Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The church's new 'international area organization adviser' position.


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't share your opinion that your statements were equivalent, for an important reason - she is part of the group called "women."  You are not.  She is reporting her experience, and others that are close to her.  Your initial post was purely hypothetical.

Fair enough. I disagree with you. She can only speak about her own experience her gender notwithstanding. Because someone is a member of that demographic is not a green light to speak on their behalf.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Unlike how he feels about himself, he thinks spense is one of the more level-headed members of the board.  Time to head for the hills with our hair on fire if true.

Glad to see you have a sense of humor, can't remember seeing that before.

Link to comment
Just now, Vanguard said:

Fair enough. I disagree with you. She can only speak about her own experience her gender notwithstanding. Because someone is a member of that demographic is not a green light to speak on their behalf.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't follow that a man should consider he has any such green light to speak on behalf of women in this context, either.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:
Quote

Anyhoo, my response is: Meh.  I've said nothing that can reasonably be construed as "dismissive of women."  I started this thread to highlight a point of improvement in and by the Church in relation to women.  

It seems like saying 'meh' to a woman when she is speaking to you about women's concerns can reasonably be construed as "dismissive of women." 

You seem to be proving my point.  I use "meh" as to men and women alike. 

Here (responding to an article written by a woman, "8 Reasons Straight Men Don’t Want To Get Married"): 

Quote
Quote

4. You’ll lose space.  We hear a lot about men retreating to their “man caves,” but why do they retreat?  Because they’ve lost the battle for the rest of the house.  The Art of Manliness blog mourns “The Decline of Male Space,” and notes that the development of suburban lifestyles, intended to bring the family together, resulted in the elimination of male spaces in the main part of the house, and the exile of men to attics, garages, basements - the least desirable part of the home. As a commenter to the post observes: “There was no sadder scene to a movie than in ‘Juno’ when married guy Jason Bateman realized that in his entire huge, house, he had only a large closet to keep all the stuff he loved in. That hit me like a punch in the face.”

I read this and thought "Meh.  This is a classic 'First World' problem."  Having an exclusively "male space" is a luxury, not a necessity.  And my wife doesn't have a "female space," either.

Elsewhere, however, I compliment the author:

Quote

The author asks a succinct and important question.
...
These are a 
big factors for a lot of men, I think, including for members of the Church.  And I think this concern becomes more acute when the Latter-day Saint male looks with open eyes at A) the Church's teachings about the sanctity, beauty, meaning, and eternal significance of marriage and children, and then contrasts such things with B) the prevalence of divorce.  
...
I think this, like items 5 and 6 above, is a very big factor.  The attractive features of the single life, when viewed alongside the specter of divorce and financial/emotional/social turmoil that are the eminently foreseeable risks inherent in marriage, combine to create some pretty significant disincentives to marriage.

If I really were "dismissive of women," I would not have bothered to read and review the above article.  As it is, I read it, agreed with some parts, disagreed with others, and otherwise found it informative and interesting.  That is was written by a woman was not really part of my overall assessment (and to the extent I did take her gender into account, it was to make the article more probative, not less).

And here (responding to Simon Southerton) :

Quote
Quote

My 2004 book, Losing a Lost Tribe: DNA, Native Americans and the Mormon Church (Signature Books), challenged the racist LDS belief that First Nations people are descended from Book of Mormon Lamanites and carry a dark skin because of a divine curse.  

Meh.  He's recycling stuff from sixteen years ago?

And here (responding to Analytics, whom I believe is male) :

Quote
Quote

Whether or not "critics" will ever be satisfied is irrelevant to whether or not what the Church is doing is actually right.

Meh.  I'm not inclined to let critics define what is "right."  I've been reading their criticisms for too long.  I don't think they give a fig about "whether or not what the Church is doing is actually right."  They dislike or hate the Church, and so work and speak against it regardless of what it does.

And here (also Analytics) :

Quote
Quote

or at least by the person who promised to answer it.

Meh.  I have no reason to trust Mr. Runnells' say-so.  Moreover, this is just another dodge.  It is either childish or dishonest to refuse to research these issues, and to refuse to meaningfully engage the results of that research.

And here (responding to Stemelbow, whose gender is unknown to me, but whom I have presumed is male) :

Quote
Quote

Surely it has other activities that aren't directly bringing in cash.  But they seem secondary at this point.  

Meh.  This is unserious.  You are just playing the provocateur.

And here (responding to boo, whose gender is unkown to me) :

Quote
Quote

and commanding you to breach your legal contracts upon pain of excommunication

Meh.  I'm reasonably confident there was a workaround available to Mr. Snuffer.  

And here (responding to Stemelbow) :

Quote
Quote

The rare times it does not is when the targeted person carries influence that somehow catches the eye of those beyond the local leaders.  The real issue here is fearing their influence.  The Church carries many fears.  

