Mormon men are groomed not to listen to women

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

It seems like a lot of grievances (such as almost all of those cited by Meadowchik) are or should be addressed at the local level.  If a person has a problem with something the bishop has done, they should either drop it or, if it is too serious to drop, they should schedule an appointment with the bishop to address it.  Or, perhaps, write him a letter/email.  If that doesn't work, then bring the issue up with the stake president 

Much of this going-online-and-anonymously-badmouthing-bishops stuff seems rather passive-aggressive.  

And they are doing so (mostly) anonymously.  Online.  And they are badmouthing the bishops.  Behind their backs.  In public.

I just don't see much in the way of usefulness of such things.

With respect, I disagree.  If I were to go online and publicly air my wife's missteps, mistakes, character flaws, etc., I don't think I could then say "Hey, I'm just telling the truth."  It would still be "disparaging" or "badmouthing" her, even if my statements are true.

To "disparage" means "to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle."

That seems like an apt summary of how bishops are characterized in Meadowchik's link.

I agree that problems in the Church "shouldn't be ignored."

I just have concerns as to the time, and place, and manner, in which those problems are raised and addressed.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get it.  Reasonable people will always disagree about how best to deal with these kinds of issues.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours 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!

It reminds me of a tasteless meme I saw a while back...

Quote

Women are inferior to men, and every woman who denies it contrives to prove it.

Insert whatever you wish for "women" and "men." 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Agreed. This article is garbage. Women speak in church just like men do, which means it's important to listen to them. We have female seminary teachers who teach teenage boys, Sunday School teachers, Primary presidents over male Primary teachers, etc.. Unfortunately there will always be men like my brother-in-law who seem to think men are superior to women even though his dad was an excellent example and treats his wife like a queen. |

Edited to add: When it comes to women not being believed, this happens everywhere in all abuse situations. It happens in the work place. It happens in families. Predators put on a wonderful act for many people, making it difficult to believe they're capable of such a thing. I had a friend when I was in grade school and no one in our area ever heard from her again after her mom chose her husband over her. He raped her, she told a friend, who told my mom, my mom reported, and the girl went to live with her dad. I don't know what happened to the step-dad legally, but her mom acted like she didn't exist after that. No pictures in her home of her daughter at all.  Countless women haven't even believed their own children. 

I have seen several sad examples of this.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I respect that viewpoint, but I mostly disagree with it.  We've seen, over and over and over again, the fruits of what you characterize as "outspoken{ness}" in a Gospel setting, particularly in the age of the everyone-has-a-soapbox Internet.

John Dehlin

Kate Kelly

Bill Reel

Sam Young

Jeremy Runnells

Grant Palmer

And these are just the well-known ones.

How many what-you-characterize-as-"outspoken" members of the Church have remained faithful, in good standing and fellowship?  

How many of these folks have been what you characterize as "outspoken" and yet have avoided the devolution toward gossip/backbiting/faultfunding?

How many of these folks have remained faithful to and active in the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it?

I have a very close friend who is now. Several other friends who are rather outspoken, but I cannot know their church activity levels. My parents are relatively outspoken, or atleast they were when I was younger and my dad was bishop several times in the ensuing years. 

I get the impression that there tended to be more room for open disagreement at other times in history, be it personal or theoretical. Ezra Taft Benson had major disagreements with other apostles, I think, and still became prophet, but perhaps he had significantly softened his rhetoric by then.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wouldn't say "extremely."  But yes, in a limited context.

Similarly, in a dispute with my wife, grievances are airable, but only in "a limited context."

In a dispute with my employer, grievances are airable, but only in "a limited context."

In a dispute involving a community which I value and hope to uphold and strengthen, grievances are airable, but only in "a limited context."

Publicly disparaging and insulting my wife, publicly airing confidential information I know about her, publicly pointing out her flaws and missteps, would not strengthen my relationship with her, but would instead likely weaken and perhaps even destroy it.  The same goes if I behaved this way toward my employer, or most other private relationships I value and which to maintain and strengthen.

I can imagine a dinner table where a family talks about disagreements. Family members are heard, rules of engagement are respected, and individual conscientiousness is respected. I can also imagine this on a family chat, or even on someone's facebook page, in view of their friends. I have seen it with the family maintaining their close relationships.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This aversion to a woman speaking to a man is . . . weird.  Surely you are not suggesting that a woman is presumptively incapable of addressing a problem she has with a man by speaking with that man?

Then perhaps their (men's) "perspectives" could be improved by women, you know, speaking to men to explain and sort out the issue, and doing so in a spirit of fellowship and harmony and conciliation.  How is that a problem?

You seem to be suggesting that women not address their issues in the forthright and Gospel-centered ways proposed by Elder Oaks, and that they instead should resort to passive-aggressiveness on steroids by going online and (usually anonymously) ranting and railing about the issue and the dastardly bishop's role in it (and doing so behind his back, without him being able to defend or speak for himself).

