Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you think that those verse in the D&C are talking about exercising control or dominion or compulsion in regards to civil authority?  

Any authority, civil or religious.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because I don't, and if they aren't, then the fact that bishop's have no civil authority has no bearing whatsoever on their (and other leaders) ability to exercise control, dominion, and compulsion. 

I think the lack of civil authority has a lot of relevance.  I read unending allegations of "abuse" by bishops, but they almost always amount to - if we are to be candid - the giving and receiving of offenses, or the taking of offenses.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I also have to ask, do you think that these verses in the D&C are 'vague and ambiguous and subjection and hard to apply in any coherent, meaningful way'?   

I think they have better parameters, but they too are susceptible to becoming weaponized catchphrases.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Why would you think the calling of a counselor would have "no real responsibilities", just because it would be a woman?

Because that was how it was being described. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it isn’t a leadership role itself.... 

A counselor in the Bishopric?  You bet that would be a leadership role.  She wouldn't be there just to show up for meetings....at least that's not how I envision this calling if this ever took place in the future.  I believe she would be given specific responsibilities and have stewardship.  

But I've said I'm moving on since this is all just speculative at this point....so I am now.... 

ETA:

I want to respond to your post above and appear to ignore it...

Quote

Because that was how it was being described. 

Then that's different than how I envision it and not how I've described it.  I think I've stated from the beginning it would be nice to have another view and also someone to share the load with regarding running a ward.  I'd very much see them as having responsibilities just as other counselors do (albeit those would be different).

Edited September 12, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, in the absence of being able to record and tally such instances and create an informative dataset, we have the male-dominated leadership structure of the system to evaluate. Can you please try to consider how the structure impacts women in such situations?

I did, many posts about it. I think if you confess the story seems pretty ridiculous people are more likely to let it go.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Any authority, civil or religious.

I think the lack of civil authority has a lot of relevance.  I read unending allegations of "abuse" by bishops, but they almost always amount to - if we are to be candid - the giving and receiving of offenses, or the taking of offenses.

But obviously those kind of offenses are not the only kind of abuse out there, otherwise the warning in D&C and the consequence of of 'amen to the priesthood of that man' would be unnecessary.  We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, and imply that priesthood holders never use their callings to exercise control, dominion, or compulsion.  God knew they would do that, and that's why we have those verses in D&C.  The lack of civil authority really doesn't have any relevance when we are talking about abusing their priesthood authority.

Quote

 

I think they have better parameters, but they too are susceptible to becoming weaponized catchphrases.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Everything, even the Atonement of Christ, is susceptible to becoming weaponized though.   That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it's real impact and consequences in our lives.

Edited September 12, 2019 by bluebell

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not defensiveness. It is disbelief and probably contempt for what is almost certainly an outlandish lie. It is hard to care about the relatively minor influence of male dominated leadership in an organization compared to someone literally trying to send themselves to hell. Yet you want us to focus on the feelings behind that act?

This doesn't make sense. 

But don't just focus on feelings, please focus on the stated point. It's ironic that you persist on an unprovable (at least for now) anecdote when my point was that the structure makes it hard to know such information at all.

And, as I said to SMAC and Danzo, if we go by the counsel of President Oaks, we have little to no ability to verify whether that structural influence is (as you claim) "relatively minor."

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I did, many posts about it. I think if you confess the story seems pretty ridiculous people are more likely to let it go.

Nah, folks: please be aware that from the perspective of many, there are concerning reports. Of course any one person cannot verify or disprove them all, but that's not the point. If harmful things are happening to women in the church, there's no guarantee that you'd know or be aware of them. And the counsel and structure makes it even less likely for you to hear of them.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

we should talk about i

Missing a “not” I am guessing. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course any one person cannot verify or disprove them all, but that's not the point. If harmful things are happening to women in the church

If you can’t verify, then you can’t actually demonstrate harmful things are happening...

[The Nehor]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Nah, folks: please be aware that from the perspective of many, there are concerning reports. Of course any one person cannot verify or disprove them all, but that's not the point. If harmful things are happening to women in the church, there's no guarantee that you'd know or be aware of them. And the counsel and structure makes it even less likely for you to hear of them.

A large volume of dubious reports is not more convincing than a small volume of dubious reports.

