Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you mean not buying the BS story? 

We're on an LDS discussion board... maybe we could avoid using vulgarities - even acronyms of vulgarities.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

We're on an LDS discussion board... maybe we could avoid using vulgarities - even acronyms of vulgarities.

You mean not buying the obviously false story?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You mean not buying the obviously false story?

I wouldn't suggest that anyone believe something that it "obviously false."

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn't suggest that anyone believe something that it "obviously false."

perhaps you could clarify what you meant when you said

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

perhaps you could clarify what you meant when you said

 

My understanding of Reiss and her article is that she is saying that elements in the organization and structure of the church, can sometimes lead men to dismiss instances of abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I question the "need."

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.

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. 

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.

2. Write a letter.

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

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.

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

4. 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.

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

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

Some thoughts:

1.  We're not having this discussion on Meadowchic's website though so I'm not sure that what is happening over there is relevant to us over here.  I agree that there are less-effective places to have certain types of discussions; we can make sure we aren't having them at such places while still having them in places that can be more effective, like hopefully on this website.

2. We have been specifically told not to write letters to the church, and also told that if we do, they will be sent back to our stake president.  Given that, I'm not sure how 'write a letter' is a valid answer to the question of how do we tell the church about our issues.

3. Meadowchic is providing examples of people who are claiming to have been hurt by bishops and how the hurt came to be.  If the stories are true they aren't disparaging or badmouthing, they are honest.  Now, i'm not saying that we have a duty to assume they are true.  I'm only saying that just because someone says something negative about a bishop, it's not automatically disparaging.  We don't have enough information to judge either way (and thankfully, we don't have to or need to).

4.  I agree.  That's why I leave them alone for the most part.  I'm not going to risk calling good evil, or evil good, by judging random experiences published on the internet.  That doesn't mean though that I'm not going to discuss the issue as it pertains to experiences that I can verify or collaborate.  Some bathwater is sketchy and needs to go, but the baby's still in there and shouldn't be ignored.

 

[rockpond]

I'll elaborate a bit more...

In my life, I have served closely with six bishops.  By close, I mean that I was either their counselor or executive secretary.  These six men were (and still are, I presume) incredible beacons of goodness.  I love them.  I worked hard to serve them the best I could because they were honorable leaders.

Fortunately, I never had to deal with any accusations, against them, of abuse.  Had that occurred, I'm not sure how I would have reacted.  I could see myself as possibly dismissing it based on my thoroughly positive experience with them.  And, I think that dismissing allegations of abuse because of my great experiences with those men, is the concern that Reiss is voicing in her article.

I'm not saying that this is a rampant problem in the church.  As noted here... six amazing bishops and no problems.  That's the norm.  But, even though Reiss' article is sensationalized, over-the-top in parts, and contains some inaccuracies - I think there is some validity in the main issue she raises.  It's something we ought to strive to improve on.

Edited September 12, 2019 by rockpond

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

Reiss’ article is in the OP.  You can read it there if you want to know what her point is. 

I've read it several times and responded with my understanding and disagreement. What do you think her point was? 

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think there is some validity in the main issue she raises.  It's something we ought to strive to improve on.

One of her main issues though is that men, by virtue of holding the priesthood, almost always are made leaders over women and the only way that can change significantly is if women are ordained to the priesthood. Something that just isn't going to happen in the near future if not never. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

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

No.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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?

As a public school teacher, I am required by law to report anything suspicious regarding abuse, but I am also forbidden to investigate the allegations in any way.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I've read it several times and responded with my understanding and disagreement. What do you think her point was? 

See my post above where I clarify. 

[alter idem]

On 9/11/2019 at 6:30 PM, sunstoned said:

My bad.  You have found the one loop hold where a woman could be considered in a leadership over a man in the church.  Everything else, no so much

There are lots of situations where a woman could be leading men besides Primary.  Activities commitee, Family History, Gospel Doctrine and single Adults, Any situation where a husband and wife work together and help others (which might be men),  Other stake and ward committees such as Youth conferences, Girls camp,  Stake Plays, concerts,  Stake Primary, Relief Society and Young Women all have high council members assigned to them, and when I served in the Stake Relief Society, we directed the men on what we needed them to do to help us with our activities.  They never complained.  I really don't see that this is a valid argument that Riess has tried to create because too many of us who've actually served in the church have had very different experiences from what she's claiming.

[2BizE]

I though the article was spot on.  

