Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think many are trivial.

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).

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 take conclude: "It doesn't sound like you care."

Oh.

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

Another perspective is that women feel unheard and are understandably angry or hurt or both, and that they legitimately need to know they're not alone. And, reasonably, that it is enormously helpful for women to understand that, despite the decency of most of their leaders, the system means that (as you agreed) leaders tend to understand them less. 

Thanks for resurfacing Oaks criticism talk. That alone corroborates the point of Riess' article. 

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

I would not be surprised if rules of engagement had been changed or if local avenues hadn’t been taken yet, they were referred to use those. The case I was dealing with was the case had been dealt with already, but concerns expressed.

The hotline is intended to help the bishops and branch presidents of the 14,000+ congregations in the U.S. (and also, I think, the nearly 500 congregations in Canada).

I don't think the helpline is intended to provide legal advice to anyone except the bishops and branch presidents.  This is not because the Church doesn't care, but because the bishops and branch presidents are actual representatives of the Church, and hence share the Church's attorney-client relationship with the helpline attorneys.

I also don't think the Church wants its members to be calling the hotline rather than the police.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Another perspective is that women feel unheard and are understandably angry or hurt or both, and that they legitimately need to know they're not alone. And, reasonably, that it is enormously helpful for women to understand that, despite the decency of most of their leaders, the system means that (as you agreed) leaders tend to understand them less. 

The correct response to a lot of the complaints I read on that site is:

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 Thanks for resurfacing Oaks criticism talk. That alone corroborates the point of Riess' article. 

[The Nehor]

I would add that it is rubbish like many of the stories on that site that drown out the rare real cases of real abuse or hurtful mismanagement. They are sabotaging the very cause they claim to espouse.

Edited September 12, 2019 by The Nehor

[Danzo]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Trip Report from above post quoted in its entirety:

Toxic echo chamber.

~fin~

Thanks for going going there for us. 

[The Nehor]

Just now, Danzo said:

Thanks for going going there for us. 

Now if you will excuse me I need to go speak with a therapist.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Another perspective is that women feel unheard and are understandably angry or hurt or both,

"Feel" being the operative word there.

Do they "feel" this way after having raised an issue with the bishop?

Do they "feel" this way after having raised this issue with the stake president?

How much of this emotional response is borne of a passive-aggressive, if-you-don't-know-I'm-not-going-to-tell-you attitude?

"Forgive and forget" is a good initial rule of thumb.  If the issue is sufficiently serious as to warrant further attention, bring it up with the bishop.  If that is impractical, bring it up with the stake president.

I think such efforts to address difficulties are happening . . . rarely.  Instead, I think many (most?) such grievances are retained, unspoken and untreated, and left to fester and grow (and, occasionally, to be posted anonymously so as to share resentments and foment ill will, and to gossip).

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

and that they legitimately need to know they're not alone.

They can do that by following the counsel of Elder Oaks.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And, reasonably, that it is enormously helpful for women to understand that, despite the decency of most of their leaders, the system means that (as you agreed) leaders tend to understand them less. 

I question how "helpful" this is.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks for resurfacing Oaks criticism talk. That alone corroborates the point of Riess' article. 

It does nothing of the sort.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I do think that "my bishop abused me" is a serious accusation and would require further inquiry.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I don't think those phrases should be used interchangeably.

 

I believe that Reiss' point is that if someone comes forward with a claim that they have been abused by an ecclesiastical leader, we ought to inquire further and, potentially, investigate rather than assuming that a "good man, called of God" with whom I've sat in counsel with many times, prayed with, and worshipped with is not capable of such actions.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I've seen enough that I don't consider it unlikely.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't think the helpline is intended to provide legal advice to anyone except the bishops and branch presidents.

In the case I am talking about, it was suggested she call not to seek advice, but to report any concerns of incomplete/inadequate/inappropriate treatment by church leaders. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

sound like a convenient way to end discussion.