Meh.  The Church can't win with people like this.  There is nothing wrong with the Church taking disciplinary action against a member of the Church trading on his membership to destroy the faith of other members.  Disciplinary action is not only understandable and rational, it's required by scripture.  And yet it's denigrated as "fear."

And here (responding to california boy) :

Quote
Quote

99% of the world would say your truth is not true at all.  It doesn't mean it is not your truth.

Meh.  I reject the notion that "truth" is a popularity contest.  Truth exists independently of our acceptance or non-acceptance of it.

And here (responding to Tacenda, who was quoting John Dehlin) :

Quote
Quote

I communicated with multiple actual victims.

Meh.  How does he know they are "actual victims?"  All he has is their say-so, and all we have is his say-so of their (anonymous) say-so.

And here (responding to hope-for-things, whose gender is unknown to mem, and who was quoting a news article) :

Quote
Quote

Ammon Bundy, a constitutional rights defender to his allies and a domestic terrorist to his critics, spoke in Smithfield on Wednesday and claimed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which he is a devout member, has been infiltrated by socialists, globalists and environmentalists.

Meh.  This doesn't mean much.  It's political claptrap.

Quote

He claimed that the federal government’s prosecution of him and his supporters following confrontations in Nevada and Oregon is really a “battle of high priests” of the LDS Church. He said his father, himself and his attorney are all high priests in the church, but so are the lead U.S. attorney prosecuting his family, the chief judge in Oregon and former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid.

Meh.  The U.S. Attorney is just doing his job.  He's not functioning in his capacity as a high priest.

And here (responding to Gray, whose gender is unknown to me) :

Quote
Quote

Atonement theology (esp Penal Substitution) many hundreds of years years before it was developed
Textual dependents on many Biblical texts that hadn't been written yet
Christ theology and terminology used out of its historical context, where it wouldn't make sense
Christology influenced by the gospel of John, but supposedly predating John
Resurrection theology outside of its time and place
Fully developed God/Satan dualism outside of its time and place
And hundreds of other smaller issues

Meh.  That's like saying American common law can't exist because common law is an English thing.  Or that Lehi couldn't have had a "compass" because such a thing was not invented until much later.

Common origins.  Prophets and revelations.  Yours is a pronouncement of what God can or cannot do, not a scholarly assessment.  You may as well scoff at the notion of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I mean, you can, but that doesn't get us very far.  We can't prove it, and you can't disprove it.  It's a question of faith that's essentially beyond the realms of empirical testability.

My use of "meh" is directed that arguments/claims/statements, not against the gender of the individual with whom I am conversing.

Quote

Certainly you don't have to agree with her, but 'meh'?  

I have said "meh" dozens of times on this board.  To men.  To women.  To speakers whose gender is unknown to me.

Further, "meh" simply means "expressing a lack of interest or enthusiasm."  It is not a gendered response.

If you can point me to a statement I have made that is gendered, where I have disparaged the individual because of their gender or their argument because of their gender, then I will review it and, in all likelihood, retract it and apologize.  Honest.  

On the other hand, I would ask you to consider whether your surmise about me is based on a latent expectation of privilege.  That women should receive some measure of deference to their opinions/arguments solely because the opinion/argument is a woman's.  If so, I can't, or won't, oblige.  I reserve the right to agree or disagree with anyone's opinion or argument, regardless of the gender of the speaker.

Quote

It's also a little odd that you started a thread about something the church is doing "in relation to women" but clearly don't want to engage with how the women feel about it. 

I count 14-15 posts by me in this thread.  

You are quite incorrect.  Certainly I want to engage with how women feel about it.  And men.  And members.  And non-members.  I haven't ignored anyone based on their gender.

What I have done, though, is disagreed.  With some participants who, it turns out, are women.  So the suggestion here is that my disagreement with a woman's opinion is because the opinion-holder is a woman?  Well, no.  That's not so.  I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with people based on their gender.  I put men and women on equal footing and seek to address their arguments on the merits.

Quote

That could also seem dismissive. 

Except that it is categorically not true.

Quote

Especially the part where you point out that our feelings (shared from the female perspective on something in relation to women) should not be privileged over your thoughts (shared from the male perspective on something in relation to women) because they are not, in your words, based on "reasoning, analysis, weighing of evidence" etc.

I have said nothing about women's feelings.  Again, mine is not a gendered argument.

Yours, however, is.  You keep importing the gender of the individual into the argument.  To make a point about feelings is to make a point about women?  I haven't done that.  Anywhere.   

Quote

That doesn't exactly scream "I value the female point of view" either.

Because you are imputing onto me an assumption that I do not hold, namely, that I evaluate an argument based on the gender of the person providing it.  I don't.

My comments about feelings are not gender-based.  Men are every bit as capable of over-reliance on feelings/emotions as women.  I would have thought this to be obvious and axiomatic.  

Quote

I can understand if your purpose of the thread was to bring a point of improvement to everyone's attention, but if that's all you wanted it might have been better in the social hall, where these kinds of discussions (ones that are open for discussion and can include disagreement) aren't allowed.

