provoman Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, juliann said: Why would he try to give her a recommend when she didn't want one after it had been used against her? You avoided the question and it is a fair one. Why the apology if he didn't think he did anything wrong? As I see it, you only have two choices here. He thought he didn't handle it well, thus wanting a "do-over" or he was lying. I'm not sure I've seen such a demand for an infallible SP. All I know that every one I have ever known has acknowledged mistakes...as well as bishops. They are even humble enough to say so in church meetings. What an impossible life those of you demanding infallibility make for them. I will not offer an opinion on the apology, consider we only have a few lines of text, and the neck breaking leaps to conclusion being made, the "why" of the apology is futile and only creates a dumb of conversation. If you want to know why the SP sent the letter, you have his name and his Stake, you can ask him yourself. Edited February 18, 2018 by provoman
Amulek Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, juliann said: Unless he is a professional psychologist , a man who has never experienced divorce thinks he can instruct a woman, who has, as to what her feelings are and why they are happening, that is textbook mansplaining. (And even counselors would be very careful about doing that rather than allowing self-discovery.) Which part are you referring to? The beginning of the first recording where he talks about how he thinks she's going trough the anger portion of the grief process? I certainly hope that's not what you are talking about because that wasn't him mansplaining anything. She asked him for his thoughts and he offered a response - which, by the way, was carefully guarded with him saying things like how his perception was limited and whatnot. 3
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 40 minutes ago, ALarson said: Then why the apology email? Because he's a good person and a caring Church leader. 40 minutes ago, ALarson said: Apparently, he disagrees with you. I see no evidence for that. Perhaps in hindsight, he might think of ways he could have handled the problem better. But make no mistake: There was a problem. Her behaviour was the cause. And he had a duty to handle it. 1
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 2 hours ago, juliann said: Mansplain is a word in the Oxford Dictionary. It is a descriptive word and only describes a defined behavior. It's almost certainly not the first such pejorative to find its way into a dictionary, and it almost certainly won't be the last. "Mansplaining" is a way of saying "Sit down and shut up when a woman is talking!" Such as - just for example - when a man has the temerity to weigh in on a discussion of Priesthood ordination in this forum. 2
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, juliann said: I suppose it is my turn to write a disgruntled thread about how there is never any consequence to those who hurl insults at me and they are almost always are words that are typically used against women. I suppose I should be grateful he didn't include hysterical. But I do wonder why he is still allowed in the thread. Well, you are rather well placed to do something about that. 1 hour ago, juliann said: Not only did he not retract it, he continued to use it. I've gone back to when Darren first wrote that, and Ttribe is right: he was directing it at Juliann, not at the original trouble-maker, as I first thought. And I'll go on record as agreeing that he shouldn't have written that.
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, ttribe said: The knuckle-dragging backwards views about women expressed in this thread have both surprised and depressed me. I'm sorry. Don't worry. The heroic "white knight" views of others more than compensate for them, IMHO.
ttribe Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 57 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Beautiful cars, I want one! I think it's time to retire my van already. I hope your son continues to rebound. I'm sorry this has happened to your children. I think we all have different ways to keep joy in our lives. I like how people have different hobbies, makes them interesting. I am not that way and need to find a niche besides this board and all things Mormonism. I even tell my family I don't want a funeral because the only things my kids can say is I liked Diet Dr. Pepper and I liked the computer. It's like I can't really find "my joy" anymore. So good for you! I think kids love it when their parents have something they love besides just their children. Thanks for sharing parts of your life with us. It's good to see the person behind the name. Thanks, Tacenda.
