Comments on: I Have Seen the Axe http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/ Exploring Mormon culture in a balanced way Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-92599 Jo Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:43:58 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-92599 You have my apology for the typo's, as I am used to having spell check and I don't proofread when I write. You have my apology for the typo’s, as I am used to having spell check and I don’t proofread when I write.

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-92598 Jo Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:38:15 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-92598 Hello Ray: I'm pleased that you are speaking to me again, and that we have found a point of agreement. I do understand that the decision to place my contributions under my husband's name was a decision made at the local level. In a review of records, I found a curious thing. My 2003 contributions were under my name. My 2007 contributions were under only my husband's name, not mine. From speaking with my husband on the subject, he indicated that there was "pressure put on him" to get his temple recommend and seek his endowments. He didn't wish to do that because he really likes his coffee in the morning. He roasts his own beans and I have tried his coffee, as his request, and found it to be very good, as coffee goes. I'm not a big fan and due to the folic acid deficiency, am advised against consuming anything containing caffine or even alcohol. This is sad to me because I would really like to show some rebellious behavior in addition to this apostate blogging. This is my theory on why our situation occurred. The high priests group wanted to ensure that all of their priesthood holders were married in the temple, so they put pressure on my DH in order to make him conform to their wishes. It wasn't working, so when I requested that my temple recommend be renewed, they saw an opportunity to increase the pressure by denying my temple recommend on the condition that it would be provided, only if my DH agreed to seek his recommend and go to the temple with me to have our endowments together. The relationship with my ward here has been interesting as they asked me to observe a child, with parent approval, in primary to make recommendations and provide management suggestions for his behavior. They also allowed me to present a review of special education services available through the schools, which was very well attended. I think I made a social error following a Sunday School presentation where a woman explained as a supporting point to the discussion, that she was allowing her parents to support her because her husband claimed he could not pay child support because it was a good opportunity to :"invest in his private business" and that his business needed his support. I spoke with the sister, after the meeting and said that I could provide her a list of resources for her to contact, that would be able to review her husband's income and base child support payments on that. Also, if he did not have an income, such as fathers who choose graduate school over work, a presumend income amound could be determined. She agreed that it was important for him to pay something for his two children, as she was not working and her parents were not wealthy. The Bishop became very chilly after one notable incident, when I had to set professional limits on him during a funeral held in 2004, at a high school which I contracted with for psychological/counselor services,, when he brought the coffin into a memorial service, held in the school auditorium. I sent word to him, through one the male staff, that the coffin would be allowed, but they could not open it. An open casket service, in an after school event, with other students in the building could cause a child to arrive home with the statement, "Guess what I saw at school today, a dead body." So, they really liked my DH, but I didn't fit the usual stereotype in our ward, which has few professional women. My DH, earned the nickname, "The Object of Their Offections." The pressure to conform to a stereotype made us both uncomfortable as we don't like to be pushed. The denial of my temple recommend based on tithing by the stake president bothered me because when I explained that I had been paying tithing and clarified that it was under "head of household", it was treated as if that was not enough and my DH should also work toward his temple endowments, so we could attend together. The violation of confidentiality following this meeting was in retaliation to my explaining to my Bishop, that I was not being treated fairly and that this treatment set a tone in the ward that was sexist. I asked for due process and was told that I could meet with the Stake President again, as the Bishop is the "judge" in these matters and the Stake President supports him. We had already been down that route. The Bishop did not understand the confidentiality ethic as he thought that it was "Whoever he thought needed to know." When I explained what professional ethics should be in this situation, he disagreed. I suggested that my DH and I might be a better fit with another ward and was told that we would need to meet with the SP, to get "permission" to change wards. I said I would not do that. An interesting response came when I explained that requiring husbands to schedule the appointment and attend the appointment with the SP was similar to the Muslim Sharia law that women cannot represent themselves and must have a male represent them. This is a third world attitude. The Bishop accused me of violating confidentiality, by allowing another educator to overhear the phone discussion. I explained that there was not an expectation of confidentiality in that situation as I didn't expect to be discriminated against when scheduling a meeting with the SP. I know that I have explained my situation more than once. It is important as it indicates some larger issues for Church policy and procedure. Does treating women in a third world fashion, as second class citizens, hinder the development of religious ethics in the LDS Church? As women succeed in the secular world, will they be disallowed to bring their strengths to their service in the church? Since cultural practices are the critical element in the evolution of the human mind and society, does limiting women's monetary or social contributions as a cultural practice, limit the progress of the LDS Church. There was a wonderful presenter at the "Learning and the Brain" conference at Harvard University in 2005, Stanley Greenspan, who presented "The First Idea, How Symbols, Lanaguage, and Intelligence Evolved from our Primate Ancestors to Modern Humans". His theory was that the critical step in our human development was not a "genetic leap" but a learned capacity. That capacity depended on specific types of nurturing interactions and other cultural practices which were passed down and thus learned anew and further developed by each generation. It also purports that these practices are transformed from generation to generation and that emotional, not cognitive processes, are the foundation of these cultural practices. These emotional interactions are the missing link in the evolution of symbols, language and cognition that work together in mankind's development. What emotions support treating women in a limiting and secondary manner, and what are the consequences to women as a result of being treated in this manner? How do we transform the LDS Church, in our generation, to better include and support women in our religion? Ray, I also wanted to expand on why I am participating in these blogs. We have not yet developed a set of rights in the LDS Church for our individual members. We do not have a process of oversight and review that is working for members who have faced unrighteous dominion. This blog offers a way to "process trauma" by gaining some understanding of the context and impact of that trauma through the cathartic consolation of finding others who have been traumatized. The interesting aspect of traumas value as a fucrum for organizational change is useful. Organizations tend to stay as they are until something happens to move them. For example, in my work I had a vulnerable student (low vision) who was placed in a classroom which also had an aggressive student. It took the trauma of having that child targeted and bullied by the aggressive child before the district made a policy that children with behavioral disorders, as demonstrated by aggression, should not be placed into classes with children with sensory deficits. In this case, the child was vulnerable because the child could not "see it coming" and thus it was the district's responsibility to provide an additional level of protection by permanently removing the child who was bullying from the vulnerable child's classroom. Long example, but it highlights the fact that the LDS Church has left itself vulnerable to the idea that it is operating in a sexist manner, when it allows SPs and Bishops to take actions against women, such as in my situation. Does the LDS Church have an obligation to "make it right" instead of "pretending it didn't happen"? By my statement of making it right, I requested that they allow me to provide "training" to the church leaders on confidentiality and best practices. I offered to provide my sister in laws company, at my expense, which trains school districts. She is a PhD and runs a very successful company that has used the same national training that some LDS Companies have hired to assist their managers. She has male trainers under her hire. Her presenters are nationally certified and qualified to provide leadership training to companies. So, Ray and others, what are your thoughts on this. Hello Ray:
