- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi, I believe that the top leadership were well aware and coordinated or at the very minimum “suggested” to Kate Kelly’s local leaders that a disciplinary council was in order. After she was labeled a apostate and excommunicated the top knew that it would only be logical that local leaders would feel empowered and justified to go after other supporters at the ward/stake level. It is now open season on any woman that hints at feminist views. I do believe that the leadership were hoping to label gender issues as a apostate view point and it worked. Even women with moderate views and desire for change without ordination are backing away from the gender discussions for fear of loosing their recommends and being labeled an apostate. In turn women will teach their daughters to know their place and that questions about gender issues are “prideful and a potential sin”. (Heard that in RS this last week) The situation with Kate and OW (and MS/JD) is different than a general purge encouraged by the top leadership. Those are two very, very different things. I do not believe there is a general purge. I think there is “border keeping” specifically directed towards OW and MS…. that is either coordinated or at least instigated and encouraged from the top ie Clayton/Ballard.
As Dax stated, those who support or are involved in either group, will now be more likely to be considered apostate by their local leaders and jeopardize losing their temple recommends. Which is exactly what happened, my experience three years ago. …released from calling and TR revoked… and apparently it is starting all over again.
The church corp will throw up their hands and say we have nothing to do with it, it was all local leaders. … and that, in my opinion, is terribly cruel and dishonest thing to do.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Old-Timer wrote:The situation with Kate and OW (and MS/JD) is different than a general purge encouraged by the top leadership. Those are two very, very different things.
I agree, Ray. I don’t doubt Kate Kelly’s local leaders consulted with GAs – our SP indicated that it’s appropriate for them to do so because of their high profile nature and because of their complexity. Such consultation does not a purge make. I live a long way from SLC (so did Kate), and there certainly is no evidence of any kind of purge here – and I do know some vocal members of the loyal opposition in our stake, including OW supporters. It would seem as though if there were hundreds of DCs going on in the Mormon Corridor the Tribune would have picked up on it by now. Again, a local leader’s decision to take someone’s TR or even hold a council does not indicate there is a purge directed by church headquarters.Cwald, I am aware of your story, and it pains me that you went through such a thing. I sincerely feel for you. I think events like yours are part of why our SPs are being taught what they are being taught – and likewise why the Seventy are being taught how they are now being taught. My SP gets nowhere by lying to us about what he has been taught, he has no reason to do so, and doesn’t even need to share most of what he shares. I think the GAs are actually being reigned in a bit by the Q15 (just my opinion, but it fits the evidence). I will point out that my SP did say it was the presidency of the Seventy they should discuss the more difficult issues with, not the AA and not a First or Second Quorum guy.
DarkJedi wrote:Old-Timer wrote:The situation with Kate and OW (and MS/JD) is different than a general purge encouraged by the top leadership. Those are two very, very different things.
I agree, Ray. I don’t doubt Kate Kelly’s local leaders consulted with GAs – our SP indicated that it’s appropriate for them to do so because of their high profile nature and because of their complexity. Such consultation does not a purge make. I live a long way from SLC (so did Kate), and there certainly is no evidence of any kind of purge here – and I do know some vocal members of the loyal opposition in our stake, including OW supporters. It would seem as though if there were hundreds of DCs going on in the Mormon Corridor the Tribune would have picked up on it by now. Again, a local leader’s decision to take someone’s TR or even hold a council does not indicate there is a purge directed by church headquarters.Cwald, I am aware of your story, and it pains me that you went through such a thing. I sincerely feel for you. I think events like yours are part of why our SPs are being taught what they are being taught – and likewise why the Seventy are being taught how they are now being taught. My SP gets nowhere by lying to us about what he has been taught, he has no reason to do so, and doesn’t even need to share most of what he shares. I think the GAs are actually being reigned in a bit by the Q15 (just my opinion, but it fits the evidence). I will point out that my SP did say it was the presidency of the Seventy they should discuss the more difficult issues with, not the AA and not a First or Second Quorum guy.
