Jump to content

bluebell

Contributor
  • Posts

    28,865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bluebell

  1. I agree that gun free zones are a joke. And I do think that we should probably have more security at our schools, at least until we can get a handle on this kind of stuff and lessen it happening. But I don't think that arming teachers is the answer. As the meme says, if we don't even trust our teachers right now to pick library books, why would we trust them with a gun? And lastly, if this were an easy problem to solve and all it took was some intelligence, I think we would have solved it already. It's a problem because we don't really know what is causing it, so we don't really know how to stop it. It's probably a combination of a lot of different things and with so many options on the table, there are an equal number of options for resolution--and in our current broken political climate that means a lot of fighting and very little of doing anything.
  2. I don't want to talk about it; it's still so heartbreaking to even think about this latest one in Texas. But talking about it might be helpful. I have no idea what the root cause is, but we are obviously broken. I don't think it is easy gun access, because other countries with easy gun access do not have the same level of gun violence that we do. So it's probably something (or many things) in our current culture that makes getting a gun and shooting a lot of innocent people sound like a great idea. But, though easy gun access might not be the root cause of people wanting to kill and maim as many people as possible, easy gun access does make it easier for people to live out these sick fantasies.
  3. Yes, including ombudsmen. But from my perspective, their purpose would not be to remove fallibility from the equation. It would be to help remove bias (on both sides) and offer support. Someone farther back from the issue can often understand where both sides are coming from in ways that the involved cannot. Well, how would he determine whether or not the RSP ought to be subject to church discipline right now under our current procedures if she told the stake RS president this rather than an ombudsman? The lack of an official third party helping the RS president doesn't make this scenario any less hard for the bishop. I guess that would depend on what authority and responsibilities the prophet gave them. That would be the prophet's call if such a calling was created. It's not like an ombudsman is going to suddenly spring up out of the grass with no oversight or authority from the quorum of the 12, and run amok because they/the bishop/stake president have no idea where they fit into the "chain of command" or what authority they have. And it's not like we have to figure that all out either before the idea is plausible. That would definitely be above our pay grade. Speaking for myself though, he wouldn't have the authority to override the bishop or stake president on his own. It already is very messy. I don't see how support for members in some difficult situations is going to make it more messy.
  4. Actually, I love knowing there’s a correct term for it. I hate when they refer to these people as pedophiles. They aren’t, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still something very wrong with them.
  5. From my perspective we are talking about how good men and women can still make hurtful decisions when ruled by their ego, pride, self-righteousness, or personal biases. As long as good people are fallible, they can harm others. I get that your time being bishop has biased you against some perspectives, and that is completely normal. We all have our biases. Trying to work in ways that limit our biases impacting others is the point of this discussion. Being willing to acknowledge our biases is the first step in doing that.
  6. And yet, look at everything (time, money, resources, volunteers, working with other organizations, continuously changing policies and processes from time to time to make sure things are working as good as possible, etc.) the church does to try to help the poor anyway.
  7. Oh heck no, we do not need "independent investigators". But I agree with the bold.
  8. Hmmm. I learned a new word today.
  9. First, I think what might be helpful is if we can all acknowledge that a bishop or stake president does not have to be "bad, incompetent, or awful" to do great harm. It's hard to admit that we can be both good intentioned and also hurt people greatly, but since it's the truth, admitting it is a necessary step to fixing it. Second, if we really believe Christ when He outlined the importance of leaving the 99 to save the one, should we be careful not to let outlier exceptions drive policy? You say that as if it's a given--and maybe in the business world or some other secular organization it is--but when we are talking about people's souls, I don't think that argument holds up. At all.
  10. I don't really see it as a process to make sure that the accuser is happy with the outcome. I see it as a way to take the need to "represent yourself" out of the process (both for the accuser and the accused). Doing so doesn't guarantee justice, mercy, or happiness in the end but--if Danzo is correct--it makes it a more likely outcome than the old system. This idea that the system that we have right now is the very best that we can do and so it's useless to try to improve it in any way because nothing would be better, is laughable to me. I'm pretty sure that we have no reason to think that we've reached peak performance levels on this topic.
  11. I completely agree. It's another reason why psychologically, men tend to side with the male "accused" in situations where abuse is alleged. Or, adults tend to side with the known adult accused when the accusation is made by a child. In other words, it is human nature to side with the person that you 1) have the most in common with and then 2) know better and care about. Most men in power tend to believe other men in power. Not because they want to cover up abuse or don't care about the victim, but because they can more readily put themselves into the shoes of an innocent leader accused of misconduct. They know how they would want others to respond if it was them being accused of something, so they respond in kind when it's someone else being accused. (This was discovered to be one of the main reasons that Dr. Nassar was able to abuse so many gymnasts for so long, even when girls were speaking up and telling people what was going on). This doesn't mean that everyone who circles the wagons around "their people" are evil. None of us want abuses (of any kind) to go unchecked. We just want to support the people (or organization) that we know and have experiences with and love. But it's that very bias that can make us into people who enable and protect evil in the name of loyalty.
