DiscussMormonism.com

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

Yes, that's exactly it!

Meadowchik wrote:

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

Yes, that's exactly it!

Tuna_Surprise wrote:
Who cares? We need any allies we can get at this point. The group is fashioning themselves on how they feel about "Ethical Government" so I don't really give a ____ what they feel about non-governmental related stuff.

Exactly. And it's possible that the make-up of the US Supreme Court is more important than calling out the church. Of course, we can do both, but this is something I can agree about with MWEG.

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

That final edit--fixing the quote marks--took an uncountable number of cusswords!

Meadowchik wrote:

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.

I see. It was unclear who you were referring to when you said:

what is most relevant to me in this space is that posters seem to dismiss the importance of sexual assault allegations,

You meant some posters, not posters in general.

Meadowchik wrote:

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.

that's where we disagree, I don't feel their statement pulls Mormons and non-mormons together in a common battle. Nothing they said speaks to their understanding of commonalities between their group and others.

Meadowchik wrote:

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

That final edit--fixing the quote marks--took an uncountable number of cusswords!

Haha! Tell me about it. I swear a LOT more than usual when trying to post here.

Lemmie wrote:that's where we disagree, I don't feel their statement pulls Mormons and non-mormons together in a common battle. Nothing they said speaks to their understanding of commonalities between their group and others.

First, I apologize for not being clear.

It's possible that the intent was, as already said, only to validate their position within orthodox Mormon thought, and it's possible that they have little understanding of outside positions. What's important in my opinion as an ex-Mormon who was an extremely politically active Mormon for many years, is that they are openly opposing sexual abuse and calling for a proper investigation of the Kavanaugh allegations. I see that open support for ethical conduct which may run against the partisan grain as a healthy position.

The statement about the church opposing sexual abuse is objectively an obvious point of common ground with the public, which, unintended or not, is also healthy and perhaps progress.

For the reasons I stated before, Mormon women seeking a better government for women and all others is a step toward autonomy and away from dependence on the church. Even if they never stop believing, this is still progress.

Meadowchik wrote:

Lemmie wrote:that's where we disagree, I don't feel their statement pulls Mormons and non-mormons together in a common battle. Nothing they said speaks to their understanding of commonalities between their group and others.

First, I apologize for not being clear.

It's possible that the intent was, as already said, only to validate their position within orthodox Mormon thought, and it's possible that they have little understanding of outside positions.

so they are only speaking to other Mormons? I suppose that should have occurred to me, after all I was raised in that insular environment. That really seems like no more than the most generous and limited interpretation of their press release, as though one is arguing that it represents a positive effort given the limited abilities of those writing it.

The statement about the church opposing sexual abuse is objectively an obvious point of common ground with the public...

No it's not an objective point of common ground. Right now the lds church in no way can be objectively defined as a church that opposes sexual abuse. Their repeated and prolonged opposition to even the most basic protections against sexual abuse have shut the door on that.

Lemmie wrote:No it's not an objective point of common ground. Right now the LDS church in no way can be objectively defined as a church that opposes sexual abuse. Their repeated and prolonged opposition to even the most basic protections against sexual abuse have shut the door on that.

The fact is that the church has taken an ostensible stance regardless of how it behaves internally on the systemic level, and some LDS take the church on its word.

When I believed, I might have taken the position that church has a strong institutional stance against sexual abuse, given the experiences I had, and the loyalty, subconcious and conscious, that I felt toward the church. My point is that MWEG's stance on Kavanaugh is good. This is world's away better than those just saying Kavanaugh's accusers are lying or they just want it all to go away. Agreeing that you want to go from point A to point B, even if you're not there, is much better than saying B doesn't exist.

The fact is that the church has taken an ostensible stance regardless of how it behaves internally on the systemic level, and some LDS take the church on its word.

That's a key point. Taking a stance and having people believe you depends not on the statement but on whether you are believable. Some may take the lds church st its word, many many others are finding that problematic.

Again, my original point was about the language used to communicate the underlying points; this further discussion extends that into the credibility of that language. I'm not speaking as to whether the underlying points are worthwhile in theory.