CH1 Now online for all membership

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

See above. So, why don't most members know this is even a policy?

Because they haven't asked, I suppose.

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

There is no equivalent to "small print in legalese" here.  The Church's policies are readily accessible.

You're being intentionally obtuse here.

No, I'm not.

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not claiming there is a 1:1 correlation; I'm saying that putting a policy wanting members to counsel with bishops and never, ever talking about this anywhere else is like (similar to, akin) the posting of zoning changes.

Members can ask bishops about obscure topics like vasectomies.  And/or many (most?) of those topics are also covered in Handbook 2, which has been available to the world for years.

It's "like" changes to zoning laws in the sense that most of the general public doesn't really care about zoning laws.  It would therefore not make much sense for, say, Provo City (where I live) to spend considerable time and money and effort putting on formal presentations about zoning laws that very few people actually care about.  However, Provo City can and does address changes to zoning laws at the local level (such as in city council meetings and specialized neighborhood meetings -- we have had several such meetings in our area of Provo regarding the possible widening of a street).  Moreover, a citizen (such as a prospective homebuyer or real estate developer) who might have a particularized interest in the otherwise obscure topic of zoning laws always has the option of . . . calling Provo City and asking to meet with the zoning division.

Similarly, I think most members of the Church are indifferent to the Church's position on vasectomies until and unless that topic becomes uniquely relevant to them.  At that point, a member can do some online research, including looking at Handbook 2.  And the member could also speak with the local authority (the bishop) for further and more particularized questions/concerned.  And the individual will then, at that point, be left to prayerfully exercise his discretion in the matter.  General conference talks on this subject don't seem to be necessary.

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, in both cases, the information is "readily accessible." And, in both cases, people are unlikely to read it.

People are unlikely to read about the Church's policy on vasectomies until and unless that topic becomes uniquely relevant to them.  Otherwise, it is not a topic of generalized significance, such as might warrant regular public discussion by General Authorities.

Many years ago I served as a missionary in Taiwan.  The local and regional church leaders there formulated a policy regarding whether members of the Church in Taiwan could engage in the practice of bai-bai (quasi-ritualized worship/veneration of ancestors).  That topic was a point of concern for the Taiwanese Saints, and also a point of confusion given the scriptural prohibitions against worshipping anything or anyone other than God.  So the local and regional church leaders came out with a policy that clarified what members could and could not do.  Now, did you know any of that?  Do you even care at all?  I don't think we should fault the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for not addressing bai-bai in repeated General Conference talks.  It's a topic best left addressed in regional/local settings.

Another example: Our ward's bishop was approached a while back by a member of the Church who wanted to know if the Church had a policy regarding the recreational consumption of Kava   The bishop, looking on LDS.org and not seeking much in the way of guidance, conferred with our stake president, who in turn conferred with regional authorities, and then came back with a response.  Again, I am not sure the recreational consumption of Kava is a topic so widespread as to warrant repeated General Conference talks.  It's a topic best left addressed in regional/local settings.

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, they can if they want to. But this state of things is why almost no one knows about it. 

I think "almost no one knows about it" because "it" is an obscure topic and not generally relevant to most folks.  If and when that changes, however, when the topic does become important, than guidance from the Church is readily available.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But we are not objects simply to be acted upon. We should be involved with our leaders while things are happening. If they are the quarterback then we are at least teammates. The quarterback is responsible for his team and should be responsive to his team. If he's the only one with power, then there is an inequity and the team is doomed to failure. Imagine a quarterback who wouldn't share the plays with the rest of the team but then held his receivers accountable for not running the correct routes. That's kind of what is done when the quarterback (church leader) has a handbook with important details about things like proper interviewing and disciplinary actions, but doesn't share with those he is serving. It makes no sense.

After a bad game, team mates should be able to give each other feedback. The receiver should be in a position to recognize a weakness in the quarterback's performance and hopefully help to improve it. We would not call that receiver an "armchair quarterback" as if the quarterback is beyond criticism

Armchair quarterbacks and quarterbacks are not the same thing though (even though in the minds of the armchair quarterbacks, they sometimes are  ).

[blueglass]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would be like my husband and I writing a policy manual for our family, letting the kids read it in our bedroom if they specifically asked, but not letting them have access to otherwise.  What would the point of that be?  It would be a weird thing to do.

