On a recent flight, I finally watched the movie Women Talking which is based on the 2018 novel written by Miriam Toews. In the book, a group of women gather in a hayloft to discuss what they should do in response to a series of sexual assaults that have occurred in their religious community. Nearly all the women, regardless of age, have been victims of these assaults.
(SPOILER ALERT–Don’t continue if you don’t want spoilers!!)
The crisis has finally come to a head when one of the women wakes up partway through her rape, and recognizes one of the men committing the assault, which leads to the women uniting in anger against how the men have treated them. Prior to this point, the women who have been assaulted have been told they were making it up, or that it was demons, or that they dreamed it, or various other gaslighting excuses to prevent the men from being blamed or held accountable. The men have used a spray for stunning cattle to paralyze their victims temporarily. Even when women became pregnant from the rapes, the women were told it was their fault for being open to demons. The women now know that the men were lying, and they were responsible for either the sexual assaults or for protecting those who were abusing them.
“There must be satisfaction gained in accurately naming the thing that torments you.”
Women Talking
Due to gender roles of their society, the women and men seldom interact during their daily lives, and the movie is strictly about the women discussing what to do about their situation in a barn; the men are not present. The women are illiterate by design in their culture, so they use pictures to illustrate their options. The women vote to either stay and fight the men or to leave the community en masse. They talk about what they need to survive, and they identify three things: safety for their children, remaining steadfast in their faith, and to be able to think for themselves. A soft-spoken male schoolteacher who was previously excommunicated has returned to take notes for the women, but he does not have a vote in their decision.
The movie is a fascinating look at the thought process women go through in a patriarchal culture that hurts them while protecting their abusers. It’s also a helpful analysis of how to respond to sexual assault, how to understand faith crisis, how forgiveness works, and the complex tendrills of patriarchy in the lives of men and women. My first thought was, “this is like the Amish and Mennonites I grew up around,” and “This is generic, worded to be applicable to all women.” But what I didn’t know until later, which surprised me, is that this is based on true events.
Should They Stay?
“She had everything she wanted; all she had to do was convince herself that she wanted very little.”
Women Talking
There are really two options if they stay: do nothing or fight. Doing nothing is not an attractive option now that they know the truth. They have internalized the lessons of humility and submission that their faith teaches. They also recognize that they have no education or support group outside of their community, which will make it very difficult to support themselves if they strike out on their own. They don’t know if they will be able to be safe outside of their community, and to protect and feed their children. While a few women initially argue to do nothing, the conversation keeps coming back to how angry they are at the violence that the community elders have allowed to happen to them and their daughters, and that this sexual violence is going to continue if they ignore it.
“Most of us, she said, absolve ourselves of responsibility for change by sentimentalizing our pasts.”
Women Talking
Given their situation, staying more likely means fighting, perhaps even physically fighting against the men. The picture they draw in the voting is of women taking up farm tools to fight the men. They can no longer ignore what the men have been doing to them. Many women have been injured. Some have become pregnant and ostracized. They are all emotionally scarred. They are terrified of what will happen to their daughters as they mature, and some of their daughters have already been raped before puberty. Culturally, they are supposed to be humble and submit to the rule of the elders and their husbands. They recognize that it’s a Christian duty to forgive, but they also discuss the problem that forgiveness will lead to further threats to their safety; they will be enabling their ongoing abuse. After all, the men refused to admit what they were doing and lied to protect their abusers. As one woman points out, “Forgiveness can be confused with permission.”
Because the women are angry and continue to have vengeful thoughts, they recite a statement that is designed to change their negative thought process; it sounded a lot like the thirteenth article of faith, but I didn’t write it down. Because their faith is pacifist, they are worried that staying will make it impossible to remain pacifists. There have been too many wrongs committed against them, physical harms and emotional violations that cannot be undone. They may have to counter the sexual violence with their own violence if they stay.
Should They Leave?
“By leaving, we are not necessarily disobeying the men according to the Bible, because we, the women, do not know exactly what is in the Bible, being unable to read it. Furthermore, the only reason why we feel we need to submit to our husbands is because our husbands have told us that the Bible decrees it.”
Women Talking
One woman suggests that they ask the men to leave instead, and another woman points out that they’ve never asked the men for anything before, not so much as “please pass the salt,” even as the women are required to give birth for the twelfth or thirteenth time without complaint, but the women laugh, knowing this won’t happen. Why would the men leave? The community was designed for them, not for the women.
“We’re not members! . . . Fourteen-year-old boys are expected to give us orders, to determine our fates, to vote on our excommunications, to speak at the burials of our own babies while we remain silent, to interpret the Bible for us, to lead us in worship, to punish us! We are not members. We are commodities.”
Women Talking
Another woman, on a more thoughtful note, asks about the age cutoff for the men to leave if the women take their children and leave the community; she is concerned about her sons. Another woman points out that men, just like women, have been born innocent, and they also suffer under the system. Some of them have fallen prey to the allure of power, which always seeks to protect itself. One of the women asks, “What about the men we love?” Some of them feel pity toward the men they are contemplating leaving. Ultimately, they realize that the only way they can forgive the men is if the abuse stops and they have enough time and distance to forgive. Forgiveness can only occur if they leave.
“But is forgiveness that is coerced true forgiveness? And isn’t the lie of pretending to forgive with words but not with one’s heart a more grievous sin than to simply not forgive? Can’t there be a category of forgiveness that is up to God alone, a category that includes the perpetration of violence upon one’s children, an act so impossible for a parent to forgive that God, in His wisdom, would take exclusively upon Himself the responsibility for such forgiveness?”
Women Talking
A woman posits, “Leaving is how we demonstrate our faith. We are leaving because our faith is stronger than the rules.”
They ultimately decide to leave, the community but not their faith, and to create a new community where women have a voice, everyone is safe, and their Christian faith is still foundational. Even the kind schoolteacher who took notes for them is not allowed to join them because he is an adult man.
These are the notes I took as I contemplated the movie, but I asked ChatGPT to give a more comprehensive rundown of the main arguments for staying & for leaving as presented in the book on which the movie is based:
Arguments for the women to stay:
- Preservation of their faith and community: Some women argue that staying is important to maintain their Mennonite way of life, their religious beliefs, and the close-knit community they have known all their lives.
- Safety concerns: Some women fear that leaving the community would expose them to greater risks and uncertainties, as they may face difficulties in finding shelter, work, or protection from potential harm.