ALarson Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I see no evidence for that. Exactly what do you believe this means? Quote SP: "I've had time to consider my interactions with you, and wish I could have a do-over." 1
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 38 minutes ago, juliann said: Why would he try to give her a recommend when she didn't want one after it had been used against her? Point of order: it hadn't been "used against her." It had been withdrawn because her behaviour was considered inappropriate. 38 minutes ago, juliann said: You avoided the question and it is a fair one. Why the apology if he didn't think he did anything wrong? As I see it, you only have two choices here. He thought he didn't handle it well, thus wanting a "do-over" or he was lying. It's not a binary solution set. A "do-over" doesn't actually mean not doing anything at all; it means to begin again to do the same things in a different way. Perhaps he thought he could have handled things better, but he was absolutely right to view her behaviour as a problem that needed to be solved. 38 minutes ago, juliann said: I'm not sure I've seen such a demand for an infallible SP. All I know that every one I have ever known has acknowledged mistakes...as well as bishops. They are even humble enough to say so in church meetings. What an impossible life those of you demanding infallibility make for them. I don't see anyone calling for "an infallible SP." Once again, we seem to all be talking past each other, but the point is that the SP can really only be faulted in the details of his delivery, whereas Ms Hadlock has been systematically at fault in every stage of the process. 1
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Exactly what do you believe this means? Did you miss the very next paragraph of the post to which you purport to be responding? It was only four sentences long, and it answers your question. For your convenience, here it is again: Perhaps in hindsight, he might think of ways he could have handled the problem better. But make no mistake: There was a problem. Her behaviour was the cause. And he had a duty to handle it. Incidentally, I don't see an apology from Ms Hadlock apologising for (1) dragging the whole ward into her divorce, or (2) her duplicity in surreptitiously recording conversations in which the Stake President had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Do you?
mfbukowski Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, ttribe said: Oooooh, do you feel important after trying to shame me for being an "immature boaster" with "an expensive shiny depreciating asset"? Let me help you understand why this is just another example of you shooting off your (virtual) mouth when you really shouldn't. I suspect you are familiar with the concept of a utility curve from the science of economics. One of the features of utility curves is that everyone's is different. For example, anyone who has been on this board longer than 5 minutes knows you have a passion for various philosophical schools of thought and you appear to thoroughly enjoy debating such issues with many on this board. Indeed, your profile caption states "My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism." In my opinion, I've seen you be quite condescending when others either don't know or don't share your philosophical views or knowledge; one might even say you come off as an "immature boaster." Do I attempt to shame you by pointing that out? Until now, no. I haven't. Why? Well, despite the fact that I see your amateur pursuit of philosophy to be a colossal waste of time (and, in my profession time is most definitely money), I recognize that your personal utility curve is far different from mine. It's clear to me that your philosophy hobby brings you joy and you likely experience quite a bit of pride when you show it to others. What does all that have to do with my car? Well, I'm a car enthusiast. I get five car magazines each month. I read them with fervor. I participate on a couple of car-centric message boards. I'm a member of the local chapter of the BMW Car Club of America. I go on various drives with that club throughout the year. I've spent a fair amount of time modifying my car and making it uniquely my own. My car is more than a simple mode of transportation for me; more than a source of a little pride. You see, given the traumatic and tragic things that have happened in my life over the past 6 years, my car hobby is one of the last sources of joy I have left. One of the worst things that has happened is that a terrible and debilitating disease suddenly attacked all three of my children. My oldest son, who is now 19, first showed symptoms of this illness shortly after starting his freshman year in high school. He went from having the ambition of attending MIT straight out of high school to being unable to read anything longer than a paragraph without getting lost. He's had days where he is in so much pain that he's literally had to crawl down the hallway to use the bathroom. My other two kids starting showing symptoms of the same illness two years later and the effects have been just as devastating. When I'm not at work and there's nothing more I can do to help my kids, I retreat to my hobby. I spend time working on my car to take my mind away from the horrendous pain that has taken over the lives of my children. To take my mind off a former business partner who destroyed my future plans for my career when he decided to throw me out of our firm after I ran it to its best results ever and he just couldn't handle that. To take my mind off other emotionally painful events I don't choose to share with the likes of you. In some ways, one might even say, my little hobby with my "shiny depreciating asset" has saved my life. My kids have also bonded with me over the car. They go out of their way to talk to me about cars. They love riding in my car when I put the top down and drive fast. In fact, I did that today with my 12 year old son and my 10 year old daughter in the beautiful 73 degree Phoenix weather. My oldest son has only recently seen enough enough improvement in