Speaking Against The Church V Speaking Against An Institution Of The Church.

[treehugger]

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?

[Calm]

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?

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

[Storm Rider]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

[DBMormon]

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?

[why me]

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.

[selek1]

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.

[Storm Rider]

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.

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.

[CV75]

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.

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.

[selek1]

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.

Love ya to death, CV- but just for grins and giggles, could you diagram that sentence, please?

[Bikeemikey]

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.

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.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

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 June 24, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[why me]

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.

[why me]

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.

[CV75]

Love ya to death, CV- but just for grins and giggles, could you diagram that sentence, please?

Ha ha, I got a kick out of that one.

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.

[CV75]

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.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I do see a difference between the organizations and the people in them, and between how organizations behave and how individuals within them behave.

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!

[CV75]

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.

[rpn]

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 June 24, 2012 by rpn

[Storm Rider]

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.

[ERayR]

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.

I don't understand your reasoning on that one. Please Explain.

[CV75]

what if the specific reason you are complaining about is a policy or view the brethren directed said institution to implement?

I think we go through this all the time. Someone in a position of authority makes a bad decision, or does or says something bad or badly. Some are inclined to condemn the Church, some are inclined to condemn the man, and some are inclined to condemn the action. And then some are inclined to work constructively within the system to respect the Church, its offices and officers to seek proper amends for the powerless and the innocent, and to above all practice charity and forgiveness.

[rpn]

Because he wasn't being fired from his JOB, just had some of his duties reassigned. (I haven't read the correspondence, so I don't know if that is plausible from the facts, of course.)

[malkie]

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.

You imply that someone within the institution arranged for the leak.

Are you really saying that Bradford "[had] the personal emails by this said person leaked to the antimormons"? That is, it was a deliberate move on his part?

[treehugger]

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.

To be blunt, you Selek are a bully. Almost Every post of yours in response to me is you 1). Playing board nanny and 2). You bullying me. What is worse is that you bully someone you believe to be a female.

Additionally, Call For Reference - please show that where I have stated that I support the decisions by Bradford.

The truth you will deny is that I have not expressed support for the decision, so your wild.unfounded accusation can only be that since I did not pick up palm-palms for your team or grab my tar and feathers that must assuredly mean I am against your team.

I respectfully request you disengaged from this thread that I have started.

I respectfully request you stop nannying everything I post.

I respectfully request you stop bullying me.

I respectfully request you stop making false and unsupported claims against me.

I respectfully request you apologize for your behavior against me.

I respectfully request that your next and last post in this thread is only complying with Call For References AND since we both know you can prove your false accusation I respectfully request your not post in this thread again.

Edited June 24, 2012 by treehugger