Dehlin, Reel, And Other Do-Gooders Asking For Money To Do...good.

[DBMormon]

Your analogy was not of individuals, but of the Church as a whole. The Church is the abusive father in your analogy.

I ask again, do you see an abusive father being able to hold on to priesthood authority given his abusing of his children?

Do I believe the Church has PH authority yes.  Do I believe the behaviors of the Church made up of behaviors of 15 men at any given time can be abusive?  yes. 

 

Edited to add: Do I believe a human being being intentionally abusive can retain his authority?  I don't know though I agree scripture says he cant.  Do I believe the Church made up of flawed leaders who sometimes carry out abuse with their teachings can retain PH in spite of some leaders flaws that can be abusive?  sure

 

Now I will ask you a few questions

 

Are you comfortable with the racist things our leaders said in the past?  Do you think it harmed anyone?

 

Are you comfortable with Pres Marion G Romney saying it is better that his kids come home from their mission in a casket rather than having lost their virtue?   Could that teaching have harmed anyone?

 

Do you think President Kimball teaching that gay can be fixed and masturbation leads to being gay was harmful? 

 

Please open up and help us hear your real feelings on such issues rather than obfuscate (Not that you have but I worry you will here).  

 

Are you allowed to stand outside FairMormon and state that the Church's has had and may still have teachings that hurt others?  or must you for the sake of the organization not share such things in a public setting like this?

Edited August 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[filovirus]

Like FairMormon. weird......    My podcast is more for those in full fledged crisis or seriously aware of the deeper issues and seeking to not be alone while they go through it.  It also works to keep people in and moving forward.  I would not recommend my podcast generally to an orthodox member though many episodes would be beneficial

I don't send people to FAIRmormon either, but rather use it as a tool to get information to help them if needed. (I did recently tell my brother to look at FAIRmormon in order so that he could help his daughter through issues.)

[DBMormon]

I don't send people to FAIRmormon either, but rather use it as a tool to get information to help them if needed. (I did recently tell my brother to look at FAIRmormon in order so that he could help his daughter through issues.)

i hear ya.  

[Calm]

I am not the one who made a public judgment of the Church as an abusive father.  Since our doctrine is what I posted before ("amen to the priesthood"), logically that implies if this analogy is valid that the Church itself no longer has priesthood authority.

 

 

No man who has been ordained to the priesthood of God can with impunity indulge in either spouse or child abuse. Such activity becomes an immediate repudiation of his right to hold and exercise the priesthood and to retain membership in the Church.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

 

As to my own position on the Church, I have never claimed perfection of leaders, that mistakes weren't made, horrible things weren't said and done or no one has ever been harmed by leadership or even that there weren't complete jerks in leadership positions as well as among the general membership.  I wouldn't because those claims would in my view be false.

 

I also believe the analogy of the Church as an abusive father is highly flawed to the point of being inappropriate.

 

I have never restricted what I would say because I was a member of FairMormon nor do I feel any need to start now.  I would resign if it ever came to that point.

 

It comes across to me as if you are attempting to shift the discussion away from your own claims to me when I am not the one who made a public declaration.  You may not see it that way, but I do.  And I assume you will not invalidate my experience by insisting I am wrong.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

I am not the one who made a public judgment of the Church as an abusive father.  Since our doctrine is what I posted before ("amen to the priesthood"), logically that implies if this analogy is valid that the Church itself no longer has priesthood authority.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

 

As to my own position on the Church, I have never claimed perfection of the leaders, that mistakes weren't made, horrible things weren't said and done or no one has ever been harmed by leadership or even that there weren't complete jerks in leadership position as well as among the general membership.  

 

I also believe the analogy of the Church as an abusive father is highly flawed.

 

I have never restricted what I would say because I was a member of FairMormon nor so I feel any need to start now.  I would resign if it ever came to that point.

 

It comes across to me as if you are attempting to shift the discussion away from your own claims to me when I am not the one who made a public declaration.  You may not see it that way, but I do.  And I assume you will not invalidate my experience by insisting I am wrong.

You did not answer my specific questions.  I will wait for those answers as I fear you and I both know you can't answer them specifically and honestly without on some level placing yourself in a conundrum.  But if you can't answer specific questions than we can not discuss on a equal playing field as you accuse me or state something negative about how you perceive my beliefs.  I can not defend mine if you will not tell us yours.  I like you Cal, your one of the good gals and i respect you a ton, but unless you will answer specifically I would ask that you refrain from criticizing me specifically. thanks

Edited August 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I both know you can't answer them specifically and honestly without on some level placing yourself in a conundrum.