- Family ties and responsibilities: Many of the women have familial connections within the community, and they feel a sense of duty towards their children, spouses, and other relatives. They believe that leaving might disrupt these important relationships.
Arguments for the women to leave:
ChatGPT recap of the main arguments to stay or leave in the novel “Women Talking”
- Protection from further harm: Some women argue that staying in the community would put them at risk of continued abuse and oppression. They believe that leaving would ensure their safety and enable them to build a new life free from the confines of the patriarchal structure.
- Seeking justice and accountability: Leaving the community can be seen as a way to seek justice for the crimes committed against them. By leaving, they hope to draw attention to the wrongdoing and hold the perpetrators accountable, thereby preventing further harm to themselves and others.
- Autonomy and empowerment: Leaving the community represents an opportunity for personal growth, independence, and the ability to make their own choices. They argue that by leaving, they can reclaim their agency and live life on their own terms.
Watching the movie, I couldn’t help but see the parallels between the women’s situation and the online discussions I’ve read in which women (and men) talk about what they should do with regard to the Church if they have felt betrayed or had a faith (or trust) crisis. As in the book, feelings of betrayal may be about:
- harms to themselves
- harms done to others, particularly their own children
- the response of those in charge when confronted about these issues
- a growing concern that spiritual and personal growth is hampered by staying
The options are the same: do nothing (be PIMO?), stay and fight (be progressive, a voice for change in their ward), or leave (go inactive or resign). Unlike the women in this movie, some also choose to leave their faith or Christianity behind, not just the Church community to which they belong. In the movie, the women see the disconnect between their faith and their community. They choose their faith and to create a new community that will be safe and that they hope will avoid these hypocrisies. Their faith remains essential and important to them, one thing they don’t really question as they discuss what has happened to them.
But, as they gather their children to leave, one of Salome’s older sons resists. In her urgency to leave before the men arise, she uses the cattle spray to stun her son and take him against his will. This act points to the uncertainness of their future. If the women are also prone to using force to get what they want, will they succeed in creating a safe community where the men failed or will they also fall prey to the allure of power?
What parallels do you see between the movie and what’s happening with faith crises?
- Should people stay and resist or leave and create something better for themselves? Or do nothing and remain silent? Does your answer vary depending on whether they or their loved ones are harmed or abused in the culture?
- Is it possible to drive change if you don’t have a voice (or aren’t a leader) and/or your efforts are met with resistance, marginalization and gaslighting?
- Is forgiveness easily mistaken for permission? Does it lead to further abuses or avoidance of accountability for abusers?
- How should one balance the degree of harm, the ability to influence change, one’s ability to thrive elsewhere, and the expected future harms that could be prevented when considering such decisions?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
First of all the basic question of should we stay or leave cannot apply to our community because,
1. We are not all together exercising our voice and vote to plan something together that will have an impact as a group. We are divided and exercising our agency as individuals as to whether we stay or go and
…. continued from above.
and we are divided in how we choose to stay or go. That is as it should be because individuals have different resources and situations. It also matters if members or their loved ones are currently suffering harms of various kinds. To moralize and imagine there is a one size fits all correct view of what an individual should do in answering this question is to duplicate some of the abuses that occur in the traditional community. There is no one size fits all moral answer to this question.
A person considering this choice has to first consider their own personal safety. If they are standing in a safe place and have influence (formal or informal), then it truly is their choice whether and how they stay or go. A person in this situation can choose to attempt to change their community. When people respond by changing things they speak about, they can eventually see this impact. Efforts made to change the community are valuable because we are not leaving as a group and people with fewer resources will be left behind without support if we leave. This makes our decision much less clear cut than the decision faced in “Women Talking”.
2. Can people change the church while being marginalized because of faith crisis? Yes, I have been able to cause some changes in my local faith community in spite of my marginalized, non leadership status. But the only way I was able to get those changes has been by preserving my informal influence in my personal relationships in the community, and by speaking up about concerns I suffer. I didn’t control those outcomes: leaders that listened to me did. However, those leaders walked away from talking to me, with a clearer, more personal understanding of a particular concern. If I had left in protest without communicating, they wouldn’t understand why, and people left behind wouldn’t have the benefits of the changes I have influenced.
3. I do think we have a confused understanding of forgiveness in the church. Forgiveness is not the same thing as reconciliation. Forgiveness is nothing more than the state of a person’s heart and seeing those who have hurt us as also being children of God who can change. It doesn’t mean a person should put themselves back in unsafe situations. Reconciliation can only occur when both parties are involved and cannot occur unilaterally.
Change and reconciliation mostly occurs when we remain in relationship with others. However if the power differential is far enough out of balance, and those with formal power do not listen to those without formal power, leaving in protest can become the only balanced and viable way to communicate the problem and protect oneself and one’s family. Leaders who listen and members who speak up offer an alternative to leaving, that isn’t available in many situations.
Fascinating how you equate rape and gang rape with a “patriarchal” society, instead of horrible crimes period.
I am actively attending but haven’t held beliefs resembling any real orthodoxy for at least a decade or more. I have contemplated for a long time the questions of why I stay and what could change it. One reason why I stay is that I believe in the benefits of participating in the community and the cost to me is relatively low because I haven’t really suffered any real harm from my participation. I’ve felt that one of the things that might change things would be if one of my kids came out as gay. I guess that falls in the category of harm, or at least risk of harm, to my kids. So yes, harm to my kids would change how I feel about participation.
Anyone who decides to stay to “be the change” needs to have a realistic sense of what influence they have. Real influence on our fellow congregants is possible, institutional policy less so unless you have certain callings. Ultimately change is going to happen when individuals with new ideas move up high enough in the leadership structure. It’s very clearly not going to be me.
For years whenever lessons on forgiveness come up at church, I’ve been preaching the idea that forgiveness and restoration of trust are two separate things, and that the first is possible even if the second may never be in some situations. I’ve come to view forgiveness as largely internal work, the work of letting go of the harm so we can move on. I agree that distance, in space and/or time may be necessary, if the harm is severe enough.
Patriarchy and rape culture are indistinguishable. No, patriarchy does not force men to rape. But it absolutely allows rapists to avoid all accountability.
Rape was a capital crime for most of our nation’s history and in most of our states. Most people would say that we were also a patriarchal society. To say that the patriarchy “ABSOLUTELY allows rapists to avoid ALL accountability” might be going a little too far. Indeed, most absolute statements tend to be wrong. The people who made the laws in our patriarchal history dealt severely with rape, and men were executed for rape, so there was sometimes some accountability.
