Answers To Bobbieaware's Question About Female Ordination

[Calm]

That according to Amazon is a different Eric (c, not K).

[Five Solas]

Maybe I am mistaking you for someone else. Didn't you write "Mormonism 101" with Bill McKeever, anti-Mormon demagogue extraordinaire?

Suppose for a moment that your instincts are reliable, Russell.  Suppose they didn't let you down and that I am this Eric fellow. 

 

If I were a bigger fish and published author--does it really help you and/or your LDS religion to make personal & inflammatory replies such as the one you made previously? Or this one?  Or this one?

 

I've said before, it's not conducive to any useful dialogue.  And it makes mockery of this.  (Perhaps you've been enjoying something of a free pass because others thought I was someone else too?)

 

No need to apologize for a case of mistaken identity.  We all make mistakes.  Instead, I just ask you reevaluate your instinctive response to criticism.

 

--Erik (ending in a 'k')

:0)

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm glad that you so humbly imagine yourself entitled to interrogate and cross-examine anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

 

I've no doubt that there were, in the past, some bishops whose questions became overly probing. I also believe that some interviewees felt uncomfortable in such situations.

 

Mind you, feeling uncomfortable is a rather low bar for establishing "harm."  And I've even less doubt that those interviewees would have eventually recovered from such a terrible trauma.

 

And less doubt still that those who are trying to beat this up into a (1) significant and (2) ongoing issue really don't give a flying rat's derriere about the "harm," but are only interested in how they can exploit it to attack the Church of Jesus Christ and undermine the well-earned relationship of trust that exists between the members and the leaders. 

 

Is that clear?

Interrogate? Hyperbole much?

 

It's called asking a question and then following up with another question after you respond with contempt and accusation. I was making an effort to make sense of your response. Conversations go back and forth. I don't feel interrogated now, even though you have the audacity to ask me another question. It's okay. I don't mind answering questions. You just didn't like it because it exposed the argument of your weakness. I don't blame you for not liking that But I do notice you are sidestepping the questions.

 

Also, don't forget there are other kinds of harm beyond "making someone feel uncomfortable." Or do you dispute that there has ever been any kind of verbal, emotional, physical abuse or grooming occur behind closed doors?

Edited September 21, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Russell C McGregor]

Interrogate? Hyperbole much?

 

It's called asking a question and then following up with another question after you respond with contempt and accusation.

As you know, "please explain why" isn't a question, it's a demand.

An arrogant demand.

I was making an effort to make sense of your response. Conversations go back and forth. I don't feel interrogated now, even though you have the audacity to ask me another question. It's okay. I don't mind answering questions. You just didn't like it because it exposed the argument of your weakness.

Your mind-reading is defective.

I don't blame you for not liking that But I do notice you are sidestepping the questions.

And not just your mind-reading, but your regular reading. I sidestepped no questions.

 

Also, don't forget there are other kinds of harm beyond "making someone feel uncomfortable." Or do you dispute that there has ever been any kind of verbal, emotional, physical abuse or grooming occur behind closed doors?

No evidence that anything of the kind has happened in a Church interview has been made available to me.

"Recovered memories" are not in the category of evidence, and don't count.

[HappyJackWagon]

No evidence that anything of the kind has happened in a Church interview has been made available to me.

 

For your perusal ... (from a quick google search- you should try it)

 

I'm astounded that you would act as if abuses have never taken place simply because you aren't aware of them. I know we're speaking of interview situations in particular but many of these stories illustrate the danger of having one on one contact with youth and children. http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/part1/v1p1c04.htm

 

But I'm sure he never did anything appropriate or groomed children or youth in his office or by using the authority of his office http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4355348&comments=true

 

Bishop doesn't report child abuse- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/771963/LDS-bishop-signs-diversion-in-child-abuse-reporting-case.html?pg=all

 

Is this the kind of man you want meeting with YM/YW alone in a closed room http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/mormon-bishop-sex-crime/4829127/

 

 

This isn't only bishops but goes to the point of why no person should be alone with young children or youth  http://www.childpro.org/ldscases.html

 

As long as imperfect men are in positions of leadership they have the ability to take advantage of the vulnerable

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/09/ex-mormon-bishop-pleads-guilty-to-child-sex-abuse/

 

We should do more to protect against these types of abuses, not pretend they never happen. Are they rare? Yes. Thankfully. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

This isn't only bishops but goes to the point of why no person should be alone with young children or youth  

We should do more to protect against these types of abuses, not pretend they never happen. Are they rare? Yes. Thankfully. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

 

Finally you talk about a real issue. I am proud of you now. 