That makes no kind of sense to me.  At all.

Well, yes.  A person who affirmatively chooses not to speak can and should expect to "be generally less heard."

A member of the Church who affirmatively chooses to remain silent, and not address grievances with her leader can and should expect to be "heard less by her leader."

Where do you get anything about an "aversion to a woman speaking to a man"? And, who said anything about a woman choosing not to speak? To be clear, my argument assumes that the women follows Oaks counsel perfectly. 

It sounds to me like you are getting ahead of yourself by comparing Oaks counsel and the current structure to some remedy you imagine I am suggesting. 

In my opinion, the level of nastiness that can be seen in public criticisms of the church are, partially, symptoms of the constrictied nature of communication now. There are plenty of respectful writers out there, faithful believers and non-believers, who air dissenting opinions, too. So I think it can be done. Maybe, as history would appear to demonstrate, that just depends on the direction(s) in which leadership feels it must go. 

[Wellmired]

Hmmm I'm not sure on that title and I can't elaborate NEWBIE HELLO! HOWEVER!!! and if there was any doubt about the sound level >> check it out >>>>*echoECHO* << I'm glad its a topic and people at least have an ear open.

[Wellmired]

I was going to elaborate ... but I can't add to my previous post on women being ignored and some religions are like that.. then I could not see EDIT BUTTON .. I was thinking What ?!?!?! no EDIT . . . . we can't edit a post, no way . . . okay ... well I wasn't going to say anything too bad,  ....  not sure how the mod collars are in here , now this was only for fun don't freak out  GREAT POST BY THE WAY OP !  some edifying reading FOR SURE!!!!

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have a very close friend who is now. Several other friends who are rather outspoken, but I cannot know their church activity levels. My parents are relatively outspoken, or at least they were when I was younger and my dad was bishop several times in the ensuing years. 

I guess I'm not sure what "outspoken" means.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I get the impression that there tended to be more room for open disagreement at other times in history, be it personal or theoretical. 

Huh.  I have the reverse impression.  I think there is more room now for diversity of viewpoints as compared to years past.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Ezra Taft Benson had major disagreements with other apostles, I think, and still became prophet, but perhaps he had significantly softened his rhetoric by then.

I don't think ETB publicly aired these "major disagreements."  I don't think he publicly disparaged "other apostles" and attempted to turn other members of the Church against them.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I can imagine a dinner table where a family talks about disagreements.

A dinner table discussion about familial disputes, yes.  A website published to the world?  No.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Family members are heard, rules of engagement are respected, and individual conscientiousness is respected.

Elder Oaks' remarks allow for members to be heard.  He provides "rules of engagement."  He accommodates "individual conscientiousness."

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I can also imagine this on a family chat, or even on someone's facebook page, in view of their friends. I have seen it with the family maintaining their close relationships.

I can't imagine that family relationships could long endure the sorts of dispragements, insults, and vitriol directed against the leaders and members of the Church online (the "other board" comes to mind).

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Where do you get anything about an "aversion to a woman speaking to a man"?

I'm just following your lead  You're the one characterizing this issue as a women-aren't-being-heard-because-the-church-is-run-by-men thing.

The gender-specific focus is yours.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And, who said anything about a woman choosing not to speak?

Again, I'm just following your lead.  You are the one talking characterizing the Exponent site as a necessary place, where women have a "voice." 

You are the one dismissing communications with the local leader (" I think that people often need other people to help work through a painful or difficult situation. This need cannot always be met by speaking to the leader in question or the leader's leader.").  

You are the one repeatedly declaring that women are "not heard" or "less heard" by their leaders.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To be clear, my argument assumes that the women follows Oaks counsel perfectly. 

Huh?  Then how is it that women are not being "heard?"  Oaks's counsel encouraged communication when appropriate.  

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like you are getting ahead of yourself by comparing Oaks counsel and the current structure to some remedy you imagine I am suggesting. 

Well, I'm certainly open to correction.  I guess I don't know what you are complaining about.  If women can and do express their concerns to their bishop (or stake president, or area authority, etc.), then how is it they are not being "heard?"

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In my opinion, the level of nastiness that can be seen in public criticisms of the church are, partially, symptoms of the constrictied nature of communication now.

I think you may have a point.  But I think that's a pretty skinny slice of the pie.  I think most of the nastiness comes from the "Online Disinhibition Effect," the tendency for social media to foment outrage mobs, and so on.

I have a hard time believing that the people posting various hackneyed complaints on the Exponent website have first made good faith efforts to first address such issues with local leaders.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There are plenty of respectful writers out there, faithful believers and non-believers, who air dissenting opinions, too.

But we're not talking about "dissenting opinions" about doctrine or history.  The Exponent website is focused on purported slights and offenses from local church leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[changed]

Until all clergy are mandated reporters, predators are protected and therefore abuse allowed within religious organizations.

