Jump to content

SBC sex abuse report


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It is my experience in the FWIW department that those who abuse in one setting or form will abuse in another. Most of this conversations assumes that the abuser only abuses in the church setting. This is one important reason, besides legal requirements to inform police instead of dealing with it "inside" the particular institution in which you are involved. Abusive humans are the problem.

Abuse comes in many forms that may manifest themselves, but are really symptoms of a broader issue. Physical abuse, mental abuse, mocking, ranking, sex abuse, generalizing, use of power, dehumanizing, all forms of psychological abuse, even self-abuse are characteristics of an abusive sociopathic personality. They may be stopped in an organization because the abuser leaves, is removed from opportunity, etc., but it is likely that they will continue or increase the same habitual behavior (abuse of some sort) in another setting. The focus here is on power abuse that manifests itself in sexual abuse, but there are many other forms-toxic forms of abuse that people manifest and that others then suffer. It isn't about your institution, it is about the safety and welfare of all who are touched by the abuser's tendency to abuse. Protecting the reputation of the institution often becomes of paramount importance. I say phooey on the institution - protect the people who are the abusers likely next targets. We just heard of a terrible massacre of children by someone who was most likely either a sociopathic or psychopathic abuser. I wonder to where his trail of abuse led back?

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:
Quote

This is both overwrought and inaccurate.  People talk to bishops all the time.  If the bishop is the one being "abusive," then talk to the stake president.

You are making this more difficult than it is or needs to be.

This is a gross simplification of complicated issue.

Or else it is an over-complication of a simple issue.  

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

Bishop's and Stake Presidents (even other leaders above) are in a brotherhood.

Not sure what this means.

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

There is a high likelihood that they will circle the wagons.

Not sure what this means either.  If a bishop is misbehaving, the stake president will want to know about it.  And if the stake president is misbehaving, the Area Presidency will want to know about it.

These men work together, sure.  But they're not a gang.  There is generally no "blood is thicker than water" or "I'm with you, right or wrong" sort of sentiment.  Instead, their focus is on the welfare of the individuals and families within the ward and stake.  If a bishop has said or done something untoward or counterproductive or harmful, the stake president will want to take corrective action.  That action will almost certainly be "behind closed doors," but I don't see that as "circl{ing} the wagons."

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

It is not uncommon when issues get the attention of the public.

Yes.  Airing the family's dirty laundry does tend to have the intended provocative / gossipy effect.

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

If i was a victim to some form of abuse form my bishop, the stake president is not necessarily the next person i would talk to.

As you like.  You would only be exacerbating the problem rather than addressing it, for a few reasons:

First, by not reporting the "abuse" you are effectively hiding it from people who should know about it (the stake president, etc.).  It's unlikely that a misbehaving bishop is going to report himself after all.

Second, by refusing to communicate with the Stake President - the person with obviously and unequivocal authority over the bishop - you are prolonging and worsening the problem.  If a bishop is misbehaving, and if you are refusing to take the appropriate steps to notify those who can do something about it, then you are making the situation worse, not better.

Third, you reference to "some form of abuse" makes me a bit circumspect.  A bishop can screw up in any number of ways, but "abuse" is a serious word.  I suspect it is being diluted with phrases like "some form of abuse."  A bishop may say something that gives offense.  If inadvertent, that's typically not going to be "abuse" by any reasonable measure.  If it is intentional, and if it is persistent, and if his remarks are patently inappropriate or offensive (as opposed to being, say, inconsiderate, curt, thoughtless, etc.), then something is seriously amiss.  And if a bishop is physically violent or threatening, then that's way out of bounds.  And if a bishop is saying or doing things amounting to "sexual harassment" (see, e.g., here), that too is way out of bounds.  But simple disagreement is not "abuse."  A minor and momentary and passing and isolated lapse in civility and decorum is not "abuse."  I get that some folks prefer an expansive, evertything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach as to what constitutes "abuse," but I think that is both unreasonable and harmful to those involved.

