Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Precisely! But the best part is that, even if the person in question denies the label, the accuser can just use that as further evidence in favour. There is simply no way to respond to such an accusation. It's brilliant!

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I don't think that's what he's doing. I think he's identifying Church leadership as those who have been called and authorized by God to act in His behalf.

I probably ought not speak for The Nehor, though.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Precisely! But the best part is that, even if the person in question denies the label, the accuser can just use that as further evidence in favour. There is simply no way to respond to such an accusation. It's brilliant!

Reminds me of the Kavenaugh hearings.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Yes, but I think you don’t trust God to administer his kingdom the way he wants it done. You either want to tell God how He is doing it wrong or believe the apostles are defying God and you have the corrective medicine and that He needs your help to steady the ark. I would ask what qualifies you for this onerous duty you have taken upon yourself. Do you keep your covenants? Do you do your Ministering? Fulfill your callings? Have you attained great spiritual maturity to be able to go about correcting chinks you see in the church in God’s way as He instructs you?

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

It is not an endless gnawing of old grudges. Talking through things can help people toward healthier responses. Characterising it as corossive and antithetical to the church's mission is another example of not listening to women.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but I think you don’t trust God to administer his kingdom the way he wants it done. You either want to tell God how He is doing it wrong or believe the apostles are defying God and you have the corrective medicine and that He needs your help to steady the ark. I would ask what qualifies you for this onerous duty you have taken upon yourself. Do you keep your covenants? Do you do your Ministering? Fulfill your callings? Have you attained great spiritual maturity to be able to go about correcting chinks you see in the church in God’s way as He instructs you?

My recollection is that Meadowchik in recent posts has self-identified as "apostate" and "probably atheist."

[Stargazer]

54 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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?

No, it's not impossible.  The church won't be perfect until the Lord arrives to inaugurate the Millennium.  I believe that the Lord is gradually leading the church in that direction.  But I don't believe that people getting outside themselves with histrionic vituperation are helping.  It's more along the lines of whipping up a frenzy.  And, of course, making money while doing it. 

And yes, I am saying that the church pretty much aligns with God's intents and purposes.  My expectation is, line upon line, precept upon precept, the Lord will gradually move things along to where He wants them to go.  And Jana Riess has no part in it, because I don't think she wants a part of it.  She has her reward already.

Quote

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."

Oh yes it is, because dissenters ARE wrong!   Not really, but what is one dissenting from?  I think you can go quite a distance down the road of disagreement and still not be a dissenter, but when one fights against the church, then one is a dissenter, and dissenters are wrong -- unless the church is false, in which case, have it any way you want.

We read in Mark 9:

38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

So, ya don't need ta be in the congregation to be "on our part", but at least ya need ta "not against us".  And I think Jana is "against us". She certainly isn't performing any miracles, that I am aware of anyway.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Stargazer

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am curious what this perspective is supposed to include. What will putting it in leadership change?

The great secret -- and therefore disappointment! -- is that women who listen to God are just like men who listen to God in their leadership responsibilities. The nature of the discussion beforehand would almost certainly look and sound different, but at the end of the day, there would be no change.

Those who advance these notions, it seems to be, must not have experienced the amount of correction through revelation that I have. I no longer harbour any pretensions that my input into decision-making is anything more than helping to create an environment where, in the end, God can reveal His will.

Overall this conversation reminds me so much of those 'progressive Mormons' who hang their hopes on Elder Uchtdorf someday taking the reins of the Church and changing everything to suit them because (a) they fantasise that he's secretly just like them and (b) imposing their own agendas on the Church is precisely what they would do given the chance.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There is simply no way to respond to such an accusation. It's brilliant!

Exhibit A:

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Characterising it as corossive and antithetical to the church's mission is another example of not listening to women.

 

[The Nehor]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

It is not an endless gnawing of old grudges. Talking through things can help people toward healthier responses. Characterising it as corossive and antithetical to the church's mission is another example of not listening to women.

They are not talking it through. They are vomiting out their anger and hate. No one there is trying to help them come to understanding or help them heal. Some say they are but the healing advice tends to be of the “leave the church” variety.

So not believing that spewing anger and bile is healthy is not listening to women? Are you trying to argue that that is how women communicate? Are you trying to perpetuate stereotypes about your gender? I do not believe most women need to communicate by acting like the “screeching harpies” women are sometimes caricatured as by chauvinists but you seem okay with that form of expression as typical? Yikes!

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The great secret -- and therefore disappointment! -- is that women who listen to God are just like men who listen to God in their leadership responsibilities. The nature of the discussion beforehand would almost certainly look and sound different, but at the end of the day, there would be no change.

This conversation reminds me so much of those 'progressive Mormons' who hang their hopes on Elder Uchtdorf someday taking the reins of the Church and changing everything to suit them because (a) they fantasise that he's like them and (b) imposing their own agendas on the Church is precisely what they would do given the chance. 