  12. I wasn't very open to the idea of an ombudsman either until the reactions of some of the posters here to anyone even suggesting that some leaders in the church cause harm over more than grave misconduct. If there are many more members out there who believe that in a serious disagreement between a member and a leader, that we owe it to the leader to believe them over the member, then that is reason enough to have someone else who can step in and actually be impartial and open to the possibility of fallible bishops and stake presidents without the implication that such a person is automatically antagonistic towards the church. Danzo also made an excellent argument himself in favor of the need for ombudsman when he posted on how only a fool represents themselves in such emotional cases. If what Danzo is saying is true, then it is harmful for the church to require members to represent themselves in disputes with leaders. Likewise, it is harmful for leaders to believe they can represent themselves (or their close associates) in disputes with members without bias and personal emotions also getting in the way.
  13. I have seen this happen before in other wards. It's not unusual for the the more well-liked person or family in the dispute to be the one that gets the support of the ward, especially if they have an extroverted personality and have outgoing kids. If a shy, introverted, person or family with baggage comes up against a ward's "popular" family, it gets real ugly real fast (in my experience). This is especially true if one family has had a male in leadership positions before in the church (so personally has worked with a lot of leaders/men in the ward before and has a lot of male friends in leadership) and the other doesn't.
  14. Their exchange reminds me of the refrain repeated by many apostles— “Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.” And what it looks like when someone fails at that.
  15. It also ignores the fact that to have emotions is human and that there would be something seriously wrong with a person if they weren't emotional in these kinds of situations that we've been discussing. Saying "look, if you could just shut off your emotions and deal with this like an impartial robot, you'd see that it's not a big deal" is as useful as telling someone that all their problems would be solved if they could just be more like a cucumber. And, there is no way for someone in these kinds of situations to separate themselves from their emotional bias because, to use Danzo's words, they have to represent themselves. There is no one else to do it.
  16. I'm sure it wasn't, since you had physical, email, and phone access to the SP. Getting to a stake president is almost as easy as getting to the bishop, for most of us. For people who live hours from their SP, it's probably a bit harder. But still, the contact information is right there on LDS tools for anyone in the stake. Going over the SP's head, is a different ball game. I'm sure it can be done, but the logistics of doing it, compared to talking the stake president, are not the same.
  17. You're right. That doesn't make you arrogant. I said it was arrogant to believe that you--who has never had to try to go over a SP's head because he wasn't following policy--know more about how difficult that is to do than she does--someone who actually has been in that situation.
  18. I agree. If more leaders believe that they might have to answer for their crimes in public, or at least be publicly called out on that, that might stop someone from deciding to do what they would otherwise do if they were guaranteed secrecy. It's a shame that she had to do what she did to get the pastor to take full accountability for his actions. Him pretending to do so, without actually admitting what happened, is pretty slimey.
  19. This situation happened to her, and I remember her talking about it on here when it all went down and she was trying desperately to hang on to her testimony and deal with her local leaders (she lives in Europe). You can disagree with how she ultimately chose to move forward but the bold is incredibly arrogant, seeing as how she is speaking from a place of actual experience with the topic and you are speaking in hypotheticals.
  20. Did you watch the video? The pastor stood up in a meeting with the congregation and confessed to 'adultery' and told them that he had repented of it 20 years ago. He got a standing ovation. When he went to sit down, the woman stood up and took the microphone and explained that what had actually happened was that he had begun grooming her when she was 15 and took her virginity on the floor of his office when she was 16. The sexual relationship went on for 9 years. This woman was sexually abused by an adult--a religious leader--who called their sexual relationship 'adultery' and didn't confess that it happened with a child, and your gut reaction is to describe that as the victim getting "her pound of flesh"?? The pastor admitted, after she spoke, that what she said was the truth. So Tacenda isn't 'accepting her say-so'.
  21. The new handbook agrees with you, in general.
  22. I am very glad that the new handbook instructs bishops to stop being so quick to stop people from taking the sacrament as an aspect of repentance.
  23. Yes! And why ask such questions? It’s valid to want to make sure the youth understand what the LoC is exactly, but you don’t have to ask baiting questions to do that. You just have to tell them. No need to be graphic.
  24. I agree. My husband is in the bishopric so isn't assigned any ministering familes, or I think that my son (hopefully) would have been assigned to him.
×
×
  • Create New...