Fourth,there is nothing wrong with reporting actionable "abuse" to law enforcement.  If a bishop has engaged in misconduct such that it amounts to a violation of civil law, then civil authorities can and should be contacted about it.  That said, I suspect this is not what you have in mind when you say "some form of abuse from my bishop."  Instead, I suspect you want "abuse" to include things like "The bishop said no," or "The bishop was curt," or "The bishop was not sufficiently attentive to my concerns," and so on.  The bishop may well have failed to fully perform his responsibilities, but most of the time the bishops are doing a pretty good job, and are doing so while spending lots of time in the calling, receiving no pay for it, while also holding down a full-time job and taking care of his own family and circumstances.  So I think "abuse" needs to be, and remain, properly defined and applied.

I am curious with whom (within the Church) would you speak about a bishop's misconduct, if not the stake president?  And why?

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

If I was a woman, I would be even more hesitant to talk.

Meh.  This sort of sexism (misandry) doesn't work for me.  And again, by keeping a bishop's misconduct secret, she is only making things worse.

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

The quote above is a perfect example of how the church fits for those that are the "in" group. 

Malarky.  

Again, if a local leader is misbehaving, those in authority over him will want to know.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Going over the SP's head, is a different ball game.  I'm sure it can be done, but the logistics of doing it, compared to talking the stake president, are not the same.

The logistics aren't the same, but at the same time they aren't especially difficult either. The church has been publishing and distributing this information for decades.

Back in the olden days it was actually printed in book form, but eventually they transitioned to CDs that were sent to local units instead.

For the past 15 years or so it's all been online. Anyone serving in a bishopric, branch presidency, or stake presidency (along with all of their clerks / executive secretaries) can access the information within seconds.

If you aren't in one of those callings and don't feel comfortable with speaking (or even emailing) anyone at any level of local leadership, then you can log in yourself and download a copy of the Church Office Building directory (available to all members), call Salt Lake, and get the information from them directly.

So, while it does involve some work, we're not exactly talking about the Grand Arcanum here.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you help me find the contact information? https://utah.churchofjesuschrist.org

If you are a member with a membership number, you can sign into the church website- or if you haven't done so, you can set up an account.  Then there is an app called "Tools" which you can load which gives you contact info for everyone in your stake, including of course leadership- and they will be designated as the SP or Bishop.

I can't recall how to set it up because it has been there so long for me, I don't remember, I just click on it.  But there IS such a bit of software available.

Or of course you could ask a member in your stake.   Or go to the Stake Center on Sunday morning and ask around !!  ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I can attest that disagreements with church leaders, no matter the reason, are traumatizing. Especially in a power dynamic that you are supposed to accept whatever they decide for you or your children. I can also attest, not discussing bad acts that are upsetting are not fun and involves no resolution. Builds resentments. 
 

So then you try discussing issues with a stake leader which seems to only make things worse. Which kills your reputation stake wide so now your black sheep status is widespread. In most circumstances the culture of the church is you are supposed to accept the dictates of your Bishop. Even when they damage or hurt your kids. Not all abuse is sexual. I can forgive them for being dumb but I do not have to believe they are right or have good judgement. 

The stake truly is no recourse in these situations. If things are at all subjective, they back the Bishop. You or your kids are just collateral damage. 

That may be your experience but it hasn't been my experience.  I suppose it also depends on the personality of the people you are disagreeing with. 

I think a lot has to do with how you approach the issue. like anything else, there is a good way and a bad way.

I remember one case that the IRS chief counsels office was sitting on a stipulated agreement for a while and not responding to my calls.  I approached the supervisor and started asking if "John" was doing ok. If he had been sick a lot or had an unreasonable large case load.  Then the supervisor asked my why I was asking, I told her that I was waiting a while for the agreement and I was worried about  "John". She thanked me for informing her and by time I arrived at my office I had two voice mails from "John" and a package with the agreement was being overnighted to me. 

I supposed I could have called the supervisor complaining about "John" being a lazy no good attorney  and should be fired, etc.  I probably wouldn't have gotten the same results.

When I have had a problem with a church leader, Usually I call the bishop's executive secretary (or stake presidents) ask for an interview and discuss why I feel something should be done differently I usually try to give the person I am disagreeing with the benefit of the doubt and assumes they had good intentions.   It seems to go pretty well. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This sort of sexism (misandry) doesn't work for me.