Reminds me of the days before Ezra Taft Benson became president of the Church. Not a few believed that, because of his politics and ultra-conservatism, he would impose commensurate policies and changes within the Church. His presidency came and went, and as it turned out, he behaved pretty much like prophets before him.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but I think you don’t trust God to administer his kingdom the way he wants it done. You either want to tell God how He is doing it wrong or believe the apostles are defying God and you have the corrective medicine and that He needs your help to steady the ark. I would ask what qualifies you for this onerous duty you have taken upon yourself. Do you keep your covenants? Do you do your Ministering? Fulfill your callings? Have you attained great spiritual maturity to be able to go about correcting chinks you see in the church in God’s way as He instructs you?

What about trusting God to help us process information, including experiences we have? Do you trust that God can help women progress when they listen to each other? Do you think God cannot help the church progress when women share more than President Oaks counsels? I think God can handle more openness, it's our job to try to try to be better conduits of God's love, which would include listening.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

What about trusting God to help us process information, including experiences we have? Do you trust that God can help women progress when they listen to each other? Do you think God cannot help the church progress when women share more than President Oaks counsels? I think God can handle more openness, it's our job to try to try to be better conduits of God's love, which would include listening.

I think God can lead women (and men) to help each other progress but not when they are using the oratorical tactics and rhetoric of Satan. I think God will cut off those who defy His counsel through His apostles unless they repent.

Openness is not a universal good at all times. I am being guarded in what I say. Do you want me to be open and share everything I really think about your support for anger and hatred? Would that be healthy because I can promise you the mods here would not find it refreshing. Yet somehow you think indulging the darkest parts of our nature and passively bathing ourselves in it will lead to enlightenment and an increase in God’s love? Do you find KKK hate rallies to also be an effective conduit to experience God’s love or is hate and anger only when you happen to agree with it?

Hate is charity now. Who would have guessed?

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are not talking it through. They are vomiting out their anger and hate. No one there is trying to help them come to understanding or help them heal. Some say they are but the healing advice tends to be of the “leave the church” variety.

So not believing that spewing anger and bile is healthy is not listening to women? Are you trying to argue that that is how women communicate? Are you trying to perpetuate stereotypes about your gender? I do not believe most women need to communicate by acting like the “screeching harpies” women are sometimes caricatured as by chauvinists but you seem okay with that form of expression as typical? Yikes!

Spewing anger and bile might come first, kind of like your outburst here. That can soften into frustration and calmer candor. And then eventually insight and healing. But at every step there can be empathy and support while upholding standards. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think God can lead women (and men) to help each other progress but not when they are using the oratorical tactics and rhetoric of Satan. I think God will cut off those who defy His counsel through His apostles unless they repent.

Openness is not a universal good at all times. I am being guarded in what I say. Do you want me to be open and share everything I really think about your support for anger and hatred? Would that be healthy because I can promise you the mods here would not find it refreshing. Yet somehow you think indulging the darkest parts of our nature and passively bathing ourselves in it will lead to enlightenment and an increase in God’s love? Do you find KKK hate rallies to also be an effective conduit to experience God’s love or is hate and anger only when you happen to agree with it?

Hate is charity now. Who would have guessed?

The charity of listening can be extended while still upholding rules of treatment.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My recollection is that Meadowchik in recent posts has self-identified as "apostate" and "probably atheist."

Yes, I have. 

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The great secret -- and therefore disappointment! -- is that women who listen to God are just like men who listen to God in their leadership responsibilities. The nature of the discussion beforehand would almost certainly look and sound different, but at the end of the day, there would be no change.

Those who advance these notions, it seems to be, must not have experienced the amount of correction through revelation that I have. I no longer harbour any pretensions that my input into decision-making is anything more than helping to create an environment where, in the end, God can reveal His will.

Overall this conversation reminds me so much of those 'progressive Mormons' who hang their hopes on Elder Uchtdorf someday taking the reins of the Church and changing everything to suit them because (a) they fantasise that he's secretly just like them and (b) imposing their own agendas on the Church is precisely what they would do given the chance.

It's premature to assume there would be no change. And you personally experiencing leadership and seeing your expectations hit reality is not equivalent to *women no longer being excluded* and their expectations.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's premature to assume there would be no change.

No, it's not. You're talking theory, and I have years of lived experience. I could easily fill a few dozen pages of this thread with personal experiences, family experiences, Church council experiences, and so forth. God is real, revelation is real, and the only way to get the outcome you want is if the women you would put in charge were to refuse to listen to God in order to impose their own agendas. Both men and women in the Church sometimes do that, and the results are always disastrous.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Spewing anger and bile might come first, kind of like your outburst here. That can soften into frustration and calmer candor. And then eventually insight and healing. But at every step there can be empathy and support while upholding standards. 