Georgis, I agree that most absolute statements tend to be wrong. However, I think your statement about rapists being held accountable needs more context. Yes, before the 1970’s most states allowed capital punishment for rapists. That is not the same thing as holding rapists accountable. For one thing, many things we currently consider sexual assault/rape were not then considered rape. I clearly remember the heated discussions that occurred when laws began to be passed against marital rape because it was quite commonly assumed that there could not be rape within a marriage. Also, this statement (which includes a source citation) from Wikipedia is interesting: “Before and during the American Civil War when slavery was widespread, laws against rape were focused primarily on instances of black men raping white women, real or imagined, as opposed to other instances. Black women who were raped by any man were not protected by the law.[87]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) Whatever you might think of the Me Too movement, it highlighted the reality that sexual assault and rape are unfortunately common, and that holding rapists accountable can be difficult. The degree of connection between patriarchal societies and danger for women is also difficult.
Along the lines of the historical treatment of rape, a good movie to watch that is also based on actual history is The Last Duel, about a rape case that couldn’t be decided based on the evidence in the 13th Century that resulted in a pregnancy. The wife claimed to have been raped. The man claimed it was consensual. The husband had to fight the accused to the death to restore his wife’s (and thereby his own) honor. The way the case is presented is very enigmatic. It’s plausible that the accused didn’t see it as a rape even if it was one, or that the accuser possibly claimed rape to avoid being punished. There’s also a history podcast about the true events at Noble Blood: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/trial-by-combat/id1468332063?i=1000544185546
So, yes, some rape was punished, even by death, but there are a ton of patriarchal caveats: 1) it was for a long time considered to be a property/honor crime one man perpetrated on another, 2) women were not always believed even though they often bore the consequences and obviously always bore the children, 3) women could never participate in the process as judges or advocates until basically the last 100 years at best, and 4) marital rape wasn’t even illegal anywhere in the US until 1973 and became illegal nationally in 1993.
Even since the Dobbs ruling, Utah’s abortion law (which is one of the less problematic ones in a red state) doesn’t believe women or trust them to make the decision about a pregnancy that results from rape or even incest. That decision must be sanctioned by a police department. Nationally, 88% of police officers are men, and 40+% of officers have had a complaint of domestic abuse. That’s not a great situation for women who are stuck in probably the worst trauma of their lives.
A few more stats that add some color to the picture: 90% of rape victims are women. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 26 men will experience either rape or attempted rape.
Paul Mero is a dork. Of the highest order. I’m fascinated by how dorks translate their condition into careers. Just sayin’.
I’ve thought for many, many years that I could stay and create something better in the church. Books like Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact and Do I Stay Christian? and podcasts like Faith Matters, At Last She Said It, Faithful Feminists, and Beyond the Block buoyed me while I floated along my endless sea of doubt and questions. Until I looked my young children in the eyes and realized I couldn’t risk it. The community they’d receive in the church wasn’t worth the risk of harm that could be done.
I don’t have any big T trauma from my experience in the church but I have buckets and buckets of small T trauma. Shame around my body via purity culture, constant fear about not being with my family forever, moral superiority, religious radicalization in CES classrooms, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric that’s still thrown around (see FSY Standards on BCC). The hallmarks of religious trauma are a constant message that you’re not safe and you’re not enough. Given my place, miles and miles away from the room where it happens, where my influence is so minuscule to help enact serious change, I’m taking charge where I can and looking for something healthier somewhere else.
I was scared to leave for so many years. Once we did it we realized the reasons we were told or told ourselves why we shouldn’t do it mostly weren’t true. One of the big lies any small church like the LDS church tells its members is that the only full truth is inside the church and that leaving that church means losing protection of that truth. The outside world is depicted as a dangerous place.
In my case I was afraid how to raise my kids out of the church. What would happen to my family and marriage. What kind of community would we have to help us. How would our family learn right and wrong and to be good people without the church?
In the end there are some things we lost from leaving the community but it saved our relationship with our LGBT kids. We suddenly had time to actually be a part of our neighborhood and found new friends. Turns out our kids didn’t need the church to be good. They are such good people. They are going to all end up with tattoos and multiple piercings and in relationships that would be scandalous within our Mormon ward and thinking. But their girlfriends are kind and funny and are such good people.
Most of my kids are now atheists or always were but didn’t dare talk to us about it before. They find a lot of inspiration and beauty in the world still and we get to be a part of those discussions that couldn’t have happened if we stayed.
I do miss people from the church as our lives grow further apart. They are busy with ward and temple and callings and barely have time for someone who isn’t part of that circle – unless you are an investigator of course, but I am not. I live far from Utah/Idaho so the church is like 1-2% of the population so we are starting to find new friends but that is hard as an adult.
That there were admittedly abuses in the past does not make it true that patriarchy “ABSOLUTELY allows rapists to avoid ALL accountability,” as was written and strongly defended above. I don’t think in the United States, or in Utah, that rapists absolutely avoid all accountability. I respectfully think that this assertion is simply factually incorrect.
When there is no evidence, or when there is reasonable doubt, the accused must go free, irrespective of his guilt. In the eighteenth century, in England Blackstone wrote that we prefer that ten criminals not go to jail than one innocent person suffer wrongly, and in France Voltaire wrote about “the great principle that it is better to run the risk of sparing the guilty than to condemn the innocent.” This represented a change in thinking over a few centuries. In 1209 at Béziers, during the Albigensian Crusade, every man, woman, and child (about 20,000 people) in the city were killed. The story is told by Caesarius of Heisterbach: “When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot [the papal legate] ‘Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.’ The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied ‘Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His’ (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.”
In the book the OP references, Salome used the cattle spray to stun her own son and take him against his will, and the OP raises the question as to whether using force against the innocent is right in order to achieve another good end. That is a challenging question. We should be careful: communism and many socialisms have used force against the innocent to achieve what they called a good end. Some in the Me Too movement have said that the woman must always be believed, and if innocent men are imprisoned wrongly, that’s a fair price to pay for past wrongs or to deter future wrongs. I can’t support punishing the innocent to achieve some noble end. I am also leery about lowering the reasonable doubt threshold–while some guilty do go free, the high threshold helps ensure that the innocent are not punished, and that is an important protection.
Laura, I appreciate your words. We lead by guilt and we impose heavy burdens on our neighbors, but isn’t this what the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day? The Christian message wasn’t about deeds and checklists and steps.
(a) When the jailer in Philippi, who had custody of Paul and Silas, asked them, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, Paul and Silas responded: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” The jailer was taught and baptized. Note that Paul and Silas did not give the jailer a long list of things to do after baptism. They told him to believe, and all would be well.
(b) Jesus taught in Galilee: “Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
(c) This is the same message to Nicodemus: “Whosoever believeth in him [God’s only begotten son] should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The work of God, or the work that God gives to men and women who will follow Him, is to believe! The work is not a long list of steps and deeds. Yes, we have to avoid wickedness and live righteously, but this from a position of belief rather than a focus on accumulating works. Imagine teaching that because of your belief in Christ, you can overcome all things, as opposed reminding us frequently of our failings and inadequacies. Which will motivate the people better? I think the former, but the latter thinking seems to dominate today.
Georgis: Your comment at 9:22 bizarrely points out the repression doled out by “communism and many socialisms,” but there are plenty of repressions doled out by fascists and autocrats of all stripe, whichever end of the political spectrum they fall. (Most so-called “communist” countries of the last century were really just autocratic grifts, not some kind of Marxist utopia). It’s possible that’s why you’re getting downvotes there.
I certainly agree with you that the “believe all women” mantra that came out of the me too movement is an over-reaction to the millenia-long precedent that has mostly disenfranchised women, but it served to point out the many ways in which women (and other marginalized people) have *not* been believed or had their complaints taken seriously. The women in the movie receive the same types of dismissal that have happened to women throughout history: gaslighting, ignoring, minimizing, victim blaming. They want to create a society that still has the religious faith they hold dear, but without being run and interpreted by the men who have proven themselves unreliable, unjust, and oppressive.
Agree, Angela, that atrocities have been committed under all kinds of systems, and continue to happen. Still, there might be a difference. At least C. S. Lewis thought so:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims [that’s why I mentioned historical communism and socialism] may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I am glad that women have it better today than in the past, and we’re all working to make to better tomorrow. I can’t change what happened 500 or 100 years ago, or what happened last year in another state, but I can work for good within my own ambit. Another view of Lewis’ moral busybodies can be those who would create a theocracy. Until the Millenium comes under the Lord, I will move to the other side of the earth not to live in an LDS theocracy run by people.
chinoblanco et al: Just a reminder that Paul Mero is associated with the SLPC-designated hate group World Congress of Families as noted in Elisa’s thorough reporting on that group’s opposition to LGBTQ rights (along with the Church’s disturbing ties to this pro-Russian group, including financial support–and I’m guessing that $$ didn’t come from a gofundme or their own pockets which is particularly galling to those of us who were unwittingly duped into paying tithing dollars that ended up going to a hate group), and the Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based conservative think tank with ties to Church leadership that also opposes gay rights. Here’s a link to Elisa’s OP: https://wheatandtares.org/2022/03/04/part-2-the-real-gay-agenda-homophobia-russian-fascism-and-the-lds-church-in-eastern-europe/
And if someone wants to tell me tithing dollars didn’t go there, but investments from tithing dollars did, I’ll point out that the Church has made it clear (when they changed tithing forms) that donations are fungible and opaque, and there are no take-backs.
So Georgis votes “Stay.” Rape is not that bad, doesn’t happen that often, some rapists might be eventually held accountable, so women and girls don’t deserve any protection and shouldn’t stand up for themselves. And there’s no connection between women being raped and men making all the decisions. Got it. There’s a character in the movie who agrees with you. She chooses to stay and trust the men to do the right thing for once. Good luck with that.
The book Women Talking is fabulous! The author shows the interplay between faith and hope and religiosity of an oppressed group, and how those things play out in the real world full of oppressors. I think any female who grew up in a conservative, patriarchal church will understand it and appreciate it.
On the subject of social systems that exercise moral tyranny:
There is no system that inflicts oppression more self-righteously than capitalism.
Communism is dead as a political ideology. It is tiresome to read arguments that pummel communism, as if that addresses any kind of political reality in the present day. It is also tiresome to read arguments that conflate communism with socialism.
There are two great systems of political oppression in the world today, and neither one is communist or socialist. There is free-market capitalism. And there is authoritarian nationalism, which has a powerful variant in religious nationalism. One reason these systems are so powerful is that they incorporate deep prejudices associated with class, religion, race and gender. They recruit these prejudices to make political and economic oppression appear righteous for the winners and deserved for the losers. Another reason they are so powerful is that they are compatible; there is no ideological or economic competition between them, as there was between East and West during the Cold War.
So, Georgis, if you’re looking for a reason to move to the other side of the Earth, you don’t have to wait for a political theocracy. The moral tyranny of capitalism is already here. As for unfettered authoritarian nationalism, the question is pending. Your only problem is that you’re likely to find the same kinds of tyranny wherever you go.
Far better to acknowledge the reality of where we are today and then work to mitigate the harms and alleviate the suffering caused by these ungodly ideologies.
Wow! One hater jumps on here…a site I thought to have some sense of decorum…and then I am judged personally? So let’s set my record correctly. I helped to found The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society (HC) in 1998. HC is the founder of the World Congress of Families (WCF). I administered its first big gathering in Geneva, Switzerland in 1999. Dallin H. Oaks was on the board of trustees of the HC for a short period of time (before all Brethren were asked to resign from all outside boards). The LDS Church might have donated $5K – $10K a year for the 2 1/2 years I worked for the HC. Elder Oaks and President Packer did host a fundraiser for the Geneva conference at the SLC Hilton in 1999…and then-Relief Society President Mary Ellen Smoot was assigned to represent the LDS Church on the organizing board of that conference…and she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for that conference form private donors. So, 24 years ago the LDS Church endorsed, but did not fund, a conference in Geneva, Switzerland.
I cannot do anything about what the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC) thinks or does. It was lobbied by someone to include the WCF on its hate-group list at some point long after the founding of the WCF. I left the HC in 2000 and joined Sutherland Institute (SI) that same year. In fact, while I was at SI (2000-2014), I tried many times to meet with the SLPC to discuss the listing but was ghosted every time I reached out. So much for professionalism and inclusivity from the anti-hate-haters.
I stayed close to the WCF while at SI. I spoke at three other gatherings in Warsaw, Amsterdam (along with President Russell M. Nelson and Sheri Dew), and Sydney, Australia. I co-authored a book with the president of HC and the founder of the WCF, Allan Carlson, titled The Natural Family: A Manifesto (you’d be good to read it). At some point in time, the WCF executive committee invited me to a meeting in Dallas, Texas, to discuss holding a WCF gathering in Moscow. Two representatives from Moscow (yes, tied to Putin’s administration) were present. I argued vociferously AGAINST the idea. The Russian dudes were smug pricks, (just as you might imagine from Putin people), even so, the idea of doing anything in Russia was appalling to me. But I was out voted. Still, I was encouraged strongly to attend. I absolutely and resolutely refused (not to mention travel to Russia at that time was banned by the Obama Administration).
I worked hard at SI before I was fired in 2014 to bring the WCF to SLC in 2015. The LDS Church was onboard. After I was fired, I was asked by the chairman of SI to administer the WCF in SLC in 2015. I declined and when I declined the LDS Church, and several other community leaders, such as Bishop Wester, became reluctant to participate. President M. Russell Ballard ended up speaking at the 2015 conference, but that was all of the support the LDS Church gave.
In sum, the LDS Church was a heavy supporter of the 1999 Geneva conference. Sixteen years later it sent President Ballard to speak at its 2015 event in its own backyard. Your precious tithing dollars (that you probably didn’t pay anyway) were not used for the WCF, at least as I am aware. I was not a part of some WCF-Putin BS scheme to oppress gays in Russia or Africa or anywhere. I opposed all of that nonsense. Did I oppose nondiscrimination laws in UT? Yes. Did I oppose SSM in UT? Yes. But, if you are even the least bit fair in your judgments of me, you might also cite several recent op-eds in the SL Trib wherein I call on my own LDS Church to pull out of the culture wars and even to abandon its tax-exempt status. My views about gay rights and SSM have not changed. What has changed is that the my side lost the culture war as early as 1997 — I fought it for years later at the behest of my church and LDS faithful in Utah.
Lastly, you might wait for complete personal judgment of me when I release a new book about my 40-year career fighting the culture war in America. I’m almost finished with it. Your opinion of me will not change, in fact you’ll likely despise me even more if that’s even possible, but your introduction to true facts might be enlightening for you.
Another reason to leave and the assumptions behind Georgis and Paul Mero are that the functions, forms, institutions, and ideas of the past must be conserved or changed very slowly. The other is a worship of capitalism and market economics. This is the heart of a conservative world view that was built into Mormonism of the 1950s till today. They are against feminism and civil rights movements or environmentalist positions and against socialism and communism because they are revolutionary and progressive and are actively trying to topple existing institutions and capitalist systems. It doesn’t matter to them that the me too movement is right but that it threatens power structures and patriarchal systems.
This is another reason to leave. You can’t change from within an institution that is actively opposed to change. And maintaining the institution and forms of power even when those institutions actually are harming people within or around them.
I think for some people, there is a 2-5 year gap between when their faith transition starts and they leave. During that time, they may do nothing and remain silent, and also find ways to advocate for a change in culture. I know there are also people who leave shortly after something triggers a faith transition.
I think some people are capable of driving social change due to how charismatic and engaging they are. I think some people are capable of maintaining their vision so that the resistance, marginalization, and gaslighting aren’t as big a problem. I am not one of those people.
We teach “Forgiveness” as “a clean slate” that wipes all “sin” and memory of triggers that created that “sinful situation” away. And then the people who forgave to that extent are doubly hurt as the “sin” trauma comes back, and the boundary violation is now in play in a situation that the forgiving individual didn’t want to deal with the 1st time and the 2nd time it came up. We attribute that “clean slate Forgiveness” as “Christlike” so “play God” by accident with the usual disastrous results.
I don’t know how to balance the factors of harm, influence change, thriving elsewhere, predicted future harms. I know I stayed – adapted – stayed – adapted – stayed – adapted until COVID hit – and it dawned on me that church wasn’t worth the “damage control” I was doing for myself and my children.
I tried to tell you…”And if someone wants to tell me tithing dollars didn’t go there…” But it seems as if my reply to you did not make the cut to be posted, for reasons unknown to me. Evidently this ad hominem is worthy of posting…”Paul Mero is a dork. Of the highest order. I’m fascinated by how dorks translate their condition into careers. Just sayin’.” But my civil reply is not. Doesn’t seem quite fair.
Paul Mero: For whatever reason (Akismet works in mysterious ways), two of your comments were sent to Spam. We are not notified when Akismet does this, only when a comment that Akismet does *not* think is spam but comes from the same source comes in, so when I saw your most recent comment, I checked Spam, and there you were. You weren’t moderated. This is an automatic process done by a plug in.
You are right that chinoblanco should not have called you a “dork,” but it seemed like a silly thing so I let it slide. I’d rather engage with your actual ideas, although I certainly disagree with your anti-gay marriage stance. But it is important (and thank you) to understand your positions across the board. Without engagement, there’s no learning. My own views are shaped by a strong belief in personal freedom, whether for me or for others. If you pay taxes, you get to pursue freedom, so long as you don’t harm others. I totally agree that the Church should quit being tax-exempt (although I hasten to caveat that the LDS church is less political than many other churches who also take advantage of that status).
This remark has me stumped: “Your precious tithing dollars (that you probably didn’t pay anyway)” What does that even mean?? Why do you think I’m lying about paying tithing?
Your characterization of the discussions regarding the Russia involvement with WCF and your explanation of how you contributed to the stepping back from this alliance is quite encouraging, so thank you for sharing. The Church’s ties to the WCF (and opposition to LGBTQ rights in general) is extremely distressing to me and others who feel differently and who have family members directly in the cross-hairs of these bitter struggles. I also appreciate your clarification that although you oppose gay marriage you realize the culture war is lost and do not support discrimination. What is your stance on issues like the discrimination against LGBTQ people in refusal of services? Do you think business owners have a right to refuse service or do you believe queer people have a right to be treated equally in the public square?
You’re mistaken that I despise you. I do not agree with your stance, and I disagree which of us needs to be introduced to “true facts,” but that’s not the same as despising you. I appreciate your clarification of your history with WCF (as well as the SPLC designation information). Personally, I agree with their designation, but it would be fair for them to listen to the counter argument.
@paul mero, very interesting context on the background of the LDS church and WCF (unavailable to most of the public since the church does not make these activities known).
If you’ve looked at the series I did, you’ll see that I didn’t speculate about how much money the church did or didn’t contribute to WCF. I also didn’t rely on any factual information that was presented by the SPLC without corroboration. I posted dozens of primary source documents of meeting agendas and other evidence detailing Church involvement and WCF activities.
I only focused on the facts, which include (1) church leaders attending WCF events alongside or even hosted by European fascists and Russian oligarchs, and (2) the WCF lobbying to criminalize homosexuality in developing countries and Eastern Europe.
I understand your position on gay marriage but I hope that even you wouldn’t argue that homosexuality should be punishable by death. The WCF unfortunately has.
I had thoughts to share about women talking at church in meetings, and the taboo topics that create an environment where women’s authenticity and vulnerability are rendered impotent, even in all-female groups. With illuminating examples from the recent past. (Exhibit A: The abdication of church HQ from directing or even participating in a celebration of the 175th anniversary of the founding of Relief Society, because that history is full to bursting with bad stuff that has been sort of erased)
But the discussion turned to the worthy topic from the movie— the violent damage from rape— and so quickly devolved to scrutiny of reliable accountability, with hints of How trustworthy is a rape victim? And gaslighting of the evolving changes spurred by the Me-too movement, that I was thinking seriously?! I have to trot out my talking points about the efficacy of good investigative practice in weeding out the very few liars who report rape? Dig up old statistics? You guys and your fearful concerns were addressed back then, and you should do some reading, and quit sucking all the oxygen out of the room.
Then came some guy who’s unknown to me, Paul Mero, who is apparently a master debater, able to suck all the oxygen, past, present, and future, out of a discussion, and stop it cold. So gross.
Sorry Angela, your post was excellent and the discussion held promise. Imagine! Shared thoughts about women talking, by women! With their authentic voices about vulnerable things, that isn’t derailed by men who won’t listen, being endlessly clumsy, toxic, or both. Who show up primarily to enjoy their own parade.
Truly imaginary.
Laura said:
“Until I looked my young children in the eyes and realized I couldn’t risk it. The community they’d receive in the church wasn’t worth the risk of harm that could be done.”
Exactly this. Soon after my son was born, I started having constant panic attacks worrying that he might grow up to be gay. Not because I would have a hard time accepting him, but because I knew I was raising him in an environment that is absolutely toxic for LGBTQ kids. And then I realized, if I stay, and all my kids grow up to be straight and have an easy time in the Church, does that mean I’m ok with the harm that the Church causes as long as it only happens to someone else’s kids?
It was the hardest decision I’ve ever made. Like Brian G said, I was (and still am) afraid of raising my kids outside the Church. But I was more afraid of what would happen to them inside the Church. So we stepped away, and I have felt at peace with that decision.
@Angela C…thank you for clarifying the system. I apologize for the characterization about not paying tithing. Honestly, I just assume “critics” (i.e., LDS progressives or apostates) have left the Church or are leaving the Church and, hence, are not paying tithing. Yes, a generalization. My bad in this case.
@Elisa,,,You conflate “support” with “funding.” What I explained is true — the two are not the same. Why is that important? Because there is the accusation that tithing dollars were used to “fund” WCF events. I promise you no tithing dollars were ever used. The for-profit arm of the Church (i.e., DMC) is who I solicited for funding when funding occurred. Not tithing dollars. Otherwise, as I stated, funds for the WCF from “the Church” came from individual LDS donors. Again, not tithing funds. You also wrongly conflate the Church with BYU professors who individually spent their time with the WCF. Again, no tithing dollars. You conflate “participation” at a WCF event with “support” with “funding” with tithing dollars. Just not true. I don’t question your ability to read newspaper articles and speculate from those “connections” to the WCF. What I described is true — nothing more, nothing less. I ought to know. It was my job to raise money in the early years of WCF. As for the Church “supporting” any WCF event by sending a speaker is reasonable to assume. But, as I said about the 2015 SLC event, Elder Ballard, Church Public Affairs, et. al. were reluctant to participate after the 2015 event left my control. Yes, he spoke there. So? So, he supports the “natural family”? Yep. So, he supports the Family Proclamation? Yep. Are those things the real crimes he and the Church are accused of? If so, then guilty.
After I left, the WCF often struggled for funding…hell, it struggled when I was there. My guess is that funding often overwhelmed prudence about participants and locations. Russia is a good example. Their people threw a lot of money on the table. Once the travel ban was eased, WCF folks did go to Russia. As I said, imprudent on many levels of operation and substance. Look, I was the trusted LDS connection inside the WCF with the LDS Church…which is why I was constantly asked to participate and attend private organizational meetings, such as the one in Dallas whereat the Russians made their bid (and which I opposed vociferously), and why I was asked to run the 2015 SLC event for Sutherland Institute even as I was fired from the Institute.
Just saying, whether you like me and my beliefs or not, I am telling you the truth — 1) no tithing dollars were ever used to fund a WCF event and 2) the LDS Church had no role in all of the controversial WCF-related events such as Russia or the crazy stuff in Africa (btw, the WCF founders didn’t even have a role in the Africa stuff…totally rogue people who were once associated with the WCF…people nobody could control what they did or what they said).
I’d be interested in reading a review / analysis by Angela C and Elissa of Paul Mero’s book when it comes out.
“Honestly, I just assume “critics” (i.e., LDS progressives or apostates) have left the Church or are leaving the Church and, hence, are not paying tithing.”
I keep coming back and rereading this statement. I can’t find a way to read it as anything other than judgmental and mean. Yep, progressives are apostates. So are critics. Anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Mormon culture (not necessarily the same as the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ) has left or is leaving the Church and is an enemy.
I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but I believe one of the reasons so many who struggle end up leaving is that we are told so often we are not welcome. But, you know what? It’s my church too. Which ties back to the original discussion of should they stay or should they go, that keeps being highjacked.
Just over two years ago, my wife and I moved to Las Vegas precisely to get out of LDS “culture.” UT/SLC/UTC is a hyper-culture unable to self-correct. We were tired of feeling as if we had to live up to the expectations of other people. I would say about our Herriman ward, “I have one God, I don’t need 400 more.” I have long hair and tattoos and in our Vegas ward they simply welcome me, glad to have us there. Now…let’s all be real…everyone is unique with unique experiences within LDS culture. Yes, the culture is maddening. But philosophical progressives and apostates are offended by the doctrines and policies of the Church. The maddening culture is the easy excuse to complain or to say you don’t fit in. Again, if you might read some of my recent op-eds in the SL Trib, you would know I too am a “critic.” But not of the doctrines of the Church. I don’t have statistics either but nobody has ever told me I’m not welcome at Church…I just felt it. Perhaps my point is that we’re not victims. I don’t need statistics to know that people who identify with LDS progressives and apostates feel like they are victims. Just stop and you’d be suprised how your life will come to peace.
Former LDS progressive and I guess current apostate here.
It would be much more likely for someone like me to find a way to stay if we could retire language like apostate. If wanting the church to be kind to women and gay people and to do better on racism and honesty about its history and finances didn’t make me such an outsider then maybe I could have stayed to help make the church better.
Just because I wanted change didn’t mean I didn’t love the church.
But I didn’t want to conserve it as it was either so I will accept the title of progressive with pride. I think actually that is an apostate idea for a church that was started as rebellion away from the existing hierarchy sand historical power structures of the catholic and Protestant Christian churches to try and conserve and not change.
Apostate is meant as an insult and from conservatives often progressive and liberal also are used as an insult.
I left because there wasn’t a way to change the church. I tried within the sphere I had and the only tool I had left was to walk away.
Like PWS, I find the statement about assuming that ex-Mos (which I’m not) have no stake in the tithing they paid to the Church to be troubling. I recall the guy in SLC a few years ago who wanted a refund of his tithing because he said he paid it under false pretenses. Of course, the case went nowhere. But the sentiment is a valid one for those who thought their contributions were going to build up the kingdom of God who instead find out it was misspent trying to own the libs, set civil rights back, pay for other kids’ tuition at an increasingly problematic university, and thrown down a rat hole to fight gay marriage. That guy was an ex-Mo, but he had paid a LOT to the Church in his day and was incredibly unhappy how they spent it.
@Angela C I believe the person you are referring to is James Huntsman, one of the heirs to the Huntsman chemical corporation fortune. His connections to the church/Utah power structures are notable. I didn’t fact check well but I believe his brother Jon was governor of Utah and a national Republican presidential candidate, another brother owns the Salt Lake Tribune and last I’d heard had been a ysa bishop, his father Jon a Huntsman Sr was an area 70 and his grandfather was David Haight who was in the Quorum of the 12.
“I have long hair and tattoos and in our Vegas ward they simply welcome me, glad to have us there. Now…let’s all be real…everyone is unique with unique experiences within LDS culture. Yes, the culture is maddening. But philosophical progressives and apostates are offended by the doctrines and policies of the Church. The maddening culture is the easy excuse to complain or to say you don’t fit in. Again, if you might read some of my recent op-eds in the SL Trib, you would know I too am a “critic.” But not of the doctrines of the Church. I don’t have statistics either but nobody has ever told me I’m not welcome at Church…I just felt it. Perhaps my point is that we’re not victims. I don’t need statistics to know that people who identify with LDS progressives and apostates feel like they are victims. Just stop and you’d be suprised how your life will come to peace.”
– Paul Mero
A) “…They simply welcome me, glad to have us there.” – You are lucky to have that tranquil, supportive experience. That is not the default setting.
B) “Everyone is unique with unique experiences within LDS culture. Yes, the culture is maddening….”. There is a “One-Size-Fits-All” “Covenant Path” that if you as a person “check the right boxes” and “have the correct doctrines” (which is a hotly contested area in and of itself) – you’re “golden” and “loved”. How do you navigate having “bad experiences” in Primary, in being the one that “people aren’t really glad you are there” when push comes to shove – and you are more of a liabiity then an asset from a social perspective (because you are an 8 year old, a 10 year old, a 12 year old who doesn’t “fit the Senior Primary kid” boxes).
C) “Perhaps my point is that we’re not victims”. – My child did not go to Primary to be “victimized”. My child’s experience in Primary had consequences including “distrusting social experiences”, “distrust of the doctrine being watered down for chronological age”, and “distrust of the truths she couldn’t connect with”. The irony is that I got involved to “protect my child’s experience” and to a degree “to protect the social experience for other Primary goers”. The leaders mostly worked with me and supported me in trying to change the culture that surrounded my daughter. I put myself out there socially taking her to Relief Society so that she had a chance of getting any gospel conversations (with limited success).
If my daughter isn’t a “victim” of the social systems of Primary – then she is a “survivor” of the social systems of Primary – and that wasn’t good enough for me. Church attendance and church doctrine conversations were not working for me, or for her – and were shaming and seperating both of us. I’d rather be honest that the church experience wasn’t valuable to us – and that we tried to adapt to it up until it didn’t work for us.
I believe I understand. Though “orthodox” about doctrines, my wife and I were very protective of our children at Church. The girls never went to “girls camp” or Young Women activities per se and our boys were never in Scouts nor did we do Father/Son group things. At one point, after so many Primary and/or Young Men/Women leaders complained that our kids were not joining in, I wrote a stinging letter to our bishop telling him to “call off the dogs.” We home schooled all six of our children all of their school age lives, so that made us “weird” too. But both my wife and I served in a ton of callings…my wife has been RS president several times and also Young Women and Primary presidents. We served but did not allow Church programs to dictate the lives of our children.
We have one son who is technically a convert baptism because he could not read when he was eight. He came to me and asked to be baptized (no doubt prompted by a Primary leader) and I said to him, “You’ve got to be kidding me. You can’t even read the Book of Mormon? Why the hell would I baptize you?” But he wanted to be baptized, so he learned to read in two weeks…and after he read the Book of Mormon, I baptized him. But we did not conflict with Church doctrines and that seems to be the difference here.
Paul Mero: Your last comment is not great.
There are plenty of people on both sides of the political divide who feel like victims. Plenty. The only difference between the “victims” on the right and the “victims” on the left is that the ones on the right are surrounded by like-minded people at Church, and those on the left have to look a little harder to find fellow travelers. You can’t possibly be oblivious to the grievance narratives of the right, but perhaps you just agree with them. Telling victims to “get over it” or that they aren’t really victims frankly doesn’t work, regardless of their political views. In some cases, I wish it did since it is clearly unproductive for some individuals, but in other cases, we should do a much better job to pay attention (as a church) to just who is getting left out in the cold.
The idea that nobody should take offense (hilariously attributed by Brigham Young) is a self-serving idea for those who are the most offensive, giving them a pass for their lack of empathy. The Savior, by contrast, said “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
But not all progressives feel victimized. Some of us just don’t like the direction the Church has taken and see it as differentiating from our values. You claim you don’t criticize doctrines, but doctines and policies have now been lumped together by Oaks, so that any disagreement is viewed as apostasy. That’s new, and it’s definitely not something I ever signed up for. That’s theocratic autocracy. There have always been, throughout church history, human mistakes. Telling us not to believe our lying eyes is just, well, bad policy. It’s also incredibly difficult for the church to differentiate between “doctrines” and “mistakes” until the ones making the mistakes are dead. Gee, I wonder why.
Obviously, based on your comments here and on other posts, your ideal church is one which treats women and queer church members as less than. Fine for you, but if you were either a woman or queer, you just might feel differently.
@paul mero you have obviously not read my posts. I don’t make any claims about funding or tithing dollars. As to post-2015 participation I point out this:
2016, Tblisi
Elder Larry Kacher, Europe East Presidency and BYU Professor Mauro Properzi spoke.
2017, Budapest
Professor Lynn Wardle spoke. I could not find information about other participants or sponsors.
2018, Moldova
Elder Christoffel Golden, Eastern Europe Area President, spoke. I could not find information about other participants or sponsors.
Later in 2018, Allan Carlson was invited to speak at BYU.
2019, Verona
Elder Massimo de Feo, Europe Area President, spoke on strategies for promoting the family.
These are official church representatives speaking and attending alongside Eastern European fascists. Are you telling me the area presidents just went on a whim? You don’t interpret the area President attending a WCF event as “support”? Then we don’t have the same definition.
Paul Mero: Just to piggy-back on Elisa’s accurate comment about what she has and has not claimed (I’m the one who said it, but maybe women are all the same). In your first comment (6/29) you clarified that *to your knowledge* the Church did not fund WCF, but instead received private donor funding and held fundraisers. Then in a subsequent comment (7/1) you said: “I promise you no tithing dollars were ever used. The for-profit arm of the Church (i.e., DMC) is who I solicited for funding when funding occurred. Not tithing dollars.” So, you are making a much stronger assertion in your second comment.
Your second comment was partly my point in stating that Church funds are fungible; the Church justifies its for-profit finances as separate from tithing, but these funds originated with the interest earned from *checks notes* tithing (as well as other investment endeavors). I am slightly mollified by the distinction because like all good little Mormons, I’ve been fed the party line my entire life, but it is also correct that the money in the non-tithing funds has grown thanks to the interest from the tithing funds. I understand that you don’t see these funds as the same thing (and they are different for tax purposes, hence the Nielsen whistleblower complaint). However, as a tithe payer who objects to the Church’s funding (and frankly fund-raising and participation) with anti-LGBTQ hate groups (I know you disagree with the SPLC designation), I am not thrilled. I also dislike that the Church continues to use Kirton-McConkie, a law firm with a terrible track record on promoting women, and who hand-waved away their blunder regarding the AZ bishop’s ability to report in the sex abuse case. They protect the Church from litigation, but they don’t always do the moral or right thing in the process.
We’ve gotten far afield at this point from the OP, however, so please let’s try to stay on topic or move on.
Maybe your guy’s posts are fungible? I’ve tried to draw the distinction between monetary support for the WCF and simply having a Latter-day Saint speak at one. They are not the same thing.
@paul mero, Angela referred to a series of posts (posts, not comments) I wrote about the WCF. Without reading those actual posts (not these comments, comments are not posts) you seem to take issue with some of the arguments made about the connections between the church and the WCF. You are really fixated on tithing dollars and what did and what didn’t happen in 2015.
I am referring to my actual posts which detail connections and contacts between the LDS church and WCF. These include the attendance of the actual literal area President at events hosted and attended by European fascists. An area President is not just a “Latter-day Saint.” Their attendance at the event (travel etc) presumably would be covered by the church as is their salary. And surely they wouldn’t attend on a wild hair. When the actual area president attends and speaks at a WCF, I would say that’s a measure of “support” for the WCF, including at events that received a lot of negative attention because the events themselves were funded and organized and attended by fascists and Russian oligarchs who were doing horrific things to queer folks (and others) in their countries.
My point was always that the church’s anti-gay marriage obsession gave it a huge blindspot when it came to the company it keeps.
Paul Mero: I am not sure where you are getting hung up. Elisa *never* made any comments about the Church’s funding. She identified in her series who spoke & participated. In *my* comment on 6:29 at 2:45PM, I said it. You replied to my comment with clarifying information that same day. Then you added to your comment two days later in stronger language that you “promised” that only non-tithing funds were used, but you directed that comment at Elisa who never made the claim.
I had already told you that I appreciated your clarification, and it does *slightly* mollify my feelings about the Church’s support of the WCF, particularly in conjunction with your insider information that they pulled back from the Russia stuff and did not support writing legislation criminalizing homosexuality (both of which things likely caused them to step back from WCF). That’s all very helpful clarification. Yay.
I’m not sure what more you want from this topic. Nobody claimed that speaking at an event is the same thing as funding the event, but you can keep imagining you’re talking to third graders if it helps (on a post called “Women Talking,” natch). The Church is opaque about its finances, and my concerns that they have spent either tithing money or money from the interest on tithing are just that–which is why your clarification really was a welcome addition, which I said upthread.
Even if they didn’t spend a dime, I still have a huge problem with any alliance with WCF and with Church leaders fighting political battles to limit or erode the rights of queer people.
I thought I was addressing both of your concerns. They seem very similar: you guys don’t like what the WCF stands for nor the LDS Church when you believe the two are aligned. I commented originally about the OP. Some person calls me a name. Another person piles on about my relationship with the WCF. I clarify. And then I’m chastised, oh so politely, for both dragging on a tangent and for not complying with weird minutiae about with whom I’m addressing. Once again, you’re not the victims of some patronizing male on a Women Talking commentary. I made a single comment about equating rape with patriarchy on a public forum. The rest was not led by me. So, let it go.
Paul, you complain that Chino Blanco calls you a dork, but then you seem to have spent much of the thread trying to prove him right. You’re deeply concerned about splitting hairs about anti-gay groups and the Church and just exactly how much sympathy the Church has, but you can’t even bother to keep straight who you’re talking to (“your . . . posts are fungible”, “weird minutiae about with whom [sic] I’m addressing”).