his symptoms to be able to resume a little more normal life. He wanted to get his license and get his first car. He turned to me, the car guy in the family, for help. What did I do? I bought him his own "shiny depreciating asset" that was an older version of my car. For the first time in years, he has a source of genuine happiness and joy. When he's stressed about what his illness has done to his life, do you know what he does? He drives. He drops the top, no matter the weather it seems, and he just drives. It brings him joy and I am unapologetic about it. We call each other when we see cool cars on the road. We send each other pics of cars from our phones. He's started an online business for BMW enthusiasts. So, yes, I used my car to make a snarky point about a man on this board trying to shame women for standing up for themselves. It's my hobby and I thought it an impactful illustration. You don't get to shame me over it. You don't get to take my joy from it. Why? Because it's my utility curve, my joy, and your opinion really doesn't matter. Oh, and for the record, I bought my "shiny depreciating asset" when it was three years old and had 36,000 miles on it. The worst of the depreciation had already hit its value. Since then, I've owned it for 5.5 years, put more than 100,000 miles on it, and still love getting into it every day. Sorry I offended you. The stuff about me was pretty funny- I have to admit! But I am not sure how anyone can take away another's joy in life- that was not my intention. I am a big fan of joy! If you find errors in my "amateur philosophizing" please bring them up. As you point out, I am pretty confident there are none. I have not seen any evidence of your understanding it so I have obviously underestimated you. I would love to discuss it further so don't hesitate to bring them up- I am pretty thick skinned! Edited February 18, 2018 by mfbukowski
ALarson Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Did you miss the very next paragraph of the post to which you purport to be responding? Ok....keep digging that hole. You really don't have much to support your opinion, IMO. He offered her an apology for how he had handled things and expressed a desire that he wished he could have a do over. Quote a·pol·o·gy noun a regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure. Quote do-over a new attempt or opportunity to do something after a previous attempt has been unsuccessful or unsatisfactory From his email: Quote I've had time to consider my interactions with you, and wish I could have a do-over. I want to apologize for not being more understanding of your feelings, during such a difficult time. I know that you're doing the best you can, with the situation you've been dealt. Please accept my apology Edited February 18, 2018 by ALarson 2
provoman Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, ALarson said: Ok....keep digging that hole. You really don't have much to support your opinion, IMO. He offered her an apology for how he had handled things and expressed a desire that he wished he could have a do over. From his email: He used “do over” and he also was very specific as to what he apologized for. Edited February 18, 2018 by provoman
Thinking Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Amulek said: If that's what you think, then take it you haven't listened to the recordings. So two people can't listen to the same information and arrive at different conclusions? Quote When your priesthood leaders - right, wrong, or indifferent - when they say to do something and you say I will not do that, then you simply cannot sit in that temple recommend interview and say I sustain and support my local church leaders. When Tiercy asked why there was no consequence for her husband the SP turned the conversation back onto her.
Vanguard Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 3 hours ago, juliann said: Why would he try to give her a recommend when she didn't want one after it had been used against her? You avoided the question and it is a fair one. Why the apology if he didn't think he did anything wrong? As I see it, you only have two choices here. He thought he didn't handle it well, thus wanting a "do-over" or he was lying. I'm not sure I've seen such a demand for an infallible SP. All I know that every one I have ever known has acknowledged mistakes...as well as bishops. They are even humble enough to say so in church meetings. What an impossible life those of you demanding infallibility make for them. But what is your point about the apology? Are you suggesting he therefore would have done things differently regards to the husband? That he would not have taken away the TR of the sister? I don't think the apology bears that out at all. His apology is a commentary on how he would have communicated with her differently not what actions he would have changed up. Big difference. Regardless, had he shown the consideration she complained of not getting do you think it actually would have made the difference with this sister? That she was only needing someone who she felt understood her better? Are you kidding?! Not only was this exchange between the two of them not about the delivery of his message, it was also not about simply clarifying why he did what he did. She was convinced he made several mistakes and there was absolutely nothing he could do to convince her otherwise. When there is a difference of opinion, there are always two issues going on concurrently - 1) the actual disagreement, and 2) how the parties go about discussing it. The SP apologized for his delivery. This was quite the magnanimous thing to do and I believe reflected a genuine desire to understand her. And this brings me to one of my primary issues with this sister. The SP appeared to be acting in good faith whereas she was not, by virtue of her surreptitious recording of the conversation. This by definition skewed her commentary away from what she genuinely would have said otherwise and into a realm that would have her artificially altering her commentary to serve her clandestine purposes. Furthermore, had she simply wanted a recording of the conversation in order to appeal to a higher authority, this would not have been shared with the public in the way that it has been. I am sorry for the pain this sister experiences. Many folks who are in similar circumstances or worse, take action that only exacerbates the situation - actions that sometimes come full circle and make their own grieving all the more difficult. The sister is to be pitied though not excused from these consequences. 2