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Riess doesn't assign exclusive blame to the church for harmful sexist treatment.

Well, that's nice that she's being so even-handed. 

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

She is specifically describing how the church structure itself perpetuates harmful sexist treatment.

She is describing what she believes to be the case.  I believe she is wrong.  What do we get out of this?  Belief stalemate.  Everyone has an opinion. Riess's gets more airplay than mine, but that's it.

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I would think that this would be an important observation for a church that seeks oneness with God and seeks continuing revelation for that goal.

Yes, it might be an interesting observation; I wouldn't call it "important".  If President Nelson were making it, then it would be important. 

Let me ask you: does "oneness with God" require one to be in agreement with God?  I myself would believe this to be so.  Let us grant this just for the sake of argument.  So, if God says that men are to be placed in an overall presiding position, and one disagreed with Him in this matter, wouldn't that constitute moving further away from oneness with Him?  It happens that there is a precedent for counseling God and requesting a change, and that is to pray to him to do so.  The precedent is Abraham asking God to spare Sodom if X number of righteous people were found within it.  Why doesn't Riess ask her readers to pray to God to ask Him to reveal to Russell M. Nelson that the priesthood should be conferred on women like it is on men?  I can guess why she doesn't: most of her readership doesn't believe God is behind the Church and still less that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet.  And I believe she stands with her readers in this.  

It's how she makes her living, chastising the Church. She doesn't actually want anything to change. If President Nelson were to consult with her to bring the Church into compliance with her preferences, she'd be out of a job.  

Oh, wait, maybe they'd make her an Apostle!  Do you think she has any ambitions along that line?  I hear the pay's pretty good!

 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

There are lots of situations where a woman could be leading men besides Primary.  Activities commitee, Family History, Gospel Doctrine and single Adults, Any situation where a husband and wife work together and help others (which might be men),  Other stake and ward committees such as Youth conferences, Girls camp,  Stake Plays, concerts,  Stake Primary, Relief Society and Young Women all have high council members assigned to them, and when I served in the Stake Relief Society, we directed the men on what we needed them to do to help us with our activities.  They never complained.  I really don't see that this is a valid argument that Riess has tried to create because too many of us who've actually served in the church have had very different experiences from what she's claiming.

I understand where you are coming from, but the reality is the in the LDS church, positions of leadership are reserved for men.  Men hold the priesthood, men lead the ward, stake, area, and church.  Sure, women can have a role in some auxiliary positions.  But every single position that can be held by a women, that position reports to a man.   It is the 21st century. Society is more inclusive and working towards equability. Maybe it is time for the men of Q15 to acknowledge that society is changing and have a revelation that gives women equal status.  My guess is this will come when enough social pressure is applied.  Just like when the revelations came to dump polygamy, racist priesthood restrictions, and the LGBTQ policy of exclusion (POX),

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Society is more inclusive and working towards equability.

Equability = an inability to be disturbed. Considering how disturbed many of the posters in this thread appear to be, I suspect this is not what you meant ...

[sunstoned]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Equability = an inability to be disturbed. Considering how disturbed many of the posters in this thread appear to be, I suspect this is not what you meant ...

my bad.  I meant to say: equitable

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Well, that's nice that she's being so even-handed. 

She is describing what she believes to be the case.  I believe she is wrong.  What do we get out of this?  Belief stalemate.  Everyone has an opinion. Riess's gets more airplay than mine, but that's it.

Yes, it might be an interesting observation; I wouldn't call it "important".  If President Nelson were making it, then it would be important. 

Let me ask you: does "oneness with God" require one to be in agreement with God?  I myself would believe this to be so.  Let us grant this just for the sake of argument.  So, if God says that men are to be placed in an overall presiding position, and one disagreed with Him in this matter, wouldn't that constitute moving further away from oneness with Him?  It happens that there is a precedent for counseling God and requesting a change, and that is to pray to him to do so.  The precedent is Abraham asking God to spare Sodom if X number of righteous people were found within it.  Why doesn't Riess ask her readers to pray to God to ask Him to reveal to Russell M. Nelson that the priesthood should be conferred on women like it is on men?  I can guess why she doesn't: most of her readership doesn't believe God is behind the Church and still less that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet.  And I believe she stands with her readers in this.  

It's how she makes her living, chastising the Church. She doesn't actually want anything to change. If President Nelson were to consult with her to bring the Church into compliance with her preferences, she'd be out of a job.  

