Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Uh huh, and what was the Stake president’s response? Supporting the bishop in not baptizing solely because the child was not adopted out? Doubt it.

This story screams false to me. How active is this woman? Why is she having all these continuous negative experiences with priesthood leaders throughout her whole life? What is the common denominator in all these experiences? It is probably not the same leader every time.

I have been close to local church leadership most of my adult life in a position to know the more difficult members and I have met many people (male and female) who are constantly at odds with church leadership. I have never found the leader to be the problem. They also love lying about why the bishop made decisions because telling the truth would mean having to admit their own faults and sins. There is always a sigh of relief when they move away.

Oh great.  She's just going to chalk you up as just another man who chooses not to believe her.  I was at least trying to act like I believed her, as if what her friend told her was true, while talking about what she should do in that situation.

But fine.  Dandy.  I just won't believe her friend either.  It's just much easier that way.  Problem solved now.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh great.  She's just going to chalk you up as just another man who chooses not to believe her.

To be fair I suspect most women who know her would not believe her either.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was at least trying to act like I believed her, as if what her friend told her was true, while talking about what she should do in that situation.

Congrats on that.

050a83879ee3cb88397913c5470e437a21f3da-w

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

But fine.  Dandy.  I just won't believe her friend either.  It's just much easier that way.  Problem solved now.

I am sorry I ruined your weird mind game I guess?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, rpn said:

Reply to questions:

Baptisms are much more personal that the sacrament, you feel almost naked in the act and it involves touching --- things that would be okay with a brother or other relative, but intimacy that shouldn't be by assignment, and shouldn't be encouraged for teens who are still learning to manage all their mortal reactions. 

Baptism involves a male holding the other person's wrist in one hand and then placing the other hand on the person's back to support them going into and out of the water.

Both participants are fully clothed from ankles to neck.  

The baptism takes place in a well-lit font, with two witnesses and an officiator only feet away and watching every second of it.  Numerous others are usually in the vacinity and watching the goings-on as well.

There is nothing remotely sexual or untoward or inappropriate or "intimate" about any part of this process.

Quote

And the kids often know when the others are going but also behave awfully in other circumstances, so it raises questions of why he's trusted in this way.  It would be excruciating to be demeaned one day and then have the same person baptizing you at the temple.  

Then that should be addressed on an individualized basis.

I grew up in Utah County (oodles of Latter-day Saints all about), and sometimes felt neglected or mistreated by other youth.  Unfortunate, but there you are.  And some of it was probably imagined by me.

This is all part of growing up.  That process requires us to interact with each other.  That process is impeded when we insulate ourelves from each other, particularly in utterly innocuous circumstances (such as abstaining from participating in proxy baptisms).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair I suspect most women who know her would not believe her either.

Congrats on that.

050a83879ee3cb88397913c5470e437a21f3da-w

I am sorry I ruined your weird mind game I guess?

That's the first time you've ever told me you're sorry. 😂

Thank you for the cookie.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think she stated things in a very extreme manner (I don't agree with using the word "grooming", for example).  But she's not "just wrong"....she gets some things right.

It doesn't help when posters come on and respond in just as an extreme manner in disagreement as the manner in which she stated things, IMO.

Yes, when I have thought about this, the only area I can think of where a woman (in leadership) actually presides over men is the Primary President (male teachers, music people, cub scouts, etc.).  Or can you think of another leadership calling where a sister presides over men?  

But even in this calling, she follows what her male Bishopric member (or Bishop) approves or disapproves of.  She still answers to men.  She can of course make decisions on her own and the Bishopric values her input and listens to her.  But, they (men) make the final decisions (in my experience).

All of those sisters you're referring to still answer to men in the final decisions.  Yes, the Bishopric won't get involved much of the time unless they see something that is being done that they don't agree with or feel is inappropriate (ie. a youth activity, music planned, RS activity, etc.).  

And yes, YM/YW are equal when they meet....but it's still men (Bishopric) who make final decisions when in doubt or if they see something they don't approve or have requests to make.  Also with making any callings, it comes down to men approving or disapproving and issuing those calls.

So yes, Reiss does make some accurate points....but in a very extreme, black and white manner and I agree that isn't the most effective way to express things.  But responding in like manner isn't correct either, IMO.

I love bluebell's post and agree:

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It doesn’t make it right or credible. 

She made blatant factually and demonstrably incorrect statements.  She’s wrong. And that reflects in the credibility of her sweeping opinions and conclusions. She has none.

Now, you want to emphasize that she isn’t wrong in everything. That she got some things right. Let’s go with that. She is making wild accusations by extrapolating the unfortunate exceptions to something bigger than it really is. If she can irresponsibly paint the “church” based on the brush dipped in the paint of exceptions, then I, using her methodology, can note that her instances of error are representative of her analysis as a whole.

Shes not credible anyway you cut it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh great.  She's just going to chalk you up as just another man who chooses not to believe her.  I was at least trying to act like I believed her, as if what her friend told her was true, while talking about what she should do in that situation.

