Is there a difference between speaking/working against the Church as a religion and speaking/working against an institution owned, operated and run by the Church?
0
Speaking Against The Church V Speaking Against An Institution Of The Church.
Started by
treehugger
, Jun 24 2012 01:34 AM
83 replies to this topic
#1
treehugger
-
- Banned
-
- 308 posts
Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark
Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:34 AM
#2
calmoriah
-
- Contributor
-
- 33,074 posts
Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.
Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:41 AM
BYU owns a dairy. Which means technically in your view, I guess, it is owned, operated and run by the Church (at least as much as the MI is). Do you think there is a significant difference between complaining about the quality of their milk and complaining about the Brethren teaching that homosexual actions are sinful? Myself, yes, I see it as significantly different but that's just me (and there were years I complained about their milk and refused to buy it because it tasted like alfalfa and I highly doubt either my bishop or my Lord is going to call me to repentance for that.)
Or for another example, say you owned a dairy as well. Would it be wrong for you to advertise your milk was of higher quality than the BYU Dairy's, your cows cleaner, etc. etc.? OTOH would you feel the same way claiming in church you knew better than the prophet about the earth was about to expire or some such thing?
Or for another example, say you owned a dairy as well. Would it be wrong for you to advertise your milk was of higher quality than the BYU Dairy's, your cows cleaner, etc. etc.? OTOH would you feel the same way claiming in church you knew better than the prophet about the earth was about to expire or some such thing?
Edited by calmoriah, 24 June 2012 - 01:43 AM.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
#3
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,840 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:01 AM
In any given ward along Utah's Wasatch Front, one is apt to encounter at least as many active members who are dyed-in-the-wool University of Utah fans who trash BYU on game days as the other way around. So far as I know, none of them has ever been disciplined for it. In fact, a good many preside as bishops and stake presidents, I daresay.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#4
Storm Rider
-
- Members
-
- 2,287 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:04 AM
treehugger, on 24 June 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:
Is there a difference between speaking/working against the Church as a religion and speaking/working against an institution owned, operated and run by the Church?
I don't see any correclation between the two.
Storm Rider
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
#5
Scott Lloyd
-
- Contributor
-
- 14,840 posts
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:13 AM
A couple of other examples:
The host of a Sunday morning program called "Mormon Times" on Church-owned KSL-TV in Salt Lake City was for many years a popular news anchor on a rival competitor television station in the same market. One might consider that she had "worked against" an institution owned by the Church. But evidently that doesn't bother anybody in the Church leadership.
Another example: A female anchor left KSL to go to work for a rival station. The last time there was a worldwide leadership training broadcast put on by the Church, she was part of a panel discussion in one of the segments.
The host of a Sunday morning program called "Mormon Times" on Church-owned KSL-TV in Salt Lake City was for many years a popular news anchor on a rival competitor television station in the same market. One might consider that she had "worked against" an institution owned by the Church. But evidently that doesn't bother anybody in the Church leadership.
Another example: A female anchor left KSL to go to work for a rival station. The last time there was a worldwide leadership training broadcast put on by the Church, she was part of a panel discussion in one of the segments.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#6
DBMormon
-
- Members
-
- 1,991 posts
Book Of Mormon Answerman
Posted 24 June 2012 - 03:50 AM
what if the specific reason you are complaining about is a policy or view the brethren directed said institution to implement?
To me that makes a stark difference from the examples you use?
To me that makes a stark difference from the examples you use?
#7
why me
-
- Contributor
-
- 9,903 posts
Creates Beasts Of The Earth
Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:16 AM
treehugger, on 24 June 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:
Is there a difference between speaking/working against the Church as a religion and speaking/working against an institution owned, operated and run by the Church?
I think that the problem is with your usage of the words speaking/working against the church or institution. If you are referring to the recent spat with MI I think that you are off the mark. To my knowledge no one was speaking against MI or the church. What we were critiquing was the way that Dan was fired. His firing was done in an unchristlike way by someone who should have known better. Since his firing was a human (imperfect) decision and done in a very fallible way, it should be critiqued.
I would take the same stance if Thomas S. Monson would have fired someone by email when that person was out of the country and not able to make an appointment and have a discussion about why.
Joseph Smith Quotes
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
#8
selek1
-
- Banned
-
- 1,244 posts
Banned
Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:24 AM
Not too be too blunt, the OP agrees with Bradford's decision, and would prefer to see apologists such as Dan silenced.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
#9
Storm Rider
-
- Members
-
- 2,287 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:33 AM
selek1, on 24 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:
Not too be too blunt, the OP agrees with Bradford's decision, and would prefer to see apologists such as Dan silenced.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
This maybe true, but the assumption is just so pathetically stupid as to flummox any LDS. Why would anyone think a LDS would think like this? Sheer ignorance is not enough of a reason; there has to be something very twisted in their perspective to imagine such.
Storm Rider
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
#10
CV75
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,778 posts
Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:43 AM
selek1, on 24 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:
Not too be too blunt, the OP agrees with Bradford's decision, and would prefer to see apologists such as Dan silenced.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
#11
selek1
-
- Banned
-
- 1,244 posts
Banned
Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:45 AM
CV75, on 24 June 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:
That said, I think speaking against any organization that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” is as bad as speaking against the Church or its affiliated institutions, more due to possessing an attitude that is not “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, or based in a belief "in doing good to all men” than due to the resulting harm (if any) to the organizations or the people associated with them.