I like your idea of husband and wife writing the books.  As far as I know elder oaks writes and edits these handbooks.   Hopefully the 9 auxiliary presidents as the only women in the entire church authorized to have a copy of the HB1 also are on the committee to suggest edits ?  

Edited November 16, 2017 by blueglass

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

Put another way, it's to keep the people from holding their leaders accountable. If the members don't know that the handbook instructs leaders to conduct interviews in a specific way, a member can't really complain or question the leader if they behave improperly. If the member doesn't know the process for their disciplinary process, they can't hold leaders accountable if they fail to follow the established patterns.

It's all about establishing and maintaining a power dynamic within the wards and stakes.

Actually, I think it is more about keeping people  who misinterpret the Handbook of instructions from being legalistic and Pharisaical about how the church is run.

 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Criticism should be public if the mistake is public, at least.

That's not self-evident.

If my wife made a "public" mistake, I am not sure it would be appropriate or healthy for me to "publicly" criticize her for it.

I have been involved in many church disciplinary proceedings, including several where there is some "public" facet of the transgressor's misconduct.  And yet the Church does not publicly discipline the individual.  

My sense is that some folks relish the idea of General Authorities being publicly humiliated and berated.  They seem to salivate at the prospect of feasting on some real schadenfreude at the expense of the Brethren.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this (emphases added):

Quote

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female...

As between the reasoned and authoritative counsel offered by Elder Oaks, and contrarian, unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so declarations from some anonymous person I neither know nor have reason to trust nor sustain as a prophet seer and revelator, I'll go with the former.  Pretty much every time.

Quote

Going to the leader in private and not being able to go public promotes leaders being able to hide or unreasonably justify error.

I disagree.  A person who feels his local leader is in error has a means to "appeal" to a higher authority.

In any event, your advocacy of "go{ing} public" sounds like a call for Trial By Public Opinion.  Yeah, like an LDS bishop (who is necessarily constrained from speaking publicly on most sensitive issues he encounters as a bishop) is definitely going to get a fair hearing that way.  Sure.  Uh-huh.

My sense is that some folks relish the idea of General Authorities (and, it seems, local authorities) being publicly humiliated and berated. 

This isn't about righting wrongs.  It's about individual Latter-day Saints trying to justify the weaponization of of public opinion against leaders with whom those individuals disagree.  The execrable antics of Kate Kelly relative to her bishop and stake president are pretty good examples of this sort of behavior (see also here).

Quote

Also, knowing that public criticism might happen should act to properly focus the leader on maybe thinking things through prior to acting or saying something inappropriate.

Right.  No implied threat there, eh?

"You've got a nice reputation in your community, Bishop Jones.  It would be a shame if something happened to it."

Again, Kate Kelly's deplorable behavior demonstrates the wisdom of not doing what you are suggesting.  The Court of Public Opinion is not the best place to hash out such things, particularly when the bishop is constrained from speaking publicly.  But then, perhaps to some folks that's not a bug, but a feature.  It sure worked for Kate Kelly, after all...

Quote

Further, criticism shouldn't be a one way street where leaders can publicly rebuke but not expect it in return.

There are no such "public rebuke{s}" of Church members by leaders.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Wow, this is really off the rails.

Yeah, situations involving Godwin's Law (or its variants) tend to go that way.

Comparing rhetorical opponents to Hitler is virtually always a loser of an argument.  It's not an argument at all.  It's just slander dress up as one.

Similarly, members of the Church publicly accusing the General Authorities of being worse than the Pharisees because the GAs have limited the distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in each and every unit of the Church worldwide is likewise a loser of an argument.  It's not an argument at all.  It's evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is true. But I've always believed it,   and it is and has been doctrine for over 20 years now. I think it was doctrine long before that, too; President Smith's views notwithstanding. It isn't the first thing I disagree with him on . . .  

the quote by President Smith begins by him stating that it is his opinion "I Take it that . ."

President Hinckley's statement was signed by the entire first presidency and quorum of the twelve.   

I am not sure President Smith was the president when he said the first statement.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for further illustrating the problem.

There is no accountability. Members just have to suck it up and take whatever the leader dishes out because general leaders will "always" support local leaders. What a sham of an appeals process. And why would the church behave that way as an institution? To establish and maintain order of leadership over the members.

The local leaders have the Keys.

 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, situations involving Godwin's Law (or its variants) tend to go that way.

Comparing rhetorical opponents to Hitler is virtually always a loser of an argument.  It's not an argument at all.  It's just slander dress up as one.

