy Runnells

Grant Palmer

And these are just the well-known ones.

How many what-you-characterize-as-"outspoken" members of the Church have remained faithful, in good standing and fellowship?  

How many of these folks have been what you characterize as "outspoken" and yet have avoided the devolution toward gossip/backbiting/faultfunding?

How many of these folks have remained faithful to and active in the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it?

Quote

Oaks limits acceptable responses to the five options to either overlook it, postpone judgment or response, speak to the leader, speak to the leader's leader, and/or pray. I think that people often need other people to help work through a painful or difficult situation. This need cannot always be met by speaking to the leader in question or the leader's leader. 

I question that.  A lot, actually.

If I have a dispute with my wife, I may indeed need "other people to help {me} worth through" such things.  But those "other people" need to be trustworthy.  They need to have my best interests in mind.  If I rely on "other people" who hate my wife and would be thrilled at injuring her by breaking up her marriage, then such ulterior motives become very important.  Those motives speak to the kind of "help" I would receive.  

In other words, if I needed help, I would not want an Iago-like advisor (my wife, for the purposes of the metaphor, being "Desdemona").  I would instead want a person of good will, and kindness, and wisdom, and even temperament.  A person with no ulterior motives.  A person who would not seek to exploit my in-the-moment vulnerability, to weaponize it, to use it to injure my wife.

Quote

Quote

If I have a disagreement with my wife, should I air my grievances against her to the world?  Should I treat her like I would a politician?  By being publicly and openly critical of her?

Not normally, no. I don't think proper behavior in a marriage relationship compares perfectly to proper behavior in a church leader/church member relationship.

I think it's a far more apt comparison than the one you are advocating, which is to treat the Church like a political entity, and its leaders like politicians that are answerable to their constituencies, and are therefore subject to public criticism.

In contrast, Paul exhorted the Saints of his day: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25)

Elsewhere Paul observed (1 Cor. 12):

Quote

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

Unity.  Cohesion.  Camaraderie.  Cooperation.  Unity of the faith.  Zion.  These are the things that we should be aspiring to achieve and preserve.  

Did John Dehlin, who followed the path you are proposing (what you characterize as "outspoken{ness}"), contribute to or take away from these ends?

Did Kate Kelly?

Did Sam Young?

The answers, I think, are nearly axiomatic.

Quote

Quote

Surely not all disputes in a person's life can or ought to be treated in the exact same way?

Surely. And there are many possibilities between the extremes of that of public airing of grievances and Oaks' five options.

But not, I think, with the results being that the individual (who follows your proposal) retaining his or her faith and fellowship.  Nor with the the individual contributing to the unity and strengthening of our community of faith.

We've all seen where the path you are advocating, the path taken by Dehlin and Kelly and Young and others, leads.

Quote

So, as set forth by Oaks' model, grievances are airable in an extremely limited context.

I wouldn't say "extremely."  But yes, in a limited context.

Similarly, in a dispute with my wife, grievances are airable, but only in "a limited context."

In a dispute with my employer, grievances are airable, but only in "a limited context."

In a dispute involving a community which I value and hope to uphold and strengthen, grievances are airable, but only in "a limited context."

Publicly disparaging and insulting my wife, publicly airing confidential information I know about her, publicly pointing out her flaws and missteps, would not strengthen my relationship with her, but would instead likely weaken and perhaps even destroy it.  The same goes if I behaved this way toward my employer, or most other private relationships I value and which to maintain and strengthen.

Quote

Then, because those people a woman can speak to are only the leader or perhaps an officer above them, the only people who will hear her will be maybe a couple priesthood leaders.

This aversion to a woman speaking to a man is . . . weird.  Surely you are not suggesting that a woman is presumptively incapable of addressing a problem she has with a man by speaking with that man?

Quote

And since their perspectives mean they have less understanding of women than of men,

Then perhaps their (men's) "perspectives" could be improved by women, you know, speaking to men to explain and sort out the issue, and doing so in a spirit of fellowship and harmony and conciliation.  How is that a problem?

You seem to be suggesting that women not address their issues in the forthright and Gospel-centered ways proposed by Elder Oaks, and that they instead should resort to passive-aggressiveness on steroids by going online and (usually anonymously) ranting and railing about the issue and the dastardly bishop's role in it (and doing so behind his back, without him being able to defend or speak for himself).

That makes no kind of sense to me.  At all.

Quote

the woman in the church tends to be generally less heard, not just heard by less people, but qualitatively, or heard less by her leader.

Well, yes.  A person who affirmatively chooses not to speak can and should expect to "be generally less heard."

A member of the Church who affirmatively chooses to remain silent, and not address grievances with her leader can and should expect to be "heard less by her leader."

In other words:

🙂

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 13, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some thoughts:

1.  We're not having this discussion on Meadowchic's website though so I'm not sure that what is happening over there is relevant to us over here.  I agree that there are less-effective places to have certain types of discussions; we can make sure we aren't having them at such places while still having them in places that can be more effective, like hopefully on this website.

Okay.