Ok. Fair enough.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I agree that this is not a churchwide “purge” but it is certaintly “fence setting” as Cwald said. You have to remember that lds women are ALWAYS at the mercy and discretion of their male leaders AlWAYS! There will never be a chance that one day a female could correct say a rouge bishop by being called into that position where as say a frustrated male ward member could in the future. No, women simply have to pray that the next leader will be better than the last and comply with the current bishop. This is why labeling OW as an apostate group has worked for the leadership in silencing women’s legitamate complaints even if they do not want ordination. If being frustrated with gender issues is now labeled as apostate (which it is) than most lds women will simply stuff their concerns inside and be quite as they have always done versus the potential of lossing their temple recommends. My friend liked a Facebook page and now will miss her daughters wedding because her bishop judged her unworthy. Telling her “oh well we all play priesthood roulette” is simply not true! If you are male you always have the potential to be invited to sit at the judges table. Women simply sit in silence and wait to be judged. It’s a very different rouluete game when you never had a voice to begin with.
Dax, Thank you for your thoughts. You have caused me to think about things in a different perspective.
I am upset about your friends situation. Was your friend able to appeal to their SP?
I know my SP sided with my friend and his wife in a dispute with their Bishop. I also
knowmy SP would not stand for someone having their TR taken away because a member liked a post on FB. In my calling I work closely with Bishops, and some are much better than others, some are much more open minded. I’m sorry for your friends situation and I understand your frustration.
-SBRed
Dax, I agree completely that, in general terms, being part of making disciplinary decisions is different for men than for women. I also agree that taking someone’s temple recommend away for liking a Facebook post is egregiously wrong (if that is all that prompted it, since I have no more information about what might or might not also be part of that decision), but any time we are talking about highly emotional, complex issues like this one, it is important to be as precise as possible. I know that’s hard with emotional, complex issues, but it is important. Quote:If being frustrated with gender issues is now labeled as apostate (which it is)
No, it’s not – except with some local leaders who are not in line with what the Church leadership has said, both at lds.org and over the General Conference pulpit.
I get it completely that such a distinction doesn’t help someone who is being disciplined by those local leaders, but those same leaders have been making those same types of decisions (outside what they should be doing, like adding other requirements for a temple recommend) for a long time. “Local leadership roulette” is an excellent explanation of it. Quote:If you are male you always have the potential to be invited to sit at the judges table.
No, not all men have that potential, in practical terms. A theoretical potential means nothing to the vast majority of male members who never will serve in a calling where they will participate in formal disciplinary councils – even fully active men. In practical terms, many men are in the same situation as all women when it comes to this issue – and the large majority of them know they are and have had to accept it. Those men have no more say in or power over what happens to them in that setting than women do. I would LOVE to see endowed women be able to participate just like men in disciplinary councils, but, even if that happens, there still will be many men and women who will not gain any more power or influence if formal discipline is initiated.
Again, I understand the theoretical and practical difference concerning “potential” and agree that it is important – but theoretical potential doesn’t help one single bit when push comes to shove and that potential is not realized in one’s actual life – and especially when one knows it never will. For those men, local leadership roulette is just as real as it is for any woman.
Old-Timer wrote:No, not all men have that potential, in practical terms. A theoretical potential means nothing to the vast majority of male members who never will serve in a calling where they will participate in formal disciplinary councils – even fully active men. In practical terms, many men are in the same situation as all women when it comes to this issue – and the large majority of them know they are and have had to accept it. Those men have no more say in or power over what happens to them in that setting than women do. I would LOVE to see endowed women be able to participate just like men in disciplinary councils, but, even if that happens, there still will be many men and women who will not gain any more power or influence if formal discipline is initiated.
Again, I understand the theoretical and practical difference concerning “potential” and agree that it is important – but theoretical potential doesn’t help one single bit when push comes to shove and that potential is not realized in one’s actual life – and especially when one knows it never will. For those men, local leadership roulette is just as real as it is for any woman.
I agree and yet, the experiences and expectations of women in the church is vastly different than that of men. I’m sure this is felt in hundreds of little ways that have nothing to do with never being able to be bishop. I imagine that any disatisfaction a man may feel in the church relationship would be compounded for a woman in the same position.
To the OP, I agree no purge but probably “boundary policing” that emboldens local leaderships to act on these issues at the same time as discouraging individual members from voicing similar opinions.
Quote:I agree and yet, the experiences and expectations of women in the church is vastly different than that of men. I’m sure this is felt in hundreds of little ways that have nothing to do with never being able to be bishop.
I agree – completely.
Quote:I imagine that any disatisfaction a man may feel in the church relationship would be compounded for a woman in the same position.
I disagree. There are issues and frustrations that are general and not sex-specific.
