TR revoked for #metoo apostasy

[_Meadowchik]

Again we seem to have an institutional detachment from reality within the churches all male hierarchy. Church claims that there is zero tolerance for abuse and that they always believe the women who are reporting abuse. Reality shows something quite different. Women are reporting multiple incidence of having reporting their abuse to their bishops only to run into brick walls, being told its their fault and told to stay in these abusive marriages and victimizing the victims of the abuse. The stake president mentioned in this thread is only being consistent with what his institutional male peers are doing to other women in similar situations throughout the church.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... tal-abuse/

Basically, a woman in the church model only has one real source of power in the church, and only if she has a "functioning" marriage: she can withhold sex. Thus, her priesthood fella cannot have any church-approved sexual outlet. Other than that, men never answer to women in the church. Men are never accountable to women in the church.

by the way my SP withheld my temple recommend because my husband had filed a civil suit against a ward member. Leadership called it an "intrigue between priests," and I was expected to be accountable for that. Several months later, my husband, after expressing in an email his distress at being reprimanded by the bishop for reporting assault and battery (at the hand of the same ward member) to the police "on a Sunday," he was called to a "preliminary disciplinary council" with the stake presidency. He requested I join him, that was refused by the SP. So, the pattern is this: I answer for the "sins" of my husband but have absolutely no voice in the court of my husband. (By the time the "council" came around, the SP had cooled down, turned it into an interview, just listening to my DH for an hour. SP then apologized, but he still only let me in for ten minutes.)

My apologies for repeating my story, people here have already heard it, but I think it is relevant because it reflects a pattern in the policy, doctrine, and practices of the church.

Again, men are never, ever accountable to women in the church.

[_candygal]

The whole thing is kind of sick. Of course she is going to spill her guts..relief society visitors ask ..."How are you doing?" Friends in the ward will ask..."what can we do?"...and then just the pure fact that she needs someone to talk to...if you take away her recommend...take away everyone else who communicate with her!

[_Craig Paxton]

Again we seem to have an institutional detachment from reality within the churches all male hierarchy. Church claims that there is zero tolerance for abuse and that they always believe the women who are reporting abuse. Reality shows something quite different. Women are reporting multiple incidence of having reporting their abuse to their bishops only to run into brick walls, being told its their fault and told to stay in these abusive marriages and victimizing the victims of the abuse. The stake president mentioned in this thread is only being consistent with what his institutional male peers are doing to other women in similar situations throughout the church.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02 ... tal-abuse/

Basically, a woman in the church model only has one real source of power in the church, and only if she has a "functioning" marriage: she can withhold sex. Thus, her priesthood fella cannot have any church-approved sexual outlet. Other than that, men never answer to women in the church. Men are never accountable to women in the church.

by the way my stake president withheld my temple recommend because my husband had filed a civil suit against a ward member. Leadership called it an "intrigue between priests," and I was expected to be accountable for that. Several months later, my husband, after expressing in an email his distress at being reprimanded by the bishop for reporting assault and battery (at the hand of the same ward member) to the police "on a Sunday," he was called to a "preliminary disciplinary council" with the stake presidency. He requested I join him, that was refused by the stake president. So, the pattern is this: I answer for the "sins" of my husband but have absolutely no voice in the court of my husband. (By the time the "council" came around, the stake president had cooled down, turned it into an interview, just listening to my my husband for an hour. stake president then apologized, but he still only let me in for ten minutes.)

My apologies for repeating my story, people here have already heard it, but I think it is relevant because it reflects a pattern in the policy, doctrine, and practices of the church.

Again, men are never, ever accountable to women in the church.

This is the Order of the Priesthood...patriarchy...now get in line

[_Res Ipsa]

Prepare for incoming mansplaining about how the secret weapon of shaming converts an overt patriarchy into a covert matriarchy where ‘Democrat bitches rob men of their penises.

[_Dr. Shades]

Maybe this sister is overreacting. It has been over a year since the divorce was finalized in April of 2017.

If the divorce was finalized in April of 2017, then it has only been about 10 months, not "over a year." :-)

[_Water Dog]

Not saying the SP did the right thing. I'm just not seeing that he obviously did the wrong thing either. Put aside this particular situation, that we just don't have the details of. If someone was stirring up trouble in a ward, spreading highly divisive and personally private gossip, is that reasonably subject to discipline? Imagine if it was in reverse. Someone confessed an indiscretion to the bishop, and then he was telling people in the ward about it. Up in arms about it, right? That guy should not only be released but disciplined himself.

The petty stuff about what ward to attend, I agree that's dumb.

Asking her to keep confidential things confidential though, seems reasonable.

[_Meadowchik]

The whole thing is kind of sick. Of course she is going to spill her guts..relief society visitors ask ..."How are you doing?" Friends in the ward will ask..."what can we do?"...and then just the pure fact that she needs someone to talk to...if you take away her recommend...take away everyone else who communicate with her!

And being in the same ward, if that's the case, is going to be extremely agitating as well.

[_Meadowchik]

Asking her to keep confidential things confidential though, seems reasonable.

Except it's her story. The church doesn't own it.

[_consiglieri]

Maybe this sister is overreacting. It has been over a year since the divorce was finalized in April of 2017.

If the divorce was finalized in April of 2017, then it has only been about 10 months, not "over a year." :-)

I stand corrected, good sir! Of course, I was adding in the statutory waiting period after filing. :-)

[_Water Dog]

Asking her to keep confidential things confidential though, seems reasonable.

Except it's her story. The church doesn't own it.

Well, even that could be disputed, either way, price of tea in China? It's just not appropriate. The church social network should not be leveraged for shaming. Ironically, that's usually how it's used, but in sanctioned ways. I'm actually surprised leadership would act to stop someone from doing something like this. Which further indicates she was over the line with it, continuing this behavior many months after the divorce was settled.