Comments on: It’s Not My Default

By: Ian Cook

Ian Cook — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:55:45 +0000

CS,

Lots of people wear white shirts, ties and are well shaven…

I agree though that not everyone is as they seem. I too am close to someone who was abused. It wasn’t by a bishop, but it was by a bishop’s son, and it was basically swept under the rug by two bishops who believed the bishop’s son over the person I know.

By: CS Eric

CS Eric — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:08:36 +0000

I am close to someone who was sexually assaulted by her bishop in his office, and he justified it by means of his position. Yet my default still is that most bishops are good men trying their best. I also have a default to that default that not everyone is exactly who they seem to be.

Because of that bad experience from an abusive bishop, I have always worn a beard and rarely wear white shirts to church. For my friend, the “uniform of the priesthood” is unfortunately also the “uniform of her abuser.” It probably means I will spend my whole life as an elder, since most callings you have that make you a high priest require comformity to the dress standards of a very evil man.

By: MCQ

MCQ — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:19:09 +0000

I agree that the disconnect is huge, djinn, but that’s because you’re making unwarranted assumptions and setting up ridiculous straw men. No one is “getting their back up over women trying to protect their kids.” No one. In fact, no one is getting their back up at all. Your first sentence betrays your defaults:

“Hey, Rusty, you’re a guy, as are most of the commenters on this thread.”

The question is why you think that matters so very much.

By: djinn

djinn — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:38:27 +0000

Ok, I think you’re saying that there’s currently enough safeguards in place–that is, parents can tell their kids to not answer certain questions, parents or other adults can attend worthiness interviews. OK then. How many people know this or do this; do you? My feeing is no. But if yes, then please accept my apologies.

By: djinn

djinn — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:16:14 +0000

The disconnect here is huge.

By: djinn

djinn — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:15:01 +0000

MCQ, you explicitly said that your default was that bishops were trustworthy; you then give a long list of other assumptions which are fine as they go, but they don’t address the point that I or any of the other commenters made, which I will repeat. We are acting out of personal knowledge. We are protecting our kids whether you like it or not. Apparently you don’t. Please explain how I misunderstood you.

By: Thomas Parkin

Thomas Parkin — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:13:21 +0000

Very interesting stuff.

I would like one of my defaults to be _my defaults are in need of adaptation._ And one of my personality traits, _I can suspend my defaults._

Since defaults are not truth,- they are a combination of our wishes, subjective sensibilities, mingled with experience often seen through our defaults,- we are not truth seekers except to the degree that we can suspend and adapt our defaults. I think that probably we can’t expect answers to prayers,- which by definition bring additional light and truth and therefore force a modification of our defaults,- unless we have some ability to suspend our defaults. We are probably only able to get from the Lord information where our defaults are adaptable. Otherwise, we are the man with one talent – fixed, fearful, fundamental. There is the Liahona side.

Here comes the Iron Rod. But by adapting I say adapting, not tossing our defaults out the window the first time they are challenged by experience or information, true or false. It seems to me that virtually all defaults contain an element of truth, even if that truth looms large only in our own experience. It isn’t as if reality is unknowable, only that it is difficult to know. It is just as essential to stand by known true experiences as it is to be willing to adapt. Otherwise we will be victims of our sensibilities the other way: always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, etc. Our store of truth should grow not merely shift from this to that. The little thread of truth becomes a rope or truth becomes the iron rod of truth until our whole existence is bathed in light.

Also, we don’t just have a handful of defaults but our whole way of experiencing, feeling thinking doing, is riddled with defaults both acknowledged and unconscious.

Groovy. :) Thanks for the exercise. ~

By: MCQ

MCQ — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:35:52 +0000

I actually find it kind of astonishing that you’re getting your back up at women trying to protect their kids.

That’s an excellent example of completely misreading someone, presumably because of your defaults, djinn. It’s such a complete misrepresentation it’s hard to imagine it’s not intentional.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:43:51 +0000

Ziff,
I don’t know if it’s so much a “position” you take as much as it is what informs that position. The FMH thread wasn’t about the trustworthiness of bishops, but their and my positions on the trustworthiness of bishops informed our opinions on the substance of the post. That’s why I think Tom’s examples are indeed good because they make that point clearly. So I don’t know if I think “staying with our defaults” is really even at play because the arguments aren’t going to be against our defaults, rather they will be against the substance of the argument. The FMH gals weren’t necessarily trying to convince me bishops are suspect, they were trying to convince me that patriarchy has no business dealing with female sexuality.

By: djinn

djinn — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:41:52 +0000

Hey, Rusty, you’re a guy, as are most of the commenters on this thread. My reading from the FMH thread in question is not that “Bishops as a class are untrustworthy,” but rather, many of us females have encountered untrustworthy bishops, and do not wish our children to undergo the heartbreak that we experienced. Hence, sitting in on delicate conversations, and so one. It’s not that all bishops are bad; rather a broad cross section of us have met one at a particularly vulnerable moment in our lives.

I actually find it kind of astonishing that you’re getting your back up at women trying to protect their kids.