Jimmy Carter on Severing Ties with the SBC

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ann for the comments.

DarkJedi wrote:

You have been here much longer than I have cwald. Nevertheless, as far as I can see this site has never been about criticism of church leaders themselves. I think I regularly see respectful criticism of church policy and almost all of us have some policies and traditions we’d like to see changed. I also think the leadership has made it pretty clear that a way for those in our situation to end up in a disciplinary council is to criticize church leaders (and/or pull people away from the church, attempt to gain a following, and continue to teach things we have been asked to not teach). Sometimes that does mean we have to take a seat in the back (where I prefer to sit anyway) and keep our mouths shut – even here. The anonymity afforded here does not give us license to do or say things that are otherwise taboo – it is our mission to help people who desire to do so stay in the church. We need to be a place where people who are struggling with their doubts and questions feel safe and where they don’t feel like we’re anti-Mormon – and we certainly are NOT anti-Mormon.

Before I found this place, quite by accident I might add, the closest I came was the NOM site. No offense intended, I know you participate there (as do I), but the negativity there is not what we want here – I didn’t start going there until after my transition because of that negativity. This is a more positive place, for more positive people. I think we’re all in agreement that we’d like it to stay that way – and criticism of individual leaders tends to not be positive.

I understand that DJ.

Let me ask you a question. How do we distinguish between “policy” and “people?” Example. It seems in our church, that if one is critical of the church or it’s policies, the institution will simply say that is just one person’s opinion and the leaders aren’t perfect. As we seen this week on StayLDS, if I criticize the person or the opinion of one person, than I get chastised and because it’s a church policy and institution mistake…not the mistake of say, DHO.

Do you understand what I am saying? It feels like the church wants to have their cake and eat it too. I mean really, how does a member go about trying to fix problems in OUR church, if they are unable to address the issues because the church itself will either go to the “the leaders are just human and make mistakes” one day. And the next day they say we cannot be critical of the church leaders who yesterday they told me it’s not the church’s fault…it’s just the leader being human and making mistakes?

I don’t understand how any kind of change can occur when this kind of thinking is so engrained in our culture.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

I read statement that said something to the effect, “Anything really worth doing / important will take more than a lifetime.” I think there is some truth to this – and it depresses me.

Me too! I do think there is some truth to that, and yet, it’s undoing things that our own church, not society at large, did over a hundred years ago. Our misogynist roots run deeper, all the way into polygamy. Nobody else in the US was practicing or preaching polygamy. To some extent, we’ve made more progress than the SBC which has less foundation for misogyny. They are relying on passages written by Paul (many of which scholars agree weren’t even written by him, and all of which were typical for their day). They’ve co-opted misogyny through Biblical inerrancy. We’ve created it through a belief that polygamy was divinely mandated and an unwillingness to fully acknowledge it as hateful and harmful toward women.

I found myself thinking, I wish, while reading Carter’s piece. I wish all we were dealing with in the church was the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Cwald – I love your resilience, I love your hope for a more embracing church, I love that you give us a chance to talk, and I wish like you that I could see some landslide of change. Baby steps get very annoying.

You asked,

Quote:

I don’t understand how any kind of change can occur when this kind of thinking is so engrained in our culture.

I agree. No one or nothing will change if it chooses not to. At times even wanting isn’t enough.

For years I used to sit in AA meetings and watch people’s lives, many who were there really wanted to win the battle, change who they were or had been, it didn’t always work. Or may be it worked for a while and then a series of events would throw the whole plan out. For others it worked but they had to make themselves commit to never leaving the program, to changing everything they could in their life to limit the factors that started the spiral. And then there were the majority, they came to class and they did want the fix, they didn’t want one more night in jail or hours picking up trash, they didn’t want another abusive fight with a loved one, they didn’t want another lost job – but the step over was impossible. Of all the people there I felt most pain for them. I don’t know, and never knew, if they couldn’t see how to make the changes they desired or if fear of something else held them back. Many of them would try over and over. I kept thinking if I could just hug them for hours it would fix everything. It couldn’t but I wanted it to.

People and communities get ingrained. Families do, employers do, and so on. Change in any of those areas may take years. I know people trying to lose weight, to calm their tempers, clean their houses. We often can’t shed our own skin.

Change does occur in our church, it is a long fought war, things that were stressed when I was a kid are completely forgotten now. We are stuck in a retrenchment, but it won’t remain, I don’t know what will remain, what turns in the road will happen – but I am learning to lend my thoughts carefully to the discussion. I believe fighting war with war doesn’t work. I don’t expect it to shift in my lifetime, but I have children, future grandchildren, nieces and nephews whom I hope my efforts will present a more Christ Centered Tent like I want my church to be.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I think NOM is more for people who feel StuckLDS.

Funny, but certainly some truth in it.

[Anonymous]

I have tried really hard the last few days to stay out of admin mode when it comes to your comments, cwald – since I like and respect you much more than you might think right now. In that spirit, I want to make two points:

Quote:

I think we need more people who feel this way to calmly and sincerely suggest – in public, even if only on the internet – that we can do better. Carter:

Yeah. The problem is, is this simply is not tolerated in our church. Hell, I’m not even sure it is tolerated on this stayLDS board.

First, nobody has EVER been moderated here for saying “we can do better”. Nobody has EVER been moderated here even for saying we need to do better. I, myself, have said in many comments those exact things – and it has been many comments. That basic premise (that we can and should do better) is one of our foundational beliefs here. Insisting or claiming otherwise is . . . incorrect.

Second, I was the one who said you were commenting like a troll – ONE time. That was because you posted a quote from Elder Oaks that, in the context of the actual post and discussion, didn’t address either – and you added no commentary whatsoever. You then posted that exact same quote in another thread, even though the author of that post said, explicitly, in the post, that he wasn’t interested in talking about the point of the quote. You then continued pounding that quote even after the author once again said he didn’t want the discussion to dwell on the point of the quote.

Ignoring the point of a post, posting quotes in complete isolation and ignoring an author’s direct and clear statements and requests all are “trollish” when it comes to internet communication. That’s why I asked you not to comment like a troll – not because there was anything wrong with talking about the quote itself.

Your focused post about the quote and the subsequent discussion thread wasn’t moderated in any way, and I didn’t say a word about trollish behavior. In fact, I said explicitly that it was fine to talk about the quote in that context and that the discussion, including your contributions, was a good one. In that context, it wasn’t a bit trollish; it was perfectly fine.

If you want to continue to talk about this, send me a private message – or do so with another moderator, if you are too mad at me right now to talk with me directly. If so, I understand and respect that. I don’t want to hash this out publicly; I would much rather it happen privately – and I do want it to happen, if possible.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

unwillingness to fully acknowledge (polygamy) as hateful and harmful toward women.

I often point out the need to be precise in how we talk about things, and this is a good example, I think. Polygamy absolutely was and is harmful to women, imo – but I don’t think LDS polygamy legitimately can be termed hateful. I don’t believe there was any hate for or toward women in its practice. It was many other things that made it harmful, but I don’t think hateful was one of them.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Polygamy absolutely was and is harmful to women, imo – but I don’t think LDS polygamy legitimately can be termed hateful. I don’t believe there was any hate for or toward women in its practice. It was many other things that made it harmful, but I don’t think hateful was one of them.

Some of Brigham Young’s statements to and about his wives seem pretty hateful to me. Indifferent with a touch of oppressiveness.

[Author]

Posts