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

2. We have been specifically told not to write letters to the church, and also told that if we do, they will be sent back to our stake president.  Given that, I'm not sure how 'write a letter' is a valid answer to the question of how do we tell the church about our issues.

It seems like a lot of grievances (such as almost all of those cited by Meadowchik) are or should be addressed at the local level.  If a person has a problem with something the bishop has done, they should either drop it or, if it is too serious to drop, they should schedule an appointment with the bishop to address it.  Or, perhaps, write him a letter/email.  If that doesn't work, then bring the issue up with the stake president 

Much of this going-online-and-anonymously-badmouthing-bishops stuff seems rather passive-aggressive.  

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

3. Meadowchic is providing examples of people who are claiming to have been hurt by bishops and how the hurt came to be.  

And they are doing so (mostly) anonymously.  Online.  And they are badmouthing the bishops.  Behind their backs.  In public.

I just don't see much in the way of usefulness of such things.

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the stories are true they aren't disparaging or badmouthing, they are honest.  

With respect, I disagree.  If I were to go online and publicly air my wife's missteps, mistakes, character flaws, etc., I don't think I could then say "Hey, I'm just telling the truth."  It would still be "disparaging" or "badmouthing" her, even if my statements are true.

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Now, i'm not saying that we have a duty to assume they are true.  I'm only saying that just because someone says something negative about a bishop, it's not automatically disparaging.  We don't have enough information to judge either way (and thankfully, we don't have to or need to).

To "disparage" means "to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle."

That seems like an apt summary of how bishops are characterized in Meadowchik's link.

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

4.  I agree.  That's why I leave them alone for the most part.  I'm not going to risk calling good evil, or evil good, by judging random experiences published on the internet.  That doesn't mean though that I'm not going to discuss the issue as it pertains to experiences that I can verify or collaborate.  Some bathwater is sketchy and needs to go, but the baby's still in there and shouldn't be ignored.

I agree that problems in the Church "shouldn't be ignored."

I just have concerns as to the time, and place, and manner, in which those problems are raised and addressed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[truth a la carte]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would not want an Iago-like advisor (my wife being "Ophelia").

Poor Ophelia, it seems she must deal with both Hamlet's madness and Othello's jealousy
(I believe you meant your wife would be like Desdemona, though truly she has an awful fate; your wife would probably resist the comparison)

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

Poor Ophelia, it seems she must deal with both Hamlet's madness and Othello's jealousy
(I believe you meant your wife would be like Desdemona, though truly she has an awful fate; your wife would probably resist the comparison)

Whoops!  Yep, Desdemona is who I had in mind.

[MorningStar]

On 9/10/2019 at 2:05 PM, bluebell said:

The bolded statements aren't true.  

As the YW's president in my ward I am often in meetings where I am equal partners (and the men treat me like one).  When I meet with the YMs president, for example.  When I meet with his counselors or advisors about activities or issues that relate to both the YM and YW, I am treated like the presiding person in the room (and I am).  And I boss the teenage boys around all the time was well.  When the YW are in charge of a combined activity then we are in charge, of the boys too and the YM leaders make sure the boys know that.  The same goes for the YW when the YM are in charge.  This is true for the Primary president dealing with any male teachers or cub scout leaders as well.  The primary president isn't equal partners with those males in their callings, she is their leader.

And Jana should know better than say the last bolded thing.  It is completely against church doctrine and teachings and makes me completely question her agenda and honesty in writing this piece. What could have been a good point is wasted when the writer does this kind of stuff.  She made it really easy for people to ignore her by doing that.

And I think that Jana has a point and shouldn't be ignored (which makes me even madder at her that she has made it so easy for her words to be dismissed).  Our church does have a history of protecting men who have done bad things to women and children.  I think that she makes a good point about why it's easy for that to happen.  It's something that should be acknowledged so it can be changed.  It's very easy to trust people we have a good relationship with and to doubt those we don't know.  Too much trust has been given to messed up men and too little to victims and that's probably largely the reason. 

I wanted to add:  I'm not saying that our church has a history of knowingly protecting evil men.  Only that our culture makes it easy for evil men to gain the trust and camaraderie of those who are in charge of disciplinary decisions while not making it very easy for female victims to have the same relationship of trust and familiarity with those in charge.  

Agreed. This article is garbage. Women speak in church just like men do, which means it's important to listen to them. We have female seminary teachers who teach teenage boys, Sunday School teachers, Primary presidents over male Primary teachers, etc.. Unfortunately there will always be men like my brother-in-law who seem to think men are superior to women even though his dad was an excellent example and treats his wife like a queen. |

Edited to add: When it comes to women not being believed, this happens everywhere in all abuse situations. It happens in the work place. It happens in families. Predators put on a wonderful act for many people, making it difficult to believe they're capable of such a thing. I had a friend when I was in grade school and no one in our area ever heard from her again after her mom chose her husband over her. He raped her, she told a friend, who told my mom, my mom reported, and the girl went to live with her dad. I don't know what happened to the step-dad legally, but her mom acted like she didn't exist after that. No pictures in her home of her daughter at all.  Countless women haven't even believed their own children. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by MorningStar