I’m pleased that you are speaking to me again, and that we have found a point of agreement. I do understand that the decision to place my contributions under my husband’s name was a decision made at the local level.
In a review of records, I found a curious thing. My 2003 contributions were under my name. My 2007 contributions were under only my husband’s name, not mine. From speaking with my husband on the subject, he indicated that there was “pressure put on him” to get his temple recommend and seek his endowments. He didn’t wish to do that because he really likes his coffee in the morning. He roasts his own beans and I have tried his coffee, as his request, and found it to be very good, as coffee goes. I’m not a big fan and due to the folic acid deficiency, am advised against consuming anything containing caffine or even alcohol.
This is sad to me because I would really like to show some rebellious behavior in addition to this apostate blogging.
This is my theory on why our situation occurred. The high priests group wanted to ensure that all of their priesthood holders were married in the temple, so they put pressure on my DH in order to make him conform to their wishes. It wasn’t working, so when I requested that my temple recommend be renewed, they saw an opportunity to increase the pressure by denying my temple recommend on the condition that it would be provided, only if my DH agreed to seek his recommend and go to the temple with me to have our endowments together.
The relationship with my ward here has been interesting as they asked me to observe a child, with parent approval, in primary to make recommendations and provide management suggestions for his behavior.
They also allowed me to present a review of special education services available through the schools, which was very well attended. I think I made a social error following a Sunday School presentation where a woman explained as a supporting point to the discussion, that she was allowing her parents to support her because her husband claimed he could not pay child support because it was a good opportunity to :”invest in his private business” and that his business needed his support. I spoke with the sister, after the meeting and said that I could provide her a list of resources for her to contact, that would be able to review her husband’s income and base child support payments on that. Also, if he did not have an income, such as fathers who choose graduate school over work, a presumend income amound could be determined. She agreed that it was important for him to pay something for his two children, as she was not working and her parents were not wealthy.
The Bishop became very chilly after one notable incident, when I had to set professional limits on him during a funeral held in 2004, at a high school which I contracted with for psychological/counselor services,, when he brought the coffin into a memorial service, held in the school auditorium. I sent word to him, through one the male staff, that the coffin would be allowed, but they could not open it.
An open casket service, in an after school event, with other students in the building could cause a child to arrive home with the statement, “Guess what I saw at school today, a dead body.”
So, they really liked my DH, but I didn’t fit the usual stereotype in our ward, which has few professional women.
My DH, earned the nickname, “The Object of Their Offections.”
The pressure to conform to a stereotype made us both uncomfortable as we don’t like to be pushed. The denial of my temple recommend based on tithing by the stake president bothered me because when I explained that I had been paying tithing and clarified that it was under “head of household”, it was treated as if that was not enough and my DH should also work toward his temple endowments, so we could attend together.
The violation of confidentiality following this meeting was in retaliation to my explaining to my Bishop, that I was not being treated fairly and that this treatment set a tone in the ward that was sexist.
I asked for due process and was told that I could meet with the Stake President again, as the Bishop is the “judge” in these matters and the Stake President supports him. We had already been down that route. The Bishop did not understand the confidentiality ethic as he thought that it was “Whoever he thought needed to know.” When I explained what professional ethics should be in this situation, he disagreed. I suggested that my DH and I might be a better fit with another ward and was told that we would need to meet with the SP, to get “permission” to change wards. I said I would not do that.
An interesting response came when I explained that requiring husbands to schedule the appointment and attend the appointment with the SP was similar to the Muslim Sharia law that women cannot represent themselves and must have a male represent them. This is a third world attitude.
The Bishop accused me of violating confidentiality, by allowing another educator to overhear the phone discussion. I explained that there was not an expectation of confidentiality in that situation as I didn’t expect to be discriminated against when scheduling a meeting with the SP.
I know that I have explained my situation more than once. It is important as it indicates some larger issues for Church policy and procedure.
Does treating women in a third world fashion, as second class citizens, hinder the development of religious ethics in the LDS Church?
As women succeed in the secular world, will they be disallowed to bring their strengths to their service in the church?
Since cultural practices are the critical element in the evolution of the human mind and society, does limiting women’s monetary or social contributions as a cultural practice, limit the progress of the LDS Church.
There was a wonderful presenter at the “Learning and the Brain” conference at Harvard University in 2005, Stanley Greenspan, who presented “The First Idea, How Symbols, Lanaguage, and Intelligence Evolved from our Primate Ancestors to Modern Humans”. His theory was that the critical step in our human development was not a “genetic leap” but a learned capacity. That capacity depended on specific types of nurturing interactions and other cultural practices which were passed down and thus learned anew and further developed by each generation. It also purports that these practices are transformed from generation to generation and that emotional, not cognitive processes, are the foundation of these cultural practices. These emotional interactions are the missing link in the evolution of symbols, language and cognition that work together in mankind’s development.
What emotions support treating women in a limiting and secondary manner, and what are the consequences to women as a result of being treated in this manner?
How do we transform the LDS Church, in our generation, to better include and support women in our religion?
Ray, I also wanted to expand on why I am participating in these blogs. We have not yet developed a set of rights in the LDS Church for our individual members. We do not have a process of oversight and review that is working for members who have faced unrighteous dominion. This blog offers a way to “process trauma” by gaining some understanding of the context and impact of that trauma through the cathartic consolation of finding others who have been traumatized. The interesting aspect of traumas value as a fucrum for organizational change is useful. Organizations tend to stay as they are until something happens to move them. For example, in my work I had a vulnerable student (low vision) who was placed in a classroom which also had an aggressive student. It took the trauma of having that child targeted and bullied by the aggressive child before the district made a policy that children with behavioral disorders, as demonstrated by aggression, should not be placed into classes with children with sensory deficits. In this case, the child was vulnerable because the child could not “see it coming” and thus it was the district’s responsibility to provide an additional level of protection by permanently removing the child who was bullying from the vulnerable child’s classroom.
Long example, but it highlights the fact that the LDS Church has left itself vulnerable to the idea that it is operating in a sexist manner, when it allows SPs and Bishops to take actions against women, such as in my situation. Does the LDS Church have an obligation to “make it right” instead of “pretending it didn’t happen”?
By my statement of making it right, I requested that they allow me to provide “training” to the church leaders on confidentiality and best practices. I offered to provide my sister in laws company, at my expense, which trains school districts. She is a PhD and runs a very successful company that has used the same national training that some LDS Companies have hired to assist their managers. She has male trainers under her hire. Her presenters are nationally certified and qualified to provide leadership training to companies.
So, Ray and others, what are your thoughts on this.