But fine.  Dandy.  I just won't believe her friend either.  It's just much easier that way.  Problem solved now.

Uncritical and wholesale acceptance of farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdotes is not a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought it was Wyoming who gave women the right to vote first?  Wyoming gave women the right to vote (while still a territory) in 1869 while Utah gave them the right (while still a territory) in 1870.    

I got this from Wiki:
"Women's suffrage in Utah was first granted in 1870, in the pre-federal period, decades before statehood. Among all U.S. states, only Wyoming granted suffrage to women earlier than Utah. Because Utah held two elections before Wyoming, Utah women were the first women to cast ballots in the United States after the start of the suffrage movement. "

So I guess Wyoming was the first to give women the right to vote, but Utah women were the first to actually vote. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Are you arguing that there is no significant systemic difference in the church between how members experience male leadership/authority versus how members experience female leadership/authority?

I'm saying that I haven't noticed what Riess is claiming, that women aren't listened to because men hold all the leadership roles.  I'm saying that the differences I've noticed have to do with people, and their style of leadership, not their sex.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, smac97 said:

Uncritical and wholesale acceptance of farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdotes is not a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Suppose, though, that it had been a true story.  I was responding from that perspective without judging whether or not the story was true because it is good for people to feel like other people listen to them and to get some good counsel for such situations.

But yeah I know the story did sound farfetched and vague and seemed to be an anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdote.  Something like that would never really happen in reality, as we know it, would it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Baptism involves a male holding the other person's wrist in one hand and then placing the other hand on the person's back to support them going into and out of the water.

Both participants are fully clothed from ankles to neck.  

The baptism takes place in a well-lit font, with two witnesses and an officiator only feet away and watching every second of it.  Numerous others are usually in the vacinity and watching the goings-on as well.

There is nothing remotely sexual or untoward or inappropriate or "intimate" about any part of this process.

Then that should be addressed on an individualized basis.

I grew up in Utah County (oodles of Latter-day Saints all about), and sometimes felt neglected or mistreated by other youth.  Unfortunate, but there you are.  And some of it was probably imagined by me.

This is all part of growing up.  That process requires us to interact with each other.  That process is impeded when we insulate ourelves from each other, particularly in utterly innocuous circumstances (such as abstaining from participating in proxy baptisms).

Thanks,

-Smac

Baptism is only uncomfortable to those afraid of touch in general or some other kind of anxiety. I feel sorry for these people and their discomfort but the idea that baptism is traumatic when done by someone of another gender is silly. These people should also get therapy.

in my experience the opposite is true. I am too old to have used this policy as a priest but I did perform something sort of close in doing baptisms a lot in the YSA ward I was in and many of the sisters were my friends and even the ones I did not know well did not seem uncomfortable. I had one sister that asked if we could try to set a speed record. It was fun. We were told to stop though. :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:
Quote

Uncritical and wholesale acceptance of farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdotes is not a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Suppose, though, that it had been a true story. 

No, I won't suppose that.  There are too many problems with the story.  It is farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced and hearsay.  It is too problematic.  It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

I was responding from that perspective without judging whether or not the story was true

Huh?  How can you say that?  Your "perspective" was to "suppose" that the story was "true," but you responded "without judging whether or not the story was true?"

Quote

because it is good for people to feel like other people listen to them and to get some good counsel for such situations.

Again, the story is farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced and hearsay.  Given such circumstances, I'm not inclined to "suppose" that it is "true."

Quote

But yeah I know the story did sound farfetched and vague and seemed to be an anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdote.  Something like that would never really happen in reality, as we know it, would it.

Sarcasm doesn't help you here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Uncritical and wholesale acceptance of farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdotes is not a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

All any of us has, besides hearsay, is limited personal experience or first-hand observations.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:
Quote

Uncritical and wholesale acceptance of farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced hearsay anecdotes is not a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

All any of us has, besides hearsay, is limited personal experience or first-hand observations.

Not so.  We also have reason.  And we have varying degrees of evidence, which in turn have varying degrees of reliability and probative value. 

And we have the opportunity to use the former to examine the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I get that local leaders can and do make mistakes.  Sometimes even significant ones.  But an anonymous, hearsay, woe-is-me narrative that involves systemic "pain" being inflicted on one particular woman by various nefarious male leaders in the Church sounds a lot like embellishment / fabrication.  Again, color me skeptical.

I agree that anonymous stories can be inaccurate. So, rather than debate the accuracy or inaccuracy of someone's very painful situation, how about some more broadly known (and far less painful) situations? If women's voices were heard…

- Would church buildings in the U.S. be so cold in the summer? Women freeze while men wear their jackets. Perhaps men's priesthood responsibilities do not require a summer jacket :) 

- Would men’s garments function like men’s underwear, and women’s garments function like… men’s underwear? Women in the church often wear two sets of underwear, and the set from Beehive Clothing isn’t the set that does the job of underwear.

- Would the change to the temple ceremony have occurred only this year? Women have been concerned for a long time about the way things were presented. (This last one is a great example of a leader listening to women about something big, but also an example of previous leaders NOT listening.)