 

No, you certainly don't have to agree with her.  I don't agree with everything she wrote in the article.

My post was referring to demonstrations of the behavior that she wrote about.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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).

I agree that it isn't about gender.  The issue is, allegedly, one of ecclesiastical authority and possible abuse of that authority.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

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

I do think that "my bishop abused me" is a serious accusation and would require further inquiry.

And if by "My bishop abused me" the accuser is referencing the bishop being rude or curt, would that "require further inquiry?"

And who is it that would be performing this "inquiry?"  And why?  How is it any of your business?  Or mine?

Quote

I don't think those phrases should be used interchangeably.

I agree.

But what if they are being used interchangeably?  What if some of these allegations of "abuse" are overwrought and unreasonable?  What if the "abuse" is a relatively minor error or oversight by the bishop?

Quote

I believe that Reiss' point is that if someone comes forward with a claim that they have been abused by an ecclesiastical leader, we ought to inquire further and, potentially, investigate rather than assuming that a "good man, called of God" with whom I've sat in counsel with many times, prayed with, and worshipped with is not capable of such actions.

Again, what does "abuse" mean?

And who is this "we" (in "we ought to inquiry further and, potentially, investigate")?

And what sort of "inquiry" and "investigat{ion}" do you have in mind?

And by what authority or standing do "we" presume to get involved in this way?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

question how "helpful" this is.

Actually I think it can be helpful if it encourages the woman and the man to pay closer attention to how each is communicating in order for understanding to be more likely. 

Much like in couples’ counseling talking about how each perceives the same thing differently or each individual world view can help remove contention and confusion and replace it with more effective interaction. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

In the case I am talking about, it was suggested she call not to seek advice, but to report any concerns of incomplete/inadequate/inappropriate treatment by church leaders. 

Ah.  Missed that part.  

I think that's a reasonable use of the hotline.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" comes to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did you read it? President Oaks says that voicing legitimate civic criticisms are part of civic society, but that legitimate criticisms of church leaders require special, quieter care: either overlook it, postpone judgment or response, speak to the leader, speak to the leader's leader, and/or pray. Thus, our religious criticisms are to be less heard than our civic criticisms, according to his talk.

Combine that with the leadership perspectives being more limited to male perspectives, and women's perspectives in the church will be less voiced than outside the church, and will be less understood by church leaders.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And if by "My bishop abused me" the accuser is referencing the bishop being rude or curt, would that "require further inquiry?"

Finding that out would be the point of the inquiry.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And who is it that would be performing this "inquiry?"  And why?  How is it any of your business?  Or mine?

The person to whom the abuse is reported ought to do an appropriate level of inquiry.  It is that person's business because we are to share one another's burdens.

Have you completed the Church's new children/youth protection training?  That training teaches us that we are to take allegations of abuse seriously.  That doesn't mean to immediately convict the alleged perpetrator, but to follow the recommended steps.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

But what if they are being used interchangeably?  What if some of these allegations of "abuse" are overwrought and unreasonable?  What if the "abuse" is a relatively minor error or oversight by the bishop?

Again, what does "abuse" mean?

As I said... finding all this out would be the point of the inquiry.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And who is this "we" (in "we ought to inquiry further and, potentially, investigate")?

Each of us as members of the church.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And what sort of "inquiry" and "investigat{ion}" do you have in mind?

Situation dependent.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And by what authority or standing do "we" presume to get involved in this way?

Our baptismal covenants.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Finding that out would be the point of the inquiry.

Okay.  Not sure how this will turn out.

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The person to whom the abuse is reported ought to do an appropriate level of inquiry.  It is that person's business because we are to share one another's burdens.

Okay.  That sounds reasonable.

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Have you completed the Church's new children/youth protection training? 

No.

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That training teaches us that we are to take allegations of abuse seriously. 

Certainly.  But I don't think it teaches us to investigate allegations.  That is something better left to law enforcement.

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That doesn't mean to immediately convict the alleged perpetrator, but to follow the recommended steps.