]]> By: RobertM http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-92328 RobertM Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:42:55 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-92328 Exactly Ray. It is so easy to do correctly I will never understand those that choose to do it incorrectly. Exactly Ray. It is so easy to do correctly I will never understand those that choose to do it incorrectly.

]]> By: Ray http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-92267 Ray Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:35:10 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-92267 Jo, I also have served as a Fainancal Clerk. There is an official policy - that the donation be made as the donator requests. That was Robert's point - that not doing so is a result of an incorrect personal decision at the local level to not follow the policy. Jo, I also have served as a Fainancal Clerk. There is an official policy – that the donation be made as the donator requests. That was Robert’s point – that not doing so is a result of an incorrect personal decision at the local level to not follow the policy.

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-92219 Jo Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:39:44 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-92219 RobertM That is the problem, no official policy. We have no consistency in how donations by women are treated. When I asked for my tithing and fast offerings to be put under my own name, it should have been done per my request. I found a tithing settlement report from 2003 and it showed my donations under my own name, not my husbands. Years later, it was changed, without explanation to reflect his name only, even though he had not, in that time donated a penny. He is generous, but with political parties. RobertM
That is the problem, no official policy. We have no consistency in how donations by women are treated. When I asked for my tithing and fast offerings to be put under my own name, it should have been done per my request. I found a tithing settlement report from 2003 and it showed my donations under my own name, not my husbands. Years later, it was changed, without explanation to reflect his name only, even though he had not, in that time donated a penny. He is generous, but with political parties.

]]> By: RobertM http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-92112 RobertM Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:23:24 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-92112 Jo #147 I have served as a Financial and Ward Clerk under 3 different Bishops and can say with some certainty that there is no official policy that all tithing donations need to be put under the head of household. Many of the couples had divided tithing reporting. It is pretty easy to do actually. However, it was a smidgen easier to have all of that data input under a single person at times and I could see a lazy Financial clerk not wanting to go through the imagined hastle. Jo #147

I have served as a Financial and Ward Clerk under 3 different Bishops and can say with some certainty that there is no official policy that all tithing donations need to be put under the head of household. Many of the couples had divided tithing reporting. It is pretty easy to do actually. However, it was a smidgen easier to have all of that data input under a single person at times and I could see a lazy Financial clerk not wanting to go through the imagined hastle.

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91961 Jo Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:16:10 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91961 Pinkpatent: I agree. We can learn from the American way. So the message to the LDS Church is "do better". Pinkpatent:
I agree. We can learn from the American way. So the message to the LDS Church is “do better”.

]]> By: pinkpatent http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91900 pinkpatent Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:21:13 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91900 "Pinkpatent, I wish you truth and justice." How about the American Way? “Pinkpatent, I wish you truth and justice.”

How about the American Way?

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91731 Jo Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:51:07 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91731 crazywomancreek and your contribution to the ethics discussion is............ I would guess namecalling. That is telling. crazywomancreek
and your contribution to the ethics discussion is………… I would guess namecalling. That is telling.

]]> By: crazywomancreek http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91725 crazywomancreek Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:28:47 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91725 "[Ray,]I value you, as you are also contributing to the discussion, in your own way." Ah ha ha! I want to add condescending to narcissistic, in my earlier comment. I know, I know; they seem similar enough to not warrant an addition but reflect a little; it works. I would like to add my own non-sequitur-rejoinder: the Beatles sold an album...in their own way. “[Ray,]I value you, as you are also contributing to the discussion, in your own way.”

Ah ha ha! I want to add condescending to narcissistic, in my earlier comment. I know, I know; they seem similar enough to not warrant an addition but reflect a little; it works. I would like to add my own non-sequitur-rejoinder: the Beatles sold an album…in their own way.

