posted
If it helps at all, I read pooka's statement as saying it was a phenomenon within the culture, not that it was universal.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was the word "general" that got to me. It certainly happens. In my experience, it does not usually happen or mostly happen often enough to be a general phenomenon.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't know anyone who considers a home teacher to be anything like a counseling relationship. And while a home teacher could tell a girl that God has revealed that she should marry him, any man in the church could make such a claim just because they all have the priesthood. It would be "unrighteous dominion" of course, and I think the church curriculum does a good job of making sure people know that.
I didn't mean to say that Home Teachers held any position of authority or had anything like a couseling relationship with the people they were assigned to visit. I was responding specifically to Dana's comment about how dating or having dated members of the congregation, might adversely affect a minsters ability to minister to the people even when power and authority issues aren't involved.
Power and authority issues are not involved with home teachers. But I can still see how dating or even the possibility that one of the two people involved wanted to date could adversely affect a home teachers ability to minister to the person he was called to home teach. I know that when I was a young single woman, if I had thought one of my home teachers was interested in a romantic relationship (and I wasn't), it would have made visits uncomfortable. It would have made me very hesitant to ask him if I need help with something for fear my action might be misinterpreted. I probably would have made excuses to avoid being visited. If I had dated and then broken up with a home teacher, it would be even worse. I'm not saying that this is anything remotely like sexual harassment or is something sinful. I'm just saying that I can see how dating or even the possibility of dating could interfere with a persons ability to minister to people even in a situation, like home teaching, where power and authority are not an issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually never seen or heard of it firsthand. Sorry I was so upset - I think I'm still ashamed of the time when I was 14 that my bishop told me my mother taught us a lot of false doctrine growing up in front of the whole class.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wouldn't be fun at any age, but 14 seems like it would be a particularly bad time to have something like that happen. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless your mom was preaching false doctrine to the ward, any statement should have been made privately. At one ward, we had someone who managed to include a lot of interesting rhetoric into her testimony and so just about every other month, she would give her testimony and the bishop would stand up after her and remind us that her views were not those of the church. Since the women's statements were so public, it made sense for the bishop to publically refute them. But assuming the teachings were not being publically preached, a public repudiation of them is completely inappropriate. A private meeting should have occured.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were repeating her speculations to the whole class. I could see a systematic private squelching of our credibility possibly just as problematic. Anyway, we had a new bishop by the end of the year.
I'll try to be more careful about ascribing attitudes to Mormons in general, though I did mean "apparently widespread" and not "universal." I don't know if you want to discuss this, katharina, but would it had made any difference if I had specified that I was discussing Mormonism as a culture as opposed to the church? I know my statement didn't clarify that in any way, I'm just wondering if you find that a valid distinction. I find Mormon culture overlying the actual church to be problematic more often than not.
I suppose I could elaborate with problems I've had in terms of promulgating Mormon culture, like with R-rated movies and working moms. It seems to be that things get carried over from past prophecies, and conditions change, the application of prophecy changes, but in my case, I failed to follow the change in application. I think that may be part of how it springs up.
posted
Just to clarify my earlier statement, I don't care if it is laws against dating or laws against sexual encounters. I don't care if it is (at least with clergy, although college classroom also seems questionable) about time between or during counceling. I am still opposed to the idea of laws governing relationships with parishoners. It still goes against my belief that such laws are un-Constitutional.
Part of it is because I don't see "power issues" as punishable by the law. As someone said before, there have always been power issues in relationships even if nothing more than physical strength. Now, if sexual encounters happened *in* the office or at work there are serious ethical questions. Laws against *place* seem sufficiant, although still problematic. Best to be up to the place of employment if actions should be taken.
That isn't to say I am *for* extra-marital affairs. What I am for is free association and religion.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We were repeating her speculations to the whole class. I could see a systematic private squelching of our credibility possibly just as problematic.
