Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

I agree with the bolded statement.  Has anyone here implied that we should construed them as such though?  I could have missed it, but if that hasn't been implied, then we don't really need to spend a lot of time talking about how it shouldn't be implied.  Let's focus on things that we do need to talk about. 

I agree with the underlined statement very much.  God knew that too, even when He gave us D&C 121:37.  I have only ever had wonderful bishops, but not everyone has had that experience. When leaders abuse their priesthood authority it can cause a tremendous amount of harm. All the wonderful amazing godly bishops in the world can't change or negate that.

As to the italicized statement, a bishop's discretion doesn't need to be near plenary to still cause harm or to exercise unrighteous dominion or authority.

Quote

Yes, we can.  

Please provide the means on how we do that.  How do we present issues to 'the church'?

Quote

 

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

This is not "disparaging and badmouthing?"

 

That is the title of the thread, but it's not the topic of the thread.  The topic of thread is evaluating Jana Reiss' evidence for the article she wrote where she made that statement.  Many posters have called her out for her use of that phrase.

Quote

 

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?

 

Sure, but trying to provide that as a reason not to ever apply the term comes across like deflection.  That some invalid accusations are made does not mean that it's that the majority of accusations are vague, ambiguous, and impediments, nor that accusations shouldn't be discussed.

Quote

 

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

 

That hasn't been my experience on here. I can't think of any threads on the subject that have devolved into gossip/backbiting/faultfinding.  (further, the definitions of gossip/backbiting/faultfinding are ambiguous, vague, and often enough misapplied that someone could easily argue that they become useless as accusations against others.  They are certainly no more useful, as far as accusations go, than the term "ecclesiastical abuse" is, so if you want to argue that one shouldn't be used we probably shouldn't use the others either).  

In my experience, when things start to go that way there is a lot of pushback against it.  We can see that happening even here, where Meadowchic is probably getting more pushback for some of the examples that she has shared than support.  Can you provide examples in this thread that show that the discussion as a whole hasn't been reasonable in intent?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

If you are trying to suggest that I spend more time on Facebook then yuck and no. Also, if this is a well-picked example then the logical conclusion is that the stories are bunk. I am not saying they all are but if this is the example you wanted to use it makes me suspicious.

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

That the book the Lord of the Rings exists is established but if I used it to try to prove the existence of Valinor I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

You are calling for the promulgation and openness of gossip. Do you really want to go down that road? Would you be equally happy with openness if the Bishop in that story decided to clear the air by sharing all the reasons she is under church discipline, how much welfare assistance she has been given and how she keeps wanting more, the ongoing paternity case over the child so it is impossible to get father’s permission for baptism, and how she shows up in his office every week to give him her latest revelation for the whole ward and how she is off her bipolar and schizophrenia medication again.

I went “worst case” there and I am not suggesting it is true. Some things are not meant to be open. There are avenues to seek redress in the church system if something goes wrong. I have seen bishops smacked down by Stake Presidents and Stake Presidents smacked down by Area Authorities. Airing dirty laundry is not the answer. While there is some truth in the idea that being heard or acknowledged has value some people wallow in this. I am betting in this story her Priesthood leaders have heard her.....repeatedly. They just do not agree. So why not go to social media with a not-so-carefully doctored story to win accolades and praise for your bravery in sharing your story when truthfully that praise is just an emotional high they are seeking. You see this sometimes in church with people who want to confess their sins to the bishop all the time even when it is not needed.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Yet also, there is an epistemological challenge created by church structure and counsel. It is incongruous to only be made aware of incidents that reach the criminality of civil courts.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

It depends on the news source and sometimes the court as well.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So when is incorrect ecclesiastical behaviour serious,

Generally, many (most?) of the complaints in the website you provided seem fairly hackneyed.  Nearly every one is a "First World Problem."