Edited September 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ttribe]

Your mind-reading is defective.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Suppose for a moment that your instincts are reliable, Russell.  Suppose they didn't let you down and that I am this Eric fellow. 

 

If I were a bigger fish and published author--does it really help you and/or your LDS religion to make personal & inflammatory replies such as the one you made previously? Or this one?  Or this one?

 

I've said before, it's not conducive to any useful dialogue.  And it makes mockery of this.  (Perhaps you've been enjoying something of a free pass because others thought I was someone else too?)

 

No need to apologize for a case of mistaken identity.  We all make mistakes.  Instead, I just ask you reevaluate your instinctive response to criticism.

 

--Erik (ending in a 'k')

:0)

I apologise for mistaking you for Eric with a c.

I do not apologise for taking you to task over your attempt to taunt us into profaning sacred matters.

Since principled Latter-day Saints hold the Temple and its ordinances to be sacred, all principled non-Latter-day Saints, without exception, respect our position and do not try to goad us into compromising it.

Regardless of what you have or have not published, you chose -- with absolutely no provocation -- to allow your true colours to come oozing through.

[HappyJackWagon]

I apologise for mistaking you for Eric with a c.

I do not apologise for taking you to task over your attempt to taunt us into profaning sacred matters.

Since principled Latter-day Saints hold the Temple and its ordinances to be sacred, all principled non-Latter-day Saints, without exception, respect our position and do not try to goad us into compromising it.

Regardless of what you have or have not published, you chose -- with absolutely no provocation -- to allow your true colours to come oozing through.

I'm always impressed by the amount of disdain you're able to inject into just a few lines of text.

[Russell C McGregor]

For your perusal ... (from a quick google search- you should try it)

 

I'm astounded that you would act as if abuses have never taken place simply because you aren't aware of them. I know we're speaking of interview situations in particular but many of these stories illustrate the danger of having one on one contact with youth and children. http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/part1/v1p1c04.htm

 

But I'm sure he never did anything appropriate or groomed children or youth in his office or by using the authority of his office http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4355348&comments=true

 

Bishop doesn't report child abuse- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/771963/LDS-bishop-signs-diversion-in-child-abuse-reporting-case.html?pg=all

 

Is this the kind of man you want meeting with YM/YW alone in a closed room http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/mormon-bishop-sex-crime/4829127/

 

 

This isn't only bishops but goes to the point of why no person should be alone with young children or youth  http://www.childpro.org/ldscases.html

 

As long as imperfect men are in positions of leadership they have the ability to take advantage of the vulnerable

 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/09/ex-mormon-bishop-pleads-guilty-to-child-sex-abuse/

 

We should do more to protect against these types of abuses, not pretend they never happen. Are they rare? Yes. Thankfully. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem that needs to be addressed.

While you're playing the Google game, try searching for "moral panic."

Because that's what this looks like.

If we destroy every good thing that was ever abused by a tiny minority of individuals, nothing would ever be left.

But then, as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned, I'm sure you wouldn't see that as a problem, would you?

[ttribe]

While you're playing the Google game, try searching for "moral panic."

Because that's what this looks like.

If we destroy every good thing that was ever abused by a tiny minority of individuals, nothing would ever be left.

But then, as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned, I'm sure you wouldn't see that as a problem, would you?

 

Oh, give it a rest.  HJW isn't out to "destroy" the Church.  You are so over the top, you make Donald Trump look like a shrinking violet.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Oh, give it a rest 

 

Rest is good. Being Bishop is a very hard calling, it is a lot of work and stress. Women have a job and kids, so why more work?  If the LDS church is true, perhaps that is why God doesn't want women to have the priesthood. Too much work is not a good thing.  Job + Kids + Bishop calling = A lot of work 

 

Working longer hours increases stroke risk, major study finds

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/299142.php

 

 

Workers with high job demands are 50% more likely to be diagnosed with a medical condition, according to the findings of the study.