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91712 Jo Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:50:04 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91712 Ray: Complimenting someone for contributing constructively does not automatically translate into an insult for everyone else. Your comments included far more than agreement. I value you, as you are also contributing to the discussion, in your own way. Brjones "If the church is true, then the discrimination is from god" If I interpret this phrase correctly, you believe that the gender discrimination is from God. That is a common theme of "God is male, therefore only males are Godly." If we look at the Godhead, there is God, his son, Jesus Christ and "The Holy Spirit" 1 Ne. 11:27 states "Holy Ghost is (the) Spirit of revelation, 1 Ne. 11:27 Holy Ghost abide upon the lamb in (the) form of (a) dove. The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in the New Testament is The Spirit of truth according to John 16;13. That truth will be revealed upon the second coming with the return of Jesus Christ as indicated in John 14;17, Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. and John 16:13, When he, the Spirit of Truth , is come. The most important example that we have in the restoration is Joseph Smith, at age 14 in the grove, when he asked in prayer and through the spirit of revelation, received an answer. That said, we know that God tries, and man fails, so each of us may receive an answer in prayer. We know that because mankind is imperfect, we must diligently seek truth through prayer. Our Church has made great gains in the last 50 years, as we are no longer racist and maybe, soon, we will no longer be sexist. Are we ready to give up sexism and treat all souls as having equal worth in the eyes of the Lord? The same arguments that supported racism, such as orderly society, biology is destiny, etc. have been presented, many times, previously, to support racism. We have, as a religion, barely shook off that bias. Are we now ready to be enlightened regarding gender bias? Are we prepared to stop discrimination against women? The first step in this process of becoming prepared to be enlightened is for those who face discrimination to ask of God through prayer and then to speak truth to power. Women are here, speaking their truth. Ray: Complimenting someone for contributing constructively does not automatically translate into an insult for everyone else. Your comments included far more than agreement.
I value you, as you are also contributing to the discussion, in your own way.
Brjones
“If the church is true, then the discrimination is from god”
If I interpret this phrase correctly, you believe that the gender discrimination is from God. That is a common theme of “God is male, therefore only males are Godly.”
If we look at the Godhead, there is God, his son, Jesus Christ and “The Holy Spirit”
1 Ne. 11:27 states “Holy Ghost is (the) Spirit of revelation, 1 Ne. 11:27 Holy Ghost abide upon the lamb in (the) form of (a) dove.
The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in the New Testament is The Spirit of truth according to John 16;13.
That truth will be revealed upon the second coming with the return of Jesus Christ as indicated in John 14;17, Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. and John 16:13, When he, the Spirit of Truth , is come.
The most important example that we have in the restoration is Joseph Smith, at age 14 in the grove, when he asked in prayer and through the spirit of revelation, received an answer.
That said, we know that God tries, and man fails, so each of us may receive an answer in prayer.
We know that because mankind is imperfect, we must diligently seek truth through prayer. Our Church has made great gains in the last 50 years, as we are no longer racist and maybe, soon,
we will no longer be sexist.
Are we ready to give up sexism and treat all souls as having equal worth in the eyes of the Lord?
The same arguments that supported racism, such as orderly society, biology is destiny, etc. have been presented, many times, previously, to support racism. We have, as a religion, barely shook off that bias. Are we now ready to be enlightened regarding gender bias? Are we prepared to stop discrimination against women? The first step in this process of becoming prepared to be enlightened is for those who face discrimination to ask of God through prayer and then to speak truth to power. Women are here, speaking their truth.

]]> By: hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91698 hawkgrrrl Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:47:24 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91698 Yowsa, it would seem that on this post, we have all seen the axe. Yowsa, it would seem that on this post, we have all seen the axe.

]]> By: Alison Moore Smith http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91697 Alison Moore Smith Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:41:38 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91697 Dexter: <blockquote>Alison, I agree that it is ridiculous to believe that god will change anything.</blockquote> I didn't say that it's ridiculous to believe that God will change anything, so I have no idea what you're agreeing with. <blockquote>I was speaking for what members believe.</blockquote> No you weren't. You were creating a straw man. And a stupid one at that. brjones: <blockquote>Alison, I don’t know if you’re an active member of the LDS church, but if you are, I would ask you the same question. I really don’t understand people (some gay mormons are a good example) who feel they are mistreated and discriminated against by the church (which I would frankly agree with, by the way), but who remain in the church and complain about it.</blockquote> There probably isn't much in the way of the LDS to-do list that I don't do. We attend all our meetings, even "optionals," attend the temple, hold callings, have FHE and family scriptures, pay tithing and offerings, and I did a service project at the bishop's storehouse on Thursday. You decide if you qualify that as "active." I "complain" because it's apparent--from their own statements--that our church leaders don't think anyone has a problem with the issues that are discriminatory and inappropriate. <blockquote>If the church is true, then the discrimination is from god</blockquote> I don't know you personally, but I'm thinking most people who can type full sentences (including you) can barely breathe through the lack of logic in such a statement. But kudos to you for doing the i-am-no-longer-active-but-i-will-pretend-to-make-authoritative-statements-anyway thing. And funny you should bring up the word "nonsensical." Dexter:

Alison, I agree that it is ridiculous to believe that god will change anything.

I didn’t say that it’s ridiculous to believe that God will change anything, so I have no idea what you’re agreeing with.

I was speaking for what members believe.

No you weren’t. You were creating a straw man. And a stupid one at that.

brjones:

Alison, I don’t know if you’re an active member of the LDS church, but if you are, I would ask you the same question. I really don’t understand people (some gay mormons are a good example) who feel they are mistreated and discriminated against by the church (which I would frankly agree with, by the way), but who remain in the church and complain about it.

There probably isn’t much in the way of the LDS to-do list that I don’t do. We attend all our meetings, even “optionals,” attend the temple, hold callings, have FHE and family scriptures, pay tithing and offerings, and I did a service project at the bishop’s storehouse on Thursday. You decide if you qualify that as “active.”

I “complain” because it’s apparent–from their own statements–that our church leaders don’t think anyone has a problem with the issues that are discriminatory and inappropriate.

If the church is true, then the discrimination is from god

I don’t know you personally, but I’m thinking most people who can type full sentences (including you) can barely breathe through the lack of logic in such a statement. But kudos to you for doing the i-am-no-longer-active-but-i-will-pretend-to-make-authoritative-statements-anyway thing.

And funny you should bring up the word “nonsensical.”

]]> By: Ray http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91690 Ray Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:11:56 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91690 Jo, here is my problem in a nutshell - and why I stand by my first comment to you. In two of your comments, you said the following: <blockquote>"Thank you for your response as I was feeling that my point was being overlooked by Ray and Crazywomancreek. They seem to be here to attack anyone providing evidence of a problem in the Church." </blockquote> That is not and never has been my position here or anywhere else. CWC is not even a member, and if you knew anything about her you would realize how ludicrous your statement is. It is one of the most ridiculous accusations I have heard in the Bloggernacle in the years I've been commenting. Please understand I mean that: You have stereotyped two people incorrectly and, in doing so, done EXACTLY what you accused them of doing - brushing off differing opinions thoughtlessly. <blockquote>"Thank you to Hawkgrrl, Dexter and Alison Moore Smith for having the ethical intellect to join constructively in the ethics discussion." </blockquote> In essence, you just called everyone who didn't agree 100% with everything you said ethical morons - and you accuse others of not being constructive? I'm not going to continue that sort of conversation - as it isn't productive in the slightest, especially since I agreed totally that what you have experienced is wrong and should not happen to anyone. Jo, here is my problem in a nutshell – and why I stand by my first comment to you. In two of your comments, you said the following:

“Thank you for your response as I was feeling that my point was being overlooked by Ray and Crazywomancreek. They seem to be here to attack anyone providing evidence of a problem in the Church.”