I'm happy to discuss it in a adversarial context.  I'm less enthused on this thread becoming a referendum about me as a person, which is what you and Juliann are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

Congruent with, rather than superior to, reasoning, evidence, prophetic counsel, and personal revelation.

So, in that context, where are feelings appropriately discussed?

That's a pretty broad question.  This board is a forum for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not trying to pick on you. 

And yet you continue to personalize this thread.  To make it about me.

Quote

But I honestly don't understand how you can 1) refuse to engage with or try to understand a woman's feelings on a woman's issue,

I haven't "refuse{d} to engage with or try to understand" this.

I reject the accusation.  Again.

You are imputing onto me ideas and sentiments I neither hold nor have expressed in this thread.

Quote

2) caricaturize those feelings you have spent zero effort trying to understand as "a trivial nitpick" that is basically absurd

To caricature means to "make or give a comically or grotesquely exaggerated representation of (someone or something)."  I haven't done that.

I have posted 15-16 times on this thread and have interacted with a bunch of people, so it's not correct to say I have "spent zero effort trying to understand."

I have said nothing, nothing, disparaging any statement made in this thread based on the gender of the person who made it.  

And I stand by what I said.  Pres. Oaks omitted, likely inadvertently, Sis. Aburto from one comment thanking the prior speakers.  For this we are supposed to publicly disparage Pres. Oaks?  This is a "controversy?"  How so?  We are supposed to "mourn with those that mourn" about this?  How is is not a "trivial nitpick?"

Quote

and then 3) claim in the same post that you are not dismissive of women.

Because I am not disagreeing with you or anyone else because of your gender.

Because my assessment of the above-referenced trivial nitpick is not gendered.  I said nothing about the gender of the people who have bought into this "controversy."  It's a "trivial nitpick" regardless of the gender of the persons who are making it.

Again, you keep imputing onto me assumptions I do not hold, nor have stated.  I have no idea who has bought into this silliness, and I don't really care.

Quote

The fact that your wife agrees with you (my husband agrees with me by the way.  I'm sure knowing that changes everything for you to the same extent that knowing your wife agrees with you changes it for me)

That my wife agrees with me rather militates against the ongoing accusations of sexism.  

Quote

and that you can get along with women at work isn't all that relevant to how you relate to women in the gospel who do not feel the way you want them to about some of their experiences in the church.

I think it's pretty relevant.  I get along with women generally.  The problem seems to arise A) on this board, where ongoing personality conflicts have an effect (you and I generally get along well, but Juliann really dislikes me), and B) false assumptions are imputed onto me.

Again, if you can point me to a statement I have made that is gendered, where I have disparaged the individual because of their gender or their argument because of their gender, then I will review it and, in all likelihood, retract it and apologize.

Otherwise, please stop personalizing this thread, and please stop imputing things onto me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Merely complaining about an issue doesn't seem to do much.

This is particularly so as regarding the Church.  People here are complaining about the purported paucity of women speakers during General Conference.  Long on gripes, short on proposed remedies.

-Smac

The remedy for lack of female representation is for the church to be more inclusive by including more women speakers/prayers/leaders. It's a very simple solution.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I consider it an adversarial forum.

That's an informative statement.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a pretty broad question.  This board is a forum for that.

But only if feelings aren't given "undue influence," right?  That's another term you haven't defined or elaborated upon.  So, it's - "Sure, share your feelings, but not TOO much of your feelings."  Where's the boundary, in your opinion?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The remedy for lack of female representation is for the church to be more inclusive by including more women speakers/prayers/leaders. It's a very simple solution.

That sounds facile, but let's review it a bit:

1. The Saturday morning session of each conference begins with "the speakers {are} selected from the general authorities and general officers of the Church."  So are you propsing that women be ordained to the priesthood, such that they would be more numerically represented in "the general authorities and general officers of the Church?"

2. Alternatively, are you proposing that women speakers be selected who are not in the above group?  If so, how would you propose these "more women" be selected?  Would they necessarily be in a leadership role?  Or would anyone from anywhere be sufficient?

3. If you are advocating that women who are not among "the general authorities and general officers of the Church" be selected as speakers for General Conference, wouldn't consistency also require that men who are not among "the general authorities and general officers of the Church" also be selected as speakers?

4. And what about teenagers?  Should they be included as speakers as well?  Why or why not?  If women need "representation" at General Conference, why not teens?

5. What about race?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by racial categories?

6. What about nationality?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by national origin?

7. What about socioeconomic strata?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by income?

8. What about educational levels?  Should General Conference speakers reflect the proportions of the Church membership by educational achievement?

9. What about the doctrines pertaining to stewardship?  

As I see it, General Conference is for the body of the Church.  As the Church grows, there will naturally be an influx of leaders of diverse backgrounds.  We have seen that quite a bit, particularly in the Seventy.  The process is, I think (I hope) a natural and revelatory one.