I don't know exactly what happened, but if you were repeating it to the whole class, then refuting it in front of the whole class would have been appropriate. There are different ways to do it, but when it comes down to it, there's not really a way to refute false doctrine without that doctrine being refuted.
No, saying it was culture would not have helped. Of course it was culture. There is not a monolithic culture where Mormon women are desperate to get married at any cost. Some surely are, but not even close to all, and few in my experience.
There is not a way to ascribe that attitude to Mormons in general without me objecting to it. I believe you that this has been your experience. Your experience is not and should not be taken as representative of the whole, whether the whole is doctrinal or cultural.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just trying to come up with an explantion for what kq described, which as I said, I have not witnessed - other than your case. P.S. Though it is kind of "out there" in the culture as a cautionary tale.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh, you mean the guy trying to pull authority on me.
It just didn't come off as speculation. It came off like you were making a pronouncement about a whole population, and it's one with which I vehemently disagree. That'd be like me saying that Mormon men marry young because they are afraid to be by themselves. While it is surely occasionally true, it's a disservice to absolutely everyone involved. Random, insulting speculation about a people is a problem, even if it is your own people.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"General" does have a meaning of "non-specific", you know. It's not the first definition in the dictionary, but it was what I meant. I believe it's an element in the culture. You disagree. I don't know where I was insulting to people. I was saying the cultural idea exists and is wrong. And I'm nearly certain I've heard you complain about people who see marriage as tantamount to happiness, I think you are characterizing me as such a person, but if you read my statement in total, I am not. Is the difference really that I see a cultural pattern while you see individual jerks?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the difference really that I see a cultural pattern while you see individual jerks?
Yes, I think this is it exactly. I don't think a handful of experiences creates a cultural pattern, and I don't think that the fringe represents the whole. That's why it's a good story - it isn't the norm. If it was the norm, it wouldn't be a compelling story. It's priesthood responsibility run amok, and it's a horror story of good twisted into evil. It's a modern-day Frankenstein of everything that is good. When I think of the legions of good, faithful, humble men in the church, it is unfair to them to say the jerks are the true Mormons. And it is unfair to Mormon women to say that they put up with crap because they think their lives are a waste if they don't get married.
It isn't fair to Mormons in general (word chosen deliberately) to say that the jerks represent their true souls. There's no way you can phrase that that would make me agree with it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a modern-day Frankenstein of everything that is good.
Yes, I think you are right. I have let my own bitterness color my perception of things, and focused on the flaws. I'm actually really glad we had this argument.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, I don't know what we can do about the general phenomenon of Mormon women seeing singleness as an unhappy outcome that they would be greatly blessed to avoid.
Kat, Perhaps I'm confused but it seems that this statement by pooka is the one you were objecting to originally. If so then I think you have been seriously over reacting. First, she never said that most or even any "Mormon women were desperate to get married at any cost".
Second, I think what she said is accurate. There is a general phenomenon among Mormons (both men and women) to view marriage as highly desirable and singleness as a problem. That view isn't just held by jerks and those who don't really understand the gospel, its rooted in the doctrine that temple marriage is an essential ordinance for exaltation.
If don't think its common for Mormon women to think being single at 30 (or 40 or 50) is an undesirable state, I could find you a boat load of general authority talks directed to the single women of the church that address that specific issue.
Quite frankly, I don't see how you could possibly have grown up in the church, attended young women's meetings and relief society and never heard the message that marriage and motherhood are righteous desires that every Mormon woman should have.
The LDS church teaches that marriage and parenthood are the highest callings to which a person can aspire. When a church teaches something like that, its a pretty natural outcome that many of its members would view being single as a problem. That may not equate to "Mormon women being desperate to get married at any cost" but those were your words, not pooka's.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the first place, I do think that it isn't as big of a deal as some say that it is. I've lived in a lot of places, and the Mormon experience isn't the same on the East Coast as it is in Salt Lake City. I don't think either location has a monopoly on the culture.
Of course I've heard it. I don't think it is inevitable or descriptive of everyone.
