Bullying The Church Into Submission

[KevinG]

When I learned it was happening---the masturbation question to the young men--- I didn't know it happened to the young women as well (awful!) I don't ever remember being asked as a youth.

And when I worried about my 15 yr. old son getting asked, I didn't even think he knew what that meant. But my husband said he knows.

But I still can't see that being an appropiate question. Is this a fairly new question or does it just depend on the bisop?

The Temple recommend and Baptism interviews do not get into such detail. Perhaps it is discussed in cases where someone volunteers the question as an inquiry about "what does chastity mean" but the answer to that question is also clarified in the recommend interviews.

It would be nice if one of our current or former Bishops would clarify this for us (hint).

Edited August 17, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I want a woman to sit in on interviews for the same reason most people want security systems on their house. A break in will probably never happen but it provides peace of mind. Just think about the power a Bishop has over the young women. Especially for your standard LDS family who says never turn down a calling or say no.

There are safeguards- including the requirement for a clerk or other Bishopric member to be present outside the office (usually in the clerks office connected to the Bishops office) and multiple layers of leadership including the Stake presidencies.

I am a bit offended that your default position is that a man is inherently untrustworthy with a young woman's safety and that we must be chaperoned in their presence.

I also find the caricature of the "standard LDS family" who never says no to be laughable.

Edited August 17, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Note: This thread that was started as a discussion of how critics "bully" or seek to use external pressure to coerce the Church into making policy changes has devolved into debates over particular policies that critics don't like.

I would like to refocus the discussion on the idea of external pressure vs. the way the church was designed to work (general revelation with individual confirmation and application).

Why do some think social pressure, guilt or arguments are appropriate to use as leverage in a system that relies on revelation and inspired leadership?

It smacks of lack of trust in God and His Servants to me. That is why I said murmuring and arc steadying are appropriate labels for those who seek to modify policies and doctrines to be more or less stringent than they currently are.

[tyler90az]

There are safeguards- including the requirement for a clerk or other Bishopric member to be present outside the office (usually in the clerks office connected to the Bishops office) and multiple layers of leadership including the Stake presidencies.

When either door is shut that does not do much good. I do not understand the part about the Stake presidencies...

I am a bit offended that your default position is that a man is inherently untrustworthy with a young woman's safety and that we must be chaperoned in their presence.

Not you Kevin, I like you. It is just better when there are two people in a room. More then likely two people will not gange up and do something bad. Although you are right I would much prefer a woman talk to a girl. Just like I would prefer a man talk to a boy.

I also find the caricature of the "standard LDS family" who never says no to be laughable.

I meant they are taught not to say no to calling or assignment.

[KevinG]

I meant they are taught not to say no to calling or assignment.

Sorry - I wasn't clear.

Yes- we are not taught to not say no. We are taught not to turn down a calling. There is a significant difference and that teaching has nothing to do with someone submitting to inappropriate questions.

If a Bishop were to overstep his authority or ask inappropriate things of his congregation the Stake Presidency or anyone above them could remove him quickly.

Edited August 17, 2012 by KevinG

[tyler90az]

Note: This thread that was started as a discussion of how critics "bully" or seek to use external pressure to coerce the Church into making policy changes has devolved into debates over particular policies that critics don't like.

I would like to refocus the discussion on the idea of external pressure vs. the way the church was designed to work (general revelation with individual confirmation and application).

Why do some think social pressure, guilt or arguments are appropriate to use as leverage in a system that relies on revelation and inspired leadership?

It smacks of lack of trust in God and His Servants to me. That is why I said murmuring and arc steadying are appropriate labels for those who seek to modify policies and doctrines to be more or less stringent than they currently are.

I personally think the brethren are less stubborn then we think. It sounds childish for them to say if somebody trys "ark steadying" that they will not change policy just for spite. If somebody writes them or they read an article on the internet I believe they evaluate it. They do not just automatically throw it out the window. That is what I believe a Prophet or Apostle of God would do. Just think about it, they take surveys to help with decisions. That makes sense, since we are taught to first think it out then pray to God.