That is not and never has been my position here or anywhere else. CWC is not even a member, and if you knew anything about her you would realize how ludicrous your statement is. It is one of the most ridiculous accusations I have heard in the Bloggernacle in the years I’ve been commenting. Please understand I mean that: You have stereotyped two people incorrectly and, in doing so, done EXACTLY what you accused them of doing – brushing off differing opinions thoughtlessly.

“Thank you to Hawkgrrl, Dexter and Alison Moore Smith for having the ethical intellect to join constructively in the ethics discussion.”

In essence, you just called everyone who didn’t agree 100% with everything you said ethical morons – and you accuse others of not being constructive?

I’m not going to continue that sort of conversation – as it isn’t productive in the slightest, especially since I agreed totally that what you have experienced is wrong and should not happen to anyone.

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91680 Jo Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:03:14 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91680 Just back from a short vacation. Amazing level of personal attack on some of your responses. I'm not seeing much discussion on the ethics of what this thread is discussing, just random negative feedback that reflects the sender's bias. Think of this as an ethics question. Is benevolent patriarchy the ideal ethic in an organization? Is it ethical? Like the historic concept of benevolent slavery, which was an idea accepted in this country before the Civil War, is the idea that there is a ruling elite based on circumstances of birth, ethical? I am hearing some interesting descriptions of this messenger, who has experienced unrighteous dominion, but not much on the actual ethics discussion. I still attend the LDS church, when I am out of this very provincial city. I won't pay tithing or donations right now as it would be credited to this stake, which committed the unrighteous dominion. Since committing unrighteous dominion has no consequences to the leaders here,as the LDS Church does not have an oversight process in place to address unrighteous dominion, as indicated by the GA, who is in charge of Ethics in this region (including Washington State), my wish is to raise awareness and request that the LDS Church provide individual rights to members, a due process system and an oversight system. Currently,Stake Presidents have broad dominion over their stakes, they can operate as they choose, righteously or unrighteously. So, whatever way they charismatically choose to operate, is your LDS Church. warts and all. The intention of this blog site and others, is to raise the level of awareness of how the LDS Church operates. We then discuss the ethics involved in how the LDS Church operates as compared with our understanding of what is ethical. Simple in its intention. Truth and time will tell if we allow all voices in the discussion. BroJones noted that the comparison of sexism and racism is growing "tiresome". My tithing settlement statement for 2007 was credited under my DH's name only, with his name crossed out and my name scribbled in pencil underneath. My accountant noted that he could explain this as sexism, if needed to the IRS. After all, it is the LDS Church, so no further explanation would be necessary. My accountant knows that it is a common practice and the IRS knows that the LDS Church leaders have very sexist practices, resulting in many situations such as what I personally experienced. How would we imagine a church without the sexism that I and others have experienced? Deny that there is sexism in the LDS Church? Deny that abuse is widespread? How often does abuse have to occur to determine that there may be a problem? Does this elitist attitude contribute toward further abuse toward women, such as what we see in pornography and child abuse. We don't seem to connect the idea of lack of equality and respect to women as a contributor to participation in pornography and abuse of women and children. When men think they belong to a higher caste, who are more valued by their society, than others, we, as their society, create the conditions for them to abuse with fewer consequences. I have worked with children, who have been abused, so I do know how our religion is used to pressure little girls to recant their reports of abuse. I have had to advise my team to contact law enforcement to intervene when children have been abused. Using religion to hide or justify any type of abuse is unrighteous. Do women have a right to wish for a Church that treats them with equal dignity and respect? Do we have a right to voice that wish without retaliation? Thank you to Hawkgrrl, Dexter and Alison Moore Smith for having the ethical intellect to join constructively in the ethics discussion. Pinkpatent, I wish you truth and justice. Just back from a short vacation. Amazing level of personal attack on some of your responses. I’m not seeing much discussion on the ethics of what this thread is discussing, just random negative feedback that reflects the sender’s bias. Think of this as an ethics question. Is benevolent patriarchy the ideal ethic in an organization? Is it ethical? Like the historic concept of benevolent slavery, which was an idea accepted in this country before the Civil War, is the idea that there is a ruling elite based on circumstances of birth, ethical?
I am hearing some interesting descriptions of this messenger, who has experienced unrighteous dominion, but not much on the actual ethics discussion. I still attend the LDS church, when I am out of this very provincial city. I won’t pay tithing or donations right now as it would be credited to this stake, which committed the unrighteous dominion. Since committing unrighteous dominion has no consequences to the leaders here,as the LDS Church does not have an oversight process in place to address unrighteous dominion, as indicated by the GA, who is in charge of Ethics in this region (including Washington State), my wish is to raise awareness and request that the LDS Church provide individual rights to members, a due process system and an oversight system. Currently,Stake Presidents have broad dominion over their stakes, they can operate as they choose, righteously or unrighteously. So, whatever way they charismatically choose to operate, is your LDS Church. warts and all.
The intention of this blog site and others, is to raise the level of awareness of how the LDS Church operates. We then discuss the ethics involved in how the LDS Church operates as compared with our understanding of what is ethical. Simple in its intention. Truth and time will tell if we allow all voices in the discussion.
BroJones noted that the comparison of sexism and racism is growing “tiresome”.
My tithing settlement statement for 2007 was credited under my DH’s name only, with his name crossed out and my name scribbled in pencil underneath. My accountant noted that he could explain this as sexism, if needed to the IRS. After all, it is the LDS Church, so no further explanation would be necessary. My accountant knows that it is a common practice and the IRS knows that the LDS Church leaders have very sexist practices, resulting in many situations such as what I personally experienced.
How would we imagine a church without the sexism that I and others have experienced? Deny that there is sexism in the LDS Church? Deny that abuse is widespread? How often does abuse have to occur to determine that there may be a problem? Does this elitist attitude contribute toward further abuse toward women, such as what we see in pornography and child abuse. We don’t seem to connect the idea of lack of equality and respect to women as a contributor to participation in pornography and abuse of women and children. When men think they belong to a higher caste, who are more valued by their society, than others, we, as their society, create the conditions for them to abuse with fewer consequences. I have worked with children, who have been abused, so I do know how our religion is used to pressure little girls to recant their reports of abuse. I have had to advise my team to contact law enforcement to intervene when children have been abused. Using religion to hide or justify any type of abuse is unrighteous.
Do women have a right to wish for a Church that treats them with equal dignity and respect? Do we have a right to voice that wish without retaliation?
Thank you to Hawkgrrl, Dexter and Alison Moore Smith for having the ethical intellect to join constructively in the ethics discussion.
Pinkpatent, I wish you truth and justice.

