DiscussMormonism.com

Meadowchik wrote:

I have a question wrote:I understand what you are saying, but what I see with MWFEG is people in a glasshouse throwing stones.

Only if they're throwing stones at other people's houses. But in this case, the comparison does not fly. The government is not just another person's province or house, it is also their province.

Perhaps it's more like, they stepped out of a glass house that's incredibly dirty with dangerous animals roaming around in it, the glass panels are murky so you can't really see into it, and they're pointing to their neighbor's house complaining how dangerous it is and how there are probably dangerous animals roaming around in there, too?

- Doc

Am I missing something? Has this group come out and said that they don't support Sam Young or PTC? I feel like we've got a lot of speculation here about the inner thoughts from this group. Is there any reason these women couldn't be affiliated with both this group and PTC? I'd suspect, given the general political implications of their message, that there is a fair bit of overlap between the groups.

I have a question wrote:Nit-picking, eh?

Private vs Public is legally and morally different. Not nitty.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Perhaps it's more like, they stepped out of a glass house that's incredibly dirty with dangerous animals roaming around in it, the glass panels are murky so you can't really see into it, and they're pointing to their neighbor's house complaining how dangerous it is and how there are probably dangerous animals roaming around in there, too?

- Doc

Nope. Again, the Supreme Court is theirs just as much as anybody else's.

If you want a more exacting, precise analogy, you might say they are presumably ignoring problems in one of the houses they share with others (going by the absence of statements about PTC on their Facebook page) while complaining about problems they see in a much bigger house they share with others.

Xenophon wrote:Am I missing something? Has this group come out and said that they don't support Sam Young or PTC? I feel like we've got a lot of speculation here about the inner thoughts from this group. Is there any reason these women couldn't be affiliated with both this group and PTC? I'd suspect, given the general political implications of their message, that there is a fair bit of overlap between the groups.

Agreed. I think a more relevant issue is the wording they are actually using in their statement. Why the need to specify that their church teaches sexual assault and abuse are wrong? Whose doesn't? A stronger statement I think would be to simply state their position.

Lemmie wrote:Agreed. I think a more relevant issue is the wording they are actually using in their statement. Why the need to specify that their church teaches sexual assault and abuse are wrong? Whose doesn't? A stronger statement I think would be to simply state their position.

Good point, as you noted earlier. The only thing I can think is that they wanted 1) not presume to speak for everyone (kind of weird but OK, I guess) and 2) leverage the general LDS mantra of following the Prophet.

If they are directing the message to help recruit more support from members it could be a sort of call out to that. "Hey, even church leadership agrees that we should be fighting against guys like Kavanaugh", or something to that effect.

Lemmie wrote:Agreed. I think a more relevant issue is the wording they are actually using in their statement. Why the need to specify that their church teaches sexual assault and abuse are wrong? Whose doesn't? A stronger statement I think would be to simply state their position.

Nah, I think it is good that they're taking a stand expecting Supreme Court nominees to uphold standards of decency. The wording sounds like a genuine expression of their reasoning and a good-faith attempt to share common ground with others in the pubilc square.

I appreciate it.

Personally, what is most relevant to me in this space is that posters seem to dismiss the importance of sexual assault allegations, like the OP seems to be doing, via attacking the fact that this women's group is Mormon.

Come on.

And, when taken in a larger perspective, one could argue that a much more dangerous enemy that needs fighting, more important than the Mormon church, is misogyny. We need the Supreme Court justices who fully embrace the personhood of women and who are committed to protecting human rights. A man who has a history of violating women is much less likely to be able to do that.

Personally, what is most relevant to me in this space is that posters seem to dismiss the importance of sexual assault allegations, like the OP seems to be doing, via attacking the fact that this women's group is Mormon.

Absolutely not, at least by me. I am offering a criticism that their statement comes across oddly and could be stronger if worded differently. A criticism is not an attack. Saying "sure, that sounds great" when it doesn't, because you are worried others might interpret a criticism as an attack, is not helpful.

The wording sounds like a genuine expression of their reasoning and a good-faith attempt to share common ground with others in the pubilc square.

Not to me. "Our church teaches" is not finding common ground. The fact that they single out the 4 Mormons as though they know better where others might not is not finding common ground.

Lemmie wrote:Absolutely not, at least by me. I am offering a criticism that their statement comes across oddly and could be stronger if worded differently. A criticism is not an attack. Saying "sure, that sounds great" when it doesn't, because you are worried others might interpret a criticism as an attack, is not helpful.

I was not calling your criticism an attack. My example of that was the subtext of the opening post and what I was referring to was other posters seeming to defend IHAQ's position in it. In responding to you, I was discussing what was most relevant about this whole thread, and then this general situation with Kavanaugh and what some Mormon women think about it.

Lemmie wrote: Not to me. "Our church teaches" is not finding common ground. The fact that they single out the 4 Mormons as though they know better where others might not is not finding common ground.

As you said, generally churches oppose sexual abuse, which is common ground Mormons have with churches and many other groups and individuals. They're audience in Mormons and non-Mormons, so they are pulling both Mormons and those who oppose sexual abuse together in that statement.

Did you have a comment, meadowchik? Or are you just quoting my profundity for posterity?!

Eta: I see I commented before your final edit, sorry!