 

Until the wellfare of victims is more important than the reputation of the priesthood, the church will be viewed as a dishonest place of hypocrisy and filth.

[smac97]

Just now, changed said:

Until all clergy are mandated reporters, predators are protected and therefore abuse allowed within religious organizations.

As a practical matter, bishops are mandated to report allegations in most circumstances.  The exception pertains to confessions by the perpetrator in a priest/penitent setting.

Are you suggesting that we do away with the priest/penitent privilege?

Just now, changed said:

Until the wellfare of victims is more important than the reputation of the priesthood, the church will be viewed as a dishonest place of hypocrisy and filth.

Meh.  You're just trying to provoke here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

1 minute ago, changed said:

Until all clergy are mandated reporters, predators are protected and therefore abuse allowed within religious organizations.

Until the wellfare of victims is more important than the reputation of the priesthood, the church will be viewed as a dishonest place of hypocrisy and filth.

/Yawn

And until all psychiatrists are mandated reporters, predators are protected and therefore abuse allowed within medical practices.

Until the wellfare [sic] of victims is more important than the reputation of medical professionals, the mental health care industry will be viewed as a dishonest place of hypocrisy and filth. 

 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, changed said:

Until all clergy are mandated reporters, predators are protected and therefore abuse allowed within religious organizations.

 

Until the wellfare of victims is more important than the reputation of the priesthood, the church will be viewed as a dishonest place of hypocrisy and filth.

So let it be carved onto the side of the mountain. It has been spoken and the thinking has been done.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, and there is a strong possibility his predations were confined to one arena of his life. It is not a certainty though.

One on one access with them only in an interview setting with someone always right outside the door (assuming policy was followed). Another reason that if I had to bet I would say it probably did not happen there. Again, not a certainty.

One of his m.o.s  was to have the girls do jumping jacks and recording videos of them.  That might be explainable in some convoluted way in a school setting and possibly done with no other adults around.

How would he explain asking the girls in his ward to do this in what would often be Sunday best with another adult outside the door where this would tend to draw attention to him even if they didn't realize what was going on?  Attention for being unusual is not what a predator wants.  Not being able to do part of his routine might lead to greater compartmentalization.  

There is a good chance though that if he assaulted any girls in his ward, they may choose not to be publicize even if they go to the police. They might also figure with 20 known victims, they don't need to come forward.  

There are also predators that don't touch their own kids, so I see it as possible he kept his predations to his work arena especially if he saw the ward as an extended family, people who were in his care and he needed to protect.  Girls that would only be in his life temporarily while they took the class, maybe it was easier to rationalize abusing them.  And he might have figured he was safer there because they would want to just push away the experience where someone he saw weekly for as long as they both lived in the ward might build up a need to say something overtime.

There would also be the question of how much restraint he had.  With so many available victims through his work, that may have satisfied his need so there was no reason to increase risk by trying it in a new venue where he would have to come up with new reasons to persuade it was acceptable.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Calm

[changed]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Are you suggesting that we do away with the priest/penitent privilege?

Meh.  You're just trying to provoke here.

 

I support SB 360.

 

You do not believe Bishop child rapists make the church look like a filthy house of hypocrisy?  Tell me, what adverbs and adjectives would you use to describe the "men of God" who molest children?

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We are not seeking different things and using different verbiage.

Seeking the same things?

[changed]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

/Yawn

And until all psychiatrists are mandated reporters, predators are protected and therefore abuse allowed within medical practices.

Until the wellfare [sic] of victims is more important than the reputation of medical professionals, the mental health care industry will be viewed as a dishonest place of hypocrisy and filth. 

 

I believe everyone should be a mandated reporter.  To protect the privacy of pedophiles is to perpetuate abuse.  Those who hold privacy of adults to be more important than the wellfare of children clearly do not understand Jesus teaching about who the kingdom of heaven truly belongs to.

 

Yawn?  I guess until you spend the day with detectives identifying mormon children and priesthood hands in pornography videos, you can't really understand.  Until you sit with your own sobbing child in the doctor's office, you cannot understand... laugh loudly at it all, most do.

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by changed

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, changed said:

I support SB 360.

 

You do not believe Bishop child rapists make the church look like a filthy house of hypocrisy?  Tell me, what adverbs and adjectives would you use to describe the "men of God" who molest children?

 

An incredibly small minority. 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, changed said:

I support SB 360.

I assume this is the one from California, yes?

So your answer would, I think, be "Yes, we should abolish the priest/penitent privilege."

Is that correct?

27 minutes ago, changed said:

You do not believe Bishop child rapists make the church look like a filthy house of hypocrisy? 

I don't understand the question.  

And you are still trying to provoke.

27 minutes ago, changed said:

Tell me, what adverbs and adjectives would you use to describe the "men of God" who molest children?

That is a separate question from abolishing the priest/penitent privilege.

Thanks,

-Smac