]]> By: pinkpatent http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91241 pinkpatent Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:10:41 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91241 "If the church is not true, then why in the world, in light of what one sees as its gross misdeeds, would that person want to be involved in it? It is nonsensical to me." Because for many, many members of the church being Mormon is way more about who they are than what they believe. Its their culture. This is true for me, although I am also a believer, but I know its also true for my dear friend who is Catholic. I consider myself Mormon as much as, or more than I consider myself American. It might seem weird to those who don't understand, but its just the way it is. My husband is a disaffected Mormon, but he remains an active LDS for the sake of our family. He knows I would never leave the church. Its part of me, leaving would be like having my heart ripped out. He knows I am a believer and will not leave the church. So, he remains because the most important people in his life are inside the church. I think the same is true for alot of people that have issues with one thing or another. They want the church to change, but it doesn't, and so they become angry and can't let go of their anger. I agree with brjones that constant railing is not the best answer. It usually only causes more pain to the person who is already upset. I am not saying, "LDS Church, Love it or Leave it!" Because I want everyone here. But I am saying that letting go of anger is one of the steps to healing. Jo and Alison, I wish you peace. “If the church is not true, then why in the world, in light of what one sees as its gross misdeeds, would that person want to be involved in it? It is nonsensical to me.”

Because for many, many members of the church being Mormon is way more about who they are than what they believe. Its their culture. This is true for me, although I am also a believer, but I know its also true for my dear friend who is Catholic. I consider myself Mormon as much as, or more than I consider myself American. It might seem weird to those who don’t understand, but its just the way it is. My husband is a disaffected Mormon, but he remains an active LDS for the sake of our family. He knows I would never leave the church. Its part of me, leaving would be like having my heart ripped out. He knows I am a believer and will not leave the church. So, he remains because the most important people in his life are inside the church.

I think the same is true for alot of people that have issues with one thing or another. They want the church to change, but it doesn’t, and so they become angry and can’t let go of their anger. I agree with brjones that constant railing is not the best answer. It usually only causes more pain to the person who is already upset. I am not saying, “LDS Church, Love it or Leave it!” Because I want everyone here. But I am saying that letting go of anger is one of the steps to healing.

Jo and Alison, I wish you peace.

]]> By: brjones http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91176 brjones Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:50:32 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91176 Alison, I don't know if you're an active member of the LDS church, but if you are, I would ask you the same question. I really don't understand people (some gay mormons are a good example) who feel they are mistreated and discriminated against by the church (which I would frankly agree with, by the way), but who remain in the church and complain about it. If the church is true, then the discrimination is from god, and those who believe the church is true should stop complaining about it, because their real complaint is against god, not the church. If the church is not true, then why in the world, in light of what one sees as its gross misdeeds, would that person want to be involved in it? It is nonsensical to me. Alison, I don’t know if you’re an active member of the LDS church, but if you are, I would ask you the same question. I really don’t understand people (some gay mormons are a good example) who feel they are mistreated and discriminated against by the church (which I would frankly agree with, by the way), but who remain in the church and complain about it. If the church is true, then the discrimination is from god, and those who believe the church is true should stop complaining about it, because their real complaint is against god, not the church. If the church is not true, then why in the world, in light of what one sees as its gross misdeeds, would that person want to be involved in it? It is nonsensical to me.

]]> By: brjones http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91175 brjones Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:45:30 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91175 Jo, I am not a believer in the LDS faith, but I have to say that at this point your rant is growing tiresome. Personally, I understand and agree with everything you have said. I think the things you've experienced are horrible and are indicative of individuals that are acting without the least bit of guidance from on high, if such guidance does exist. But what in the world is the point of continuing to rail about it here or in any other context? You have said numerous times that you are now inactive. Wonderful. If you don't want to go to the mormon church anymore because it's a sexist organization, then don't. If you want to have your name removed then do it. Those choices are yours to make, and no one can stop you. Alternatively, if you believe the church to be the one and only true church on the earth, you can try to get past the slights and insults and continue to be involved. Your treatment at the hands of your local leaders is, by now, well chronicled. Why in the hell would you want to be part of an organization that you feel is so corrupt in the first place? I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish with this ongoing conversation. You're not open in the slightest to anyone defending the broader church to any degree; even those who have sympathized with your plight and condemned those who have mistreated you. I just don't understand people who feel marginalized by the church (or any church) and constantly complain about how they're marginalized. Why not go find a church that appreciates you and will treat you with dignity? It seems like the answer to your problems is to leave the church, which you've apparently already done. What else are you looking for? Jo, I am not a believer in the LDS faith, but I have to say that at this point your rant is growing tiresome. Personally, I understand and agree with everything you have said. I think the things you’ve experienced are horrible and are indicative of individuals that are acting without the least bit of guidance from on high, if such guidance does exist. But what in the world is the point of continuing to rail about it here or in any other context? You have said numerous times that you are now inactive. Wonderful. If you don’t want to go to the mormon church anymore because it’s a sexist organization, then don’t. If you want to have your name removed then do it. Those choices are yours to make, and no one can stop you. Alternatively, if you believe the church to be the one and only true church on the earth, you can try to get past the slights and insults and continue to be involved. Your treatment at the hands of your local leaders is, by now, well chronicled. Why in the hell would you want to be part of an organization that you feel is so corrupt in the first place? I’m not sure what you are hoping to accomplish with this ongoing conversation. You’re not open in the slightest to anyone defending the broader church to any degree; even those who have sympathized with your plight and condemned those who have mistreated you. I just don’t understand people who feel marginalized by the church (or any church) and constantly complain about how they’re marginalized. Why not go find a church that appreciates you and will treat you with dignity? It seems like the answer to your problems is to leave the church, which you’ve apparently already done. What else are you looking for?