 

Total BS, but I don't play double dare you games.

 

If someone cares enough to put in some effort, they can find comments of mine that answer those questions in past conversations (unless they've been deleted).

 

I can not defend mine if you will not tell us yours.

 

Why should I have to defend mine given that I did not go out and blog my judgments about the Church?

 

I don't see any need for you to defend your own position.  You said what you did.  Anyone can read it and draw their own conclusions...I am assuming of course that is what you intended when you publicized your own ideas.  It would be very strange imo not to want people to read and think about one's public statements.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

Total BS, but I don't play double dare you games.

 

If someone cares enough to put in some effort, they can find comments of mine that answer those questions in past conversations (unless they've been deleted).

why not answer here for all to see?

[DBMormon]

put yourself in my shoes you are asking and criticizing me over specific points but won't as the critic put your specifics out there.  I can't debate in that arena.  I am an open book and will answer any question but those who want to debate me must be willing to be open as well.  I appreciate you and have no hostility.  I truly mean it when I say your one of the good guys (gals).  But I won't play a game where I have to answer for what I believe but no one else has to play.

[Calm]

Because I feel you are, imo which you won't invalidate of course by telling me I am wrong according to your own standard, attempting to manipulate me and I don't play with people who manipulate.

 

I also believe that given the circumstances that any answers I give would be seen as only given due to pressure if they weren't the expected ones.  Since you have already expressed your opinion of my position as one where I can't specifically and honestly answer them "without placing myself in an conundrum", why would you believe anything I said?

 

And if you aren't going to believe me, why should I answer?

 

But I won't play a game where I have to answer for what I believe but no one else has to play.

 

Then why in the world are you publicizing your own opinions in blogs?

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

Because I feel you are, imo which you won't invalidate of course by telling me I am wrong according to your own standard, attempting to manipulate me and I don't play with people who manipulate.

 

I also believe that given the circumstances that any answers I give would be seen as only given due to pressure if they weren't the expected ones.  Since you have already expressed your opinion of my position as one where I can't specifically and honestly answer them "without placing myself in an conundrum", why would you believe anything I said?

 

And if you aren't going to believe me, why should I answer?

 

Then why in the world are you publicizing your own opinions in blogs?

I don]t care what your answers are only that you answer them specifically as I trust if you actually answer them that they are your real answers.  So give it a shot and then we can really get somewhere in this discussion

[Calm]

No, there is no reason I should not believe what you said first and choose to respond based on that.

 

I both know you can't answer them specifically and honestly without on some level placing yourself in a conundrum.

 

 

Search them out if my opinion matters to you.

 

Just own what you said in the blog.  You don't have to feel like I am asking you to defend it.  I am not asking you to.  I was only curious as to how you resolved the contradiction of abuse and continuing priesthood for the Church (since your analogy was of the organization).  You answered it.  Thank you.  I think I've clearly stated my own position on that point.  I see no need to get into a further conversation about itemizing mistakes by individuals in leadership positions, even the highest in the Church, and the suffering has occurred in the Church because of such, either in the past or now.  I have discussed these in the past.  I don't label such things as the Church itself being an abusive father.  I didn't post a blog making that claim with examples, etc. so I don't feel the need to defend that nonlabel at this time.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Wasn't going to comment on this thread topic, but wow!

I had decided not to bring attention to it as I don't agree with the premise of the thread as given in the OP, but then DB posted a second for a CFR that was imo related to his blog and he appeared to be comfortable discussing himself as one of the topics of the thread, so it seemed appropriate.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

No, there is no reason I should not believe what you said first and choose to respond based on that.

 

 

Search them out if my opinion matters to you.

 

Just own what you said in the blog.  You don't have to feel like I am asking you to defend it.  I am not asking you to.  I was only curious as to how you resolved the contradiction of abuse and continuing priesthood for the Church (since your analogy was of the organization).  You answered it.  Thank you.  I think I've clearly stated my own position on that point.  I see no need to get into a further conversation about itemizing mistakes by individuals in leadership positions, even the highest in the Church, and the suffering has occurred in the Church because of such, either in the past or now.  I have discussed these in the past.  I don't label such things as the Church itself being an abusive father.  I didn't post a blog making that claim with examples, etc. so I don't feel the need to defend that nonlabel at this time.