JLHPROF Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 3 hours ago, kiwi57 said: It's almost certainly not the first such pejorative to find its way into a dictionary, and it almost certainly won't be the last. "Mansplaining" is a way of saying "Sit down and shut up when a woman is talking!" In my opinion its usage in a discussion or debate is nothing but a variation on Godwin's law and only serves to discredit the often valid points being made by its user. 1
Amulek Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 43 minutes ago, Thinking said: So two people can't listen to the same information and arrive at different conclusions? If the conclusion is that the Stake President is a bully, then no. I honestly don't think anybody who has listened to both of those interviews in their entirety can, in good faith, come away thinking that he is a bully. Imperfect? Sure, but not a bully. Unless, you are working with some kind of hypersensitive version of the term "bully." In my experience, bullies don't typically fast, pray, and spend hours in the temple thinking about how to help the people they are allegedly bullying. Nor do they tend to apologize for any of their missteps. If this guy is a bully, he is one of the least threatening bullies I have ever come across. Quote When Tiercy asked why there was no consequence for her husband the SP turned the conversation back onto her. At the time the interview takes place Tiercy was no longer married to him. He is her former husband and, as such, it is no longer any of her business. I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but that's just how it is. The Stake President is meeting with her to help her move forward - not to violate confidentiality and feed her gossip about the disciplinary actions taken against other members of the Stake. And it's a good thing he didn't say anything about the consequences for the other parties involved, because now it would be out for everyone in the public to hear. 4
Thinking Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 5 hours ago, kiwi57 said: So, she had the texts, which were evidence of his behaviour. What did she do about it? She took him to court. She technically won, but all the judge did was reprimand him in open court. There were no real consequences. It got worse after that.
Thinking Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 So a married man and a married woman have an emotional affair (which the SP agreed was wrong). There is no discipline for the man as he is still allowed to ordain his son. This upsets the wife and she talks about it to her friends because there has been no apology to her. Her bishop and SP tell her to stop talking about it because the situation is dividing the ward. Still no discipline for the man. The wife can't keep quiet because she feels the situation is unfair. The SP takes her TR away because she didn't follow his counsel - "right wrong or indifferent." 2
Vanguard Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, Thinking said: So a married man and a married woman have an emotional affair (which the SP agreed was wrong). There is no discipline for the man as he is still allowed to ordain his son. This upsets the wife and she talks about it to her friends because there has been no apology to her. Her bishop and SP tell her to stop talking about it because the situation is dividing the ward. Still no discipline for the man. The wife can't keep quiet because she feels the situation is unfair. The SP takes her TR away because she didn't follow his counsel - "right wrong or indifferent." Did I miss where it has been stated there was no discipline for the man? Or is your point that he was not disciplined in the way you believe he should have been?
Thinking Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 20 minutes ago, Amulek said: At the time the interview takes place Tiercy was no longer married to him. He is her former husband and, as such, it is no longer any of her business. I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but that's just how it is. Got it. He can not apologize, ordain their son, but she just has to accept it because he's her former husband.
Thinking Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Vanguard said: Did I miss where it has been stated there was no discipline for the man? Or is your point that he was not disciplined in the way you believe he should have been? He still was able to ordain his son. He never was required to apologize.
The Nehor Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 15 minutes ago, Thinking said: He still was able to ordain his son. He never was required to apologize. Is it local leaders responsibility now to convince people to say “sorry”?
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Thinking said: So two people can't listen to the same information and arrive at different conclusions? When Tiercy asked why there was no consequence for her husband the SP turned the conversation back onto her. When Tiercy asked why there was no consequence for her husband, she was asking a question that was none of her business, and she knew it. She was asking the Stake President to discuss confidential matters to which she was not a party, and had no right to know anything about.
Michael Sudworth Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: If you find errors in my "amateur philosophizing" please bring them up. As you point out, I am pretty confident there are none. Your errors are so numerous, trying to address them all would consume the board. Quote I would love to discuss it further so don't hesitate to bring them up- I am pretty thick skinned! Can we start simple? From your perspective, what is water?
Recommended Posts