Do you have that same charity when similar hatred is spewed at, say, a political rally? Would you assume any racism or hatred is just them working it out and it will soften soon? If not, I am sticking with my theory that your tolerance of this method of communication only extends to hatred you agree with.

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The charity of listening can be extended while still upholding rules of treatment.

What are rules of treatment?

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, I have. 

Which is why I distrust your diagnoses and cures for our supposed ailments. Would you trust someone who believes athletics are largely worthless to fix problems in a sports league? 

Edited September 13, 2019 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, it's not. You're talking theory, and I have years of lived experience. I could easily fill a few dozen pages of this thread with personal experiences, family experiences, Church council experiences, and so forth. God is real, revelation is real, and the only way to get the outcome you want is if the women you would put in charge were to refuse to listen to God in order to impose their own agendas. Both men and women in the Church sometimes do that, and the results are always disastrous.

So you're the only one with relevant experience?

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So you're the only one with relevant experience?

I don’t want that to be the case! As an atheist, what relevant experience do you have with hearing the voice of God?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Do you have that same charity when similar hatred is spewed at, say, a political rally? Would you assume any racism or hatred is just them working it out and it will soften soon? If not, I am sticking with my theory that your tolerance of this extends of this method of communication only extends to hatred you agree with.

What are rules of treatment?

Which is why I distrust your diagnoses and cures for our supposed ailments. Would you trust someone who believes athletics are largely worthless to fix problems in a sports league? 

First, you've elevated what I've said (anger, pain, frustration, dissent) to "spewing anger and bile," to "hatred." You're creating a strawman.

Second, I don't come here asking you to take my word for it, rather I am presenting arguments to show that church leaders understand female perspectives less.

Third, I need not promise loyalty to the church to have something valuable to contribute. I can't say that I sustain the prophet and other leaders, but I do hope that learning and kindness can be beneficial to the church, in the short and long-term.

[truth a la carte]

On 9/11/2019 at 12:15 PM, Meadowchik said:

So I am watching some of my FB friends get reactions as they share this. One friend is trying to explain the pain she felt when her Bishop refused to allow her son to get baptised because, in his words, she had not given him up for adoption 8 years previous after getting pregnant without being married.She's trying to explain this pain to her dad, who was in the room when the bishop said this and who did not stand up to the bishop for her. 

Your poor friend. I see this as terrible and painful. I don’t believe the story is false. However, I believe the pain involved has led to a partial understanding. Such an awful situation for her.

First, Church policy is very clear that children cannot be baptized without the permission of both parents. I suspect the child’s father has not given consent for the child’s baptism.

Second, the subject of adoption was clearly discussed with the bishop in a manner that was extremely painful to your friend. I’ll list three possible variations of how adoption may have been brought up**:

1)    After a long and discouraging discussion about why the child couldn’t be baptized without the consent of both mother and father, the bishop may have said that there is no way around the issue at the current time; the only way to avoid it would have been to place the child for adoption years ago with an active LDS couple.
2)    The bishop may be horribly awkward, and said something like, “This is one of the reasons why adoption is often recommended.”
3)    The bishop may be horribly prideful, and seen this is an opportunity to chastise your friend about raising a child on her own.

The bishop’s telling of the situation view would, I’m sure, be some variation of #1. 
Your friend understandably viewed the discussion as #3. 
I’m inclined to think the answer is closer to #2 . And #2 isn’t any better than #3 from the point of view of your poor friend. I’m so sorry.

** Please forgive the blatant supposition here.

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, truth a la carte said:

Your poor friend. I see this as terrible and painful. I don’t believe the story is false. However, I believe the pain involved has led to a partial understanding. Such an awful situation for her.

First, Church policy is very clear that children cannot be baptized without the permission of both parents. I suspect the child’s father has not given consent for the child’s baptism.

Second, the subject of adoption was clearly discussed with the bishop in a manner that was extremely painful to your friend. I’ll list three possible variations of how adoption may have been brought up**:

1)    After a long and discouraging discussion about why the child couldn’t be baptized without the consent of both mother and father, the bishop may have said that there is no way around the issue at the current time; the only way to avoid it would have been to place the child for adoption years ago with an active LDS couple.
2)    The bishop may be horribly awkward, and said something like, “This is one of the reasons why adoption is often recommended.”
3)    The bishop may be horribly prideful, and seen this is an opportunity to chastise your friend about raising a child on her own.

The bishop’s telling of the situation view would, I’m sure, be some variation of #1. 
Your friend understandably viewed the discussion as #3. 
I’m inclined to think the answer is closer to #2 . And #2 isn’t any better than #3 from the point of view of your poor friend. I’m so sorry.

** Please forgive the blatant supposition here.

Given the information I provided, I think that is a probable scenario, which might play out with others, even though it's not true in her case. (She and the father married and are still married.)

Choosing adoption for one's child is one of those experiences that is impacted by gender in the church, as the biological mother and father in these scenarios would have different perspectives.