😁

A few months ago my parents returned home from a mission in Zimbabwe.  They had to cut their mission short by six months because it had become one of the most expensive, perhaps the most expensive, missions in the Church (more expensive than New York, London, Tokyo, etc.).  The expense was due to hyperinflation in that country.  My parents lost quite a bit of weight during the last bit because food was extraordinarily expensive, and because they were sharing what they had with others.  

My brother works for the Church.  Last year he spent quite a bit of time coordinating the Church's efforts helping with a cholera outbreak in New Guinea.

When I consider these sorts of real-world problems, I have a hard time endlessly fretting and whinging over incidental social slights and errors, even obvious ones, which involve people I've never met, and over which I have no influence or control.

Yes, we need to treat each other with kindness and respect.  Yes, bishops need to be attentive and patient and accommodating and helpful.

There is very little value in online carping about relatively minor issues in which we are not involved, and which should be addressed individually and locally.

Quote

when would it be deserving of harsh criticism and when would it be inflammatory enough to deserve inflammatory comment?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not that interested in hunting down things to be outraged about.

I care about the Church.  It is my community.  My people.  My faith.  I want it to improve, both collectively and individually.  I don't really see how online gossipmongering based uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes helps in that objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

If you are trying to suggest that I spend more time on Facebook then yuck and no. Also, if this is a well-picked example then the logical conclusion is that the stories are bunk. I am not saying they all are but if this is the example you wanted to use it makes me suspicious.

That the book the Lord of the Rings exists is established but if I used it to try to prove the existence of Valinor I doubt anyone would take me seriously.

You are calling for the promulgation and openness of gossip. Do you really want to go down that road? Would you be equally happy with openness if the Bishop in that story decided to clear the air by sharing all the reasons she is under church discipline, how much welfare assistance she has been given and how she keeps wanting more, the ongoing paternity case over the child so it is impossible to get father’s permission for baptism, and how she shows up in his office every week to give him her latest revelation for the whole ward and how she is off her bipolar and schizophrenia medication again.

I went “worst case” there and I am not suggesting it is true. Some things are not meant to be open. There are avenues to seek redress in the church system if something goes wrong. I have seen bishops smacked down by Stake Presidents and Stake Presidents smacked down by Area Authorities. Airing dirty laundry is not the answer. While there is some truth in the idea that being heard or acknowledged has value some people wallow in this. I am betting in this story her Priesthood leaders have heard her.....repeatedly. They just do not agree. So why not go to social media with a not-so-carefully doctored story to win accolades and praise for your bravery in sharing your story when truthfully that praise is just an emotional high they are seeking. You see this sometimes in church with people who want to confess their sins to the bishop all the time even when it is not needed.

I would hope awareness of the structural tendencies would help yield adoption of other alternatives, so that women would not feel compelled to air painful grievances. There is an abuse hotline for the use of priesthood leaders, but AFAIK women are not allowed to use it. 

The link I shared is for Exponent II, not Facebook.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It depends on the news source and sometimes the court as well.  

I was thinking the same, but lazily left it out. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I would hope awareness of the structural tendencies would help yield adoption of other alternatives, so that women would not feel compelled to air painful grievances. There is an abuse hotline for the use of priesthood leaders, but AFAIK women are not allowed to use it. 

The link I shared is for Exponent II, not Facebook.

You said you got the story you shared on Facebook which is why I went there.

The abuse hotline is there for legal reasons to avoid tainting a case because clergy like a bishop are under specific rules. If a woman is aware of actionable abuse call the police. There is no super secret access they are being denied. The abuse hotline is not going to fix anything. Calling the police or CPS or someone is often what the abuse hotline tells bishops once legalities are clarified.

I will look at this Exponent thing and give a trip report soon.

Edited September 12, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There is an abuse hotline for the use of priesthood leaders, but AFAIK women are not allowed to use it. 

I was told to have a woman call that number by one of those in charge of it through a mutual friend, so they are allowed though I don’t know how often such happens. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I would hope awareness of the structural tendencies would help yield adoption of other alternatives, so that women would not feel compelled to air painful grievances. There is an abuse hotline for the use of priesthood leaders, but AFAIK women are not allowed to use it. 