Secondly, it came right after the discussion of jerks abusing the priesthood. She may not have said "desperate to get married at all costs" but when it is offered up as an explanation as to why guys try to get away with acting like jerks, the idea is there.
EVEN IF I accepted it as true, it would be the wrong way to tackle the problem. You don't stop people from abusing relationships by making the others involved not want that relationship anymore.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe I'm going to quote Weight of Glory again, but it starts right at the beginning saying that "unselfishness" is not the same as "love." So indeed "marriage is a righteous desire" is not the same as "singleness is a curse." He was bemoaning that 19 out of 20 good people will tend to say the principal virtue of Christianity is unselfishness.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you'd said that Mormons see getting married as something greatly to be desired, I'd be fine. Well, no, because of what I said above about ways to deal with those fond of trying to excercise unrighteous dominion, but I wouldn't have objected to your phrasing.
The idea that singleness is something to be avoided is so strange. We all start out not married. It's like trying to avoid having non-tattooed skin. And life is not a race.
posted
The interesting thing is that I don't think American Mormon women are all that different from other American women in their desires to get married and have children. I think it would be completely fair to say there is a general phenomenon among women to view marriage as desirable and singleness as a problem to be solved. Certainly not all women feel that way and some are completely satisfied being single, but it is a sufficiently wide spread phenomenon to be the topic of popular movies, TV shows and even comic strips. Even those women who are depicted as being completely satisfied with the single childless life are routinely depicted being nagged by parents about it.
If there is a significant difference in the Mormon culture, it is with how men view marriage not women. In my experience, its much more common for Mormon men to view being unmarried as an unhappy state than is general among Americans at large. Outside the Mormon church, the stereotype is that men try desperately to avoid commitment at all costs while women (and their mothers) try to pressure them into marriage. And while I've known Mormon guys who fit that stereotype, it does seem less common among Mormons than in the general American population.
If some Mormon men use jerkish behavior to pressure women into marriage, its more likely because Mormon men feel pressured to marry at any cost than because they think Mormon women are groomed to respond to that kind of idiocy.
After all, when the LDS general authorities address the issue of singleness among women, the message is usually to find ways to be productive and happy as single women while focusing on the eternal perspective and not to lower their standards. But when they address the issue of singleness among men, the message is often that they need to get off their buts and find a wife.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to raise that difference earlier, the whole "a single 30 year old man is a menace to society" thing. Though the age and the prophet it is ascribed to vary quite a bit.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if they meant single men in general. It was more to say that a man who is a member of the church and doesn't get that he should be actively seeking marriage/overcoming obstacles is a concern.
But I'll call you a menace if it makes you happy. I also apologize if I mistook that you were not a church member, if you are.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good. According to Texas law, removing the children is supposed to be done at the very last resort after everything else has been done.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Send them back and have social workers monitor them?
A majority of children in in the Texas foster care system do not graduate from high school. It is doing them no favors to make that the first option without making every other effort first. What I don't understand is why it was the children who were snatched and scattered across the state instead of the men, who presumably have the power to change things.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. It would be terrible to have your state have as its central goal the breakup of your family.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, are you referring to me? I can't quite parse the last bit unless you are making the outrageously rude and disingenuous suggestion that I support statutory rape.
posted
I was not referring to you in the last sentence. Rather that this seems to be the choice that is facing those girls.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that the state is involved, that doesn't have to be the choice. If it still is, then Texas screwed up again.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, even with the revised numbers on pregnant minors removed from the ranch (down to, I think, 32 rather than 41, of 60 odd teen girls removed to state custody), returning the kids to their biological parents may not be in their best interest.
~30 of ~60 minors pregnant? That's still a lot higher than the national average, I think, and merits scrutiny and caution.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It absolutely merits scrutiny and caution and it would criminal of the state to just walk away, and I hope it becomes impossible for single other teenage girl to become pregnant from a male over 21 without the male going to jail for it, no matter what they claim their marital status is. That's for everyone, not just the FLDS, by the way.