Thanks. You taught me a new word! I love to learn.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:
Quote

I also don't think I am speaking in arrogance where she brought her dispute to this board and presented it for public discussion and analysis.   That my assessment and perspective of it differs from yours does not make me arrogant.  

You're right.  That doesn't make you arrogant. 

I said it was arrogant to believe that you--who has never had to try to go over a SP's head because he wasn't following policy--know more about how difficult that is to do than she does--someone who actually has been in that situation.

Except I do know.  I can't elaborate, but I have had some experience in this.

Again, I think you are equivocating a bit when you talk about "how difficult" it is to address a situation with a misbehaving stake president.  As a matter of logistics and practicality, it is not very difficult.  The individual can ask the stake president for permission to take the issue to the Area Seventy or Area Presidency.  Alternatively, the individual can spend a few minutes figuring out who the Area Seventy and/or Area Presidency is, and then contact him/them directly, by phone, email, letter, etc.  These things are not "difficult" in any logistical or practical sense.  We have the means to make telephone calls and write letters.

So what you are saying is that "go{ing} over a SP's head" is emotionally "difficult," right?  If so, I agree with you.  Disagreeing with someone we would otherwise by default "sustain" and respect can be a difficult thing.  But I can't get on board with the idea that having a disagreement with a stake president, even a serious one, amounts to "trauma" (as in "an experience that produces psychological injury or pain").  My recollection is that the stake president behaved improperly, and that he did so by withholding a temple recommend because Meadow had filed, and would not withdraw, a civil lawsuit.  I am completely on board with the idea that the SP was plainly out of bounds here.  The next step, then, should have been to notify the Area Presidency of his misconduct.  IIRC, that did not happen.  Not because it was logistically or practically "difficult," but for other reasons.  Am I correct here?

Again, I think characterizing people as "traumatized" because they have a disagreement with someone is overwrought.  Even when - particularly when - high emotions are involved, we need to take a few moments, and a few steps back, and try to be pragmatic and objective about such things.

Again: "That it can be emotionally difficult does not mean it is logistically difficult.  Again, just talk to your bishop.  And if the bishop is the abuser, then talk to the stake president."  To which I add: "And if the stake president is the abuser, then contact the Area Seventy or Area Presidency."  I also add this: "If the 'abuse' being alleged is a matter of criminal law, there is no constraint against the individual reporting the matter to law enforcement."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If your previous post wasn’t arrogant, this one certainly was. You see no problem in blaming Meadow for not being able to set aside her emotions and deal with things rationally? 

I haven't allocated blame.  I have said nothing to absolve Meadow's SP.  To the contrary, I have previously said that he was plainly in the wrong, and I do so again now.

Instead, I have

(A) mildly disagreed with the notion that a disagreement with a misbehaving stake president about a temple recommend is "traumatic,"

(B) noted that, as a practical matter, it's not very difficult to figure out who the Area Seventy and Area Presidency is and contact them (either through or around the SP), and that while "it can be emotionally difficult does not mean it is logistically difficult" to do this; 

(C) also mildly disagreed with the notion that working out a dispute with a stake president about his improper behavior in withholding a temple recommend involves a question about, or a threat to, someone's "safety" (unless we are speaking of "safety" in a purely emotionalistic sense, in which case see point (B) above); and

D) proposed that in not addressing a disagreement with a misbehaving SP, where the means to do so are readily available and logistically fairly straightforward (an email, a letter, a call, etc.), the individual is making the issue "more difficult than it is or needs to be."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Did you watch the video?

The pastor stood up in a meeting with the congregation and confessed to 'adultery' and told them that he had repented of it 20 years ago.  He got a standing ovation.  When he went to sit down, the woman stood up and took the microphone and explained that what had actually happened was that he had begun grooming her when she was 15 and took her virginity on the floor of his office when she was 16.  The sexual relationship went on for 9 years. 