#12
Bikeemikey
-
- Members
-
- 1,506 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:16 AM
selek1, on 24 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:
Not too be too blunt, the OP agrees with Bradford's decision, and would prefer to see apologists such as Dan silenced.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
Hey selek1.
I really have to ask. How do you get these insights into people's intentions that go so far beyond what I can see is the same post?
Do you know treehugger personally, or have a conversation outside of the thread about their intentions?
I have wondered for quite some time if you were actually psychic.
I would live to see how you arrive at the conclusion you arrived at via opening posts intentions.
#13
Bikeemikey
-
- Members
-
- 1,506 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:17 AM
selek1, on 24 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:
Not too be too blunt, the OP agrees with Bradford's decision, and would prefer to see apologists such as Dan silenced.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
The argument presented is an attempt to shame us into silence by equating agreement with Bradford to fidelity to the Church.
It is a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy- i.e., "no faithful Mormon would dare gainsay a decision I agree with".
It is a shallow and cynical exercise designed to elicit a desired behavior while avoiding discussing the real issue- Bradford's misdeeds.
Hey selek1.
I really have to ask. How do you get these insights into people's intentions that go so far beyond what I can see is the same post?
Do you know treehugger personally, or have a conversation outside of the thread about their intentions?
I have wondered for quite some time if you were actually psychic.
I would love to see how you arrive at the conclusion you arrived at via opening posts intentions.
Edited by Bikeemikey, 24 June 2012 - 05:17 AM.
#14
why me
-
- Contributor
-
- 9,903 posts
Creates Beasts Of The Earth
Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:28 AM
CV75, on 24 June 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:
That said, I think speaking against any organization that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” is as bad as speaking against the Church or its affiliated institutions,
An institution that is 'virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy' does not fire someone who has dedicated a portion of his life to defending the lds church by email when that said person is out of the country and not able to defend himself. And then has the personal emails by this said person leaked to the antimormons.
But that is just my opinion.
Joseph Smith Quotes
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
#15
why me
-
- Contributor
-
- 9,903 posts
Creates Beasts Of The Earth
Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:29 AM
Bikeemikey, on 24 June 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:
I have wondered for quite some time if you were actually psychic.
I would love to see how you arrive at the conclusion you arrived at via opening posts intentions.
Selek's opinion comes from the past posts by treehugger about Dan and his firing. No psychic skills necessary.
Joseph Smith Quotes
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
#16
CV75
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,778 posts
Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:37 AM
selek1, on 24 June 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:
Love ya to death, CV- but just for grins and giggles, could you diagram that sentence, please?
That said, I think speaking against any organization that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” is as bad as speaking against the Church or its affiliated institutions, more due to possessing an attitude that is not “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, or based in a belief "in doing good to all men” than due to the resulting harm (if any) to the organizations or the people associated with them.
That said (I appreciate your insight into the motives of the OP).
Even so, when it comes to the Church and its institutions, i count them all as virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy. Speaking against them would not be "honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous", or based in a belief "in doing good to all men.” This hurts the one doing the "speaking-against" more than it does the organizations or the people in them.
#17
CV75
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,778 posts
Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:41 AM
why me, on 24 June 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:
An institution that is 'virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy' does not fire someone who has dedicated a portion of his life to defending the lds church by email when that said person is out of the country and not able to defend himself. And then has the personal emails by this said person leaked to the antimormons.
But that is just my opinion.
But that is just my opinion.
I have no problem pointing out or speaking against a specific clear injustice, but not in condemning the Church or its affilliates as a whole. Even the Cougar Eat!
#18
CV75
-
- Contributor
-
- 5,778 posts
Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:45 AM
By the way, I've been on both sides of orgainzation house-cleaning and it can be very complicated with many good people failing and going by the wayside, more due to human frailty than any orgnizational mission to ruin people's lives.
#19
rpn
-
- Members
-
- 2,396 posts
violets
Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:50 AM
In the latest update on FAIR http://www.fairblog....log (FAIR Blog) it says that Dr. Peterson was fired from being the editor of the Review, but not (at least as far as that author could tell) from the Institute itself or the Middle Eastern Initiative. If that is true, it may explain why Mr. Bradford felt it within the realms of decency to do it by email rather than in person.
Edited by rpn, 24 June 2012 - 06:51 AM.
#20
Storm Rider
-
- Members
-
- 2,287 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:53 AM
rpn, on 24 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:
In the latest update on FAIR http://www.fairblog....log (FAIR Blog) it says that Dr. Peterson was fired from being the editor of the Review, but not (at least as far as that author could tell) from the Institute itself or the Middle Eastern Initiative. If that is true, it may explain why Mr. Bradford felt it within the realms of decency to do it by email rather than in person.
That makes sense if being the editor was akin to having an assignment to stay after meetings and clean the bathroom. However, if being THE editor has some responsiblity associated with it, then the logic seems to fall to pieces. However, you do get brownie points for trying to put lipstick on that sow's ear.
Storm Rider
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
Google
