Mormon Women for Ethical Government

[Nofear]

The group was mentioned in a Kavanaugh  thread, but I thought not to derail that thread, but some details on the group are appropriate.

It was indeed formed after the recent political election but it is not a politically partisan group. The group is all and only women. The organization, despite being fairly young, has membership in the several thousands. It has a broad spectrum of very conservative to quite liberal members. Their purpose is not partisan politics but is more along the lines of not letting politics divide but being about a good work upon which they can all (mostly) agree.

Being male, I am not privy to its internal discussions or non-public data. I have, however, personally met the president and have other avenues to gain insight. They have "call to action" items where they encourage their membership to engage politically. Recent ones include immigration and Kavanaugh. Much like the Church, they often don't always advise how to vote or what opinion to take but to encourage the members to let their voice be heard nonetheless. Though an outsider, I see the group channeling much of the spirit and vim of the early Relief Society.

The group has a webpage: http://www.mormonwomenforethicalgovernment.org/
It has a facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/mormonweg/ (it used to do most of its business through facebook but the size of the group made that mechanism unwieldy)
The have a book of essays: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CTFXVGF/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

 

[Calm]

Thanks for the info.  Sounds like an interesting and potentially very good group.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks for the info.  Sounds like an interesting and potentially very good group.

Agree! Exciting that there is a group like this too!

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Thanks for the info.  Sounds like an interesting and potentially very good group.

My wife is an enthusiastic member

[PacMan]

Out of curiosity, who's standard of ethics do they use?

I guess that's a snarky way of suggesting that it seems like yet another group cloaking the political agenda of its members behind a holier-than-thou facade of altruism.

Edited September 27, 2018 by PacMan

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

Out of curiosity, who's standard of ethics do they use?

I guess that's a snarky way of suggesting that it seems like yet another group cloaking the political agenda of its members behind a holier-than-thou facade of altruism.

Is there something wrong with having a political agenda?  Considering the group is made up of republicans and democrats, any political agenda they have would need to mostly be bipartisan to make the organization work.  

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, PacMan said:

Out of curiosity, who's standard of ethics do they use?

I guess that's a snarky way of suggesting that it seems like yet another group cloaking the political agenda of its members behind a holier-than-thou facade of altruism.

That's quite the nasty accusation based on nothing at all.

[thatjimguy]

4 hours ago, PacMan said:

Out of curiosity, who's standard of ethics do they use?

I guess that's a snarky way of suggesting that it seems like yet another group cloaking the political agenda of its members behind a holier-than-thou facade of altruism.

I would think the answer lies in the title. 

[PacMan]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is there something wrong with having a political agenda?  Considering the group is made up of republicans and democrats, any political agenda they have would need to mostly be bipartisan to make the organization work.  

 

When an organization proclaims that it is nonpartisan but pursues an almost entirely partisan agenda, yes. 

There is no bipartisan negotiation.  You are either on board and agree with them or you can hit the highway:

"If we are to be successful, we must be united. And we cannot be united unless we share the same vision."

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, PacMan said:

When an organization proclaims that it is nonpartisan but pursues an almost entirely partisan agenda, yes. 

There is no bipartisan negotiation.  You are either on board and agree with them or you can hit the highway:

"If we are to be successful, we must be united. And we cannot be united unless we share the same vision."

Opposition to corruption is not a partisan issue.

[PacMan]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

That's quite the nasty accusation based on nothing at all.

What do you mean "based on nothing at all?"  Here you have a group premised on good ethics.  Except ethics can mean anything.  Even their adopted definition of ethics is wishy-washy:

“Ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.”

What does "fairness" mean?  What does "compassion" and "loyalty" mean?  These terms mean whatever people want them to believe.  For example, think of illegal immigration.  What predominates--what is fair (follow the law) or what is compassionate (forgiveness)?  And worse, because this group promotes an "ethical" course, that means that if you disagree with them that you are unethical?  Sorry.  That is quintessentially "holier-than-thou."  Thank goodness my wife is not a member.  Although, they could certainly benefit from her (superlative) intellectual horsepower.

[PacMan]

Just now, Gray said:

Opposition to corruption is not a partisan issue.

