- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I love Robert Kirby, too, but I don’t love the Salt Lake Tribune and don’t want to pay $8 per month for a digital subscription to it. This means I was unable to read the story in your link. Would you mind summarizing it? Also, I know that “the Trib” suspended Kirby about a year ago for an interaction with a woman who considered it harassment. Does anybody know whether this has been resolved or not? Is Kirby back with the Tribune?
I won’t comment on the Trib itself other than I sure hope they survive. Kirby was talking about how Lavina Fielding Anderson was part of the September 6 for her writing (among other things) on exposing abuse within the church. She to this day attends church. She requested (or should I say her bishop) to be rebaptized and the 1st presidency declined the request.
Kirby then goes on to say (with humor) he is a much worse person than she is. He even mentions how he was speaker along with Lavina a while back. She found out that Kirby’s knee was REALLY hurting. So Lavina took his keys and gave them to her son to drive Kirby home. Levina and her husband followed to pickup their son. Lavina’s husband passed away later that night due to a heart attack.
Some quotes from the column: Quote:Despite getting the priesthood chop, Lavina has never stopped attending church, serving where and when she can (authority permitting), even though she still maintains views about the “one true church” that may be considered heretical.
Quote:What Lavina does believe is some stuff about ecclesiastical abuse, women’s roles in the church, and better treatment of LGBTQ-M(ormon) couples. She also wants greater recognition for Heavenly Mother.
It’s rather unfair when you think about it. Lavina and I might not agree on everything but we do on others.
Quote:I didn’t get excommunicated when, on May 16, 2015, I wrote a deeply introspective column about how the Old Testament sounds inspired by a cranky old man whose children had gotten on his last (deleted) nerve, whereas the New Testament has a softer, more feminine touch.
I’ve also written that I don’t care if my bishop is gay. And I think women should get the priesthood — if for no other reason than it’s their turn to lift pianos and food storage into moving vans.
And while I haven’t done it since my mission, I have no reservations whatsoever in telling overbearing church leaders to pound sand.
So why haven’t I been excommunicated? It’s a fair question, given that Lavina is a better person.
Quote:Excommunicated? Give me a break. That’s the kind of person I fully expect will make it to heaven.
Brother Kirby also includes a link to the Dialogue article that got Sister Fielding Anderson excommunicated: It is a chronology of “ecclesiastical abuse” from 1972 to 1993. It covers over 20 years and is over 50 pages long. In some ways it reads like the CES letter in that any number of the bulleted items might be isolated incidents or misunderstandings but taken as a whole they paint a picture of a controling, cagey, and sometimes paranoid organization.
I was particularly concerned by the files of the Stengthening the Membership committee – that these files are “not secret, but confidential” – and that the subjects of these files are not allowed to see the file and dispute any inaccurate information. That, to me, seems like a fear based orwellian society.
Overall, I am convinced that sometimes people get excommunicated for political expediancy. It is a hard balance between the needs of the organization and the needs of the individual. The organization has legitimate needs – as does the individual. Because of the power differential the potential for the organization to sacrifice the individual’s needs to service its own needs is great. Also this pattern is not LDS specific.
I find it interesting she goes to church and stays involved since the ex, and believes it is the one true church. Kind of interesting to me. I respect her. Heber13 wrote:
I find it interesting she goes to church and stays involved since the ex, and believes it is the one true church. Kind of interesting to me. I respect her.
I agree and I also respect her. I don’t think I could do what she’s been doing, and I’m not sure I’d want to. I think part of Kirby’s point (and a point of the Trib article about her denial of re-admittance) is that she does have a strong testimony – perhaps stronger than many others who we consider to be active TR holders. Related to that thought, I think part of Kirby’s point is that she is a better person than many active TR holding members, and some otherwise active members have said and done worse things than she did.
I did read some of the abuse stories in the linked article and on another website (it’s what I did during priesthood). Like Roy said, as isolated incidents they are just isolated incidents – but collectively there could be an indication of a problem and part of that problem is the same problem the Catholic church and Boy Scouts had/have in trying to sweep the stuff under the rug and pretend it didn’t happen. I think it’s important this stuff is available out there despite the embarrassment it causes the church – they should be embarrassed. It’s not like she or the victims made this stuff up.
If people are judged by the intent of their heart I think she is probably OK. If the leaders really believe their preached doctrine they seem rather willing to cut her off from her husband and family for eternity. Makes you wonder who is the bad guy here. Send rather harsh to make a point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Another thought I had while reading through the documented instances of ecclesiastical abuse – Leadership roulette cuts both ways. We have a volunteer/lay clergy and that means largely untrained. Multiple times bishops or SP’s were instructed to perform a worthiness interview. A number of times the local church leader let slip that they had been given said instruction from higher leadership. A few times after the interview the church leader found that they did not have any concerns or even praised the interviewee for their activism. One might expect more “discretion” if the bishops were paid employees.
The church has said that church discipline is a local matter. I have not seen anything to indicate that to be untrue – technically. It appears that local leadership was contacted and provided with documents from a “confidential” file. The message – explicit or explicit is check this out, investigate, and get to the bottom of this. This person is saying (or writing) things that we do not like. Will they stop? Find out where their ultimate loyalty lies. However, I do not see any instances where a local church leader was told directly to excommunicate an individual. Perhaps that is where they draw the red line.
I read over the list of “abuses”. My feeling was one of being torn in some cases. In others, I was clearly on the side of the member experiencing harsh interaction with church leaders. In some cases, I was wondering what all the fuss was about. The chronological approach was a bit confusing at times when different people’s issues were addressed with big gaps, filled with stories of other members. It seems to me that higher ups do INITIATE interviews with members who they feel may be engaging in so-called apostate behavior. How involved the higher ups are in dictating outcomes or at least, influencing them, is unclear. My hunch is that it could be significant given our culture of obedience and deference to senior leaders. But why is it a big deal if higher ups tend to dictate outcomes for members through their local leaders?
Overall, I am not sure about how to resolve the tension between leaders’ desire to maintain the faith of members, with the need to be completely honest. Most people will agree we have some pretty strange history behind us. That can’t be changed. And I think you lose people through whitewashing. You probably keep a lot more through whitewashing given how strange our history can be. With the internet, you can’t keep our bad history under wraps. I think it’s better to simply let people know the truth and let the chips fall. We ARE in the truth business after all aren’t we?
One impression is that our church is not always loyal to us. There were many instances, particularly with the Toscanos where privileges were denied based on behind-the-scenes discussions and assumptions about which the Toscanos never knew. That disturbs me. I wonder what files the church has on me personally? If any? I have seen the church’s “love” for me is highly conditional in the past, and I think this article tends to reinforce that notion.
I guess the bottom line for me is that I can’t control what the church does. If I am ever brought in for a disciplinary council, I might have stronger feelings about it, but for now, this is outside my circle of influence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.