Bullying The Church Into Submission

[happy]

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

I don't see anything new. Perhaps I keep landing in weird wards?

[tyler90az]

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.

It is not a petition to put pressure on the brethren. The petition would simply show how many people would like the idea to be put into consideration. That would be explained eloquently in the petition.

That is just the way I thought would have the best chance. I even believe a simple email might put an idea into consideration. As of now I see no need for an email or a petition. This is all just a hypothetical.

[Scott Lloyd]

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-

The recent ad wherein a man seems to blame Romney for the death of his wife because he lost his benefits when he got laid off from work is a prime example of that.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

I also believe it is required that the bishop's office door be left partially opened. At least in our stake it is. There are white noise generators in the ante-office

to preclude eavesdroppers.

[USU78]

It is not a petition to put pressure on the brethren. The petition would simply show how many people would like the idea to be put into consideration. That would be explained eloquently in the petition.

This is very odd. A petition is for one purpose only: to act as a collective statement by the signators in support of or against a proposition. By the same token a gathering of like-minded individuals is designed to express the collective will of the individuals.

But what is being expressed?

The 20,000 uniformed gays surrounding Temple Square are there to intimidate and inspire fear that they, if they are not appeased, will storm the Temple and desecrate it. The signators implicitly threaten that if their desires are not met, they will likewise take action.

Petitions and protests are not value neutral.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

It's the same argument that made No Child Left Behind law. Who wants to see children fail? No right-thinking person would deny a child anything, anything.

What right thinking person would belong to a church that......... (fill in the blank with the flavor of the week).

[Bernard Gui]

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.

No. It is in the nature of men and should be encouraged and nourished from childhood.

[Bernard Gui]

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

Did you mean ordination of women?

[Bernard Gui]

I don't see anything new. Perhaps I keep landing in weird wards?

I am sure your ward and mine are atypical. Every other ward and stake is sexist to the max.

[TAO]

I am sure your ward and mine are atypical. Every other ward and stake is sexist to the max.

Mine must be atypical too! =D

[tyler90az]

This is very odd. A petition is for one purpose only: to act as a collective statement by the signators in support of or against a proposition. By the same token a gathering of like-minded individuals is designed to express the collective will of the individuals.

But what is being expressed?

The 20,000 uniformed gays surrounding Temple Square are there to intimidate and inspire fear that they, if they are not appeased, will storm the Temple and desecrate it. The signators implicitly threaten that if their desires are not met, they will likewise take action.

Petitions and protests are not value neutral.

This is very odd. A petition is for one purpose only: to act as a collective statement by the signators in support of or against a proposition. By the same token a gathering of like-minded individuals is designed to express the collective will of the individuals.

But what is being expressed?

The 20,000 uniformed gays surrounding Temple Square are there to intimidate and inspire fear that they, if they are not appeased, will storm the Temple and desecrate it. The signators implicitly threaten that if their desires are not met, they will likewise take action.

Petitions and protests are not value neutral.

A petition does not always need a threat behind it. That is especially the case when you have faith the petitioned will put it into consideration. It would be a bunch of faithful members showing that they want a change. The definiion of petition is a request to do something. Like I said, it is mostly just to raise awareness that a large number want a change. It is much more effective if a thousand people sign a well written petition for a change. In place of one person writing a single email. It is important to note it would need to be a quiet petition.

Edited August 17, 2012 by tyler90az

[yootaw]

Are women officiators ordained? I will gladly withdraw the question if it is inappropriate.

Edited August 17, 2012 by yootaw

[Walden]

Someone posted, "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 would agree, except for the fact that I was instructed while a member of the LDS church to never ride in a car with a member of the opposite sex (unless she is your wife) without a third person there, never have lunch or other social activities with a member of the opposite sex without a third person there, etc, etc. This is not doctrine, but appeared to be the default opinion of every ward I attended. Maybe the church is playing a role in perpetuating the myth that "a man is inherently untrustworthy," by continuing with these lines of guidance.

With regard to the arguments that the church will not be swayed by public opinion, I would begin with the church's abrupt doctrinal changes regarding polygamy and the acceptance of blacks into the priesthood as a rebuttal, to start. You might also throw in the evolution of the temple ceremony to boot.

You say "tomayto", I say "tomahto", you say "potayto" I say "potahto" you say "revelation" I say "societal influence"

Edited August 17, 2012 by Walden

[Glenn101]

With regard to the arguments that the church will not be swayed by public opinion, I would begin with the church's abrupt doctrinal changes regarding polygamy and the acceptance of blacks into the priesthood as a rebuttal, to start. You might also throw in the evolution of the temple ceremony to boot.

Of course your rebuttal rests upon an unproven tenet, that societal pressure altered the practice (not the doctrine) of plygyny and that societal pressure was a factor if the revelation that effectively lifted the ban on clacks holding the priesthood. You may have opinions on the matter, but opinions are hardly an effective rebuttal.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

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."