The issue of priesthood authority and stewardship seems to be front and center here.  What is being proposed here comes across and wanting to substitute quotas for revelation.  

By the reckoning being presented here, Jesus Christ would be faulted, condemned even, for selecting 12 adult male Jews as His apostles.  Not much in the way of "representation" there.  To paraphrase what someone said earlier: "If He had valued women followers..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Happy to have you hear.  And to listen to what you have to say.

Okay.

Yes.  Time, place and manner.  How, when and where we express our viewpoints about the Church is an important part of keeping our covenants.

No.  I'm not saying that.  I am saying that feelings are not, in and of themselves, determinative.  I am saying that this board is about discussion and debate.  We can and ought to be civil and courteous, but we should also allowed to express our viewpoints. 

If a viewpoint is based mostly/entirely on an individual's feelings/emotions, then there's not much to discuss.  Feelings, like tastes, are largely beyond the realm of reasonable discourse.  So there has to be something more.  Reasoning.  Evidence.  Analysis.  These can and ought to be used to substantiate and validate inwardly-held emotions, feelings, opinions, and so on.  

"How the Lord directs His kingdom" is up to the Lord.  Not us.  Not our feelings.

How the leaders of the Church carry out their mandated and discretionary duties is certainly something about which we can have feelings and opinions.  But even then, feelings alone are not determinative.  A feeling isn't reasonable or valid or righteous simply because it exists.  Hence the value that can come from reasoning, evidence, analysis, counsel, prayer, study, and so on.

Not quite.  I think that feelings have an important, but not dispositive or ultimately determinative, role to play in decisions we make in this life.  

I also members of the Church run the risk of over-privileging feelings because we claim to rely on the Spirit.  So a strong feeling about Issue X can be construed as a spiritual confirmation as to one's position for or against Issue X.  I think that people in the Church can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

Also, consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

I really like this.  Metaphorically speaking, a four-legged stool is going to be more sturdy, stable, and durable than a one-legged stool.  

I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true).

This year I will celebrate 25 years of being married to the most wonderful person I have ever met.  I am well and truly head over heels in love with my wife.  I have very strong feelings for her.  Love and affection.  Respect and admiration.  Devotion and fidelity.  Desires to protect and help her, and to provide for her.  I rely heavily on her insights and opinions.  I take her counsel very seriously.  And I think my wife reciprocates these things.  I have similar feelings for my children.  I value my family above everything else in life, save God alone.  These things, which I value most in life, are heavily affected by my emotions.  My feelings.  But over the course of the last 25 years I have come to understand that my feelings, to some extent, need to be constrained and molded and corrected.  So just because I feel anger doesn't mean that the emotion is justified, or that words or actions arising from that emotion are valid and appropriate.  The same goes for when I feel offended, or when I feel judgmental, or arrogant, and so on.  So I temper my reliance on feelings/emotions with reliance on reasoning, and prophetic counsel, and personal revelation (and with counsel from my wife, natch).

Thanks,

Smac

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Merely complaining about an issue doesn't seem to do much.

This is particularly so as regarding the Church.  People here are complaining about the purported paucity of women speakers during General Conference.  Long on gripes, short on proposed remedies.

No.  Being publicly accused falsely makes me feel like a scape goat.

To disagree with Juliann is to be "dismissive of women?"  Hardly.  But it doesn't stop her from attacking me personally.  Over and over and over again.

I consider it an adversarial forum.

When emotions are given undue weight and attention, yes.

No.  Quite the contrary, I think emotions are very important.  But I think all sorts of problems can arise when people act mostly on emotion and less on reasoning, evidence, analysis, wise counsel, and personal revelation.

Sort of.  The Online Disinhibition Effect can have a corrosive effect on the individual member's relationship to the Church and its leaders.

I think we as members of the Church need to be more resilient. 

I think we need to not look for ways to be offended, or for things to publicly complaint about. 

I think we need to support and prayer for the leaders of the Church.

I think we need to consider the over-arching decency and goodness and sacrifice of the men and women who devote themselves to building up the Church, and who are then called to serve in leadership positions they did not seek, and who thereafter spend tremendous amounts of time and effort to magnify their callings and improve the Church and its effect on the members and the world.

I think we need to largely abstain from public fault-finding, particularly as pertaining to trivialities.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

To the extent there is something about the Church that needs correction and improvement, I think we should formulate ideas and proposals rather than publicly disparage and tear down the leaders of the Church.  And if the idea really has some merit, pass it on up.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, keep moving forward.

I'm reminded here of Chestertons' Fence:

I think the Church has all sorts of such fences.  Some of them do indeed need to be torn down.  An example that comes to mind: Jean A. Stevens, first counselor in the LDS Church's Primary general presidency, gave the benediction of the Saturday Morning Session of the April 2013 General Conference.  This marked the first time in the history of the Church that a woman had offered a prayer in General Conference.