You are also making an argument from ignorance. “If it was a pervasive problem we would hear little about it. It must be a pervasive problem because we hear little about it.”

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This doesn't make sense. 

But don't just focus on feelings, please focus on the stated point. It's ironic that you persist on an unprovable (at least for now) anecdote when my point was that the structure makes it hard to know such information at all.

And, as I said to SMAC and Danzo, if we go by the counsel of President Oaks, we have little to no ability to verify whether that structural influence is (as you claim) "relatively minor."

I meant relatively minor compared to the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor. That is why I used the term “relatively”.

It is ironic that you persisted on defending the story for so long and now have decided it is irrelevant. An uncharitable person would suspect you are just throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You keep transferring the ecclesiastical context to a civil one,

No, I am contrasting ecclesiastical authority (which, in the end, is actually quite sparse) to civil authority (which is a lot more far-reaching).

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

as if the spiritual and religious definition must bear the scrutiny of a civil court of law.

Well, not exactly.

I just have a hard time with online grievancemongering against bishops.  It just comes across as mostly gossipping, backbiting, faultfinding.

The issue seems to come down to the scope of the bishop's authority.  I think that authority is narrow, circumscribed, and limited. 

A bishop's authority is constrained because he lacks any civil authority (see D&C 134:10).  He can't take anyone's property or money, or deprive them of their liberty, or physically punish them, or take away their children, and so on.  

A bishop's authority is constrained by the doctrines and policies and procedures of the Church.  Quite heavily so, in fact.

A bishop's authority is constrained by the organizational structure of the Church, which allows members to "appeal" concerns/disputes to the stake president (or higher). 

A bishop's authority is constrained by the bilaterally voluntary nature of the relationship between the Church and its members.

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But this is not a civic context, it is the church context, where leadership decisions can impact people on a spiritual level.

I suppose so.  But again, that is largely within the control of the individual.

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If the church has ability to uplift people spiritually, it follows that it has the ability to do the opposite, especially when it acts inappropriately.

Agreed.

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, I think you are correct that you and I don't have much to discuss.

All right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That would seem to cover a huge spectrum of behavior.

A bishop failing to pay sufficient attention to a particular member of his ward can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop being absentmindedly curt with Sister Jones in the hallway right after Sacrament Meeting can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop neglecting to follow up with a member of the ward on an important personal issue can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop being biased and unduly partial to one side in a dispute between spouses can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop declining to authorize a fifth month of rental payments for a fellow who is chronically unemployed, never comes to Church, and never keeps his prior commitments to the bishop can be characterized as "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

A bishop asking inappropriate questions during an interview "any abuse by a religious authority figure upon those within his/her stewardship."

And on and on and on.

"Ecclesiastical abuse" gets thrown around alot online.  But it's so subjective and malleable that it can be applied to almost any conduct by an ecclesiastical leader.  It can mean just about anything, and hence ends up meaning nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, you would need to apply some reasonable intelligence to the word abuse.  But I think the definition I provided is workable for a discussion. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not made anything up. I gave an example of what I was reading from my friends. 

The response you are getting is a an example of what Reiss was getting at with her article. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But obviously those kind of offenses are not the only kind of abuse out there, otherwise the warning in D&C and the consequence of of 'amen to the priesthood of that man' would be unnecessary.  We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, and imply that priesthood holders never use their callings to exercise control, dominion, or compulsion.  

Sure.  I did not mean to imply anything like that.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God knew they would do that, and that's why we have those verses in D&C.  The lack of civil authority really doesn't have any relevance when we are talking about abusing their priesthood authority.

I think it does.  We have essentially no say in submitting to civil authority.  We have a lot of say in submitting to a bishop's authority.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Everything, even the Atonement of Christ, is susceptible to becoming weaponized though.   That doesn't mean we should talk about it's real impact and consequences in our lives.

Such discussions very often either start out as, or quickly devolve into, gossipping/backbiting/faultfinding.  There is usually undue emphasis and lingering about lurid stories, almost all of which are anonymously-sourced hearsay.  And compiling such anecdotes only seems to compound the problem.

If talking about such issues is a merely a necessary precursor to identifying and pursuing solutions, I think I'd have a very different perspective.  But let's get real here.  We are on a message board.  We are not talking to bishops, but about them.  We are not presenting these issues to the Church.  This thread is not about identifying and pursuing solutions, but of disparaging and badmouthing the Church and its local leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, you would need to apply some reasonable intelligence to the word abuse.  