Similarly, members of the Church publicly accusing the General Authorities of being worse than the Pharisees because the GAs have limited the distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in each and every unit of the Church worldwide is likewise a loser of an argument.  It's not an argument at all.  It's evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Off the rails, and not getting back on any time soon, I see.  Nothing against you personally, but this is just ridiculous.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Call the cops.

then the job is done. if the cops don't do anything the church can then say they have done their job and should have no concern whatsoever of possible predators in their congregation.

 

How stupid!

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Off the rails, and not getting back on any time soon, I see.  Nothing against you personally, but this is just ridiculous.

Getting back on the rails is not really worthwhile, methinks.  Handbook 1 is intended as a having a limited distribution.  It's not a "secret" book.  The Brethren are not worse that the Pharisees for making that decision.  Nor are they nefariously conspiring to keep the members of the Church in perpetual darkness and ignorance.

This thread is pretty much an extended faultfinding bash-fest against the Brethren.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not self-evident.

If my wife made a "public" mistake, I am not sure it would be appropriate or healthy for me to "publicly" criticize her for it.

I have been involved in many church disciplinary proceedings, including several where there is some "public" facet of the transgressor's misconduct.  And yet the Church does not publicly discipline the individual.  

My sense is that some folks relish the idea of General Authorities being publicly humiliated and berated.  They seem to salivate at the prospect of feasting on some real schadenfreude at the expense of the Brethren.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this (emphases added):

As between the reasoned and authoritative counsel offered by Elder Oaks, and contrarian, unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so declarations from some anonymous person I neither know nor have reason to trust nor sustain as a prophet seer and revelator, I'll go with the former.  Pretty much every time.

I disagree.  A person who feels his local leader is in error has a means to "appeal" to a higher authority.

In any event, your advocacy of "go{ing} public" sounds like a call for Trial By Public Opinion.  Yeah, like an LDS bishop (who is necessarily constrained from speaking publicly on most sensitive issues he encounters as a bishop) is definitely going to get a fair hearing that way.  Sure.  Uh-huh.

My sense is that some folks relish the idea of General Authorities (and, it seems, local authorities) being publicly humiliated and berated. 

This isn't about righting wrongs.  It's about individual Latter-day Saints trying to justify the weaponization of of public opinion against leaders with whom those individuals disagree.  The execrable antics of Kate Kelly relative to her bishop and stake president are pretty good examples of this sort of behavior (see also here).

Right.  No implied threat there, eh?

"You've got a nice reputation in your community, Bishop Jones.  It would be a shame if something happened to it."

Again, Kate Kelly's deplorable behavior demonstrates the wisdom of not doing what you are suggesting.  The Court of Public Opinion is not the best place to hash out such things, particularly when the bishop is constrained from speaking publicly.  But then, perhaps to some folks that's not a bug, but a feature.  It sure worked for Kate Kelly, after all...

There are no such "public rebuke{s}" of Church members by leaders.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think going public is the witch hunt you make it out to be.  I don't see the threats from members you claim.  Have you witnessed a member go to a bishop and threaten his reputation like the mafia would as in your example above?  What I am talking about is along the lines of parents not believing their children, because of the undo deference to authority, when their children say the bishop was inappropriate with them thereby allowing abuse to continue.  Or when my bishop publicly rebuked the ward because we didn't agree with his self-serving "revelation" stories he had told in a prior testimony meeting.  Or when a bishop in a ward I was in on my mission publicly made his son kneel before him because the son acted out in a way common to children his age.  That was entirely unnecessary and harmful to the child.  Members should be allowed to publicly disagree with this nonsense.  Of course, complaining about these things does take the authority down a notch.  But in the instances above, it was because of the leaders and not the members.  

No one is above reproach and the policy against criticism sure promotes certain individuals being more equal than others.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Call the cops.

Agree.  Iow, there is really nothing the Church can in discipline force on a person save by that person's choice.  

Except for the removal of privileges, including temple attendance and general membership.  You remove that, you destroy a community as there is no community unless that community can define what it is and who belongs to it.

some communities shouldn't be allowed to exist, others encouraged.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Getting back on the rails is not really worthwhile, methinks.  Handbook 1 is intended as a having a limited distribution.  It's not a "secret" book.  The Brethren are not worse that the Pharisees for making that decision.  Nor are they nefariously conspiring to keep the members of the Church in perpetual darkness and ignorance.