But there are other fences that are there for good reason.  So if someone comes along and says "I and my emotions don't like this fence.  Let's tear it out," I think Chesterton's response is apt: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."  To the extent I am "concerned" about Church members, it is that they are wanting to tear down important fences, important parts of the structure and organization of the Church, and they want to do so not because they have presented a cogent and reasoned explanation, but because they have strong feelings about it.  Well, strong feelings are seldom going to be enough.  And disparaging the Church and its leaders for not reflexively acquiescening to such feelings-based demands is, I think, inappropriate.

So . . . women speaking in General Conference.  They do, but some think the numbers are not enough.  So what number would be appropriate?  And what is the basis for this number?  And how would you propose we reach that number?

I'm sharing my perspective.  And yes, I am advocating that we temper emotion-based sentiments with reason, evidence, analysis, and so forth.

Thanks,

-Smac

You think that sharing feelings about a lack of women speakers is complaining and not supporting the leaders of the church. That if one is going to share feelings then they should also share a solution in a way that goes in accordance with the Lord's organization on earth. You feel the appropriate way to share those solutions is to pass them up the line and if they don't get passed up and/or used they were not of merit and/or do not belong in God's church.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But only if feelings aren't given "undue influence," right? 

I don't think I have used that phrase in this thread.  I did say this:

Quote
Quote

That emotions get in the way of working out the ideas and viewpoints.

When emotions are given undue weight and attention, yes.

And this:

Quote
Quote

You think that feelings are unreliable or at least not as reliable as thinking is.

Not quite.  I think that feelings have an important, but not dispositive or ultimately determinative, role to play in decisions we make in this life.  

I also members of the Church run the risk of over-privileging feelings because we claim to rely on the Spirit.  So a strong feeling about Issue X can be construed as a spiritual confirmation as to one's position for or against Issue X.  I think that people in the Church can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

Also, consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

I really like this.  Metaphorically speaking, a four-legged stool is going to be more sturdy, stable, and durable than a one-legged stool.  

Quote

We sometimes make them more important than the analysis that is more reliable.  

I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true).

 

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's another term you haven't defined or elaborated upon. 

Kinda hard to define or elaborate on a term I have not used.

And as regarding the term I did use ("undue weight and attention"), I have explained and elaborated at some length what I have in mind.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, it's - "Sure, share your feelings, but not TOO much of your feelings." 

Funny how often people end up fabricating a quote and attributing it to me, rather than - you know - responding to what I have actually written.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Where's the boundary, in your opinion?

I'm not sure what you mean by "boundary."  I don't think there is one.  We don't make decisions based on one thing (emotions) or another (reasoning/evidence), with some "boundary" existing between the two.

The metaphor I have used is the four-legged stool (from Michael Ash, see above): "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be proving my point.  I use "meh" as to men and women alike. 

Here (responding to an article written by a woman, "8 Reasons Straight Men Don’t Want To Get Married"): 

Elsewhere, however, I compliment the author:

If I really were "dismissive of women," I would not have bothered to read and review the above article.  As it is, I read it, agreed with some parts, disagreed with others, and otherwise found it informative and interesting.  That is was written by a woman was not really part of my overall assessment (and to the extent I did take her gender into account, it was to make the article more probative, not less).

And here (responding to Simon Southerton) :

And here (responding to Analytics, whom I believe is male) :

And here (also Analytics) :

And here (responding to Stemelbow, whose gender is unknown to me, but whom I have presumed is male) :

And here (responding to boo, whose gender is unkown to me) :

And here (responding to Stemelbow) :

And here (responding to california boy) :

And here (responding to Tacenda, who was quoting John Dehlin) :

And here (responding to hope-for-things, whose gender is unknown to mem, and who was quoting a news article) :

And here (responding to Gray, whose gender is unknown to me) :

My use of "meh" is directed that arguments/claims/statements, not against the gender of the individual with whom I am conversing.

I have said "meh" dozens of times on this board.  To men.  To women.  To speakers whose gender is unknown to me.

Further, "meh" simply means "expressing a lack of interest or enthusiasm."  It is not a gendered response.

If you can point me to a statement I have made that is gendered, where I have disparaged the individual because of their gender or their argument because of their gender, then I will review it and, in all likelihood, retract it and apologize.  Honest.  

On the other hand, I would ask you to consider whether your surmise about me is based on a latent expectation of privilege.  That women should receive some measure of deference to their opinions/arguments solely because the opinion/argument is a woman's.  If so, I can't, or won't, oblige.  I reserve the right to agree or disagree with anyone's opinion or argument, regardless of the gender of the speaker.

I count 14-15 posts by me in this thread.  

You are quite incorrect.  Certainly I want to engage with how women feel about it.  And men.  And members.  And non-members.  I haven't ignored anyone based on their gender.