This woman was sexually abused by an adult--a religious leader--who called their sexual relationship 'adultery' and didn't confess that it happened with a child, and your gut reaction is to describe that as the victim getting "her pound of flesh"??  

The pastor admitted, after she spoke, that what she said was the truth.  So Tacenda isn't 'accepting her say-so'.

Ah.  I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
Quote

I characterizing people as "traumatized" because they have a disagreement with someone is overwrought and infantilizing.

I can attest that disagreements with church leaders, no matter the reason, are traumatizing.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  This seems way too subjective.  Simple disagreement with an ecclesiastical leader, without more, is "traumatic?"  

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Especially in a power dynamic that you are supposed to accept whatever they decide for you or your children.

Broadly speaking, yes.  But when they are misbehaving, no.  It's right there in our scriptures: 

Quote

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

D&C 121:37.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I can also attest, not discussing bad acts that are upsetting are not fun and involves no resolution. Builds resentments. 

I agree.  Again, I get that it can be emotionally difficult to disagree with a bishop or stake president (though calling that disagreement "traumatizing" seems overwrought to me).  All the more reason to not just let the disagreement fester.  If a stake president misbehaves, a rare - but clearly possible - occurrence, the individual can and should take the matter to the Area Seventy or Area Presidency.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So then you try discussing issues with a stake leader which seems to only make things worse. Which kills your reputation stake wide so now your black sheep status is widespread.

It does?  How so?  Unless one of the two parties to the discussion (the individual or the stake president) behaves improperly by publicizing the dispute to other members of the ward, this sort of thing seems . . . unlikely.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

In most circumstances the culture of the church is you are supposed to accept the dictates of your Bishop.

Broadly yes, but not exclusively so.  If Joseph Smith was correct when he said that a prophet is a prophet "only when acting as such" (such that we should follow him), the same sentiment can be adapted, pursuant to D&C 121:37, to bishops.

Again, if a person disagrees with a bishop's decision, the matter can be referred to the stake president.  This is how virtually all such disputes are addressed, and virtually all of such referred questions are resolved.  If a rare instance arises where the person disagrees with a SP's decision, the individual can ask to speak with the Area Seventy or Area Presidency.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Even when they damage or hurt your kids.

Way too vague, this.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Not all abuse is sexual.

I agree.  But not all disagreements, injured feelings, missteps, errors, etc. are "abuse," either.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I can forgive them for being dumb but I do not have to believe they are right or have good judgement. 

Same here.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The stake truly is no recourse in these situations.

It is supposed to be.  And it usually is.

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

If things are at all subjective, they back the Bishop. You or your kids are just collateral damage. 

"Collateral damage."  More overwrought verbiage.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:
Quote

 

This situation happened to her, and I remember her talking about it on here when it all went down and she was trying desperately to hang on to her testimony and deal with her local leaders (she lives in Europe).  

You can disagree with how she ultimately chose to move forward but the bold is incredibly arrogant, seeing as how she is speaking from a place of actual experience with the topic and you are speaking in hypotheticals.

 

Thank you for remembering this, Bluebell, and for speaking up. It means alot.

In response to SMAC's comments/replies--to my reply to Amulek--I was referring back to the central topic of sexual abuse victims, which is what Amulek seemed to prefer focusing on. I think it is appropriate to assume at least initially that sexual assault victims are traumatised.

Certainly.  Amulek was addressing your situation, as well as victims of sexual abuse victims.  And he concluded with "Serious matters, such as allegations of sexual assault however are most definitely treated seriously and not typically redirected back to the alleged abuser."  In any event, thank you for the clarification/correction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

(though calling that disagreement "traumatizing" seems overwrought to me). 

Yes, and that is your opinion which comes off a bit arrogant and condescending in my opinion. But, IMO, that goes for many of your posts in this thread. I don’t find this disagreement with you traumatizing in the least. Disagreements with church leaders can be traumatizing because the consequences of their bad judgement can have very personal side effects that you suffer with for a very long time. The higher up you serve the more damage that can be done. So, I am very happy you have not had traumatizing interactions with church leaders and I wish everyone was so lucky. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

“Collateral damage."  More overwrought verbiage.