This thread is pretty much an extended faultfinding bash-fest against the Brethren.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Using Pharisee as an insult is actually pretty anti-Semitic to begin with, although it's common in Christian circles. It's not usually intended to be anti-Semitic, but it really is. It's common for Christians (including LDS) to throw it out pretty casually. I used to do it too.

http://jewishchristianintersections.com/?p=421

Your extreme caricature of what it means to be a Pharisee (equating the word to mean something like Christ-murderer) is actually much, much more anti-Semitic than the usual usage. I'm positive that wasn't your intent, but that was the result. In trying to take maximum offense at someone you clearly don't like, you've actually come up with something much much worse than you accused him of.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Gray

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I know.  Most people probably know the gist of what's in it.  I think the issue is that the church doesn't treat it like a policy manual, and that's just kind of weird.  Not weird because it seems like a sham but weird because it really is just a policy manual so why go to such lengths to keep it from members from accessing church policy?

It would be like my husband and I writing a policy manual for our family, letting the kids read it in our bedroom if they specifically asked, but not letting them have access to otherwise.  What would the point of that be?  It would be a weird thing to do.

I got the impression limiting it to only in the bishop's presence served  a couple of purposes...can't remember where the idea came from, my bishops, the handbook, my husband, myself, others...

Most important, by having them read it in the presence of the bishop, the bishop would both learn of their concern and be right there to discuss it with them if questions were unresolved

Kept off those who were just curious or tended to tell others' their jobs

Made sure people were consulting latest handbook and not grandpa's leftover copy from him being bishop 50 years ago...

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think going public is the witch hunt you make it out to be. 

I think the calls for going public sure sound like a call for a witch hunt.

The Court of Public Opinion is, in the main, not the proper venue for adjudicating whether an LDS bishop has exercised discretion and authority properly as to spiritual/moral matters.  This is particularly so given that LDS bishops are generally constrained from speaking publicly on such issues.  So we're left with a one-sided narrative.  

I'm not speaking about plain misconduct, like theft of funds or molesting a child or whatnot.  Those types of misconduct can be addressed in the public sphere.  

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't see the threats from members you claim. 

That's the nice thing about implied threats.  Plausible deniability and all that.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Have you witnessed a member go to a bishop and threaten his reputation like the mafia would as in your example above? 

Yes.  Kate Kelly did something very much like that.  After she was excommunicated, she repeatedly publicized her bishop's name and employer to the media and the general public (see, e.g., here), in an apparent attempt to initiate a Brendan Eich-type blowback on him as retribution.  She also publicly accused him of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike."  

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What I am talking about is along the lines of parents not believing their children, because of the undo deference to authority, when their children say the bishop was inappropriate with them thereby allowing abuse to continue.  Or when my bishop publicly rebuked the ward because we didn't agree with his self-serving "revelation" stories he had told in a prior testimony meeting. 

I can't speak to these anecdotes.  Bishops are not supposed to publicly rebuke . . . well, anyone.  That's not part of the job description.  This behavior could (and, it appears, should) have been reported to those in authority over this bishop.  This seems to be a rather out-of-the-ordinary kind of thing.

But I'll bite.  Let's say that you were to take your dispute with this bishop public.  That you were to publicly name him and announce his misconduct to the world, and call on the Court of Public Opinion to pass judgment on him.  How do you think that would play out?  Would the Saints be more unified?  Would the bishop be more penitent and remorseful?  Would your proposal to publicly shame and humiliate this bishop be helpful to the overall collegiality and fellowship in the ward?

I think . . . not.  Rather, I think your proposed one-sided war of words would have the intended effect of humiliating and embarrassing the bishop.  And he would probably be released (and/or ask to be released).  And he and his family would feel alienated from the rest of the ward.  And some ward members might feel that the bishop had been wrongfully treated, and so would side with him, against you and those supporting you.  Acrimony and divisiveness would prevail.  Anger, even hatred, would fester.  The fellowship of the Saints in that ward, and perhaps in the stake, would suffer, perhaps falter.  But at least you'd have your pound of flesh.  You got to see the bishop get his comeuppance.  So there's that.