I can agree with that.

Could you agree that "abuse" is an inherently serious word?  That allegations of "abuse" should be taken seriously?  

"My bishop was unkind to me" is a fairly even-handed statement.  Critical, but not harsh or inflammatory.

"My bishop acted like a jerk" is a bit uncouth, but still not that big a deal.

"My bishop abused me."  Well.  What does that mean to you?  Doesn't that seem like a serious accusation?

And if "My bishop abused me" and "My bishop was unkind to me" are interchangeably used to describe the exact same conduct, then it seems like the former is unduly provocative.  Inflammatory.  Inaccurate.  Overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The response you are getting is a an example of what Reiss was getting at with her article. 

I don’t see it as an example of such because if a man were to tell the exact same story here of not getting a recommend because he hadn’t given his child up for adoption, I think you would be given the same disbelieving response. It is not that she is a woman that is the problem, but the unlikeliness of the story itself.

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The response you are getting is a an example of what Reiss was getting at with her article. 

We must agree with her or we are part of the problem.

sound like a convenient way to end discussion.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  I did not mean to imply anything like that.

I think it does.  We have essentially no say in submitting to civil authority.  We have a lot of say in submitting to a bishop's authority.

Not if we want to remain in good standing in the church.  

Quote

 

Such discussions very often either start out as, or quickly devolve into, gossipping/backbiting/faultfinding.  There is usually undue emphasis and lingering about lurid stories, almost all of which are anonymously-sourced hearsay.  And compiling such anecdotes only seems to compound the problem.

If talking about such issues is a merely a necessary precursor to identifying and pursuing solutions, I think I'd have a very different perspective.  But let's get real here.  We are on a message board.  We are not talking to bishops, but about them.  We are not presenting these issues to the Church.  This thread is not about identifying and pursuing solutions, but of disparaging and badmouthing the Church and its local leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Well, we are talking to bishops because some bishops post here, but hopefully this discussion doesn't stop here but continues in places where other bishops can take part.  It shouldn't be an either/or narrative. 

And we can't really present issues to 'the church,' so no one can be faulted for not doing something that's essentially impossible.  

And I disagree that this thread is about disparaging and badmouthing the church and local leaders.  Some examples of local leaders have been brought up, but that is because such examples are always asked for.  We can believe them or not, but it isn't the topic and hasn't ever been the topic though.

Have you ever been in a discussion trying to talk about possible solutions to the harms caused by porn and the discussion gets bogged down in trying to define what pornography actually is?  Some discussions are difficult to have, and there will always be people trying to deflect or going to extremes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.  Often.  

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The response you are getting is a an example of what Reiss was getting at with her article. 

I agree with Cal, I don't think the responses to that story have anything to do with gender.  It's an incredible story that is difficult to believe and I don't think that would change if it had happened to a guy.  (I don't think that Meadow made it up though, but I still question it's accuracy).

Edited September 12, 2019 by bluebell

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Sure.  I did not mean to imply anything like that.

I think it does.  We have essentially no say in submitting to civil authority.  We have a lot of say in submitting to a bishop's authority.

Not if we want to remain in good standing in the church.  

Yes.  "If."

Moreover, a bishop's discretion is nowhere near plenary.  If a bishop says or does something inappropriate, an involved member of the ward has every right to address it with the bishop, or to seek redress by speaking with the stake president.

Moreover, bishops are overwhelmingly good and decent men.  They are conscripted volunteers who spend about 15-20 hours a week (or more) helping other people.  And they are generally quite successful at it.  I have been in the Church for 40 years, and have only had one bishop whom I found it difficult to respect and sustain.  All the others have been, in ways large and small, kind and decent and generous and helpful.

That is not to say that they cannot or do not make mistakes.  Only that the we should not construe them generally and presumptively as broadly incompetent and arrogant and offensive and abusive, all according to the reckoning of anonymous online gossipmongers.

Quote

And we can't really present issues to 'the church,' so no one can be faulted for not doing something that's essentially impossible.  

Yes, we can.  

Quote

And I disagree that this thread is about disparaging and badmouthing the church and local leaders.  

"Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women."

This is not "disparaging and badmouthing?"