As far as protests, I am the king of protests and civil disobedience. Even with that title, I do not see it working with the church and would never attempt it. As a believer all it does is undermine the church, which would hurt The Church in the long wrong. The opportunity cost in the long run would not be worth it. Like I said, the best course would be to get a petition started with a detailed plan. Then just put in the petition that you would like it put into consideration.

Edited August 17, 2012 by tyler90az

[wenglund]

The only thing that i'm not sure i'm comfortable with in that article is that the sister speaking seems to be speaking on behalf of all LDS women when she talks about the 'tremendous pain' we all supposedly feel.

In my research I have found emotional appeals and sympathy ploys to be a common means of public manipulation employed by self-appointed social engineers. From what I can tell, and not surprisingly, these emotive strategies reached their peak at the height of the so-called feminist movement.

Businesses have also come to understand the effectiveness of that strategy, which is why there are so many commercials these days with crying women, children with hungry faces and tattered clothes, and heart-tugging piano music playing in the background.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Seeking to modify policies is not the issue. It is how we approach the Lord and the Brethren. Blacks and the priesthood is an excellent example of how to do this the right way.

External pressure never changed the policy (if that were the case it would have been changed a decade or two earlier). It was the petitioning of the black Saints coupled with a willingness to obey no matter the answer they received that caused the brethren to petition the Lord.

Petition this case being plead and ask not gather a bunch of names in protest.

[happy]

Then just put in the petition that you would like it put into consideration.

Wait, is this God's Church or some political organization?

[KevinG]

Not you Kevin, I like you.

P.S. This did not go unnoticed. Thank you - I like you too!

[KevinG]

Wait, is this God's Church or some political organization?

Being that we are mortal I would have to argue a bit of both... But in our better moments an inspired, God led, organization.

[rpn]

Some of this wording sounds extremely close to the wording used to try to bully the Church into accepting gays.

Even if OP considers this a derail, I couldn't let this pass without expressing my repugnance for the above misrepresentation. Why shouldn't the Church also be a church for those with same gender attraction? Heavenly Father accepts us where we are at and invites us to be better than we think we can me. He calls us to treat others who may sin differently than ourselves to come unto Him, and be perfected in Him.

[Scott Lloyd]

I understand the SSM issues to be a doctrinal one but is there clear doctrinal support for women & the priesthood? The scriptures do have several examples of women in prophetic roles and, I would assume, they would have had to have priesthood authority to receive and transmit revelation to Israel. Plus, women exercise priesthood authority and perform priesthood ordinances in the temple every day.

I've always thought of the women/priesthood matter an issue of policy, not doctrine. I mean, there was a time in the Church where women blessed their Children/animals etc...

Anyway, I'm not expert on the history of this practice so perhaps there is solid doctrinal support that I'm not aware of.

Seth

Of course, this hasn't been a huge area of study for me.

There is nothing unorthodox about women receiving and exercising the gift of prophecy. But that's not the same thing as keys and authority to receive revelation governing the entire Church or covenant people of God. As far as I'm aware, that role has always been held by a male.

[tyler90az]

Wait, is this God's Church or some political organization?

The first step is awareness. How do you expect somebody to change somebody if they are not aware? Even the Lord says that we need to ask.

[happy]

Even if OP considers this a derail, I couldn't let this pass without expressing my repugnance for the above misrepresentation. Why shouldn't the Church also be a church for those with same gender attraction? Heavenly Father accepts us where we are at and invites us to be better than we think we can me. He calls us to treat others who may sin differently than ourselves to come unto Him, and be perfected in Him.

That's all cute, but the gay community wants the Church to stop calling homosexuality a sin and open temple sealings to accept SSM. And they are using bully tactics and shaming using suicides as a method of forcing change.

[happy]

The first step is awareness. How do you expect somebody to change somebody if they are not aware? Even the Lord says that we need to ask.

We are not talking about changing someone. We are taking about your arrogance in deciding for God that His Church must change and be petitioned to do so. And yes, I feel that is a very dark arrogance that comes from a certain fallen brother.