Being a bishop is a tough gig.  They are mostly working in their professions, and have children at home.  None of the many bishops of my personal acquaintance (I've lived in Utah County for north of 40 years) has asked for or aspired to that calling.  Most express fatigued but also gratified relief once they are released.  They receive no pay.  They are asked to give up large chunks of their weekends and evenings to minister to other people.  Lots of meetings with groups.  Lots of meetings with individuals.  Lots of visits to homes, and hospitals.  Some funerals, and some weddings.  Tithing Settlement.  Temple Recommend interviews.  Couples counseling.  Extending callings.  Putting out brush fires between members.  Giving talks several times each year.  Going on Trek.  Going to YW camp.  Going to Pack Meetings.  Going to YM/YW activities.  Coordinating potlucks and other activities.  Sitting on the stand rather than with family, for years on end.  And this is in addition to maintaining/advancing their careers, taking care of their spouse and children, and so on.  Free time is minimal.  Vacations or traveling are substantially reduced.  Career advancement can be hindered or slowed due to family and church obligations.  And yet these men generally serve as an expression of faith, knowing that at the end of their five-year (or more) stint, they'll receive a paycheck in the form of . . . the ward raising their arms to the square for 3-5 seconds as an expression of thanks for their service.  

And now we have a proposal to publicly shame and humiliate bishops who make a mistake or step out of line.  No quiet resolution.  No correction behind closed doors by those in authority (which is what all other members get).  Nope.  The bishop gets publicly humiliated.  His reputation in the community is injured or destroyed.  His wife and children are likewise humiliated.

That's what you are proposing.  I submit that this is not a good idea.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Or when a bishop in a ward I was in on my mission publicly made his son kneel before him because the son acted out in a way common to children his age.  That was entirely unnecessary and harmful to the child. 

Again, anecdotal.  Again, inappropriate.  Again, out of the ordinary.  Again, could and should have been reported to those in authority over this bishop.

And again, publicly humiliating the bishop for his genuine mistake is not going to be helpful.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Members should be allowed to publicly disagree with this nonsense. 

Well, I'll go with Elder Oaks rather than you.  You seem to be bent on pursuing public humiliation of LDS leaders who cross you or tick you off.  Your proposal comes across and vindictive and punitive.  Elder Oaks, on the other hand, has presented a calm and reasoned and scriptural basis for pursing alternative remedies.

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course, complaining about these things does take the authority down a notch.  But in the instances above, it was because of the leaders and not the members.  

Yes, the pound-of-flesh mentality is manifest in what you are proposing.  No need to elaborate.  We get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Using Pharisee as an insult is actually pretty anti-Semitic to begin with, although it's common in Christian circles. It's not usually intended to be anti-Semitic, but it really is. It's common for Christians (including LDS) to throw it out pretty casually. I used to do it too.

http://jewishchristianintersections.com/?p=421

Your extreme caricature of what it means to be a Pharisee (equating the word to mean something like Christ-murderer) is actually much, much more anti-Semitic than the usual usage. I'm positive that wasn't your intent, but that was the result. In trying to take maximum offense at someone you clearly don't like, you've actually come up with something much much worse than you accused him of.

In addition to the above, using the Pharisee as a descriptive label not relating to ethnicity has become a specific definition and it is not having to do with the behaviour of only a subset of Pharisees, those involved in the judgment and death of Christ.

There were a lot more Pharisees around than just that subset.  In general, Pharisees became known for their elevation of the Law and this became seen as overzealous or hypocritical based on Jesus' (and perhaps others) condemnation of those who challenged him, such that a common definition of the label is now:

2.  (lowercase) practicing or advocating strictobservance of external forms and ceremonies ofreligion or conduct without regard to the spirit;self-righteous; hypocritical.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pharisaical

 

It would be inappropriate to condemn someone for using the label German as if they were using the label Nazi, even though most original Nazis were German.  Still Nazis were only a very limited subset of Germans of a certain place and time.  In the same way the "Christkillers" were only a subset of the Pharisees, limited to a certain place and time (and likely involved many more than just Pharisees).

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

Using Pharisee as an insult is actually pretty anti-Semitic to begin with, although it's common in Christian circles.

Well, I'm certainly glad I did not do anything like that.

Quote

It's not usually intended to be anti-Semitic, but it really is.

I think intentions matter.  If it is not intended to be anti-Semitic, I'm not sure it should be construed as such.

In this thread, it was used as a profoundly denigrating slur.  That was the clear intent, so I took it as such.

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's common for Christians (including LDS) to throw it out pretty casually. I used to do it too.

http://jewishchristianintersections.com/?p=421

Your extreme caricature of what it means to be a Pharisee (equating the word to mean something like Christ-murderer) is actually much, much more anti-Semitic than the usual usage.