]]> By: hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91174 hawkgrrrl Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:45:04 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91174 The problem with dissent is that the organization isn't like a company that feels beholden to its members as if they were employees or customers. Members who voice dissent are prone to be dismissed as not representative of the 99% of membership that leaders consider faithful and happy (probably assuming on some level that the church experience is the same for all who live the commandments). That also assumes that the life experiences of the Q15 are either average or (worse) ideal, so understanding diverse viewpoints is not sought. Personally, I think that's the mindset of a bygone generation, and there is evidence of a shift as new apostles are called. But change is slow in a gerontocracy, and current young generations do not revere their elders as did the Silent Generation (WW2 era). The problem with dissent is that the organization isn’t like a company that feels beholden to its members as if they were employees or customers. Members who voice dissent are prone to be dismissed as not representative of the 99% of membership that leaders consider faithful and happy (probably assuming on some level that the church experience is the same for all who live the commandments). That also assumes that the life experiences of the Q15 are either average or (worse) ideal, so understanding diverse viewpoints is not sought. Personally, I think that’s the mindset of a bygone generation, and there is evidence of a shift as new apostles are called. But change is slow in a gerontocracy, and current young generations do not revere their elders as did the Silent Generation (WW2 era).

]]> By: Dexter http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91148 Dexter Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:23:46 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91148 Alison, I agree that it is ridiculous to believe that god will change anything. I was speaking for what members believe. Members may certainly believe that revelation may come from the 12 and the first presidency asking god questions, but not from members voicing their disapproval about women and the priesthood by writing on blogs and giving petitions to their local leaders. Alison, I agree that it is ridiculous to believe that god will change anything.

I was speaking for what members believe. Members may certainly believe that revelation may come from the 12 and the first presidency asking god questions, but not from members voicing their disapproval about women and the priesthood by writing on blogs and giving petitions to their local leaders.

]]> By: Alison Moore Smith http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91143 Alison Moore Smith Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:01:38 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91143 Dexter #148: <i>The Church is run by god, according to members, so they don’t feel that it is their place to picket and sign petitions and shout out their disapproval. They feel that if god wants to change it, he will change it, and that they should focus on the good and support their leaders.</i> Given the actual history of the church, I sincerely think it's ridiculous to take the position that "if god wants to change it, he will change it." What percentage of revelations came about as a mandate of God's will as compared to being an answer to a question, first posed by a human being? Someday, I'm going to chronicle all of God's reliably recorded revelations and put then in two columns: Poofed Down by God Answers to Human Questions If memory serves me, the latter is going so skunk the former. Dexter #148:
The Church is run by god, according to members, so they don’t feel that it is their place to picket and sign petitions and shout out their disapproval. They feel that if god wants to change it, he will change it, and that they should focus on the good and support their leaders.

Given the actual history of the church, I sincerely think it’s ridiculous to take the position that “if god wants to change it, he will change it.”

What percentage of revelations came about as a mandate of God’s will as compared to being an answer to a question, first posed by a human being?

Someday, I’m going to chronicle all of God’s reliably recorded revelations and put then in two columns:

Poofed Down by God
Answers to Human Questions

If memory serves me, the latter is going so skunk the former.

]]> By: Alison Moore Smithe http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-91141 Alison Moore Smithe Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:53:18 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-91141 Ray #138: <i>Your experiences should not occur. Women CAN pay tithing as individuals, no matter their marital status. Women CAN meet with Bishops and Stake Presidents without their husbands. 99.9% of all Bishops would NEVER laugh at someone asking only for respectful treatment.</i> I do not have a history with "Jo." I can't recall seeing any post of hers before. But it sounds to me like she has an OLD, festering sore about church policy. The things she speaks of (women not being allowed to pay tithing under their own name, women not being able to set appointments, etc.) area all things that absolutely were church policy/practice in my lifetime. And I'm not all that stinking old. When I was first an adult, men were asked permission before a calling was extended to his wife. But he was called alone. And, heck, you very well know that my last FOUR WARDS, in TWO STATES have had a prohibition against women giving the opening prayer in sacrament meeting. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there were a bunch of leaders who still held onto some of those other antiquated and, yes, sexist practices. Brushing them off as "exceptions" might not be as accurate as you think. Ray #138:

Your experiences should not occur. Women CAN pay tithing as individuals, no matter their marital status. Women CAN meet with Bishops and Stake Presidents without their husbands. 99.9% of all Bishops would NEVER laugh at someone asking only for respectful treatment.

I do not have a history with “Jo.” I can’t recall seeing any post of hers before. But it sounds to me like she has an OLD, festering sore about church policy. The things she speaks of (women not being allowed to pay tithing under their own name, women not being able to set appointments, etc.) area all things that absolutely were church policy/practice in my lifetime. And I’m not all that stinking old.

When I was first an adult, men were asked permission before a calling was extended to his wife. But he was called alone.

And, heck, you very well know that my last FOUR WARDS, in TWO STATES have had a prohibition against women giving the opening prayer in sacrament meeting.

I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if there were a bunch of leaders who still held onto some of those other antiquated and, yes, sexist practices. Brushing them off as “exceptions” might not be as accurate as you think.