What I have done, though, is disagreed.  With some participants who, it turns out, are women.  So the suggestion here is that my disagreement with a woman's opinion is because the opinion-holder is a woman?  Well, no.  That's not so.  I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with people based on their gender.  I put men and women on equal footing and seek to address their arguments on the merits.

Except that it is categorically not true.

I have said nothing about women's feelings.  Again, mine is not a gendered argument.

Yours, however, is.  You keep importing the gender of the individual into the argument.  To make a point about feelings is to make a point about women?  I haven't done that.  Anywhere.   

Because you are imputing onto me an assumption that I do not hold, namely, that I evaluate an argument based on the gender of the person providing it.  I don't.

My comments about feelings are not gender-based.  Men are every bit as capable of over-reliance on feelings/emotions as women.  I would have thought this to be obvious and axiomatic.  

I'm happy to discuss it in a adversarial context.  I'm less enthused on this thread becoming a referendum about me as a person, which is what you and Juliann are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

To clarify, I do not believe that you evaluate arguments based on gender (nor that you only use 'meh' with women').  I have never thought that about you and it was never a point I was attempting to make. 

Maybe understanding that you've misunderstood me on that point (which you seem to see as the main point) will help you reevaluate the other thoughts that I've shared and present them in a different light.  I would assume (and I don't mean this snarkily) that rather than do that you'll be more 'meh' about it.  Honestly, I wouldn't take it personally.

You've missed the forest for the trees in a lot of this, but I can understand why, given your perspective.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Rain said:

You think that sharing feelings about a lack of women speakers is complaining and not supporting the leaders of the church.

Actually, what I had in mind when I said that was Juliann's rather nasty, and public, and unsubstantiated, and unfair, and ugly, accusation that the leaders of the Church do not value women speakers.  That remark is rather hard to square with "supporting the leaders of the Church."

Generally, no, I don't think that "sharing feelings about a lack of women speakers is complaining and not supporting the leaders of the church."  

In response to those feelings, I have shared my own thoughts, which are that women speakers are, if anything, over-represented in General Conference.

I have also said:

Quote
Quote

50+% of the church membership but only 12% of the general conference messages.

I just can't get on board with this "representation" stuff.  With slicing and dicing the speakers as being representatives of the listeners, when they are functioning as representatives of Jesus Christ.  The talks are, broadly speaking, addressed to the entirety of the Church.

The Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ were all adult males.  All men from a particular socioeconomic strata.  All Jewish.  I don't think we should discount their callings because they didn't "represent" in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc.

I've said quite a bit of other stuff as well, none of which has disparaged women.

Where I have transgressed is to disagree with women.  And for that I have to put up with personal attacks and false accusations.  Ah well.

Quote

That if one is going to share feelings then they should also share a solution in a way that goes in accordance with the Lord's organization on earth.

Broadly speaking, yes.  Merely griping about a problem is faultfinding.  This is not only a waste of time, but is corrosive to the unity we are seeking to attain in the Church, and to some extent is at odds with our covenants.  There are all sorts of scriptures that caution against backbiting, murmuring, finding fault, speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, and so on.  My thinking on this has been heavily influenced by a 1987 article by Elder Oaks, entitled Criticism, which addresses at some length the ways by which we should work through disagreements within the Church.

Quote

You feel the appropriate way to share those solutions is to pass them up the line

Yes.  That has happened many times in the Church.  FHE started that way.  The Church's welfare program started that way.

Quote

and if they don't get passed up and/or used they were not of merit and/or do not belong in God's church.  

I don't know about that.  There are all sorts of reasons why a proposal may or may not be acted upon.

By way of illustration: A few years ago the bishop of our ward was looking for ways to have the young women more engaged.  He also noted that the number of young men in our ward did not typically allow for them to act as ushers since they were all either blessing or passing the Sacrament.  The bishop went to the stake president and requested permission to call the young women to act as ushers.  After some discussion, the stake president said no.  I think it was partly out of tradition, but also partly out of the notion that ushering is a priesthood function.  The stake president noted, correctly, that one of the duties of a deacon is to "assist the bishop."  From that he seemed to extrapolate that ushering was a priesthood responsibility.

A few years later, here we are, with young women ushering in the Church.

Was our bishop's proposal to have young women act as ushers "not of merit?"  Nope.  It was a good idea.

Did our bishop's proposal "not belong in God's church?"  Nope.  It's in God's Church now, and may well have been appropriate when our bishop proposed it.

Anyhoo, our bishop, having counseled with the stake president, followed the instruction and did not call the young women to act as ushers.  More to the point, though, is the bishop did not vilify the stake president.  He didn't publicly disparage the character and decency of the stake president.  He didn't accuse the stake president, directly or obliquely, of sexism (a la the above-referenced "If they valued women speakers....." ugliness).  He didn't go around to other members of the stake and try to rally support against the stake president.  He did not seek to turn public sentiment against the stake president.  He did not try to use pressure tactics to bend the stake president into capitulation.  I see these sorts of things all the time.  By members of the Church.  And I think they are wrong.  