And, since you do not have the facts of personal situations, you do not know if this is overwrought verbiage or not, do you? And no, I don’t have to share but you should not make definitive statements on others people’s experiences. IMO, another example of an underlying arrogance in your posts in this thread. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It does?  How so?  Unless one of the two parties to the discussion (the individual or the stake president) behaves improperly by publicizing the dispute to other members of the ward, ["kills your reputation stake wide so now your black sheep status is widespread"] sort of thing seems . . . unlikely.

Even under the best leadership imaginable, things like this sort of filter out (via counselors, the high council, etc. Sometimes from the leaders themselves). Yes, none of the disagreement or discord leaking out whatsoever is ideal, but people are humans and not robots. I would say this even extends to general authorities when they were stake presidents, no matter how "exactly obedient" one assumes they were. Or, people may be perceptive that there is a clear "something," even when nothing has been said (e.g., despite any known reason, this or that clearly ideal person appears to be outside of consideration). Nobody is perfect at acting as if nothing has happened when there has been a major emotional disagreement about something. 

Usually, though, there is far more leaking on the part of the rank-and-file member, more than the leader (unhappiness with how it turned out, what the decision was, agreement and accord, etc.). Ranting and commiserating with friends and perceived advocates, etc., and then from there it's widespread. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I can attest that disagreements with church leaders, no matter the reason, are traumatizing.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  This seems way too subjective.  Simple disagreement with an ecclesiastical leader, without more, is "traumatic?"  

I should have phrased this ‘can be traumatizing.’  They don’t have to be. So much depends on your leader and the situation. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
Quote

“Collateral damage."  More overwrought verbiage.

And, since you do not have the facts of personal situations, you do not know if this is overwrought verbiage or not, do you?

When speaking in generalities, as we are, yes, I do know.  Simple disagreement with a bishop or stake president, without more, does not create "collateral damage."

Let's take a quick looksee at that phrase, shall we?

Quote
noun
  1. the killing of civilians in a military attack.
  2. any damage incidental to an activity.

And here:

Quote

Definition of collateral damage

: injury inflicted on something other than an intended target
specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation

And here:

Quote

Collateral damage is any death, injury, or other damage inflicted that is an incidental result of an activity. Originally coined by military operations,[1] it is now also used in non-military contexts.

...

 

Non-military uses of the phrase[edit]

While not actually invented by the military,[15] this has been common. However, the term has since been widely adopted for non-military cases, and in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of medical,[16] government sources[17] and media[18] use this term widely in relation to deaths caused indirectly as a result of government policy such as lockdowns, and not directly by the virus itself. Significant debate on the pandemic strategy has ensued, with some advocating restrictions such as lockdowns to save lives, where others claim the 'collateral damage' caused by enforced lockdowns, masks and distancing may in fact cause more deaths over a longer term. An example is the Great Barrington Declaration, purportedly signed by 3500 medical and other professionals (and mentioned in UK parliament[19] and media[20]) has a FAQ page titled 'Lockdowns and collateral damage',[21] and refers to this phrase several times.

...

Controversy[edit]

During the 1991 Gulf War, Coalition forces used the phrase to describe the killing of civilians in attacks on legitimate military targets. According to Scottish linguist Deborah Cameron,[23] "the classic Orwellian arguments for finding this usage objectionable would be that

  • it is jargon, and to the extent that people cannot decode it, it conceals what is actually going on;
  • it is a euphemism; abstract, agentless, and affectless, so that even if people succeeded in associating it with a real act or event, they would be insulated from any feelings of repulsion or moral outrage".

In 1999, "collateral damage" (German: Kollateralschaden) was named the German Un-Word of the Year by a jury of linguistic scholars. With this choice, it was criticized that the term had been used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties during the Kosovo War, which the jury considered to be an inhuman euphemism.

I agree with Cameron's assessment.  Your use of "collateral damage" is as jargon, as "a euphemism; abstract, agentless."

A person in a Latter-day Saint ward has a disagreement with a bishop.  As a result, according to you, that person and her children are "collateral damage," with all the horrific connotations that this phrase carries with it.