Oh, wait, maybe they'd make her an Apostle!  Do you think she has any ambitions along that line?  I hear the pay's pretty good!

 

I guess it is hard for you to imagine a person who believes the church can be better, without believing in God the same way you say? You are saying the way you think the church pretty much aligns with God, right? Is it really a huge impossibility that it's got some things wrong?

So, I don't know exactly where Riess stands in her belief of the church, but I do think the lines of loyalty described by some people can be man-made. It's not so simple as "dissenters are wrong."

[Bernard Gui]

I’ve been trying to think of ways I have been groomed to ignore women in the Church over the many years I have had training and given service. Coming up empty. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve been trying to think of ways I have been groomed to ignore women in the Church over the many years I have had training and given service. Coming up empty. 

That's precisely what someone who's been groomed not to listen to women would say.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

The Exponent blogsite is a part of the Exponent II online magazine with this stated mission:

"The purpose of Exponent II is to provide a forum for Mormon women to share their life experiences in an atmosphere of trust and acceptance. This exchange allows us to better understand each other and shape the direction of our lives. Our common bond is our connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our commitment to women. We publish this paper as a living history in celebration of the strength and diversity of women."

The current blog page has several current post titles. At the bottom of the page where one can click to past pages, it says there are atleast 450 pages, going on apparently since 2006 or so. The magazine Exponent II has been publishing since 1974, and it's precedent, before that.

The blog is prolific. Apparently there is continual interest in such a space. There are plenty of inspirational experiences, too, but I would be hesitant to downplay the validity of a space where women can come, speak, express frustration and pain and be heard by other women who also share ties to Mormonism. 

Apparently, the church does not provide that sort of space. You certainly seem resistant to that sort of space.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's precisely what someone who's been groomed not to listen to women would say.

So I take it, then, that one characteristic of said "grooming" is that it turns one into an idiot who doesn't even recognize that he has been "groomed." It's not unlike brainwashing in that respect. Or hypnotism. 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik 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.

I agree with President Oaks. Civic authority demands engagement and questions because we are a bottom up society with leaders chosen by the people and accountable to them. The church is a top down organization run by God and He does not need our counsel on how to run it.

God has at least one female perspective and possibly many more. I am not entirely why you think the apostles and bishops ignore women and have no concept of their lives and I am curious what this perspective is supposed to include. What will putting it in leadership change?

I guess I am saying that I do not believe the opposite gender is as foreign to them (and most people) as you seem to imagine.

Edited September 13, 2019 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I agree with President Oaks. Civic authority demands engagement and questions because we are a bottom up society with leaders chosen by the people and accountable to them. The church is a top down organization run by God and He does not need our counsel on how to run it.

God has at least one female perspective and possibly many more. I am not entirely why you think the apostles and bishops ignore women and have no concept of their lives and I am curious what this perspective is supposed to include. What will putting it in leadership change?

 

First, you've equated church leadership to God. Yet church leadership would be people trying to follow God. Do you see the difference?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The Exponent blogsite is a part of the Exponent II online magazine with this stated mission:

"The purpose of Exponent II is to provide a forum for Mormon women to share their life experiences in an atmosphere of trust and acceptance. This exchange allows us to better understand each other and shape the direction of our lives. Our common bond is our connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our commitment to women. We publish this paper as a living history in celebration of the strength and diversity of women."

The current blog page has several current post titles. At the bottom of the page where one can click to past pages, it says there are atleast 450 pages, going on apparently since 2006 or so. The magazine Exponent II has been publishing since 1974, and it's precedent, before that.

The blog is prolific. Apparently there is continual interest in such a space. There are plenty of inspirational experiences, too, but I would be hesitant to downplay the validity of a space where women can come, speak, express frustration and pain and be heard by other women who also share ties to Mormonism. 

Apparently, the church does not provide that sort of space. You certainly seem resistant to that sort of space.

I am resistant to allow a space for endless gnawing on old grudges. I would ask how the Church presumably provides this same space for men. I know of no place in the church structure that men gather to complain about supposedly bad leadership and tell stories about their evil bishops. I know of such places outside the church but they are exmormon “recovery” sites. We do not want a place for it. That kind of discussion is spiritually corrosive and antithetical to the church’s mission.

Of course there is continuous interest in it. That kind of endless scab picking is rarely satiated. The key to breaking the cycle is to follow Elder Uchtdorf’s advice:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/youth/video/stop-judging-others?lang=eng&_r=1