The bishop could have pressed the matter a bit, with the stake president and then perhaps further up the line to the area authority.  Instead, the bishop let the matter drop, and a few years later the bishop's proposal (which was almost certainly not unique to him) was implemented by the Church.  Sometimes that will happen, but more often it won't.  That's the nature of large organizations.  That's the natural outcome of stewardship and authority.  

As members of the Church, our responsibility is to build up the Kingdom of God.  I don't think we do that by publicly slandering the Brethren, using pressure tactics, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

smac97, for the most part is fairly level headed compared to me and Julianne. I don't agree with everything he says, hell, I don't even make it to the end of some of his post because my brain starts hurting half way through

You make it halfway through his posts before your brain starts to hurt? 

I admire your doggedness.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To clarify, I do not believe that you evaluate arguments based on gender (nor that you only use 'meh' with women'). 

Thank you.

Quote

I have never thought that about you and it was never a point I was attempting to make. 

Okay.  It came across that way (to me).  I stand corrected.

Quote

Maybe understanding that you've misunderstood me on that point (which you seem to see as the main point) will help you reevaluate the other thoughts that I've shared and present them in a different light.  I would assume (and I don't mean this snarkily) that rather than do that you'll be more 'meh' about it.  Honestly, I wouldn't take it personally.

Okay.  I'll give this some consideration and re-evaluation.

Quote

You've missed the forest for the trees in a lot of this, but I can understand why, given your perspective.

I'll think on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As members of the Church, our responsibility is to build up the Kingdom of God.  I don't think we do that by publicly slandering the Brethren.

 

I don't agree with public slander, myself.  Even if I have regretfully participated in it. 

I also don't think that stating the obvious, that General Conference this spring was obviously patriarchal, is slanderous.  IMO, of course. It is a fact, without emotion.  Grey rock.  I don't imagine that thinking it is imbalanced and feeling discomfort  is sinful, slanderous, or problematic in the least.  There have been plenty of problems I've come across in church that I have thought were wrong, felt a negative feeling about, and then behaved in a way that aligned with my values and then exacted change.  

Perhaps women in legit leadership over men will never happen in this church.  I think that is wrong. 

I think it's nice that there was a new position of leadership created for a woman.   Nice, that's it.  Nothing to have a parade about. 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I have used that phrase in this thread.  I did say this:

And this:

 

Kinda hard to define or elaborate on a term I have not used.

And as regarding the term I did use ("undue weight and attention"), I have explained and elaborated at some length what I have in mind.


 

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, that is the term I meant. I apologize for my imprecision. 

As to your response - I must have missed your elaborate explanation.

Quote

Funny how often people end up fabricating a quote and attributing it to me, rather than - you know - responding to what I have actually written.

It was intended to summarize in a way that might prompt you to correct me if I didn't properly understanding your meaning; not an invitation for a snarky rejoinder.

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by "boundary."  I don't think there is one.  We don't make decisions based on one thing (emotions) or another (reasoning/evidence), with some "boundary" existing between the two.

The metaphor I have used is the four-legged stool (from Michael Ash, see above): "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."

Well, all I'm really trying to do is reconcile your statements.  You scolded women in this thread for their references to feelings, but then state that feelings are acceptable to discuss, yet you have no specific amount of acceptable discussion of feelings in mind.

For the record, you may find the writings of Michael Ash to be persuasive, but I do not.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don't agree with public slander, myself.  Even if I have regretfully participated in it. 

I agree.

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I also don't think that stating the obvious, that General Conference this spring was obviously patriarchal, is slanderous.  

Nor do I.  Noting that most of the speakers are male ("patriarchal" has political whiffs) is fine.  Publicly disparaging the Brethren and accusing them of not valuing women speakers, on the other hand...

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Perhaps women in legit leadership over men will never happen in this church.  I think that is wrong. 

So . . . female ordination to the priesthood?  Not having that is "wrong?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As to your response - I must have missed your elaborate explanation.

Okay.

Quote
Quote

Funny how often people end up fabricating a quote and attributing it to me, rather than - you know - responding to what I have actually written.

It was intended to summarize in a way that might prompt you to correct me if I didn't properly understanding your meaning; not an invitation for a snarky rejoinder.

You complained about me not explaining myself, when I have.

You fabricated a quote rather than quoted me.

And below you add a significant gloss/slant to what I have said (that I "scold women"). 

So you'll understand why I take your comments as not quite the clinical/objective bit of commentary you want them to be.

Quote

Well, all I'm really trying to do is reconcile your statements. 

Okay.

Quote

You scolded women in this thread for their references to feelings,

I have not.

I have responded to various people some of whom are women, some of whom are not, and some of whom I don't know one way or the other.

I tailor my comments to the substance of what is said, not the gender of the person saying it.

Quote

but then state that feelings are acceptable to discuss,

Yes.