I have owned it.  No where have I apologized for what is in the blog or apologized for any part of it.  I absolutely stand by the fact that what I wrote is true for many Latter-day Saints.  So we have a thread created to discuss whether I practice priestcraft.  You jump in and share my blog from wheat and tares and state it is "troubling" and yet you seem unwilling to also acknowledge that while you wouldn't write such a blog post that deep inside you also agree that specific leaders have said or done things that have been hurtful and harmful and the only way I can get you on record agreeing with me on specifics, even though what I said was troubling, is to search for hours and hours in multiple locations for your stance?  I know for a fact FairMormon is not comfortable with its members stating that specific leaders made mistakes.  I also know FairMormon doesn't like when you validate that an issue is troubling.  In fact I still have emails from that organization that show as much.  So I wasn't throwing out a guess or a possibility.  

 

That is why

"I both know you can't answer them specifically and honestly without on some level placing yourself in a conundrum."

 

Thats not to say your not courageous enough to do it anyway as I think you are but don't try to imply here to all that FairMormon would not be disappointed in your comments if you took such a stand.  I am not saying you can't or wont or are unable, only that it places you in a conundrum which I stand by.  I also have about a dozen friends still on the inside and am strongly aware of some of the bad mouthing private discussions folks there still have about me including the recent blog I wrote.  

 

So when I say there is pressure on you to walk a line.... I am kinda know "with every fiber of my being" that rings true.  Now perhaps they would give you a one time pass so as to be able to prove me wrong.

Edited August 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[Calm]

"and yet you seem unwilling to also acknowledge that while you wouldn't write such a blog post that deep inside you also agree that specific leaders have said or done things that have been hurtful and harmful and the only way I can get you on record agreeing with me on specifics, even though what I said was troubling, is to search for hours and hours in multiple locations for your stance"

And this is why I won't play your game. You have already written what script means no matter what I say. You tell me what I am feeling and thinking instead of letting me speak for myself.

Let me correct you.

I am troubled by your analogy of the Church as an abusive father. I am not troubled at all by the questions you challenged me with. i have given answers with no hesitation in the past when people were actually engaging me in converstation and not applying mind reading games and pressure tactics and bizarre interpretations even before reading what I wrote.

FairMormon has problems with its members who promote overblown analogies and claims that denigrate leaders and the Church.

You should actually read what is written at FM sometimes and pay attention to our conferences. That you are this clueless with the dynamics of FairMormon speaks to what you paid attention to while you were there...pretty much the same thing that is happening here.

What you are throwing out is an interpretation.

I would resign the moment I could not fully express my opinion in public as I do in private.

And if your dozen friends are sharing information after signing the confidentiality agreement which states one is to keep the list discussion on the lists, then they are liars and need to remove themselves from the list. That you are bragging about them sharing confidential material with you says a lot.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Wasn't going to comment on this thread topic, but wow!

 

 

I had decided not to bring attention to it as I don't agree with the premise of the thread as given in the OP, but then DB posted a second for a CFR that was imo related to his blog and he appeared to be comfortable discussing himself as one of the topics of the thread, so it seemed appropriate.

Some of us here are old enough to remember the famous anti-Mormon apostate Sonia Johnson and her infamous accusation that the leaders of the Church were "savage misogynists." Comparing the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father is scarcely less objectionable.

[HappyJackWagon]

Because I feel you are, imo which you won't invalidate of course by telling me I am wrong according to your own standard, attempting to manipulate me and I don't play with people who manipulate.

 

I also believe that given the circumstances that any answers I give would be seen as only given due to pressure if they weren't the expected ones.  Since you have already expressed your opinion of my position as one where I can't specifically and honestly answer them "without placing myself in an conundrum", why would you believe anything I said?

 

And if you aren't going to believe me, why should I answer?

 

Then why in the world are you publicizing your own opinions in blogs?

Cal, I don't understand you here. You are criticizing Bill's analagy to the abusive parent because you say the church isn't abusive. He asks specific questions to see if you consider different actions abusive and you say that's manipulative. Really?

 

If you agree that certain things the church has done or taught cause harm, then you would validate Bill's point. I understand why you wouldn't want to contradict yourself, but calling him manipulative is a bit too much. He's explained why he thinks it is abusive but you have not said why you do not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you seriously unaware of D&C 1

 

 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; thesecommandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of theirlanguage, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might beinstructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receiveknowledge from time to time.

 

God fully acknowledges his servants are a mixed bag of good and bad like the rest of us and they will error and need to repent.  Calmoriah - seriously?  Let's not do this as I don't have time or desire to debate.  All I am saying is the Church's leaders and its teachings at times have offended and harmed some and I empathize with those who have been hurt.  Are you really going to argue that no one is harmed by any church teaching that missed the mark?  Or that one who feels harmed could not still love the Church?