Quote

Have you ever been in a discussion trying to talk about possible solutions to the harms caused by porn and the discussion gets bogged down in trying to define what pornography actually is?  

No.  But if the nebulousness of the term "pornography" is analogous to the nebulousness of the term "ecclesiastical abuse," then we run into problems when the latter is used to denounce others. 

For example, if a man is accused of watching "pornography," and if he responds by saying "C'mon, it was an episode of Baywatch," what is the result?  Is the accusation valid?  Is the defense?  Is it possible that the vagueness and ambiguity become impediments to sorting out the issue?

Quote

Some discussions are difficult to have, and there will always be people trying to deflect or going to extremes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.  Often.  

Provided there is reasonableness in terms of the manner of the discussion and the intent of the parties, I quite agree.

My point, though, is that such discussions are often quite lacking such manner and/or intent, such that we end devolving into gossip/backbiting/faultfinding.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you can’t verify, then you can’t actually demonstrate harmful things are happening...

 

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A large volume of dubious reports is not more convincing than a small volume of dubious reports.

You are also making an argument from ignorance. “If it was a pervasive problem we would hear little about it. It must be a pervasive problem because we hear little about it.”

I meant relatively minor compared to the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor. That is why I used the term “relatively”.

It is ironic that you persisted on defending the story for so long and now have decided it is irrelevant. An uncharitable person would suspect you are just throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

It is relevant, it is an example of stories I hear, and of stories you can hear or read if you listen from sources that amplify women's voices. I previously gave a link that includes non-anonymous and anonymous accounts. 

That such stories exist is established. The stories being circulated is a step above in openness compared to the existing way in the church taught by President Oaks. That way would reduce openness. That way reduces our ability to listen to women, because we are, in theory, not even supposed to hear them air the complaints, unless you're their priesthood leader or in the offices above their priesthood leader.

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can agree with that.

Could you agree that "abuse" is an inherently serious word?  That allegations of "abuse" should be taken seriously?  

"My bishop was unkind to me" is a fairly even-handed statement.  Critical, but not harsh or inflammatory.

"My bishop acted like a jerk" is a bit uncouth, but still not that big a deal.

"My bishop abused me."  Well.  What does that mean to you?  Doesn't that seem like a serious accusation?

And if "My bishop abused me" and "My bishop was unkind to me" are interchangeably used to describe the exact same conduct, then it seems like the former is unduly provocative.  Inflammatory.  Inaccurate.  Overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

So when is incorrect ecclesiastical behaviour serious, when would it be deserving of harsh criticism and when would it be inflammatory enough to deserve inflammatory comment?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

A large volume of dubious reports is not more convincing than a small volume of dubious reports.

You are also making an argument from ignorance. “If it was a pervasive problem we would hear little about it. It must be a pervasive problem because we hear little about it.”

I meant relatively minor compared to the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor. That is why I used the term “relatively”.

It is ironic that you persisted on defending the story for so long and now have decided it is irrelevant. An uncharitable person would suspect you are just throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

It is relevant,

But not necessarily probative or competent.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

it is an example of stories I hear, and of stories you can hear or read if you listen from sources that amplify women's voices.

Stories which nevertheless are uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I previously gave a link that includes non-anonymous and anonymous accounts. 

Some of the stories are not anonymous, but remain uncorroborated, unvetted, and unsubstantiated.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That such stories exist is established.

That such stories are uniformly accurate, credible and probative, however, is not.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The stories being circulated is a step above in openness compared to the existing way in the church taught by President Oaks.

Reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose.  I think the circulation of such gosspi is a step below what Pres. Oaks had in mind.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That way would reduce openness.

But it would also reduce gossipping, backbiting, and faultfinding.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That way reduces our ability to listen to women, because we are, in theory, not even supposed to hear them air the complaints, unless you're their priesthood leader or in the offices above their priesthood leader.

I don't think this issue is gender-specific.  

I also think that "our ability to listen" is a nice way of saying "indulging in endless gossip about, and endlessly badmouthing and running down, a category of generally good and decent people (bishops) based on uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, mostly anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes."

I also question the utility of airing private grievances like these for public consumption.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, we can.  

Examples please of how we can present to the Church. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some of the stories are not anonymous, but remain uncorroborated, unvetted, and unsubstantiated.

There are stories that have been investigated through news reports or court. These cases, imo, should be examined seriously.