Ray I am going to be forward and say that I believe you are wrong about many men experiencing the same pain and frustration that women do when it comes to the church and leadership. An analogy would be say living in the Deep South in the 50’s. As a white man you may not be asked to join the exclusive, rich, white only country club but you could still eat at the resturant and a round of golf if accompanied by a member. Perhaps one day even though slim be invited to join the club based solely on your race and gender. Now how is your experience even remotely like that of a black man in your same city that will NEVER be allowed to even use the restroom without facing arrest or worse? Sorry but you are incorrect that men and women have the same frustration and pain when it comes to the church and leadership roulette.
Another thing, I realy do not appreciate the reminders that this is an “emtional topic”. Yes thank you I get that. What it begins to sound like is a bit of the old, “calm down there woman you are letting your emotions run away and I will not listen to what a emtional woman has to say because well it is pointless….she is just being emotional”. Yes you did not say that directly but the jest was coming through wether you meant it that way or not. Being assertive and using direct language is not being emotional if the speaker is a man.
I also agree with you Ray that what is happening is not a purge but as Cawld stated is “border policing” though that is what the top leadership did want to happen and is what is occurring in the culture at large. I personally just sat through a RS lesson in which many of the women echoed the belief that to question our leaders as WOMEN was in and of itself a sin and a sign of apostasy. When myself and another brave soul reminded the class that our religion was founded because of a question we were told that it was MAN that did that not a women as was gods order. So again, great to have ideals and your own beliefs and knowledge but that is not what is being taught and ingested for many in the greater church culture. Again not everywhere but this is how it starts. I also hope that with people like you and others that we can help things become not too entrenched.
Sunbelt red, thank you for your suggestion of seeing the SP. I believe that is already scheduled and I hope the best for her as she has been told is more open to differing views. Also thank you for being open to learn.
Quote:What it begins to sound like is a bit of the old, “calm down there woman you are letting your emotions run away and I will not listen to what a emotional woman has to say because well it is pointless….she is just being emotional”.
I say what I said to men and women alike, whenever a discussion gets heated (here, at church, at work, in my house, etc.) – or when I am concerned that it might get heated. If you doubt that, go back through our archives and look. I NEVER use the word “hysterical”, for example, because I know its historical connotations and have no desire to perpetuate a stereotype. I would never say or imply anything like the quote above. Never. Ever. Not once. As for the example you used of the Deep South and black men, I agree with what you are saying – but, again, there are millions of white men who never will get an invitation to an exclusive club and know it. The theoretical possibility does absolutely nothing to help them in any way actually get into those clubs – so, in that respect, they are exactly like a black man when it comes to their ability to enter that sort of club. That is my only point.
This probably is a case where individual perspectives simply are different – and that is completely fine here. In the whole, however, I agree with you FAR more than we disagree when it comes to the overall issue.
I believe that a 70 would say that because that’s what the Church wants people to think to protect their image and maybe it is technically true sort of the way they claim they didn’t spend tithing money on the mall and GA’s salaries (but where did the original money for the businesses and other investments come from if not donations from well intentioned members?). What I don’t believe is that Kate Kelly’s local leaders suddenly decided that she needed to be disciplined now when she didn’t even live in that stake anymore completely on their own and without any direction or feedback from top leaders. I think some of the purge talk came from John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, and others claiming they were threatened with Church discipline around the same time. I’m not worried about any widespread purge or crackdown on dissent but I definitely wouldn’t want to use my own name on these boards the way Ray and others have. I am a senior administrator at a university and believe (I guess this is a thread where we’re weighing in on what we believe) is that there was no direction from the top of the Church leadership…but that the local leadership wouldn’t do something like this unless they believed they would have support from SLC and it would be the same action a GA or the FP would take. I’m not going to do something at my institution that wouldn’t fit that criteria. But even in the absence of that kind of measure, what the Ordain Women movement was trying to do–gain followers and advocate something so radical–couldn’t be ignored. I think a lot of local leaders don’t want to get into this slop but it meets the definition of apostasy as far as the handbook and practice goes. I can’t say if I agree or disagree, since I’m questioning a lot of things myself. I just think it wasn’t directed or even suggested from the top. It was an assessment by local leadership based on their understanding of standards.
Ray, thank you for your directness. We will have to agree to disagree, though I believe as well that we agree on many things about this topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.