Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think Bro. Halverson is a good man, as are so many men in this church. I’ve never said that I hate “mansplaining,” or “ordain women!” or “down with the patriarchy.” But I truly hope that we are on the brink of changes that could stem the tide of women leaving. My frustration and sadness comes from the men closest to me really, truly not understanding my point of view. If you absolutely have to be a woman to “get” women, then we are at an impasse.
I believe Bro. Halverson when he says he wants to build women up. I know my husband strives to do that for me. But there are things that need to be taken down in order to build women up. That’s what women are saying – there’s no amount of appreciation that can neutralize some serious problems. I’ve had my short list for the approximately thirteen years since my crisis began, but that’s mine to struggle with.
I had my big wrestle with polygamy several years ago. In a few (a very few) conversations I’ve had with friends I hear things like, What does this have to do with Jesus Christ? And I say, My point exactly. Nothing. Just like – as the church as admitted – the priesthood ban had nothing at all to do with Christ. The church has recognized the ban and all its justifications as simply wrong, full stop. Something similar needs to happen with polygamy if the church cares about keeping young women on board. It’s complicated because the fruits of polygamy are the hundreds of thousands of wonderful members descended from it. With the priesthood ban, the result was virtually no black members, an absence, not a presence. Polygamy can’t be disavowed in any way that brings shame upon anyone.
But the discussions [not referring to anything in this thread, but to leadership, scholars, apologists] about what Joseph was doing, why, then Brigham Young, why, how different, etc., etc. – what’s lost in all the legalistic, scriptural, doctrinal debate is the women. The way these women and girls were treated was despicable, in my opinion. And the church prioritizing anything above how they were treated is a mistake, again, in my opinion.
The church eventually saw that how they treated and discussed black people was wrong. A lot of twenty-first century women aren’t interested in a church that won’t at the very, very least say unequivocally that earthly/mortal polygamy – a living man with multiple living wives – is absolutely over. They prefer to justify the past by keeping it on the back burner in the present, by saying that God isn’t commanding it … now. It can make a woman feel like perhaps a black person would feel if the church said, You can have the priesthood … for now.
Anyway, that’s my $.02.
I think it’s horrifying that all the language in Section 132 about destroying women who don’t play ball is still in the canon. I remember the first time I read it at about ten years old. Chilling. And there it is again: leaders having no idea what it’s like to be a present-day woman in the church with this ugly doctrine dragging us down. The second thing would be for leaders to clearly and unequivocally state that mortal polygamy is over. No insinuating that it’s on the back burner for now. Saying this would provide middle ground. They don’t have to address past polygamy. But it would show that they care about the effect the murkiness of their pronouncements has had on women.
Regarding help for current victims (I’m not suggesting anything like reparations for descendants), I agree that leadership is not equipped to help these people. But they could employ those who are.
I agree that many men and women have loved more than one spouse, and that a harmonious afterlife could very well await them. But I feel like the church uses this common occurrence to downplay the many horrible multi-partner arrangements in 19th and 20th century Mormon polygamy. We get to monsters like Samuel Bateman in the linked-to article by discounting women and girls. By disregarding their wishes, minimizing their pain, and overriding their objections. I still don’t see the innocence that so many ascribe to Joseph. His practice of polygamy was cut short, but we know it began with hurting Emma and moving other women around like chess pieces. He was very connected to Emma, which makes it all the worse to my mind.
I think polygamy would have fizzled had Joseph lived and stayed in populated areas. It took Brigham getting away to the wilderness for it to really take off.
It looks like our leaders will never disavow past polygamy and downshift to it being an “experiment”, instead of a commandment from God that justifies all the bad stuff and makes the women into martyrs of sorts. They just won’t, and they’re willing to take the losses, at least so far. But our founder set the practice in motion and I wish the church would provide legal and social services for the abused women and children still involved in it. If they did – and made it known – I think it would help diffuse the issue for many inclined to leave.
Roy wrote:Polygamy continues to be a scourge used to abuse women and underage girls. I hate that the coercion of eternal destinies is used to get them to comply. I am saddened that this coercion began under our first prophet, Joseph Smith. I would very much like for the current church leadership to disavow polygamy, that God is not pleased by the practice, and that it will not be practiced in heaven.
I know this is not likely to happen. If only…
It’s been many years now since the ugliness of polygamy became clear to me. I’m less reflexively angry, but still, like you say, saddened that “we” brought this to the U.S. In my opinion – and maybe this is happening behind the scenes – the church should be doing everything possible to get women and children out of these communities.
I’m also going to disagree a bit with the idea that Joseph’s polygamy was so very different from Brigham’s. If we could ask Emma, I think she would say that the heartbreak, the loss of trust and intimacy were anything but benign.
In general, and I can’t remember all the names to cite them, as I listened, my favorite Joseph Campbell (see below) quote came to mind. I thought the talks ran the gamut. Many trying to talk people into belief (and being pretty uncharitable to those who leave), and then others who spoke from what felt like a very genuine place with no admonitions, no characterizations. Just “this is my experience, why I believe.” nibbler wrote:
Had plans to watch conference. God had other plans.
I missed conference… well I didn’t
missconference. There’s probably another lame dad joke I could squeeze out of this, but I’ll get to my point.
What’s this about Mormons not wearing crosses? Does anyone external to the church notice or care? It’s weird that it would be a talking point.
Is it people out there that are dying to know why we don’t wear crosses or is it an apostle that’s dying for other people out there to ask us why we don’t wear crosses? No one asked, but we’re going to answer the question that we wished they asked.
Or maybe it’s one of those where you’ve given 200 general conference talks because you’ve been a GA for over 50 years and you’re out of material so you dust off the “Why Mormons don’t use crosses” story, which is always fun.
We all know the real reason.