So, yeah.  In almost all such situations, your characterization would be overwrought and absurd.

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And no, I don’t have to share but you should not make definitive statements on others people’s experiences. IMO, another example of an underlying arrogance in your posts in this thread. 

Oh, the irony.  You chastise me for supposedly "mak{ing} definitive statements on others people’s experiences" (I have not, BTW), and repeatedly and publicly labeled me and my "experiences" as "arrogant."  I guess it's okay when you do it.

There is nothing arrogant in resisting overwrought characterizations of simple disagreements people have with their ecclesiastical leaders.  Without more, such disagreements are typically emotionally important to the individual, but characterizing them as "traumatizing" and creating "collateral damage" is an exaggeration.  Overwrought.  Silly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:
Quote

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  This seems way too subjective.  Simple disagreement with an ecclesiastical leader, without more, is "traumatic?"  

I should have phrased this ‘can be traumatizing.’  They don’t have to be. So much depends on your leader and the situation. 

My point remains: Simple disagreement with an ecclesiastical leader, without more, is "traumatic?"

As a practical matter, bishops have very little control over a person's life.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

No deprivation of property or life.

No threat to life or limb.

No physical punishment of any sort.

Instead, what we are talking about is typically just . . . a disagreement.  Simple disagreement.  That's all.

Your hyperbole just doesn't work.  The vast majority of disagreements with a bishop are simple and straightforward.  If and when the bishop resorts to violence or threats of violence, or sexual harassment, or verbal abuse, then I'm going to be open to the application of bombastic terms like "trauma" and (figuratively) "collateral damage."

But these are, I think, very rare occurrences.  I think you are instead describing run-of-the-mill disagreements, personality conflicts, hurt feelings, and so on.  Bishops can and do make mistakes, but characterizing such relatively minor - even banal - mistakes with overheated rhetoric like "traumatizing" and "collateral damage" is, in my view, overwrought.  Silly even.

You abuse these terms and diminish the suffering of truly traumatized persons when you speak in this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
Quote

(though calling that disagreement "traumatizing" seems overwrought to me). 

Yes, and that is your opinion which comes off a bit arrogant and condescending in my opinion.  But, IMO, that goes for many of your posts in this thread.

And the unreasoned and hyperbolic use of loaded terms like "traumatizing" and "collateral damage" come off as unserious, overwrought, and immature.

25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t find this disagreement with you traumatizing in the least.

Bully for you.  You are handling our disagreement well.  And in doing so, you are demonstrating my point.  You are not "traumatized" because I have simply disagreed with you.  You are not "collateral damage" because I have simply disagreed with you.

I submit that people should be similarly sturdy, resilient and mature when dealing with simple disagreements with a bishop or stake president.

25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Disagreements with church leaders can be traumatizing because the consequences of their bad judgement can have very personal side effects that you suffer with for a very long time.

Again, you are speaking in generalities.

Again, way too vague.  And a bit of "special pleading" to boot.  A bishop can do very little to an individual, and this is particularly so where the individual is not under discipline, and is instead having a simple disagreement with the bishop.

25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The higher up you serve the more damage that can be done. So, I am very happy you have not had traumatizing interactions with church leaders and I wish everyone was so lucky. 

"Traumatizing interactions with church leaders..."

Oi.

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your hyperbole just doesn't work.  The vast majority of disagreements with a bishop are simple and straightforward. 

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your hyperbole just doesn't work.  The vast majority of disagreements with a bishop are simple and straightforward.  If and when the bishop resorts to violence or threats of violence, or sexual harassment, or verbal abuse, then I'm going to be open to the application of bombastic terms like "trauma" and (figuratively) "collateral damage."

Here we go, SMAC’s definition of words and when they are applicable. Arrogance on display…again.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Who said ‘simple?’ Why put your qualifier to my statement [smac]?

Because you originally said "that disagreements with church leaders, no matter the reason, are traumatizing." [emphasis added]

That would mean that any disagreement, even a simple disagreement over something minuscule, could be (or, as later amended, potentially be) traumatizing.

Taken alone, and phrased that way, I tend to agree that such a statement is indeed overbroad.

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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