]]> By: Jo http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-90762 Jo Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:57:41 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-90762 Hawkgrrl: Thank you for your response as I was feeling that my point was being overlooked by Ray and Crazywomancreek. They seem to be here to attack anyone providing evidence of a problem in the Church. When I asked for my donations and tithing (not income) to be listed under my name as it was written from my separate checking account, with only my name listed on that account, and was earnings from my employment, the bishop simply stated, "That's not how we do it here." My tithing settlement notice for taxes showed tithing in my husbands name only. They had crossed out his name in pencil and scribbled in small writing my name at the lower margin. My brother in law and sister in law, who is also our accountant, was amused by that and sent a card with the sentiment that "We do not think you are nothing." Their daughter attended Harvard University and is working for a major corporation. My DH has many powerful women on his side of the family, who are Catholic, and I was so embarrassed by my LDS Church's attitude toward me and their actions against us. The Church is aware of what they are doing when they disallow women from showing contributions under their own names. The attitude that it shows is that we, like earlier slaves, are property and not entitled to recognition for donations from our own earnings. The GA's must think that only men in families contribute to tithing and other contributions when they see all contributions listed under head of household. This may not be the procedure followed everywhere as my last ward in Boise, Idaho, did not conduct itself this way. This is part of what makes our LDS Church inconsistent in its performance. We do not respect the type of rule of law and individual rights that our nation was founded upon. A leader can easily corrupt the processes and procedures and set a tone and climate in a ward that is hostile to women. I know it is at the stake president's whim, what tone he wants to set in his stake and how he wants the women treated under his domain can vary widely. The discrimination and retaliation from leaders that I have experienced and witnessed is what has led to our being inactive members. I will not participate locally by tithing under these circumstances. The LDS Church is not ready to view women as equals, or to give us equal respect, even for our tithes. There is no remedy, within the church, according to my Bishop, as they can list donations in any manner that they wish. If you wish to know the true attitude of the LDS church, follow the money trail and see what we are allowed to fund with our donations, who gets credit and who makes the decisions for expenditures. There will be a power gap, when it comes to money, donations or expenditures. Thank you for allowing me to enlighten you to some of the techniques used to disempower women in the LDS Church. Hawkgrrl: Thank you for your response as I was feeling that my point was being overlooked by Ray and Crazywomancreek. They seem to be here to attack anyone providing evidence of a problem in the Church.
When I asked for my donations and tithing (not income) to be listed under my name as it was written from my separate checking account, with only my name listed on that account, and was earnings from my employment, the bishop simply stated, “That’s not how we do it here.” My tithing settlement notice for taxes showed tithing in my husbands name only. They had crossed out his name in pencil and scribbled in small writing my name at the lower margin. My brother in law and sister in law, who is also our accountant, was amused by that and sent a card with the sentiment that “We do not think you are nothing.” Their daughter attended Harvard University and is working for a major corporation. My DH has many powerful women on his side of the family, who are Catholic, and I was so embarrassed by my LDS Church’s attitude toward me and their actions against us. The Church is aware of what they are doing when they disallow women from showing contributions under their own names. The attitude that it shows is that we, like earlier slaves, are property and not entitled to recognition for donations from our own earnings. The GA’s must think that only men in families contribute to tithing and other contributions when they see all contributions listed under head of household.
This may not be the procedure followed everywhere as my last ward in Boise, Idaho, did not conduct itself this way. This is part of what makes our LDS Church inconsistent in its performance. We do not respect the type of rule of law and individual rights that our nation was founded upon. A leader can easily corrupt the processes and procedures and set a tone and climate in a ward that is hostile to women.
I know it is at the stake president’s whim, what tone he wants to set in his stake and how he wants the women treated under his domain can vary widely. The discrimination and retaliation from leaders that I have experienced and witnessed is what has led to our being inactive members. I will not participate locally by tithing under these circumstances. The LDS Church is not ready to view women as equals, or to give us equal respect, even for our tithes. There is no remedy, within the church, according to my Bishop, as they can list donations in any manner that they wish. If you wish to know the true attitude of the LDS church, follow the money trail and see what we are allowed to fund with our donations, who gets credit and who makes the decisions for expenditures. There will be a power gap, when it comes to money, donations or expenditures. Thank you for allowing me to enlighten you to some of the techniques used to disempower women in the LDS Church.

]]> By: Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-90721 Hawkgrrrl Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:43:47 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-90721 "This contributes to another problem, the “auxillary group” as it has been described (Relief Society) is not a separate and equal organization." But it WAS originally with no priesthood oversight and its own separate budget. It only changed mid-century at the suggestion of Harold B. Lee (apostle). Personally, I don't think it was practical for all the auxilliaries to operate totally separately. That was also back in the day of ward budgets (on top of tithing contributions). Your example of having your income listed only under head of household is appalling. I have to think there's a remedy to that. “This contributes to another problem, the “auxillary group” as it has been described (Relief Society) is not a separate and equal organization.” But it WAS originally with no priesthood oversight and its own separate budget. It only changed mid-century at the suggestion of Harold B. Lee (apostle). Personally, I don’t think it was practical for all the auxilliaries to operate totally separately. That was also back in the day of ward budgets (on top of tithing contributions).

Your example of having your income listed only under head of household is appalling. I have to think there’s a remedy to that.

]]> By: Dexter http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/07/i-have-seen-the-axe/#comment-90709 Dexter Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:51:57 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=5806#comment-90709 Jo, I think one reason you are not getting as much support from other members is that they believe the Church is run by Jesus Christ. This fact weakens your comparisons to Rosa Parks and other heroes of change because most people recognize that no matter how wonderful the USA was in the 1960s it still needed serious improvements. But the USA was a country run by men. The Church is run by god, according to members, so they don't feel that it is their place to picket and sign petitions and shout out their disapproval. They feel that if god wants to change it, he will change it, and that they should focus on the good and support their leaders. This is not meant to insult any member of the church, I am simply illustrating that making a change in your town or your country requires some loud protests and aggressive action. But in the church, this is not how change is brought about, generally. Personally, I have no problem with your efforts and I would be tremendously annoyed if my leaders treated me the way yours have treated you. But I think you need to appreciate that even those members who may agree with you, that changes need to be made, they may feel it is proper to do it in a more silent way. Jo,

I think one reason you are not getting as much support from other members is that they believe the Church is run by Jesus Christ. This fact weakens your comparisons to Rosa Parks and other heroes of change because most people recognize that no matter how wonderful the USA was in the 1960s it still needed serious improvements. But the USA was a country run by men. The Church is run by god, according to members, so they don’t feel that it is their place to picket and sign petitions and shout out their disapproval. They feel that if god wants to change it, he will change it, and that they should focus on the good and support their leaders. This is not meant to insult any member of the church, I am simply illustrating that making a change in your town or your country requires some loud protests and aggressive action. But in the church, this is not how change is brought about, generally.

Personally, I have no problem with your efforts and I would be tremendously annoyed if my leaders treated me the way yours have treated you. But I think you need to appreciate that even those members who may agree with you, that changes need to be made, they may feel it is proper to do it in a more silent way.

]]>