Edited September 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Teancum]

Oh, give it a rest.  HJW isn't out to "destroy" the Church.  You are so over the top, you make Donald Trump look like a shrinking violet.

 

 

Bwaahahah.. Hehehehe....

[Teancum]

I'm always impressed by the amount of disdain you're able to inject into just a few lines of text.

 

 

Some people really excel at certain things. We all have our talents.

[Calm]

"Women have a job and kids, so why more work?"

 

So just call empty nesters....

 

A dad has a job and kids.  Please explain why these men can also at times function as bishops.

[Russell C McGregor]

"Women have a job and kids, so why more work?"

 

So just call empty nesters....

 

A dad has a job and kids.  Please explain why these men can also at times function as bishops.

 

Because the children have a mother at home while the dad is doing his bishopric work...?

 

(Why do I get the rather ominous feeling that I'm skating on very thin ice here?)

[Calm]

And the dad can be at home while Mom does her bishopric work.

 

There are good reasons imo for a woman not to be a bishop.  

 

This however, isn't even on the bottom of the list...at best it can be applied to pregnant or nursing mothers.

 

I would hope that people not trivialize the importance of what fathers can do for their kids or the Priesthood in dealing with the issue of female ordination.  Our boys and men deserve better than that.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Calm

[TheSkepticChristian]

A dad has a job and kids.  Please explain why these men can also at times function as bishops.

 

Everyone can, I am simply saying that it is not healthy for a person to work a lot, see the studies. 

[Russell C McGregor]

And the dad can be at home while Mom does her bishopric work.

 

There are good reasons imo for a woman not to be a bishop.  

 

This however, isn't even on the bottom of the list...at best it can be applied to pregnant or nursing mothers.

 

I would hope that people not trivialize the importance of what fathers can do for their kids or the Priesthood in dealing with the issue of female ordination.  Our boys and men deserve better than that.

 

Now I'm going to go out on even thinner ice: I don't see female ordination as an issue.

[Calm]

For yourself or for anyone else?

[Russell C McGregor]

For yourself or for anyone else?

 

For the Church.

[3DOP]

You all are raising only one of the important reasons why Catholics, up until modern times, have thought that men in leadership in the Church could not also provide for a family.

[Bobbieaware]

You all are raising only one of the important reasons why Catholics, up until modern times, have thought that men in leadership in the Church could not also provide for a family.

But in spite of the challenge, for nearly 200 years Latter-day Saint men and women have proven IT CAN BE DONE. Virtually all the leaders of the Church, both general and local, have known the joys, intense love and personal spiritual growth that only come through marriage and family, while also enjoying much success as Church leaders. One of the ingenious elements that makes this possible is that there are so many additional Church leadership positions and callings within LDS congregations that a bishop or stake president, for instance, don't have the full weight of leadership resting on their shoulders alone. Almost every member of a congregation has a formal Church calling and job to do in support of the local leader, and by this means there is a significant lightening of the burden of his workload; so by the means of many helping hands the leaders of the LDS Church are mightily supported in their callings so that they are not overwhelmed by their responsibilities. By this means of shared responsibility, Church leaders are simultaneously able to lead congregations and also have eternal companions and families and be successful with both.

[Tacenda]

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-scriptures-and-mormon-women-let-the-women-be-silent/

 

The D&C Section 132 could have been lifted right out of the Old Testament. Why keep this in the canon if it's no longer applied?  There are many break offs in the church, most likely because this section has stayed. 

 

Also, it's incredulous to hear that in the D&C men's names are mentioned 415 times and women's names only 5 times and Emma was 4 of those.  Same with the BoM, not many women are mentioned, or should I say their names.  This woman's talk has me wanting to scream.  Too bad scriptures like these in the Bible, BoM and D&C etc. exist because they perpetuate women being nameless or property to those that are idiot enough to believe it.  I guess the restoration includes the Old Testament.  Glad for current revelation though, it's the saving grace.      

[Tacenda]

I didn't want to start a topic, so I picked this one to post this article from LDS Meridian Magazine.  Thought it very progressive, enjoy!  http://ldsmag.com/30-questions-nobody-has-asked-my-husband/