Let's not accuse anyone of following Satan.

[mapman]

As far as I can tell, the article was just providing suggestions for what various people think will be good ideas. I didn't see anyone demanding or coercing. I have no problem with people speaking their mind and reasoning through things. I don't know any of them personally, but I'd be willing to bet that the people in the article understand that revelation is required to change some things.

[Bernard Gui]

I think LDS women are stronger and smarter then you think. One man is going to do nothing except give them a false sense of security. It is hard to believe that one man is going to do anything that twenty five women can not. If a woman is truly scared about not having a man always present, dare I say, that falls on the shoulders of her parents. I know that is not the case because they have meetings at each others houses regularly.

It is in the nature of men to be protective of women. The perversion of that nature results in abuse or apathy.

Unfortunately, both are commonplace now.

[KevinG]

There are some detailed instructions for Bishops and Stake counsels in the Church Handbook of Instructions that I think do a wonderful job of instructing how the church and counsels work.

In a nutshell we voice our opinions then each member of the counsel prays to find the Lord's instructions. If the counsel receives consistent answers the decision is made, if not continued rounds of discussion, prayers and sometimes research are held until the entire group is in consensus. I have experienced times when a single person was not in agreement and the rest of us went back to the Lord in prayer until we were in agreement and a few cases where the minority opinion was the ultimate decision we made.

It is a highly spiritual and carefully considered process. I think this is in stark contrast to the way of the world where ideas are debated and often the loudest or most popular ideas are adopted.

While I am still learning how to counsel in my family and in leadership positions I do know it is an inspired way to operate the church.

[happy]

It is in the nature of men to be protective of women. The perversion of that nature results in abuse or apathy.

Unfortunately, both are commonplace now.

And ordination of Men, in my view, will further those perversions, especially as men are continually obsoleted by the feminist movement,

[KevinG]

And ordination of Men, in my view, will further those perversions, especially as men are continually obsoleted by the feminist movement,

Men bear some responsibility for the demeaning of manhood. Having said that it is not right to throw out the entire system because a few abuse it.

I was at a meeting of BYU Bishoprics back in the 90s when Elder Packer addressed us. It was a full two hours of repentance for us including how we should treat women and how we were not doing it right. He was receiving letters from sisters whose husbands were not treating them correctly and told us it was not acceptable.

One comment he made that really stuck with me was "if men exercised their priesthood as they ought to there would not be a person in the world, much less the church that would question why they have it."

Edited August 17, 2012 by KevinG

[tyler90az]

It is in the nature of men to be protective of women. The perversion of that nature results in abuse or apathy.

Unfortunately, both are commonplace now.

I imagine back in the day every women did not have a cell phone. Which could get the police to them in less then then ten minutes. As a result, I feel more safety for women then I am sure Joseph Smith felt. I am sure it has roots all the way back to the devilish days of persecutions in the early 1800's.

[Bernard Gui]

What things?

Women give talks and prayers. Last Sunday the final speaker was a woman.

We have a Women's Council that meets monthly with the bishopric.

All women leaders play an active roll in the Ward Council.

Our stake women leaders speak in stake conference and give prayers and sit on the stand.

Our Relief Society president works on an equal basis with the bishop in identifying and getting help for those in need.

Our Young Women program is lead by dynamic leaders and includes an intensive Girls' Camp experience where

leadership and outdoor skills are emphasized.

As far as I can tell (having been in leadership callings in the ward for many years), there are no male leaders that

have looked on the sisters as weak partners or lesser beings.

Bernard

[mapman]

I think that it is worth pointing out that feminists aren't one coordinated group. Wikipedia defines feminism as "a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." People don't agree on what "equal" means and what rights people have. Also, Mormon feminists are likely to be different from non-Mormon feminists and won't agree about everything either.

[Bernard Gui]

That is why I agree... Let a woman sit in on interview with young women. I am truly terrified about that future day...

Why not bring it up in a couple's interview with the bishop?