Quote

yet you have no specific amount of acceptable discussion of feelings in mind.

Are you asking for a percentage?

Again, I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true).

Quote

For the record, you may find the writings of Michael Ash to be persuasive, but I do not.

I find the principle he laid out to be quite reasonable and sound.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . female ordination to the priesthood?  Not having that is "wrong?"

My good friend's husband is the bishop.  He dutifully spends 90% of his time with the youth and delegates as much as possible to his EQ leader and RS pres as directed over a year ago.   He tells his ward members that the RS president has priesthood authority to act and that they should trust her leadership.  
I wish this attitude was more common.  I think recognizing the authority that women can conceivably hold could allow us to think outside the box and put women in positions to do more, have more presence, without the need for specific ordination.   I think we are thinking too much inside the box, both here in this conversation, and as a church as a whole.  I'm not talking about the prophet himself, but until we mature as a church the leadership isn't going to exact changes that much (IMO) of the membership can't get behind. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You complained about me not explaining myself, when I have.

But where?  Are you saying you had already explained yourself in this very thread, or are you expecting all readers to know that you have explained yourself before/elsewhere?  I'm genuinely confused.

Quote

You fabricated a quote rather than quoted me.

Oh, just stop.  I did not fabricate a quote.  It was a summary of your lengthy posts; an attempt to distill the argument.  It was not a direct word-for-word attribution to you.

Quote

And below you add a significant gloss/slant to what I have said (that I "scold women"). 

It was not an intentional "gloss/slant." It was my perception of the tone of your posts.  Consider it feedback.

Quote

So you'll understand why I take your comments as not quite the clinical/objective bit of commentary you want them to be.

This is part of the problem with you assuming all discussion on here is adversarial; you assume bad faith where there is none.

Quote

Again, I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true).

But, and this may only be my perception, your posts appear to demand a great deal of precision and you come off as dismissive of feelings.  When you then say things like "appropriate parameters" the implication is that you have parameters in mind which you consider appropriate.  As a reader, and potential conversationalist, knowing what those parameters are is helpful.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't follow that a man should consider he has any such green light to speak on behalf of women in this context, either.

That might be so for the women you seem to think you speak for - as if Rain could not have spoken for herself without everyone running to her defense. For the record, I find her style to be quite balanced, moderated, and reasonable. It is eminently obvious to me that indeed there are many women who feel as she seems to. Conversely, it seems eminently obvious that there are also many women who feel otherwise though I am taken to task for bringing this reality to light because my reproductive hardwiring is different than a woman's and no less from one who shares said hardwiring but thinks he can still speak on a woman's behalf. Crazy world. ;o

Link to comment
Just now, MustardSeed said:
Quote

So . . . female ordination to the priesthood?  Not having that is "wrong?"

My good friend's husband is the bishop.  He dutifully spends 90% of his time with the youth and delegates as much as possible to his EQ leader and RS pres as directed over a year ago.   He tells his ward members that the RS president has priesthood authority to act and that they should trust her leadership.  

That's much the way things are in many other wards in the Church.

Just now, MustardSeed said:

I wish this attitude was more common.  

What makes you think it isn't?  You think bishops are looking for more work?  Relief Society Presidents have all sorts of (though not unlimited) autonomy to work with the sisters in the ward, and bishops in my experience take full advantage of that.

Just now, MustardSeed said:

I think recognizing the authority that women can conceivably hold could allow us to think outside the box and put women in positions to do more, have more presence, without the need for specific ordination.

Could you elaborate?

Just now, MustardSeed said:

I think we are thinking too much inside the box, both here in this conversation, and as a church as a whole.  

I'm curious as to what you have in mind.

Just now, MustardSeed said:

I'm not talking about the prophet himself, but until we mature as a church the leadership isn't going to exact changes that much (IMO) of the membership can't get behind. 

Still not sure what you have in mind, though.

The bishops have already delegated a lot of authority to other leaders in the ward.  A lot.  A bishop's time is taken up with A) administrative matters (coordinating ward callings, various meetings, planning Sacrament services), B) working with the youth, and C) pastoral/welfare counseling and assistance.

So what responsibilities do you think a bishop can delegate to women in the ward that has not already been delegated?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

That might be so for the women you seem to think you speak for - as if Rain could not have spoken for herself without everyone running to her defense. For the record, I find her style to be quite balanced, moderated, and reasonable. It is eminently obvious to me that indeed there are many women who feel as she seems to. Conversely, it seems eminently obvious that there are also many women who feel otherwise though I am taken to task for bringing this reality to light because my reproductive hardwiring is different than a woman's and no less from one who shares said hardwiring but thinks he can still speak on a woman's behalf. Crazy world. ;o

I'm not speaking on ANY woman's behalf.  In fact, I'm specifically advocating that neither you nor I should do any such thing specifically because you and I have no idea what it is like to BE a woman.  I'm advocating for listening to them and refraining from telling them they are wrong to feel the way they do.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...