What are these "recommended steps?"  Where are these laid out?

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

And who is this "we" (in "we ought to inquiry further and, potentially, investigate")?

Each of us as members of the church.

Really?  Are we going to get training about how to investigate allegations of abuse?

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

And what sort of "inquiry" and "investigat{ion}" do you have in mind?

Situation dependent.

Could you elaborate?  I'm really not understanding this.  

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

And by what authority or standing do "we" presume to get involved in this way?

Our baptismal covenants.

We have been baptized, ergo we have standing to "investigate" allegations of abuse?

Whoa.  I'll have to think about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Not sure how this will turn out.

Okay.  That sounds reasonable.

No.

Certainly.  But I don't think it teaches us to investigate allegations.  That is something better left to law enforcement.

What are these "recommended steps?"  Where are these laid out?

Really?  Are we going to get training about how to investigate allegations of abuse?

Could you elaborate?  I'm really not understanding this.  

We have been baptized, ergo we have standing to "investigate" allegations of abuse?

Whoa.  I'll have to think about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, I'm not saying that because we've been baptized we should be the ones to investigate.  But we have the responsibility to listen, to take the individual's claims seriously.

As for the rest, I suggest doing the training.  It is available to all and only takes about 20 minutes.  I'm not suggesting anyone do more (or less) than the recommendations in that training.

Edited September 12, 2019 by rockpond

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I'm not saying that because we've been baptized we should be the ones to investigate.  But we have the responsibility to listen, to take the individual's claims seriously.

Okay.  I can go along with that.

I am not sure that we are obligated to join the individual in nursing a grudge against the bishop, particularly if the grievance is fairly trivial (as so many of them appear to be).  

I also think we shouldn't participtae in online gripefests such as is being shared with us by Meadowchik.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As for the rest, I suggest doing the training.  It is available to all and only takes about 20 minutes.  I'm not suggesting anyone do more than that.

Good advice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did you read it?

I've read it.  A number of times.

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

President Oaks says that voicing legitimate civic criticisms are part of civic society,

Surely you agree with this?

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

but that legitimate criticisms of church leaders require special, quieter care:

I assume you disagree with this.  May I ask you to elaborate as to your reasoning?

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

either overlook it, postpone judgment or response, speak to the leader, speak to the leader's leader, and/or pray.

Again, I assume you disagree with this counsel.  Could you elaborate?

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thus, our religious criticisms are to be less heard than our civic criticisms, according to his talk.

What do you mean by "less heard?"

If I have a disagreement with my wife, should I air my grievances against her to the world?  Should I treat her like I would a politician?  By being publicly and openly critical of her?

Surely not all disputes in a person's life can or ought to be treated in the exact same way?

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Combine that with the leadership perspectives being more limited to male perspectives, and women's perspectives in the church will be less voiced than outside the church, and will be less understood by church leaders.

Not sure how this pertains to individualized instances of disagreement in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I can go along with that.

I am not sure that we are obligated to join the individual in nursing a grudge against the bishop, particularly if the grievance is fairly trivial (as so many of them appear to be).  

I also think we shouldn't participtae in online gripefests such as is being shared with us by Meadowchik.

Good advice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nobody has suggested you are obligated to join in on a gripefest or nursing a grudge.  This strikes me as a ridiculous exaggeration of the discussion on this board.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nobody has suggested you are obligated to join in on a gripefest or nursing a grudge.  This strikes me as a ridiculous exaggeration of the discussion on this board.

Meadowchik seems to be advocating for, well, something.  And the website she is sharing seems very much like a grudge-nursing gripefest.

We seem to be headed toward agreeing more than disagreeing.  I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

am not sure that we are obligated to join the individual in nursing a grudge against the bishop

Good thing that isn't what rockpond is suggesting.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No, you certainly don't have to agree with her.  I don't agree with everything she wrote in the article.

My post was referring to demonstrations of the behavior that she wrote about.

you mean not buying the BS story?