However, foster care is hell. I don't have the numbers with me and I'm too lazy to find them again, but the vast majority of children in foster care don't graduate from high school. Almost half become addicts at one time or another. All foster children automatically get free tuition at any university in the state system, but still less than 20% go to college. They are rootless, homeless, cared for and loved only intermittently and usually bounce from one home to another unless they are adopted young. It is no refuge unless the danger is immediate and pressing. There's a reason it is legally the absolute last resort.
If the state was concerned about the best interests of the children and clearly didn't care about due process, they'd leave the mothers and children in the homes and arrest all the men.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for taking the men away. Texas clearly has no problem violating laws and breaking up families.
Foster care is not a permanent solution. Breaking up families - even dysfunctional ones - does so much damage that unless the danger is immediate, the "cure" is worse. Scrutiny may be hard but it isn't impossible, and it shouldn't be abandoned because it's easier to just steal the children and ignore family ties.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dysfunctional" is, in my opinion, far too mild a word for what these parents were doing to their daughters. It is, in my opinion, worse than if they had been peddling them on the street because, for these girls, having been raised to believe that this is what is supposed to happen to them, there is no escape. "Family ties" of parents who encourage the rape of their daughters should be disregarded.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It absolutely merits scrutiny and caution and it would criminal of the state to just walk away, and I hope it becomes impossible for single other teenage girl to become pregnant from a male over 21 without the male going to jail for it, no matter what they claim their marital status is. That's for everyone, not just the FLDS, by the way.
However, foster care is hell. I don't have the numbers with me and I'm too lazy to find them again, but the vast majority of children in foster care don't graduate from high school. Almost half become addicts at one time or another. All foster children automatically get free tuition at any university in the state system, but still less than 20% go to college. They are rootless, homeless, cared for and loved only intermittently and usually bounce from one home to another unless they are adopted young. It is no refuge unless the danger is immediate and pressing. There's a reason it is legally the absolute last resort.
If the state was concerned about the best interests of the children and clearly didn't care about due process, they'd leave the mothers and children in the homes and arrest all the men.
Then that's why the foster care system needs to be reformed. Many kids in it go from being taken away from abusive homes to being put in a safe home then brought back to the abusive home or they could end up in an even worse situation. But reforms are needed because as painful as it is for a child to be taken out of an abusive situation it's much worse in the long run for them to stay in it. One of the first reforms should be do not move children multiple times without a good reason. Children need stability and without a stable family to attach to there is a danger of attachment issues such as RAD that can effect them, even if they are adopted at an older age.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it is your position that the rights of American citizens don't apply to parents who are accused of encouraging illegal behavior?
No one has been arrested. No one has been convicted. There has not been due process. There was an accusation, and five hundred children were taken away and scattered across the state. That should send CHILLS down the spine of every American.
How can you object to, say, President Bush seeking illegal wiretaps but be fine with destroying families without even bothering with due process?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side note, I think you are far too casual with your embrace of peddling them on the streets (with its consequences of violence, diseases, self-loathing, and personal destruction) as a preferable alternative.
So casual, in fact, that I suspect hyperbole and therefore am not sure what you mean sincerely and what you mean for dramatic effect.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I wish I'd followed Scott R's thread about surrogacy. But I don't think sperm + egg = family.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think that (again) that you and I have such different ideas of the harm done to these girls that it becomes unproductive for me to discuss it with you. And it is likely just as unproductive for you to guess my level of outrage at what is being done to these girls. An outrage that I find disturbingly missing in this thread. That this is done in the name of religion makes it, for me, worse than otherwise.
I do hope that the men raping these girls were free of disease and that they were "gentle" with them. I think that the destruction and the loathing are not mitigated by the girls being raised to know no better.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've tried to express outrage throughout. But I haven't had the energy to pervade the thread with it. I mean, people who have been knocked out with a drug are not always raped in a violent way (I'd guess) but have they been violated, even when they aren't sure anything actually happened? I think so.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