“Why don’t Mormons wear crosses?”
“Just to annoy you.”
There it is. There’s the final dad joke that was missing.
I think Elder Holland may have given this talk because there are more members wearing crosses these days. I would guess he’s wary of that. Another LDS group that I follow had a lot of comments from people saying the crosses they wear are important to them. I think it’s a way of reminding themselves (and showing others) that they still maintain belief in Christ even though they’ve had a big upheaval in their testimonies of this church.
I’m still confused about the Arizona law. Quote:The church’s lawyers have said Herrod, and later bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy, legally withheld information about MJ’s abuse under the state’s clergy-penitent privilege. Arizona law generally requires clergy members to report child neglect and sexual abuse, but allows them to withhold information obtained during a spiritual confession.
The AP article also says –
Quote:Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law grants blanket legal immunity to anyone reporting child sex abuse or neglect.”
Was Nelson correct when he told the bishops they could be sued? I’m not asking out of sympathy for the church’s law firm, but just wondering how this particular case will play out.
The whole thing still leaves my head shaking for reasons I already posted about.
There was for my kids a tumultuous time. Parting ways with the church, letting us know, dealing with friends learning about it and all that. And I worried that maybe I had influenced them too much. But come to find out they each had their own reasons that have nothing to do with me. Your daughter has cited your experience, but maybe that’s not the deep-down reason for her moving away. Fast forward to a time when you might have wide-ranging, deep discussions with your daughter. Because she’ll know she has your support and respect and confidence that she is doing what is best for her. That’s where we are now and I wouldn’t trade it for the world.
I hope all goes well for you.
The Deseret News tremendously long article sketched out arguments for priest-penitent privilege. And the whole subject is complicated, I agree. But… What other religions have done for millennia is usually not a concern of ours. So it read like pretty desperate hand-waiving.
Autonomy and control for the victim (DN was referring to older victims, I know, and no one would suggest very young victims have any autonomy) strikes a *really* sour note right now while the Arizona case is being discussed, since this is a young girl and a baby.
On another point, I think the church was probably too quick to describe the abuse as limited . One incident, long ago, or however they said it. They can’t contemplate that a giant mistake might have been made. If they were just a little less quick to defend themselves it would go along way towards maintaining the goodwill of the public. But they are so strenuously defending the “good name of the church” that they’re giving it a bad name. It would be good, in my opinion, for some bishops to come forward and talk about their experiences with the helpline. Anonymously? The Arizona bishops are being sued, so who would risk that.
Edited
DJ wrote: Quote:And yes, I am also troubled by the idea that the records are destroyed daily. In the aforementioned state registry even records of unfounded abuse are kept in perpetuity here. And it’s actually interesting the church keeps records of an individual even if they are ex’ed or had their names removed by request forever, but not something as potentially important as this for more than a day. I suppose from a legal point of view it protects them to destroy the records because then they can honestly say they have no record (although they seemed to know about the “single confession” of this guy in Arizona).
Yes, the church is nothing if not a good record-keeper. If the explanation for the destruction of the calls is that it’s just too much to keep on hand, we know that’s not true. So we’re left assuming that they destroy them to limit their liability.
Edited to add: In calmer moments I have a lot more generosity, especially for the two bishops. I assume they wanted the abuse to stop, but were getting instructions that let it continue. I feel sorry for the mess they now find themselves in, the regret they feel, the legal problems, all of it. But most of all, I’m glad the children have loving homes. And that’s where this has to go, it has to “most of all” be about innocent children, not clergy, not the institutional church.
(Thanks, Roy and DJ, for explaining the caution post to me.) The other question from my original post: How can the highest priority be the victims when a bishop contacting the church’s lawyers automatically creates attorney-client privilege, and everything between them is protected information? They’ve got all that “going for them,” and the victim has nothing.
I wasn’t sure if Roy was referring to my post earlier, but I deleted it. I’m not quite sure how to post. One of my big problems with this was the revelation that helpline call records are destroyed at the end of each day. How on earth can the the victims be the primary concern when the church makes a special point to erase any trace of them?
I listened to Michael Rezendes on Utah public radio today. He said he’s been deluged with communications from other victims, and he will continue his reporting.
nibbler wrote:
All wards were instructed to use the second hour of church this 5th Sunday to discuss missionary work (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/share/fifthSundayDiscussion I wonder if they put any thought whatsoever into the negative ramifications of their decision?
I’m guessing they think very carefully about this and have determined that this approach produces the best result, and everything else is an acceptable loss.
This is one of my faith crisis epiphanies. Acceptable losses are for wars and a few other arenas. The gospel is supposed to be about “the one.” And to see the church seemingly unconcerned with the one is hard. Minimizing the one so the church can grow. There needs to be a clearer statement about each young man’s responsibility/opportunity to take everything into consideration and make a decision about a mission.
I get where it comes from. It’s safe to say that more men in the church will call their missions a positive in their lives than those who don’t. But there needs to be no shame in not going.
I just wrote all that, but can imagine a lot of men saying, Wow, if I had felt I had any real choice , I wouldn’t have gone. But it was expected of me…and now I’m glad I went.
Everything is so different in the internet age. It has empowered each “one.” Return missionaries who had horrible experiences can talk about it. For better or worse, the sense of distance and isolation on a mission is changing.
Once I figured out the acceptable losses aren’t really God’s way — in spite of how we talk about the kingdom rolling forth – things became more clear to me. When the kingdom is crushing a certain number of people to accomplish its goals, it’s just an organization maintaining power, and not Christ’s church.
I don’t think leaders are rubbing their hands with glee, completely unsympathetic to individuals. But it’s not the old days. [Coming back immediately to edit!] I think they just operate on the assumption that the best way for the bulk of men to have a good mission is to require it of all men.