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:
Quote

I get that local leaders can and do make mistakes.  Sometimes even significant ones.  But an anonymous, hearsay, woe-is-me narrative that involves systemic "pain" being inflicted on one particular woman by various nefarious male leaders in the Church sounds a lot like embellishment / fabrication.  Again, color me skeptical.

I agree that anonymous stories can be inaccurate. So, rather than debate the accuracy or inaccuracy of someone's very painful situation, how about some more broadly known (and far less painful) situations? If women's voices were heard…

- Would church buildings in the U.S. be so cold in the summer? Women freeze while men wear their jackets. Perhaps men's priesthood responsibilities do not require a summer jacket :) 

That seems like a local issue.

2 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

- Would men’s garments function like men’s underwear, and women’s garments function like… men’s underwear? Women in the church often wear two sets of underwear, and the set from Beehive Clothing isn’t the set that does the job of underwear.

I'm not sure that "women's voices" haven't been heard/addressed on this point.

2 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

- Would the change to the temple ceremony have occurred only this year? Women have been concerned for a long time about the way things were presented. (This last one is a great example of a leader listening to women about something big, but also an example of previous leaders NOT listening.)

So even after the Church makes a change to purportedly accommodate "women," it is still to be faulted and criticized?  We're now reduced to griping about an issue that has been addressed?

Really?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  We also have reason.  And we have varying degrees of evidence.  And we have the opportunity to use the former to examine the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

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.)

 

Share this post


Link to post

And, for balance, a good example too:

When Ministering was announced, our ward completely tore apart the old lists and started fresh for both EQ and RS, and based the new approach on the ideas of our then RS President.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing remotely sexual or untoward or inappropriate or "intimate" about any part of this process.

Didn't say it was sexual or untoward or inappropriate.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I won't suppose that.  There are too many problems with the story.  It is farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced and hearsay.  It is too problematic.  It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Huh?  How can you say that?  Your "perspective" was to "suppose" that the story was "true," but you responded "without judging whether or not the story was true?"

In other words, I responded with the counsel I would have given if I thought the story was true but without judging whether or not it was true.  If instead I responded the way I would have if I thought the story was false I would have essentially just said, "Nah, I don't believe you."

 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the story is farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced and hearsay.  Given such circumstances, I'm not inclined to "suppose" that it is "true."

You're not required to be so inclined, so don't worry about it.  You're simply responding as if the story is false because you don't see any good reason to suppose it is true. If you thought for a moment that the story was true perhaps you would say something else.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sarcasm doesn't help you here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually, it did.  Expressing that thought was more for my own benefit and anyone else who might also appreciate it than to benefit any other audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Meadowchik said:
Quote

Not so.  We also have reason.  And we have varying degrees of evidence.  And we have the opportunity to use the former to examine the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

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.)

As far as "member-leadership situations where there might be out-of-bounds leadership," most discussion about such things would amount to gossip.  Backbiting.  Faultfinding.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rpn said:

Didn't say it was sexual or untoward or inappropriate.  

"Baptisms are much more personal that the sacrament, you feel almost naked in the act and it involves touching --- things that would be okay with a brother or other relative, but intimacy that shouldn't be by assignment..."

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing from the bolded part that you don't allow your children to go to any dances then?

Quote

OK that settles it. No more youth dances. 😉

 

Of course my kids go to dances.   And they dance with groups (when adults allow group dancing and with others who want to dance with them (though adults often intervene (stupidly given teen current culture IMHO) when the group that forms is all boys or all girls).    Totally different thing.

Edited by rpn

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're not required to be so inclined, so don't worry about it.  You're simply responding as if the story is false because you don't see any good reason to suppose it is true.

The story was farfetched and vague and anonymously-sourced and hearsay.  Taken in tandem, this is some real justification in not accepting the story as true (and even some justification for supposing it to potentially be embellished/distorted/false).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that this is even an item of discussion does point to some issues about the "egalitarian nature" of the Church. The keys of the Priesthood do operate in a patriarchal fashion. No sister can hold keys of the Priesthood. But does that mean, outside of that context, the administration of the Church at a local level has some degree of gender equity? Those who clamor about the issue make one or both of the complaints:

1) the keys are only available to males (even if only some males) -- that is unfair
2) ignoring Priesthood keys, the organization of the Church is still very gender imbalanced

It is important that one understand which complaint one is addressing (even in giving of the complaint or in responding to the complaint). Jana Riess did not do a great job in separating the two issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rpn said:

Of course my kids go to dances.   And they dance with groups (when adults allow group dancing and with others who want to dance with them (though adults often intervene (stupidly given teen current culture IMHO) when the group that forms is all boys or all girls).    Totally different thing.

How about considering an analogy of a lifeguard when thinking about a man baptizing a woman.  A lifeguard touches a woman to try to save her life when pulling her out of the water when he sees she is in peril.

At least a woman getting baptized has more clothes on and there is no mouth to mouth stuff going on.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...