That is your justification for your POV? No wonder people have the opinions they do about you. Bill, you are simply wrong on what you are claiming. "If they err it might be made known unto them" That is the same as some one abusing a family member. And I reject your premise that " any church teaching that missed the mark" is the same as a father abusing a child.

 

I think what is sad is that you really believe it.

[Calm]

If you agree that certain things the church has done or taught cause harm, then you would validate Bill's point.

Causing harm does not equal abuse. Suggesting it does trivializes real abuse. I find that highly offensive. I have seen abuse up close and personal, not myself but close family members enduring it for years and ending up in places where I fear for their lives.

Describing the Church as an organization as an abusive father is wrong.

I harmed my children by not putting enough effort into teaching them to clean up after themselves. I preferred they go out and have a good time with their dad because that was lacking in my home. Did my parents abuse me because now I have a hard time relaxing if there is still work to be done (which there always is)? Have I abused my children given they aren't the best at keeping their homes clean consistently...but they do adore and play with their children/nieces and nephews?

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

Some of us here are old enough to remember the famous anti-Mormon apostate Sonia Johnson and her infamous accusation that the leaders of the Church were "savage misogynists." Comparing the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father is scarcely less objectionable.

 

Interesting fact: When Sonia Johnson was excommunicated, she was a member of the ward we attend now in Virginia. Just doing my part to keep up the apostate quota. 

[Bob Crockett]

Some of us here are old enough to remember the famous anti-Mormon apostate Sonia Johnson and her infamous accusation that the leaders of the Church were "savage misogynists." Comparing the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father is scarcely less objectionable.

How much of a threat can he be the way he writes?  Better off to give him friendly acknowledgment.  A ton of people just like him in the Church; you probably have 50 you know in your own stake.  He just has a podcast.  Channeling Connelly, he is no Dehlin.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[HappyJackWagon]

Causing harm does not equal abuse. Suggesting it does trivializes real abuse. I find that highly offensive. I have seen abuse up close and personal, not myself but close family members enduring it for years and ending up in places where I fear for their lives.

Describing the Church as an organization as an abusive father is wrong.

OK- but if someone is harmed and claims that harm is abusive would we tell them to suck it up? It's only "emotional abuse". Or it's only "verbal abuse". That would be offensive.

 

There are many types of abuse and people interpret and experience harm in different ways I don't think we should so easily dismiss.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cal, I don't understand you here. You are criticizing Bill's analagy to the abusive parent because you say the church isn't abusive. He asks specific questions to see if you consider different actions abusive and you say that's manipulative. Really?

 

If you agree that certain things the church has done or taught cause harm, then you would validate Bill's point. I understand why you wouldn't want to contradict yourself, but calling him manipulative is a bit too much. He's explained why he thinks it is abusive but you have not said why you do not.

So you agree that the church has been an "abusive parent"?

 

How can omitting something ever be considered abusive in terms of learning something or reasoning?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

OK- but if someone is harmed and claims that harm is abusive would we tell them to suck it up? It's only "emotional abuse". Or it's only "verbal abuse". That would be offensive.

 

There are many types of abuse and people interpret and experience harm in different ways I don't think we should so easily dismiss.

So it is emotional abuse to learn that JS had a gun at Carthage and you were not taught that in primary?

 

Talk about trivializing real abuse.

 

 

How can anyone claim abuse from the church? What specifically is abusive that the church does?

[ALarson]

So it is emotional abuse to learn that JS had a gun at Carthage and you were not taught that in primary?

 

Talk about trivializing real abuse.

 

Who stated that?  Was this an example given of the abuse Bill is referring to?

[Calm]

OK- but if someone is harmed and claims that harm is abusive would we tell them to suck it up? It's only "emotional abuse". Or it's only "verbal abuse". That would be offensive.

There are many types of abuse and people interpret and experience harm in different ways I don't think we should so easily dismiss.

Have I ever suggested anywhere that abuse should be dismissed? Have I even suggested one dismiss feelings of abuse even if I believe the person is wrong in labeling it abuse?

What I have stated for the umpteenth time is the analogy of the Church as an abusive father is inappropriate and wrong.

Ps: I wouldn't be contradicting myself if I put my personal opinions here. I haven't contradicted myself with my personal opinions I've expressed elsewhere. The only contradiction that would possibly appear would be the result of Bill's twisting what I said to put into his own unrealistic analogy.

I think it can be harmful (but I would not call it abusive) to promote this analogy as it gives, imo, an unrealistic and unhealthy view of the Church and its relationship to members.

Edited August 12, 2015 by calmoriah