If that was all they took stances on, then I'd be more inclined to agree.  But given that you're just making it up, I respectfully don't.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

What do you mean "based on nothing at all?"  Here you have a group premised on good ethics.  Except ethics can mean anything.  Even their adopted definition of ethics is wishy-washy:

Thank you for demonstrating that your objections are entirely invented.

 

 

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

“Ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.”

What does "fairness" mean?  What does "compassion" and "loyalty" mean?  These terms mean whatever people want them to believe.  For example, think of illegal immigration.  What predominates--what is fair (follow the law) or what is compassionate (forgiveness)?  And worse, because this group promotes an "ethical" course, that means that if you disagree with them that you are unethical?  Sorry.  That is quintessentially "holier-than-thou."  Thank goodness my wife is not a member.  Although, they could certainly benefit from her (superlative) intellectual horsepower.

The PacMan doth protest too much.

[Gray]

Just now, PacMan said:

If that was all they took stances on, then I'd be more inclined to agree.  But given that you're just making it up, I respectfully don't.

What stances do they take that don't have anything to do with ethics?

[PacMan]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thank you for demonstrating that your objections are entirely invented.

 

 

The PacMan doth protest too much.

Well, so much for having an adult conversation.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Well, so much for having an adult conversation.

We weren't having one. You were just pulling out specious accusations from thin air.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, PacMan said:

Out of curiosity, who's standard of ethics do they use?

I guess that's a snarky way of suggesting that it seems like yet another group cloaking the political agenda of its members behind a holier-than-thou facade of altruism.

Is being against misogyny a controversial stance at this point?

I mean we have reached the point where literal Nazis are not necessarily bad people and some are in fact cool and good so I am not sure how this new post-truth world works.

Edited September 27, 2018 by The Nehor

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Is being against misogyny a controversial stance at this point?

I mean we have reached the point where literal Nazis are not necessarily bad people and some are in fact cool and good so I am not sure how this new post-truth world works.

What are you talking about?  It's not that I disagree with your statement.  It's that it makes no sense.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

What are you talking about?  It's not that I disagree with your statement.  It's that it makes no sense.

Welcome to our current reality. You don’t have to be crazy to live in it but it helps.

[Garden Girl]

I noticed the MWfEG had sent a letter of support to the Dr. Ford camp... as Sen Booker noted when reading the source of such letters...

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I noticed the MWfEG had sent a letter of support to the Dr. Ford camp... as Sen Booker noted when reading the source of such letters...

GG

They appear to be as partisan as any other political pressure group.

By the way, do we really need two threads about them?

Edited to add: Suppose a Latter-day Saint woman earnestly believes Judge Kavanaugh’s denials of the allegations against him. Would she be welcome in this group? Would her opinion be respected?

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/26/2018 at 9:46 PM, Gray said:

That's quite the nasty accusation based on nothing at all.

[Biting my tongue]

[Biting my tongue harder]

[Biting my tongue still harder]

[Biting my tongue even harder]

[Biting ... You get the idea]

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I noticed the MWfEG had sent a letter of support to the Dr. Ford camp... as Sen Booker noted when reading the source of such letters...

GG

Yes. There reasons to do so are non-partisan. Well, it should be. Asking for a thorough examination of serious allegations from a very credible person...followed by 2 similar claims... Shouldn’t be partisan. I remember one republican senator stating, in what i assumed was an angry warning that this could happen to anybody and just wait till it does to the democrat side. It confused me because if it were a liberal leaning judge with these allegations or something lighter, i would want the same thing: a thorough investigation by the FBI or proper channels and a loss of the recommendation or seat if it showed crediblilty in the allegations. Such as what happened to al frankin. 

 

 

 

In general: i was so proud of the group when i saw the news . Not apart of it, but what a good cause! 

Edited September 28, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

As the other thread on this topic has been closed, I’ll report here that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has been voted out of committee on strictly partisan lines (scarcely any surprise there). 

But in some very last-minute, anteroom horse trading, Jeff Flake, Republican from Arizona and one of the Latter-day Saints on the committee, agreed with some Democrats that he would support the motion only with the stipulation that when the approval of Kavanaugh goes before the full Senate, his vote will be contingent on there being a one-week (maximum) FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

The agreement is not binding on the full Senate, but if the Republicans want Flake’s vote, they might have to honor his pledge. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/27/2018 at 7:24 AM, Gray said:

Opposition to corruption is not a partisan issue.

Definition of “corruption” very well can be — subjectively so. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd