SBC sex abuse report

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

The idea that people don't represent themselves easily and often overlook simple solutions is the whole reason my profession exists.   

It is not at all hard to believe that people who are emotionally involved miss things.  It may not be true in every case but I would say it happens more often than not. 

This seems like a perfect description of what an ombudsman or similar would do -- help people navigate the Church's bureaucracy when they need to. In many/most cases, it might turn out to be as simple as, "let me help you find the contact information of the person best suited to that question/concern/problem."

In a broader sense, what exactly are the objections to something like this? It seems like most objection is that an ombudsman like office would be replicating services in other parts of the Church's bureaucracy ([sarcasm]sure is hard to imagine bureaucracies ever having duplicated effort or overlapping responsibilities[/sarcasm]). I'm sure in other organizations that have an ombudsman type office/person, there is overlap between what the ombudsman does and what other parts of the bureaucracy do, but it is still seen as a good thing. I'm not sure why it would be detrimental to the Church to incorporate something like this.

Another thing I am seeing is our conservatism. It seems to me that often this sort of thing is more about resisting change in the Church than the real merits of the pro or con position. Do we believe that Church is perfect as is and that the bureaucracy could not be improved at all?

Edited May 25, 2022 by MrShorty

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Quote

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

Who said ‘simple?’

I did.  Several times. Here.

Quote

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.

And then here:

Quote

Quote

 

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?"  

You then revised your statement a bit:

Quote

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. 

I also said this:

Quote

Quote

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?

...

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.

And here:

Quote

Quote

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?"

...

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."

And here:

Quote

Quote

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

Bully for you.  You are handling our disagreement well (well, apart from the repeated personal insults).  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 (and hopefully omitting your penchant for personal insults) when dealing with simple disagreements with a bishop or stake president.

Quote

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.

 

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Why put your qualifier to my statement?

Because you are speaking in broad, vague generalities.

Because your generalities improperly conflate A) simple disagreements involving a local leader with B) more serious and substantive and damaging (and, I think, exceedingly rare) instances where a local leader has engaged in serious misconduct.

Because your overwrought rhetoric, which equivocates simple disagreement with real and substantive misconduct, exaggerates and distorts the former and trivializes the seriousness of the latter.

Because unlike you, I am trying to get past broad generalizations and stereotypes and caricatures and cheapshot broadsides, so that we can instead treat these issues with seriousness and decorum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2022 by smac97

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Traumatizing interactions with church leaders..."

Oi.

-Smac

So dismissive. 

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Againyou 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.

You keep saying the word ‘simple’ which I never said. Yes, I am speaking based on personal experience and in generalities because I don’t have to share details or justify my terminology to you. So, you are dismissing my representation while completely ignorant of the details which I think represents a certain bias on your part. You don’t think these things happen and disagreements are ‘simple’ so dismiss things while mentally filling in and minimizing trauma. 
 

Bishops really need to take a trauma counseling class so they don’t inflict more trauma. 
 

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

I think the potential is there. I did say I should have said ‘can be.’ They are not always traumatizing. So much depends on the leader.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

You can click on the numerous contact icons above his photo:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/evan-a-schmutz?lang=eng

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Quote

 

"Traumatizing interactions with church leaders..."

Oi.

 

So dismissive. 

So overblown and melodramatic.

Again, 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 "traumatizing" and "collateral damage."

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You keep saying the word ‘simple’ which I never said.

But I did.  Several times.

Further, your vague generalities conflate "simple" disagreements with serious ones.  That is a problem, I think.

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yes, I am speaking based on personal experience and in generalities because I don’t have to share details or justify my terminology to you.

I haven't asked you to "share details."

And no, you don't need to justify your terminology, either.  You're free to use terms like "traumatizing" and "collateral damage" to describe simple and banal disagreements with an ecclesiastical leader, and I am free to argue that such overheated rhetoric is inaccurate and absurd.

Free Speech.  Ain't it grand?

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, you are dismissing my representation

To the extent you are providing "representations" of simple and banal disagreements with local church leaders as "traumatic" and creating "collateral damage," yes, I am dismissing such vague absurdities.

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

while completely ignorant of the details which I think represents a certain bias on your part.

Bias against what?  Hyperbole?  Conflating A) simple disagreements involving a local leader with B) more serious and substantive and damaging (and, I think, exceedingly rare) instances where a local leader has engaged in serious misconduct?  Equivocating simple disagreement with real and substantive misconduct, which in my view exaggerates and distorts the former and trivializes the seriousness of the latter?

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You don’t think these things happen

Malarky.  I have never said any such thing.

I have, instead, said that serious misconduct by bishops and stake presidents is quite rare.  There are what, 28,000 bishops and 10,000 or so stake presidents, right?  I submit that the vast majority of these men fulfill the vast majority of their duties with seriousness, honor and decorum.  They are not perfect, and there are certainly some rotten apples out there (as there would be in any grouping numbered in the tens of thousands).

Simple disagreements with bishops and stake presidents are also fairly rare.  And when they do happen, they are, well, "simple."  Such disagreements do not involve the bishop committing criminal acts, or threatening to commit criminal acts, or engaging in sexual harassment, or using patently offensive/inappropriate language, and so on.  Instead, the disagreements are typically over matters that, when fairly and objectively evaluated, are relatively minor, even banal.

In the exceedingly rare instances where a member has a disagreement with a bishop or stake president over something more than a "simple disagreement," where the bishop has engaged in patently and seriously wrongful conduct, then "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."  (D&C 121:37.)  Call the stake president and report it.  Call the Area Presidency if necessary.  Call the police if appropriate.

You are speaking in generalities.  You conflate all of the foregoing circumstances together.  I think that's wrong. 

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

and disagreements are ‘simple’ so dismiss things while mentally filling in and minimizing trauma. 

Don't know what you are saying here.

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Bishops really need to take a trauma counseling class so they don’t inflict more trauma. 

Again, simple disagreement with a bishop or stake president, without more, does not create "collateral damage."  Simple disagreement, without more, is not reasonably characterized as inflicting "trauma."  Without more, such disagreements are typically emotionally important to the individual, but characterizing them as "traumatizing" and creating "collateral damage" is an exaggeration.  Overwrought.  Unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

 

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

Here we go, bsjkki's repeated personal insults in lieu of substantive argument on display...again.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

59 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think the potential is there. I did say I should have said ‘can be.’ They are not always traumatizing. So much depends on the leader.

I think I understand what you are saying. I just think smac is, perhaps like me, focusing on the any-disagreement aspect.

For me, my mind immediately starts rattling off a list of things I have heard people disagree with bishops about which were in no way traumatic in the least, including but not limited to:

• Disagreements with our Bishop for allowing deacons to participate in blessing/passing the sacrament without wearing a white shirt
• Disagreements with our Bishop for volunteering to pick up an extra week of cleaning assignment from the small foreign language branch which shares our building
• Disagreement with our Bishop's decision one year to have an adults-only Christmas party (I never said anything personally, but I wasn't a big fan of that one myself)
• Etc., etc., etc.

With respect to potential I think I could probably agree that, in a theoretical sense, any disagreement carries the potential to fly out of control.

So, sure, it's technically possible that any disagreement could result in a traumatizing encounter. But I think that is perhaps a bit like saying any disagreement with a bishop could potentially turn into a literal fist fight. I mean, if we're talking about what is conceivably possible then that's certainly a possibility, right?

In a sense, I guess so, but for all practical purposes I would probably say that such a statement is taking things a little too far.

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Amulek
words

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think the potential is there.

There is also "potential" for bsjkki to be or become a serial murderer who tortures puppies for fun and profit.  But me publicly saying as much would be a bit unfair, don't you think?  Overwrought?  Hyperbolic?  Absurd?

51 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I did say I should have said ‘can be.’ They are not always traumatizing.

"Not always," huh?  

We have something approaching 40,000 bishops and stake presidents.  Collectively they must have tens of millions of personal interactions with people under their stewardship.  Of these millions of interactions, how many are so seriously off, so offensive, so violative of basic societal norms and expectations, that they result in serious physical or psychological injury?  That they are - to use a word - "traumatic?"

My sense is that this is a very rare occurrence.  It happens, and when it does it is very unfortunate, and such incidents should be addressed and resolved by those who have stewardship and authority over the wrongdoer.  But in the end, this is pretty rare stuff.

And the most bsjkki can admit to, through gritted teeth, is that bishops "are not always traumatizing" the members of their flock when talking with them.  Oh.  Not always.

I find this characterization to be wildly inaccurate, distorting, unfair, and absurd.

51 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So much depends on the leader.

And the individual. 

Someone who finds a simple disagreement with a bishop to be "traumatizing" needs to get out more.

Again, you have - by your own admission - not been "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.

I further submit that virtually all disagreements with local leaders fall into the foregoing category, with exceptions being quite rare, and with exceptions attributable to the serious misconduct of the local leader to be even rarer still.  

And yet the most charity bsjkki can muster for these men, who consecrate untold amounts of time and effort in these callings, away from their families, jobs, personal interests, etc., is that they "are not always traumatizing" their fellow members of the Church.  The mind reels.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2022 by smac97

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

She didn't "stop the abuse," though, since the pastor was already "stepping down."  She just got her pound of flesh.

I also disagree that either public confession or public proclamation/accusation of sin is "a good way" to address such things.  As to the latter, there is typically no evidence to substantiate the charge, no "due process."  Instead, the accusation alone, having been declared publicly, becomes for many a de facto barometer of guilt.

Just look at what you are saying here: "And this woman ran up to say how he's sinned against her..."  You have reflexively accepted her say-so, her accusation, as presumptively true.  Not because you have any information or evidence about it, but because the woman made her accusation in public.    

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, just watch the video and it sort of explains better than I did, was out the door for work. 

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is also "potential" for bsjkki to be or become a serial murderer who tortures puppies for fun and profit.  But me publicly saying as much would be a bit unfair, don't you think?  Overwrought?  Hyperbolic?  Absurd?

"Not always," huh?  

We have something approaching 40,000 bishops and stake presidents.  Collectively they must have tens of millions of personal interactions with people under their stewardship.  Of these millions of interactions, how many are so seriously off, so offensive, so violative of basic societal norms and expectations, that they result in serious physical or psychological injury?  That they are - to use a word - "traumatic?"

My sense is that this is a very rare occurrence.  It happens, and when it does it is very unfortunate, and such incidents should be addressed and resolved by those who have stewardship and authority over the wrongdoer.  But in the end, this is pretty rare stuff.

And the most bsjkki can admit to, through gritted teeth, is that bishops "are not always traumatizing" the members of their flock when talking with them.  Oh.  Not always.

I find this characterization to be wildly inaccurate, distorting, unfair, and absurd.

And the individual. 

Someone who finds a simple disagreement with a bishop to be "traumatizing" needs to get out more.

Again, you have - by your own admission - not been "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.

I further submit that virtually all disagreements with local leaders fall into the foregoing category, with exceptions being quite rare, and with exceptions attributable to the serious misconduct of the local leader to be even rarer still.  

And yet the most charity bsjkki can muster for these men, who consecrate untold amounts of time and effort in these callings, away from their families, jobs, personal interests, etc., is that they "are not always traumatizing" their fellow members of the Church.  The mind reels.

Thanks,

-Smac

I felt like you until my experiences changed. It’s been eye opening to say the least. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

She didn't "stop the abuse," though, since the pastor was already "stepping down."  She just got her pound of flesh.

I also disagree that either public confession or public proclamation/accusation of sin is "a good way" to address such things.  As to the latter, there is typically no evidence to substantiate the charge, no "due process."  Instead, the accusation alone, having been declared publicly, becomes for many a de facto barometer of guilt.

Just look at what you are saying here: "And this woman ran up to say how he's sinned against her..."  You have reflexively accepted her say-so, her accusation, as presumptively true.  Not because you have any information or evidence about it, but because the woman made her accusation in public.    

Thanks,

-Smac

He was stepping down because of what he did to her. He characterized it as adultery so she corrected him by pointing out she was underage. He was downplaying what he did. Someone then said she was 14 and he corrected it saying that she was 16 as if that is a mitigating factor. That is basically a confession. Why are you defending the self-confessed pedophile?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

 

The idea that people don't represent themselves easily and often overlook simple solutions is the whole reason my profession exists.   

It is not at all hard to believe that people who are emotionally involved miss things.  It may not be true in every case but I would say it happens more often than not. 

 

This seems like a perfect description of what an ombudsman or similar would do -- help people navigate the Church's bureaucracy when they need to.

They virtually never "need to," though.  This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In many/most cases, it might turn out to be as simple as, "let me help you find the contact information of the person best suited to that question/concern/problem."

Why can't the Area Seventy do that?

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In a broader sense, what exactly are the objections to something like this?

First off, I'd say that the answer to bureaucracy is not . . . more bureaucracy.

Second, the Church already seems to have a system in place: Area Seventies and Area Presidencies.  If it ain't broke...

Third, regarding those rare instances where a member needs to go over the head of a stake president, it seems like the complaint is that members don't know what to do (that is, contacting an Area Seventy or the Area Presidency).  It seems just as likely, if not more so, that members would also be unaware of the function of an ombudsman.  Do most folks even know what that word means?

Fourth, we as a church are pretty big on "priesthood" and "stewardship."  There are circumstances where the "line of authority" is not particularly relevant.  For example, when a bishop receives allegations of abuse, he may notify the SP, but that's about it.  His next step is not to consult with the "line of authority," but to call the hotline.  This is because the issues at hand are predominantly legal in character, such that those with ecclesiastical stewardshp are generally not situated to address them, and civil authorities are.  But as pertaining to matters of church governance and administration, "stewardship" is a big deal.  So if a bishop makes a mistake, the next level of "stewardship" is the stake president, then the Area Seventy, then the Area Presidency, and so on.  Creating an "ombudsman" position to address issues that fall squarely within the paramaeters of priesthood stewardship and church governance/administration would seem to create a serious departure from the doctrines pertaining to that stewardship.

Those are the ones that immediately come to mind.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

It seems like most objection is that an ombudsman like office would be replicating services in other parts of the Church's bureaucracy ([sarcasm]sure is hard to imagine bureaucracies ever having duplicated effort or overlapping responsibilities[/sarcasm]).

I don't understand.  Your sarcasm is noted (and, candidly, appropriate), but it also cuts against your proposal.  If bureaucracies tend to be inefficient, bloaded, have unnecessary redundancies, etc., then why are you advocating for more of that?

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm sure in other organizations that have an ombudsman type office/person, there is overlap between what the ombudsman does and what other parts of the bureaucracy do, but it is still seen as a good thing.

Perhaps.  

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure why it would be detrimental to the Church to incorporate something like this.

See above.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Another thing I am seeing is our conservatism. It seems to me that often this sort of thing is more about resisting change in the Church than the real merits of the pro or con position.

That's a fair point.  I will submit a further consideration in the form of Chesterton's Fence:

Quote

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book The Thing, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "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."

There is something to this line of thinking.  If our predecessors took the time and effort to construct a fence, it stands to reason the fence was built for one or more purposes.  So before we tear down the fenct, we ought to ascertain and examine those purposes and discuss whether they still exist and still justify maintaining the fence.

It seems like creating an added level of bureaucracy to includes ombudsmen (numbering in the what?  Dozens?  Hundreds?  Thousands?) as a change in how the Church functions is a pretty big deal.  Before we talk about such a substantial change (tearing down the fence), I think we first need to have a substantive discussion on why the fence is there, whether or not it is working, and how the proposed change would be an improvement on the status quo.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Do we believe that Church is perfect as is and that the bureaucracy could not be improved at all?

I have serious reservations about trying to improve bureaucracy by adding substantially to it.  Particularly given that we are talking about fairly rarified circumstances (where a member has a substantive concern or problem that cannot be adequately addressed under the status quo, that is, by talking with the bishop, then the SP, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He was stepping down because of what he did to her. He characterized it as adultery so she corrected him by pointing out she was underage. He was downplaying what he did. Someone then said she was 14 and he corrected it saying that she was 16 as if that is a mitigating factor. That is basically a confession. Why are you defending the self-confessed pedophile?

I'm not.  I previously said I stand corrected.

And I wasn't doing that in the first place, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

You can click on the numerous contact icons above his photo:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/evan-a-schmutz?lang=eng

The email one lets me forward his page to someone. The Facebook one lets me post about him on Facebook, and the what’s app one lets me send a message about him to someone else. Any other ideas?

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I felt like you until my experiences changed. It’s been eye opening to say the least. 

I've had no small measure of experiences in matters of church governance as well.  I have also had extensive conversations with my father, who has had even more experience.  And with my brother, who actually works for the Church and reports directly to the Presiding Bishopric.

I am well aware of the frailties and failures of the Saints.  We are a hospital for sick people, a gym for out-of-shape people, a vineyard with trees of every sort of varied health and condition.

However, there is also much health and vitality, much exercise and improvement, much delicious fruit being cultivated.  Despite its flaws, the Church is doing a lot of good, and I am very grateful for that.

You seem to be insinuating that you have some special access to what's really going on in the Church, but that you can't divulge these things except to say "{i}t's been eye opening."  I guess we'll just need to end things, since you can't substantiate whatever it is you are insinuating.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I further submit that virtually all disagreements with local leaders fall into the foregoing category, with exceptions being quite rare, and with exceptions attributable to the serious misconduct of the local leader to be even rarer still.  

And you wonder why people don’t think going to the Stake is a viable option. 🤔

The bias in favor of a Bishop or Priesthood leader is this strong. 
 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems just as likely, if not more so, that members would also be unaware of the function of an ombudsman.  Do most folks even know what that word means?

I worked for a large corporation and we were actually trained on this. Flyers up too. You see they actually wanted to be made aware of things that might be going on underneath their noses. If only the church had someway to get the word out to its members. 

[bsjkki]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've had no small measure of experiences in matters of church governance as well.  I have also had extensive conversations with my father, who has had even more experience.  And with my brother, who actually works for the Church and reports directly to the Presiding Bishopric.

I am well aware of the frailties and failures of the Saints.  We are a hospital for sick people, a gym for out-of-shape people, a vineyard with trees of every sort of varied health and condition.

However, there is also much health and vitality, much exercise and improvement, much delicious fruit being cultivated.  Despite its flaws, the Church is doing a lot of good, and I am very grateful for that.

You seem to be insinuating that you have some special access to what's really going on in the Church, but that you can't divulge these things except to say "{i}t's been eye opening."  I guess we'll just need to end things, since you can't substantiate whatever it is you are insinuating.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not inferring any secret knowledge or church wide knowledge. I made it clear it was personal experience. Some has been discussed in the past. Some was mentioned in this thread.  There are other experiences I don’t share.  You dismissed  the experiences of two other posters before I jumped in. Mocking the use of the word ‘trauma’ or difficulties about going over the head if your Bishop or Stake leader.

My husband expressed displeasure with a Bishop to a stake leader. His response. ‘I know so and so and he’s a wonderful man.’ So, why bother? They know so and so which means you are just a disgruntled, thin skinned , easily offended complainer. 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by bsjkki

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Quote

 

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

I further submit that virtually all disagreements with local leaders fall into the foregoing category, with exceptions being quite rare, and with exceptions attributable to the serious misconduct of the local leader to be even rarer still.  

 

And you wonder why people don’t think going to the Stake is a viable option.

I don't wonder that.  I think I have a pretty good idea why some folks do this.

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The bias in favor of a Bishop or Priesthood leader is this strong. 

I don't share the adversarial picture of the Church that you have.  Bishops and stake presidents are lay leaders.  They serve for a time, then they are released.  The time may come when a bishop disagrees with his stake president, or a former bishop disagrees with the current bishop.  But in the end, we are all members of the Church.

My bias is in favor of the Restored Gospel, and in favor of the Church that houses it.  I want it to be strong.  I want it to grow.  I want its members to contribute to it and strengthen it.  

I am reminded here of 1 Cor. 12:

Quote

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

I like this analogy.  I have no "bias" against any constituent part.  The arm, the eye, the ear . . . they are "comely parts" of the body of Christ.

I can't help but think, though, that there are some who do want to differentiate one part from another, who want to pit the eye against the ear, who want to see "schism in the body."  Certainly there are those outside of the Church who try to do this, who seek to sew division and animosity amongst the Saints by pitting them them against each other. 

Sadly, I also think there are some who are members of the Church, but who somehow adopt this same sort of desire for division and contention in the body of the Church.

I don't know you or anything about you.  But I'm sorry to see you behaving this way.  If the Church is what it claims to be, we need to seek unity, not division.  Conciliation, not strife.  Peace, not acrimony.  We ought not pit members of the Church against each other, as you are doing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I'm sorry to see you behaving this way. 

Behaving what way? I’ve had some very awful experiences with Bishops. I’m still active.  
 

People have these experiences and dismissing concerns in the name of unity and not sowing division does not help those who have or are suffering from bad acts by leaders. Simple trauma counseling training for Bishops would do so much good. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Apparently some folks notice when we (my wife and I) take the sacraments.

Yes, I would expect known nonmembers to attract attention at least initially if they took the sacrament and it was not part of the prelude to becoming a member.  More for the unusualness in most cases, people wondering why someone not a member and not interested in maybe converting would chose to attend, etc., but it also doesn’t surprise me that there could be some members who want to dictate to the bishop who should be allowed to take it.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’m not inferring any secret knowledge or church wide knowledge. I made it clear it was personal experience. Some has been discussed in the past. Some was mentioned in this thread.  There are other experiences I don’t share.  

Whatever.  You can't expect others to be persuaded by anecdotal experiences you don't share.  That's neither evidence nor reasoning.  It is an argument from authority.

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You dismissed  the experiences of two other posters before I jumped in.

I did not.

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Mocking the use of the word ‘trauma’ or difficulties about going over the head if your Bishop or Stake leader.

I don't think I have mocked anything.  I have, however, disagreed.

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

My husband expressed displeasure with a Bishop to a stake leader. His response. ‘I know so and so and he’s a wonderful man.’ So, why bother? They know so and so which means you are just a disgruntled, thin skinned , easily offended complainer. 

Way too vague.  Way too insinuating.  

I was once in a training of local leaders given by Elder Bednar.  He said something to the effect of "A bishop whom everyone loves is probably not doing his job right."  I think what he meant was that part of being a bishop is saying and doing things that may not be what congregants want, but which may nevertheless be neceesary to say or do.  He may have had in mind bishops who, fearing getting someone upset, becomes derelict in his stewardship and responsibilities.

A bishop doing his job will inevitably result in a bishop occasionally ticking someone off, either through error by the bishop, or through the bishop doing his job right and the individual being disgruntled nonetheless.  It's a bishop is a tough gig.  Lots of hours.  No pay.  All the while holding down a day job, taking care of wife and kids, personal interests, and so on.

And yet, the Lord expects us to work with these flawed, fatigued men.  If and when a bishop seriously and materially screws up, he needs to be held accountable for it.  Report the matter to the stake president, and on up if necessary.  But in the main, it is the responsibility of the Saints to sustain these men, even though they screw up.  Sustain them, even when a bishop says or does something that results in some sort of "simple" disagreement between him and a member.  Sustain him, despite his flaws.  Sustain him, while also counseling with him as necessary.

You have said: "I can attest that disagreements with church leaders, no matter the reason, are traumatizing."  You later backed of a little bit, saying that "Disagreements with church leaders can be traumatizing..." (emphasis added).  But you are still using inflammatory and provocative rhetoric like members of the Church being "collateral damage" and that the bishops of the Church "are not always traumatizing" members of their wards (emphasis added).

Gadzooks.  What a horrible caricature you are drawing.  What an ugly, divisive, unfair, inaccurate stereotype.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I worked for a large corporation and we were actually trained on this. Flyers up too.

And yet I'd say the majority of Americans have never contacted an ombudsman, or even know what it is.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You see they actually wanted to be made aware of things that might be going on underneath their noses.

So does the Church.  Hence the organizational structure in which bishops are under the stewardship of stake presidents, who are under the stewardship of area seventies, and so on.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If only the church had someway to get the word out to its members. 

I think the word is already "out."  I think most members know that if they have a disagreement with the bishop, they can take it up with the stake president.

In the (very) rare instances where this is not sufficient, it would take about five minutes for a member to ask, and have answered, "Where do I go if I disagree with the SP?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Its really not that hard.   One of the first things I learned when I started representing people is "find out who the boss is"  Everyone has a boss and just letting people know that you know who their boss is can help negotiations go better.

This may work for men who have been active in the church and held priesthood callings because they have already been plugged into the network.  Women who typically have little experience or standing in the authority network of the church are going to find it more difficult to be taken seriously in my view…and experience. I have seen concerns expressed by a woman dismissed with a ‘you don’t understand how it works, it is being taken care of’ vs actually telling the man what is going on and including him in the process.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Calm