The link I shared is for Exponent II, not Facebook.

I remember being told that anyone can call that hotline, but I can't remember where I heard that from.  @Calm, does that sound familiar to you?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I remember being told that anyone can call that hotline, but I can't remember where I heard that from.  @Calm, does that sound familiar to you?

I told you that because I was told that.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The abuse hotline is not going to fix anything

The purpose the phone number was shared with me was if the woman was concerned in any way, she could share those concerns with someone who could ensure action would be taken if needed. 

This could also be achieved through calling police in many cases, but police aren’t likely to act on whether or not someone is holding a calling they shouldn’t or other such things. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Trip Report from above post quoted in its entirety:

Toxic echo chamber.

~fin~

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I told you that because I was told that.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I remember being told that anyone can call that hotline, but I can't remember where I heard that from.  @Calm, does that sound familiar to you?

I bet they take calls from anyone who has the number. The number is not generally available. I checked and got “access denied” when I looked for it.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with the bolded statement.  Has anyone here implied that we should construed them as such though?  

I think Meadowchik's website works very, very hard at encouraging such negative perceptions of Latter-day Saint men/bishops.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I could have missed it, but if that hasn't been implied, then we don't really need to spend a lot of time talking about how it shouldn't be implied.  Let's focus on things that we do need to talk about. 

I question the "need."

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with the underlined statement very much.  

I had anticipated that.

I question whether Meadowchik agrees, though.  I question whether the average reader of the website Meadowchik is pointing to would agree.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God knew that too, even when He gave us D&C 121:37.  I have only ever had wonderful bishops, but not everyone has had that experience. When leaders abuse their priesthood authority it can cause a tremendous amount of harm. All the wonderful amazing godly bishops in the world can't change or negate that.

I agree.  But I also think that "abuse" is often used in an undue and inflammatory way. 

I also think that much of the "harm" can be mitigated by the individual. 

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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.

As to the italicized statement, a bishop's discretion doesn't need to be near plenary to still cause harm or to exercise unrighteous dominion or authority.

Agreed.  But again, that harm can be mitigated.  And the bishop's authority is fairly circumscribed.  And the individual has recourse for instances where the bishop errs.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

 

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.  

 

Please provide the means on how we do that.  How do we present issues to 'the church'?

Write a letter.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That is the title of the thread, but it's not the topic of the thread.  

Disparaging and badmouthing the men/bishops in the Church is being presented by Meadowchik.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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?

Sure, but trying to provide that as a reason not to ever apply the term comes across like deflection.  

I'm not saying the term should never be applied.  Rather, I am arguing that "ecclesiastical abuse" is a phrase that is often (very often) used as a weaponized catchphrase.  Exhibit A: Meadowchik's website.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That some invalid accusations are made does not mean that it's that the majority of accusations are vague, ambiguous, and impediments, nor that accusations shouldn't be discussed.

I think Meadowchik's website is predominantly an exercise in airing "First World" grievances.

I think that that most of the accusations are uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes, and hence are not really useful as a basis for substantive discussion.

I also think that most of discussion about these anecdotes is, or will soon devolve into, gossipping/backbiting/faultfinding.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That hasn't been my experience on here. I can't think of any threads on the subject that have devolved into gossip/backbiting/faultfinding.  (further, the definitions of gossip/backbiting/faultfinding are ambiguous, vague, and often enough misapplied that someone could easily argue that they become useless as accusations against others.  They are certainly no more useful, as far as accusations go, than the term "ecclesiastical abuse" is, so if you want to argue that one shouldn't be used we probably shouldn't use the others either).  

Meadowchik's website seems to be almost nothing but gossip/backbiting/faultfinding.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In my experience, when things start to go that way there is a lot of pushback against it.  We can see that happening even here, where Meadowchic is probably getting more pushback for some of the examples that she has shared than support.  Can you provide examples in this thread that show that the discussion as a whole hasn't been reasonable in intent?