I need to say "bravo" to the men on this board that have replied to this topic and to the "Women and the Priesthood" topic. They seem to heed Pres. Packer's words well, in fact it's what I've seen in many wards in my lifetime. So kudos to the LDS men out there and here.

In my lifetime I've been treated far worse by other women, so we as women need to see our worth as being better than that. We as women need to feel like we count too. So therefore the reason for the article, what it's says might mean many women are coming out of the woodwork to express feelings of powerlessness. Maybe some of you with psychology degrees can help me out here? Why do women treat other women so badly? Or is it just in my experience? Sorry to derail this, maybe I'll start a new topic.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[Walden]

"Of course your rebuttal rests upon an unproven tenet, that societal pressure altered the practice (not the doctrine) of plygyny and that societal pressure was a factor if the revelation that effectively lifted the ban on clacks holding the priesthood. You may have opinions on the matter, but opinions are hardly an effective rebuttal.

Glenn"

I would argue that your rebuttal to my rebuttal rests upon an unproven tenet, that the timing of said major shifts in LDS doctrine was purely the result of revelation, and not due to any other forces with regard to public acceptance of the LDS church as a "mainstream" church, societal shifts in mores with regard to race or marriage, and that essentially, the timing of such major shifts was just some highly uncanny coincidence (unrelated to Utah statehood, with regard to polygamy, or acceptance/recognition as a "mainstream" church, with regard to race relations).

And of course it is an opinion, that's what this entire board is based upon, opinions. When you can present to me with the facts showing that the 12 did receive revelation regarding these changes in doctrine, then we can begin debating facts (and no, just because a prophet, apostle, etc. states it doesn't mean that it is a fact).

[Alvino]

Libs:

Demanding unreasonable change is bullying.

Can you explain to me what's unreasonable about wanting women to have the priesthood? It might go against your doctrine, but unreasonable? Even if it is not what God wants that doesn't mean it is unreasonable. Does God have good reasons to prevent women from having the priesthood? I'd be interested to hear them.

By the way, the charge of "bullying" is rather offensive to those who have suffered from REAL bullying or have seen their children unfortunately take their lives as a result of it.

[happy]

Alvino is the PC police apparently.

[KevinG]

Someone posted, "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 would agree, except for the fact that I was instructed while a member of the LDS church to never ride in a car with a member of the opposite sex (unless she is your wife) without a third person there, never have lunch or other social activities with a member of the opposite sex without a third person there, etc, etc. This is not doctrine, but appeared to be the default opinion of every ward I attended. Maybe the church is playing a role in perpetuating the myth that "a man is inherently untrustworthy," by continuing with these lines of guidance.

With regard to the arguments that the church will not be swayed by public opinion, I would begin with the church's abrupt doctrinal changes regarding polygamy and the acceptance of blacks into the priesthood as a rebuttal, to start. You might also throw in the evolution of the temple ceremony to boot.

You say "tomayto", I say "tomahto", you say "potayto" I say "potahto" you say "revelation" I say "societal influence"

Equivocation of youth protection in a supervised office situation with avoiding compromising situations with two adults would be more of a potato - tomato situation.

[Mark Beesley]

Can you explain to me what's unreasonable about wanting women to have the priesthood? It might go against your doctrine, but unreasonable? Even if it is not what God wants that doesn't mean it is unreasonable. Does God have good reasons to prevent women from having the priesthood? I'd be interested to hear them.

You must have a very interesting relationship with the Lord of the Universe, the Creator of All Things, God Almighty, Judge of the Quick and the Dead. I personally cannot fathom a God who acts unreasonably, but maybe that is not what you are suggesting.

[Calm]

The suggestion was to make RS President more on the level of a Stake President

I hope they mean Stake RS President and not just having one RS President for the entire stake. Each ward needs a RS President.

[Calm]

Riess says. "Women are completely shut out from having input into decisionmaking that affects their lives and their families."

That is a huge overstatement. They may not be the ones having the final say so, but to say they are even shut out of having input is ridiculous. Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Haven't finished reading the thread yet, but as I might get interrupted I thought I go ahead and post this in case someone else hasn't.

I find the suggestions given by Sister McBaine in this FAIR presentation to be balanced and quite doable as things are now, not sure any policy change from SL would need to be involved either as I think everything she suggested works within current guidelines:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm

[rodheadlee]

Does God have good reasons to prevent women from having the priesthood? I'd be interested to hear them.

Sure, one reason is some would no longer bother to get married, cutting themselves off from exhaltation.

[Calm]

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.

The safety issue is as much dealing with the attitude of male predators as it is with women who feel more secure having a man around. Male predators see women as victims and it may not matter to them whether or not there is one or 25 around. Seeing a male there changes the dynamic and may cause them to change their mind about hanging around or trying anything. It is not that women couldn't handle something happening if it happens, it is so that nothing happens in the first place (hopefully). Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah