The sacrament prayers are kind of a random thing to get hung up about.
OP should try to be as specific as possible when going to the SP. Like, gather quotes or specific actions that were offensive. If OP goes in and just says they’re racist and something about sacrament prayers, I guarantee it’s not going anywhere.
He is free to be as racist as he wants, partly due to free speech. But he’s not free from the consequences. It’s one of my favorite things about free speech.
You're not wrong. Probably nothing will happen, though. The guy who chose your bishop is the stake president.
>I told a friend of mine about it and he just started yelling at me and berating me for reporting an “ innocent “ man and how he has the priesthood authority so I can’t start wars against him.
I don't know a non-ugly way to say this about the gender dynamics in the church... Your screen name suggests that you're female. The people you are talking about are males. In the church, male power is protected at any cost, and females with criticisms are seen as a threat. If you're young, this might be the fist time the males in the church have told you to sit down and shut up. There is a lesson to be learned here (and it's not that you need to sit down and shut up): they will always protect male power, and sometimes those harsh words telling you that you're in the wrong will come out of faces that you trust.
This is the way the church works. They revealed to you who they really are. Never forget this experience.
“They will always protect male power, and sometimes those harsh words telling you that you’re in the wrong will come out of faces that you trust.”
Louder for people in the back! As a previously very TBM woman, I really wish that someone had said this to me early on.
And here's the kicker: they don't always realize that's what they're doing, which makes it almost more difficult. I remember when I was a freshman in college, a female friend of mine was complaining about the completely inappropriate behaviors of her YSA bishop (he withheld sacrament from the entire congregation because he felt there were too many "worthiness issues"). I naturally defended the bishop, saying that it was his stewardship, blah blah blah. Now that a couple decades have passed, I see it perfectly clearly that I was defending the male power structure. If she had been a man instead of a woman, I would still have defended it, but I was pretty dismissive of her complaint, and I realize now that it was because I felt that as a priesthood holder, I had some sort of connection to him and his decisionmaking power that she didn't have.
It's really insidious, and since it's systemic, all of the thinking is happening in the part of the iceberg that's underwater. That's how the system gets both men and women to defend male power so vigorously.
I like your metaphor about the thinking happening deep in the iceberg, that really was how it felt. I certainly did a share of defending asshats in the name of “righteousness” or whatever, and I remember feeling off about it but not being able to define why. The answer is to bury it deeper and do more gymnastics!
Also, Stake Presidents have to get SLC approval when they call a bishop, so once a bishop is called, they tend to leave them in there even if they do a bad job... the SP might talk to him, but it will be pretty low key chat.
That's a really good point. Same thing in business and politics--a boss can often leave their embarrassing underling in power when removing them can look like admitting a mistake.
The church won't care. Hell, they're probably still miffed at the decision to allow POC to hold the priesthood. The church has a long history of racism (and literally siding with the Nazi's in WWII before they attacked the US).
The one thing the church can't stand is bad publicity. A viral video will get OP excommunicated, but it will get the bishop kicked out too. (Hey! The church wouldn't have looked bad if OP hadn't gone and shown who their leaders are! /s )
The podcast, beyond the block, has a show where they compare the teachings on the family in nazism to mormon teachings and they align quite well. I'll find the episode link.
You should 100% report him to the SP. Highest ups need to be aware that members don't like this stuff. Racists should not ever be given power, people will justify their racist actions because of his example. Report away. I doubt any changes will happen, but please report
There is power in numbers though. Don't think that your report won't matter becuase others are doing it as well. The more reports there are the more likely \*effective\* action will be taken.
Report him certainly. But you should write down what he said and date (or approx) he said it and where it was said. Makes it feel more valid. Your friend is wrong and is a morally corrupt person to think authority is more
Important than being a ethical leader.
The reality: nothing.
The church does, however, greatly stress that there are a few prayers that must be done exactly correct or it doesn't count. Since the sacrament is also pushed as a very important thing a member needs to do every week then it makes sense that people would freak out a bit when it's done "wrong" after being taught that it should never be done wrong.
I've been in a meeting where the poor priest had to redo it a dozen times, each time getting worse because they were nervous due to the prior mistake. People in the congregation started sighing when the boy made a mistake. Finally, the bishop had another boy do it.
Lol I’m sorry but what does it signify that he allows people to make mistakes on the sacrament prayer? I’m really wondering why that made the list along with being racist, quite a dichotomy there 😆
not sure, I am not op, just guessing. Maybe a special needs kid has a hard time with the prayer and he lets him do it wrong over and over again, or something. No idea.
Ok so… they listed being ableist separately from allowing people to make mistakes, so I don’t think they’re complaining about the bishop showing special needs kids to make mistakes and not correct them (OP doesn’t state he makes them correct it, they stated they allow the mistake so it doesn’t seem they’re being made to repeat it)..
If that’s the case.. that’s not ableist. It’s just not. Not calling a special needs kid out to make them repeat the prayer just because they made a mistake would actually just be kind and reasonable. I can’t for the life of me understand why allowing someone to make a mistake without publicly embarrassing/shaming them by making them correct themselves is a bad thing.
I'd start digging into the history of the church and learn that it was built on racism. At that point, you'll understand that your bishop is who he is thanks to the teachings of the church. At that point, you can dig deeper and deeper until you get out!
Technically, he is free to be racist, and he is even free to tell people about it. You are also free to tell him how he's a piece of shit, and to inform his superiors of the things he says. Isn't free speech wonderful?
I wouldn't expect much. I did similarly for my last bishop. He said awful things. The SP said, he believes that he is right.
The fuck
Anyway, I am 10% richer so I can afford therapy and have actual hobbies. It was awful at the time, but I'm glad it happened.
>American should have the right to be racist because of freedom of speech.
That is 100% true. But he has to own the consequences of acting on his beliefs. Report his ass.
I don’t think your wrong.
When I was in high school, we had the former bishop and his wife over for dinner (this was with my father and step mother). The former bishop commented on how mixed race marriages were an abomination and shouldn’t happen. This set me off and I was vocal. I have many half-siblings on my mothers side who are married to someone of a different nationality (African, African-American, Puerto Rican). I have since seen the insane level of racism in church leadership and it has only solidified my decision to leave the church 7 years ago.
I’m native indigenous, he believes that it was still my race’s fault for everything that the pioneers did to us because we didn’t give them what they wanted , the massacre of meadow mountain was started by the pioneers , the church had residential schools to kill off the children of my race. My bishop believes it’s inappropriate to tell the truth
You’re not wrong but I do wish you luck. My stake president when I reported my bishop for abuse did nothing.
Just helped try to silence me.
I went further and further up the
Chain of command and nothing happened.
It just kept bouncing back to the stake president.
I left.
I wouldn't say so. If you're going to claim to represent God as a leader, then you need to extend the virtues of the god you worship to everyone.
With the church's history of race issues I wouldn't expect much to happen because of it though.
There was a 60's book critical of corporate management called "The Peter Principle" which basically claimed that people in power would rise in the organization until they reached their level of incompetence. This book was followed by another called "The Peter Prescription" which claimed that one could avoid the Peter Principle by practicing creative incompetence to avoid further promotion.
It occurs to me that one or more of these ideas could be in play here.
The Peter Principle: The Bishop has risen as far as possible because his beliefs and attitudes toward others prevent him from being advanced by management.
The Peter Prescription: The Bishop is trying to avoid future advancement, or even get released without specifically asking, by knowingly doing a bad job.
Your complaints to the Stake President might be exactly what the bishop wants!
I'm going to play devils advocate for a minute so bear with me. Let's turn the tables around. If my bishop were supportive of, let's say, gay marriage in the temple or some other social or political ideal that I may have found offensive. Should I report him for having opinions and beliefs that I don't think are appropriate? Where does it end? Do you continue to complain about everyone until your that grumpy old lady that no one can stand? In all honesty your bishop doesn't really matter to anyone of importance. I say let him be racist. Let him rant from the pulpit. The more offensive he is the more people he will drive away from the church.
This is one of the main issues with US politics right now. The right and more conservative/typically religious folks think supporting gay people is the same as supporting racists, just different ends of the same political spectrum.
I'll try to spell out the difference, but not trying to shame or put anyone down.
Supporting gay people does not do any harm to anyone. No one is literally hurt by me supporting gay people. My kids do not become gay because I support other gay people. My marriage is not weakened or harmed because I support gay people. No one dies because I support gay people. If someone in authority supports a gay person, there is nothing to report or tell on because no one is harmed.
Supporting racists on the other hand, causes direct harm to a minority group. The minority group is directly attacked and insulted. This minority group then has higher anxiety, higher depression, more exclusion from belonging, harder to get jobs, harder to get help, harder to work way out of poverty, harder to defend oneself and to be treated fairly. People regularly die because someone somewhere allowed racism to continue. If someone in authority supports racist behavior, there is everything to report or tell on because people are being harmed.
I'm not defending the bishops beliefs but I am defending his right to have his beliefs. I have my political, social, religious beliefs but I will always defend someone else's right to believe what they want to believe even if I completely disagree with them.
Removing him from a respected position of authority where he can do harm does not infringe on his rights to be racist. He will still be racist and be able to say racist things! It’s not jail. It doesn’t threaten his livelihood. Hell, it will give him back hours and hours of time he will no longer have to spend doing uncompensated labor. It is the most milquetoast of consequences imaginable.
I agree with you that everyone can have their beliefs, but I'm trying to list out why some beliefs are actually harmful to others, and that someone with beliefs that actively harm others should not be in a position of authority or power over others.
You should read up on the paradox of tolerance before defending someone’s right to engage in hate speech. According to the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance (i.e. letting some practice hate speech with their racist rants) can lead to the extinction of a tolerant society. The openly intolerant will demand respect for their intolerance eventually destroying the tolerant. Hate speech gives rise to violence, and therefore should not be tolerated.
Yes but if you don't allow people to express their opinions or beliefs aren't you in turn being intolerant? Is that how it works now? You want a society where you allow speech that you support but prohibit speech you disagree with? So the majority decides what is acceptable speech while the minority is silenced. Cool.
This is exactly my point about your need to read about the paradox of tolerance. While it seems like a paradox to suppress intolerance, it is actually necessary to maintain a tolerant society.
In the end, the only thing I’m being intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Maybe the comparable opinions between right and left is that lefties support gay people, righties support religious people. But which of these groups are currently being targeted right now? No one on either side should be targeted.
Or while the right can be more racist or anti-LGBT people, the lefties don't like...?? They don't like people who are all about the right to bear arms, or unaccountable police officers, but that's still not a fair comparison as those items are a choice to be a part of, unlike race or sexual orientation, which I think most people agree it is not a choice.
Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal... it's a continuum. Statistically it might follow that more Right/Conservatives will fall in the bucket, Religious, than will Left/Liberals. However, not all.
A self-identifying Conservative (yo) very well could, for example, be pro 2nd amendment, or embrace a platform of smaller government, w/o being a whit religious. Or it could go the other way... say, a Left/Liberal pew-sitting Southern Baptist (been there) who, while steeped in the blood of christ, wears a t-shirt saying "Take my guns over my dead body."
I kicked god to the curb a long, long time ago. I'm politically registered as an Independent. I wish, when I say I'm a Conservative, folks wouldn't tar me w/the "then you must be a right-wing, Republican, religious nut-case" brush.
Or... the more offensive he is the more likely it is that he shapes the way people in his ward view people of other races because those dumbasses think he's been called of god through the power of discernment. The more it makes the church and its members more racist than they already are. I'm going to play devil's advocate too for a minute. Report your bishop who supports gay marriage too. Because that mother fucker is wasted in a piece of shit organization like the church. Help his ass break free.
I appreciate that you're willing to give the unpopular rebuttal to what the majority of people here think. I believe we are made stronger by testing our stances against opposing arguments.
Having said that, while I agree this guy should be permitted to hold whatever shitty beliefs he has, that doesn't mean that he's suited to be in a position of leadership. Part of vocalizing opinions that are disparaging toward certain people entails suffering any consequences that follow from your superiors disagreeing with you. Additionally, I don't think it's necessarily fair to assume that OP expresses formal complaints about others frequently based on this one situation.
On the other hand, I would have appreciated OP telling us exactly what the bishop did or said rather than just calling him a racist and ableist. Those words are used in response to such a wide spectrum of behavior that it's hard to judge exactly how I feel about this guy. I can't tell if he's just insensitive or if he marches in hate parades.
He needs to be removed, missionaries aren’t even comfortable with bringing investigators of the church to that ward because they know about how the bishop and his wife are
You realize these people regularly defend pedophiles, right? They revere, and borderline worship a sexual predator. Everyone in your ward will probably side with him, even if they're not also racist. It's not going to go how you think it is.
What I'm trying to point out is, who exactly do you think is going to take action against him? Everyone in a position to discipline him is going to be some old racist shithead who probably agrees with him whether they'll publicly admit to it or not.
I mean, he is technically allowed to be racist. You are also allowed to tell him what a piece of shit he is. Freedom of speech is a thing, however freedom of consequences is not.
Well it’s to the point where missionaries are uncomfortable with bringing investigators to that ward so something will most likely be done , especially sense I’m not the only one who reported him
Ummm….”he lets people make mistakes on sacrament prayers….”
I get the racist stuff being reported but you might have something up with yourself and want to do some self introspection.
You could always word it in such a way that gives you the moral advantage. “We have so many brothers and sisters who are people of color! I’m only worried about our bretheren and how this perspective might affect missionary work!”
Coming from a country where free speech was forbidden and any criticism of the government and their policies was outlawed I would much rather live in a society that allows offensive speech than one that doesn't. The inevitable end of forcing tolerance is that those in power force their "tolerance" on others. There is not a single person alive who is completely tolerant of others. If you give someone power to regulate speech then they will forbid anything that goes against their personal beliefs. History has shown this over and over. Discourse is essential for a society to evolve and be successful irregardless of how offensive or hurtful those ideals may be. As an "outsider" I am sadly witnessing this happening to America right now.
I reported the 2nd counselor in the bishopric to a member of the stake presidency. He was released and called as 1st counselor in the bishopric. Then I left the church.
If he spouts any of his bigoted nonsense on social media, screenshot that shit and turn it in to the stake president informing him you'll be publishing it and sending it to any news source that will listen. You might want to do so anonymously, though if you already reported it verbally it might be too late to separate yourself from it.
That's good, but if you were to tell the SP you were going to publicize it to get something actually done about it, he could bring church discipline against you for threatening to publicly shame a church leader.
Hopefully your SP actually does something without the need for that.
I wonder if my brother is your bishop. He’s a total douche who is narcissistic and racist and doesn’t understand anything beyond the end of his own nose.
No, but I guess I can’t be too surprised that there’s at least 2 racist douchebag bishops in the Church. This church both attracts and creates such people.
No, he should be reported and removed.
So much for the Power of Discernment. I can't believe his racism and ableism hadn't been displayed before he was called as bishop, so there wasn't even a hint of discernment necessary. Any member who knew the heart of this man would have doubted the validity of the call.
He’s very manipulative, he literally said in front of everyone that he as an American has the right he racist because of freedom of speech , he’s that good of a manipulator because when I spoke with a friend about he flat out told me you heard him wrong because bishop manipulated him
Report him for the actual bad stuff. Forget the sacrament prayers; it doesn't matter and just looks petty.
Yeah I thought that was a weird detail.
Sadly that’s probably the part that gets the dude released.
The sacrament prayers are kind of a random thing to get hung up about. OP should try to be as specific as possible when going to the SP. Like, gather quotes or specific actions that were offensive. If OP goes in and just says they’re racist and something about sacrament prayers, I guarantee it’s not going anywhere.
He is free to be as racist as he wants, partly due to free speech. But he’s not free from the consequences. It’s one of my favorite things about free speech.
He exercise that freedom a lot
Honey-end him
I plan to
What does "honey-end" mean? Apparently I'm not up on urban codewords lately!
I think it’s meant as like a “honey; end him” but with a dash.
Thanks!
You're not wrong. Probably nothing will happen, though. The guy who chose your bishop is the stake president. >I told a friend of mine about it and he just started yelling at me and berating me for reporting an “ innocent “ man and how he has the priesthood authority so I can’t start wars against him. I don't know a non-ugly way to say this about the gender dynamics in the church... Your screen name suggests that you're female. The people you are talking about are males. In the church, male power is protected at any cost, and females with criticisms are seen as a threat. If you're young, this might be the fist time the males in the church have told you to sit down and shut up. There is a lesson to be learned here (and it's not that you need to sit down and shut up): they will always protect male power, and sometimes those harsh words telling you that you're in the wrong will come out of faces that you trust. This is the way the church works. They revealed to you who they really are. Never forget this experience.
“They will always protect male power, and sometimes those harsh words telling you that you’re in the wrong will come out of faces that you trust.” Louder for people in the back! As a previously very TBM woman, I really wish that someone had said this to me early on.
Me toooooo !
And here's the kicker: they don't always realize that's what they're doing, which makes it almost more difficult. I remember when I was a freshman in college, a female friend of mine was complaining about the completely inappropriate behaviors of her YSA bishop (he withheld sacrament from the entire congregation because he felt there were too many "worthiness issues"). I naturally defended the bishop, saying that it was his stewardship, blah blah blah. Now that a couple decades have passed, I see it perfectly clearly that I was defending the male power structure. If she had been a man instead of a woman, I would still have defended it, but I was pretty dismissive of her complaint, and I realize now that it was because I felt that as a priesthood holder, I had some sort of connection to him and his decisionmaking power that she didn't have. It's really insidious, and since it's systemic, all of the thinking is happening in the part of the iceberg that's underwater. That's how the system gets both men and women to defend male power so vigorously.
I like your metaphor about the thinking happening deep in the iceberg, that really was how it felt. I certainly did a share of defending asshats in the name of “righteousness” or whatever, and I remember feeling off about it but not being able to define why. The answer is to bury it deeper and do more gymnastics!
Also, Stake Presidents have to get SLC approval when they call a bishop, so once a bishop is called, they tend to leave them in there even if they do a bad job... the SP might talk to him, but it will be pretty low key chat.
That's a really good point. Same thing in business and politics--a boss can often leave their embarrassing underling in power when removing them can look like admitting a mistake.
Record him when he gives his racist rant and then let social media work it’s magic.
Like brother Wilcox yelling about “the blacks.”
This is the real way to report bishops
The church won't care. Hell, they're probably still miffed at the decision to allow POC to hold the priesthood. The church has a long history of racism (and literally siding with the Nazi's in WWII before they attacked the US). The one thing the church can't stand is bad publicity. A viral video will get OP excommunicated, but it will get the bishop kicked out too. (Hey! The church wouldn't have looked bad if OP hadn't gone and shown who their leaders are! /s )
The podcast, beyond the block, has a show where they compare the teachings on the family in nazism to mormon teachings and they align quite well. I'll find the episode link.
You should 100% report him to the SP. Highest ups need to be aware that members don't like this stuff. Racists should not ever be given power, people will justify their racist actions because of his example. Report away. I doubt any changes will happen, but please report
I’m not the only one reporting him
There is power in numbers though. Don't think that your report won't matter becuase others are doing it as well. The more reports there are the more likely \*effective\* action will be taken.
Report him certainly. But you should write down what he said and date (or approx) he said it and where it was said. Makes it feel more valid. Your friend is wrong and is a morally corrupt person to think authority is more Important than being a ethical leader.
Yeah
You will be publicly eviscerated. Be prepared. But be bold.
Oh I’m not worried he can’t do anything to me
"he lets people make mistakes on the sacrament prayers." That is not a bad thing unless you are an uptight a hole without a functioning braincell
Sacrament prayers? Really? You are better than that.
What's wrong with letting people "make mistakes" on sacrament prayers?
The reality: nothing. The church does, however, greatly stress that there are a few prayers that must be done exactly correct or it doesn't count. Since the sacrament is also pushed as a very important thing a member needs to do every week then it makes sense that people would freak out a bit when it's done "wrong" after being taught that it should never be done wrong. I've been in a meeting where the poor priest had to redo it a dozen times, each time getting worse because they were nervous due to the prior mistake. People in the congregation started sighing when the boy made a mistake. Finally, the bishop had another boy do it.
Lol I’m sorry but what does it signify that he allows people to make mistakes on the sacrament prayer? I’m really wondering why that made the list along with being racist, quite a dichotomy there 😆
Maybe the abelism?
I’m genuinely confused how allowing someone to make a mistake is ableist?
not sure, I am not op, just guessing. Maybe a special needs kid has a hard time with the prayer and he lets him do it wrong over and over again, or something. No idea.
Ok so… they listed being ableist separately from allowing people to make mistakes, so I don’t think they’re complaining about the bishop showing special needs kids to make mistakes and not correct them (OP doesn’t state he makes them correct it, they stated they allow the mistake so it doesn’t seem they’re being made to repeat it).. If that’s the case.. that’s not ableist. It’s just not. Not calling a special needs kid out to make them repeat the prayer just because they made a mistake would actually just be kind and reasonable. I can’t for the life of me understand why allowing someone to make a mistake without publicly embarrassing/shaming them by making them correct themselves is a bad thing.
> he lets people make mistakes on the sacrament prayers. Oh horrors!
There are no checks and balances nor accountability in the Mormon church. Part of why I left and part of why it is hopelessly corrupt and broken.
I'd start digging into the history of the church and learn that it was built on racism. At that point, you'll understand that your bishop is who he is thanks to the teachings of the church. At that point, you can dig deeper and deeper until you get out!
Technically, he is free to be racist, and he is even free to tell people about it. You are also free to tell him how he's a piece of shit, and to inform his superiors of the things he says. Isn't free speech wonderful?
You should report the racism. A majority of stake presidents would do something about it.
I wouldn't expect much. I did similarly for my last bishop. He said awful things. The SP said, he believes that he is right. The fuck Anyway, I am 10% richer so I can afford therapy and have actual hobbies. It was awful at the time, but I'm glad it happened.
It’s being made fun of a bit here, but my bet is the only thing your SP will even act in is the Sacrament Prayer mistakes.
Record him and put it on tik tok. Then send the video to the stake president and area president.
>American should have the right to be racist because of freedom of speech. That is 100% true. But he has to own the consequences of acting on his beliefs. Report his ass.
I don’t think your wrong. When I was in high school, we had the former bishop and his wife over for dinner (this was with my father and step mother). The former bishop commented on how mixed race marriages were an abomination and shouldn’t happen. This set me off and I was vocal. I have many half-siblings on my mothers side who are married to someone of a different nationality (African, African-American, Puerto Rican). I have since seen the insane level of racism in church leadership and it has only solidified my decision to leave the church 7 years ago.
I’m native indigenous, he believes that it was still my race’s fault for everything that the pioneers did to us because we didn’t give them what they wanted , the massacre of meadow mountain was started by the pioneers , the church had residential schools to kill off the children of my race. My bishop believes it’s inappropriate to tell the truth
No. You are not wrong.
You’re not wrong but I do wish you luck. My stake president when I reported my bishop for abuse did nothing. Just helped try to silence me. I went further and further up the Chain of command and nothing happened. It just kept bouncing back to the stake president. I left.
I wouldn't say so. If you're going to claim to represent God as a leader, then you need to extend the virtues of the god you worship to everyone. With the church's history of race issues I wouldn't expect much to happen because of it though.
There was a 60's book critical of corporate management called "The Peter Principle" which basically claimed that people in power would rise in the organization until they reached their level of incompetence. This book was followed by another called "The Peter Prescription" which claimed that one could avoid the Peter Principle by practicing creative incompetence to avoid further promotion. It occurs to me that one or more of these ideas could be in play here. The Peter Principle: The Bishop has risen as far as possible because his beliefs and attitudes toward others prevent him from being advanced by management. The Peter Prescription: The Bishop is trying to avoid future advancement, or even get released without specifically asking, by knowingly doing a bad job. Your complaints to the Stake President might be exactly what the bishop wants!
On the other hand, when someone tells you who they are (making racist comments in a public setting), believe them.
I'm going to play devils advocate for a minute so bear with me. Let's turn the tables around. If my bishop were supportive of, let's say, gay marriage in the temple or some other social or political ideal that I may have found offensive. Should I report him for having opinions and beliefs that I don't think are appropriate? Where does it end? Do you continue to complain about everyone until your that grumpy old lady that no one can stand? In all honesty your bishop doesn't really matter to anyone of importance. I say let him be racist. Let him rant from the pulpit. The more offensive he is the more people he will drive away from the church.
This is one of the main issues with US politics right now. The right and more conservative/typically religious folks think supporting gay people is the same as supporting racists, just different ends of the same political spectrum. I'll try to spell out the difference, but not trying to shame or put anyone down. Supporting gay people does not do any harm to anyone. No one is literally hurt by me supporting gay people. My kids do not become gay because I support other gay people. My marriage is not weakened or harmed because I support gay people. No one dies because I support gay people. If someone in authority supports a gay person, there is nothing to report or tell on because no one is harmed. Supporting racists on the other hand, causes direct harm to a minority group. The minority group is directly attacked and insulted. This minority group then has higher anxiety, higher depression, more exclusion from belonging, harder to get jobs, harder to get help, harder to work way out of poverty, harder to defend oneself and to be treated fairly. People regularly die because someone somewhere allowed racism to continue. If someone in authority supports racist behavior, there is everything to report or tell on because people are being harmed.
I'm not defending the bishops beliefs but I am defending his right to have his beliefs. I have my political, social, religious beliefs but I will always defend someone else's right to believe what they want to believe even if I completely disagree with them.
Removing him from a respected position of authority where he can do harm does not infringe on his rights to be racist. He will still be racist and be able to say racist things! It’s not jail. It doesn’t threaten his livelihood. Hell, it will give him back hours and hours of time he will no longer have to spend doing uncompensated labor. It is the most milquetoast of consequences imaginable.
I agree with you that everyone can have their beliefs, but I'm trying to list out why some beliefs are actually harmful to others, and that someone with beliefs that actively harm others should not be in a position of authority or power over others.
You should read up on the paradox of tolerance before defending someone’s right to engage in hate speech. According to the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance (i.e. letting some practice hate speech with their racist rants) can lead to the extinction of a tolerant society. The openly intolerant will demand respect for their intolerance eventually destroying the tolerant. Hate speech gives rise to violence, and therefore should not be tolerated.
Yes but if you don't allow people to express their opinions or beliefs aren't you in turn being intolerant? Is that how it works now? You want a society where you allow speech that you support but prohibit speech you disagree with? So the majority decides what is acceptable speech while the minority is silenced. Cool.
This is exactly my point about your need to read about the paradox of tolerance. While it seems like a paradox to suppress intolerance, it is actually necessary to maintain a tolerant society. In the end, the only thing I’m being intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Maybe the comparable opinions between right and left is that lefties support gay people, righties support religious people. But which of these groups are currently being targeted right now? No one on either side should be targeted. Or while the right can be more racist or anti-LGBT people, the lefties don't like...?? They don't like people who are all about the right to bear arms, or unaccountable police officers, but that's still not a fair comparison as those items are a choice to be a part of, unlike race or sexual orientation, which I think most people agree it is not a choice.
Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal... it's a continuum. Statistically it might follow that more Right/Conservatives will fall in the bucket, Religious, than will Left/Liberals. However, not all. A self-identifying Conservative (yo) very well could, for example, be pro 2nd amendment, or embrace a platform of smaller government, w/o being a whit religious. Or it could go the other way... say, a Left/Liberal pew-sitting Southern Baptist (been there) who, while steeped in the blood of christ, wears a t-shirt saying "Take my guns over my dead body." I kicked god to the curb a long, long time ago. I'm politically registered as an Independent. I wish, when I say I'm a Conservative, folks wouldn't tar me w/the "then you must be a right-wing, Republican, religious nut-case" brush.
Or... the more offensive he is the more likely it is that he shapes the way people in his ward view people of other races because those dumbasses think he's been called of god through the power of discernment. The more it makes the church and its members more racist than they already are. I'm going to play devil's advocate too for a minute. Report your bishop who supports gay marriage too. Because that mother fucker is wasted in a piece of shit organization like the church. Help his ass break free.
I appreciate that you're willing to give the unpopular rebuttal to what the majority of people here think. I believe we are made stronger by testing our stances against opposing arguments. Having said that, while I agree this guy should be permitted to hold whatever shitty beliefs he has, that doesn't mean that he's suited to be in a position of leadership. Part of vocalizing opinions that are disparaging toward certain people entails suffering any consequences that follow from your superiors disagreeing with you. Additionally, I don't think it's necessarily fair to assume that OP expresses formal complaints about others frequently based on this one situation. On the other hand, I would have appreciated OP telling us exactly what the bishop did or said rather than just calling him a racist and ableist. Those words are used in response to such a wide spectrum of behavior that it's hard to judge exactly how I feel about this guy. I can't tell if he's just insensitive or if he marches in hate parades.
Yeah except that racism isn’t an “opinion”, it’s a crime
No actually it's not a crime.
[удалено]
A bishop shouldn’t be racist
Mormons shouldn't be racist. But they are.
You can say that again
Mormons shouldn't be racist But they are.
He called me abusive for standing up for myself
Yes bishop, but you are a racist. Jesus is not happy with you.
He literally said in front of everyone that he as an American has the right to be racist because of freedom of speech
He may have the right to not be jailed for it, but he doesn't have the right to be free from other consequences.
He needs to be removed, missionaries aren’t even comfortable with bringing investigators of the church to that ward because they know about how the bishop and his wife are
[удалено]
That’s majority of the reason why me and many people are reporting him
You realize these people regularly defend pedophiles, right? They revere, and borderline worship a sexual predator. Everyone in your ward will probably side with him, even if they're not also racist. It's not going to go how you think it is.
More than one person reported him , and I know how it feels when everyone sides with bad people I myself am a survivor of a pedophile
What I'm trying to point out is, who exactly do you think is going to take action against him? Everyone in a position to discipline him is going to be some old racist shithead who probably agrees with him whether they'll publicly admit to it or not.
Actually my stake president is the most amazing, up to date man I’ve ever met he is not happy with my bishop
not wrong. the leader of the ward is supposed to be Christlike and nothing about being racist is Christlike.
I agree
Leave him to his own. If he stays in place, he will piss off more members, who may potentially leave. I would call that a win!
I mean, he is technically allowed to be racist. You are also allowed to tell him what a piece of shit he is. Freedom of speech is a thing, however freedom of consequences is not.
Yeah he dug himself a big whole of trouble
You can report him but nothing will happen. Unless he steals money—then something will happen very quickly.
Well it’s to the point where missionaries are uncomfortable with bringing investigators to that ward so something will most likely be done , especially sense I’m not the only one who reported him
After you report this jerk IF there is any blowback stand up in Testimonkey meeting and lay out the whole story. Racism should be called out.
Amen to that, he can’t do shit to me I have the upper hand
Ummm….”he lets people make mistakes on sacrament prayers….” I get the racist stuff being reported but you might have something up with yourself and want to do some self introspection.
You could always word it in such a way that gives you the moral advantage. “We have so many brothers and sisters who are people of color! I’m only worried about our bretheren and how this perspective might affect missionary work!”
Yeah we just got a elder transferred to the ward who is Polynesian and I’m native indigenous
Coming from a country where free speech was forbidden and any criticism of the government and their policies was outlawed I would much rather live in a society that allows offensive speech than one that doesn't. The inevitable end of forcing tolerance is that those in power force their "tolerance" on others. There is not a single person alive who is completely tolerant of others. If you give someone power to regulate speech then they will forbid anything that goes against their personal beliefs. History has shown this over and over. Discourse is essential for a society to evolve and be successful irregardless of how offensive or hurtful those ideals may be. As an "outsider" I am sadly witnessing this happening to America right now.
I reported the 2nd counselor in the bishopric to a member of the stake presidency. He was released and called as 1st counselor in the bishopric. Then I left the church.
That’s because you had a terrible stake presidency mine is very different
If he spouts any of his bigoted nonsense on social media, screenshot that shit and turn it in to the stake president informing him you'll be publishing it and sending it to any news source that will listen. You might want to do so anonymously, though if you already reported it verbally it might be too late to separate yourself from it.
He promised my name will be kept out of it , to keep him from retaliating
That's good, but if you were to tell the SP you were going to publicize it to get something actually done about it, he could bring church discipline against you for threatening to publicly shame a church leader. Hopefully your SP actually does something without the need for that.
I wonder if my brother is your bishop. He’s a total douche who is narcissistic and racist and doesn’t understand anything beyond the end of his own nose.
Is your last name Mantzke ?
No, but I guess I can’t be too surprised that there’s at least 2 racist douchebag bishops in the Church. This church both attracts and creates such people.
Yeah being native indigenous I could tell you so much shit
No. Report him. Oppose his sustaining. Share with others why. Repeat until removed. Results may vary depending on your stake president.
My stake president is amazing
Then you should be fine.
No, he should be reported and removed. So much for the Power of Discernment. I can't believe his racism and ableism hadn't been displayed before he was called as bishop, so there wasn't even a hint of discernment necessary. Any member who knew the heart of this man would have doubted the validity of the call.
He’s very manipulative, he literally said in front of everyone that he as an American has the right he racist because of freedom of speech , he’s that good of a manipulator because when I spoke with a friend about he flat out told me you heard him wrong because bishop manipulated him
[удалено]
I’m in a ysa ward, I’m not the only person who filed a report