No, you have a point here.  This board is moderated, and decently so.  I was speaking of discussions generally, not necessarily just those on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

IThe number is not generally available. I checked and got “access denied” when I looked for it.

I know. I feel special.   

The member would have to convince someone who had access to it to share it with them...like me.   

Edited September 12, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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. 

News reports don't carry much probative weight, IMO.  Court cases do, but not when all we have are allegations.  It is the litigation process, the vetting and evaluation of evidence for its admissibility, competency, probative weight, etc., that really helps.  Most of the stories that implicate legal action are at the front end of the process, not the back.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I  care about the Church.  It is my community.  My people.  My faith.  I want it to improve, both collectively and individually.  I don't really see how online gossipmongering based uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes helps in that objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that many seem trivial. However, "trivial" issues can be symptomatic but can also add up to significant impact.

And it doesn't sound like you care. If you did care, you wouldn't in the first instance characterise reports in such a derogatory manner as gossipmongering. 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was told to have a woman call that number by one of those in charge of it through a mutual friend, so they are allowed though I don’t know how often such happens. 

 

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I bet they take calls from anyone who has the number. The number is not generally available. I checked and got “access denied” when I looked for it.

I would say clarification is needed. I was told that a woman tried to call and was told it was for priesthood leaders only.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I  care about the Church.  It is my community.  My people.  My faith.  I want it to improve, both collectively and individually.  I don't really see how online gossipmongering based uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes helps in that objective.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that many seem trivial.

I think many are trivial.

Quote

However, "trivial" issues can be symptomatic but can also add up to significant impact.

Yes.  When people compile a bunch of uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes and characterize them as representative of the conduct of the men and bishops of the Church, when such compilations are calculated to be inflammatory and provocative to foment anger and ill will against the Church and its members, the impact can indeed be "significant."

Otherwise, not so much.  Again, I think the 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.

If the bishops in the Church were really so systemically horrible as you and your compatriots want us to believe, you would have a point.  But they aren't, and you don't (IMO).

Quote

And it doesn't sound like you care.

So when I say: "I  care about the Church.  It is my community.  My people.  My faith.  I want it to improve, both collectively and individually.", from that you conclude: "It doesn't sound like you care."

Oh.

Quote

If you did care, you wouldn't in the first instance characterise reports in such a derogatory manner as gossipmongering. 

By "reports" you mean the litany of uncorroborated, unvetted, unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced, hearsay anecdotes?

Such stuff seems to typify "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others." In other words, gossip.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I bet they take calls from anyone who has the number. The number is not generally available. I checked and got “access denied” when I looked for it.

That's what I was thinking.  I think you have to get the number from a leader though.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That's what I was thinking.  I think you have to get the number from a leader though.

I am betting it is only for bishops and stake presidents on the local level. Maybe their counselors.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

News reports don't carry much probative weight, IMO.  Court cases do, but not when all we have are allegations.  It is the litigation process, the vetting and evaluation of evidence for its admissibility, competency, probative weight, etc., that really helps.  Most of the stories that implicate legal action are at the front end of the process, not the back.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would never suggest that news or court cases be the end of the process. Instead I am suggesting they would be a resource for finding potentially valid cases that can be investigated and if found to be accurate, addressed....thus I said “examined seriously”.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

I would say clarification is needed. I was told that a woman tried to call and was told it was for priesthood leaders only.

When did this happen?  I saw it as a forwarded response in the last year or two saying they would take calls from anyone...I am guessing they might then refuse to deal with the caller if obvious spam or prank or harassment.

I would not be surprised if rules of engagement had been changed or if local avenues hadn’t been taken yet, the caller was referred to use those rather than first stop the abuse line. The case I was dealing with had been dealt with already locally, but concerns expressed about that result. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Calm