Well no, it's not.  I never used the term.  In fact, I have strenuously objected to its use.

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm positive that wasn't your intent, but that was the result.

No, that wasn't the result.  I never used the term to denigrate anyone else.  I have instead objected to the use of the term.

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

In trying to take maximum offense at someone you clearly don't like,

I don't know Stem.  I took exception to his use of a profoundly offensive and denigrating slur.  I did not use the slur.  He did.

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

you've actually come up with something much much worse than you accused him of.

Well, I can't agree with that.  I didn't use the term.  I never applied it to anyone.  I objected to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the calls for going public sure sound like a call for a witch hunt.

The Court of Public Opinion is, in the main, not the proper venue for adjudicating whether an LDS bishop has exercised discretion and authority properly as to spiritual/moral matters.  This is particularly so given that LDS bishops are generally constrained from speaking publicly on such issues.  So we're left with a one-sided narrative.  

I'm not speaking about plain misconduct, like theft of funds or molesting a child or whatnot.  Those types of misconduct can be addressed in the public sphere.  

That's the nice thing about implied threats.  Plausible deniability and all that.

Yes.  Kate Kelly did something very much like that.  After she was excommunicated, she repeatedly publicized her bishop's name and employer to the media and the general public (see, e.g., here), in an apparent attempt to initiate a Brendan Eich-type blowback on him as retribution.  She also publicly accused him of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike."  

I can't speak to these anecdotes.  Bishops are not supposed to publicly rebuke . . . well, anyone.  That's not part of the job description.  This behavior could (and, it appears, should) have been reported to those in authority over this bishop.  This seems to be a rather out-of-the-ordinary kind of thing.

But I'll bite.  Let's say that you were to take your dispute with this bishop public.  That you were to publicly name him and announce his misconduct to the world, and call on the Court of Public Opinion to pass judgment on him.  How do you think that would play out?  Would the Saints be more unified?  Would the bishop be more penitent and remorseful?  Would your proposal to publicly shame and humiliate this bishop be helpful to the overall collegiality and fellowship in the ward?

I think . . . not.  Rather, I think your proposed one-sided war of words would have the intended effect of humiliating and embarrassing the bishop.  And he would probably be released (and/or ask to be released).  And he and his family would feel alienated from the rest of the ward.  And some ward members might feel that the bishop had been wrongfully treated, and so would side with him, against you and those supporting you.  Acrimony and divisiveness would prevail.  Anger, even hatred, would fester.  The fellowship of the Saints in that ward, and perhaps in the stake, would suffer, perhaps falter.  But at least you'd have your pound of flesh.  You got to see the bishop get his comeuppance.  So there's that.

Being a bishop is a tough gig.  They are mostly working in their professions, and have children at home.  None of the many bishops of my personal acquaintance (I've lived in Utah County for north of 40 years) has asked for or aspired to that calling.  Most express fatigued but also gratified relief once they are released.  They receive no pay.  They are asked to give up large chunks of their weekends and evenings to minister to other people.  Lots of meetings with groups.  Lots of meetings with individuals.  Lots of visits to homes, and hospitals.  Some funerals, and some weddings.  Tithing Settlement.  Temple Recommend interviews.  Couples counseling.  Extending callings.  Putting out brush fires between members.  Giving talks several times each year.  Going on Trek.  Going to YW camp.  Going to Pack Meetings.  Going to YM/YW activities.  Coordinating potlucks and other activities.  Sitting on the stand rather than with family, for years on end.  And this is in addition to maintaining/advancing their careers, taking care of their spouse and children, and so on.  Free time is minimal.  Vacations or traveling are substantially reduced.  Career advancement can be hindered or slowed due to family and church obligations.  And yet these men generally serve as an expression of faith, knowing that at the end of their five-year (or more) stint, they'll receive a paycheck in the form of . . . the ward raising their arms to the square for 3-5 seconds as an expression of thanks for their service.  

And now we have a proposal to publicly shame and humiliate bishops who make a mistake or step out of line.  No quiet resolution.  No correction behind closed doors by those in authority (which is what all other members get).  Nope.  The bishop gets publicly humiliated.  His reputation in the community is injured or destroyed.  His wife and children are likewise humiliated.

That's what you are proposing.  I submit that this is not a good idea.

Again, anecdotal.  Again, inappropriate.  Again, out of the ordinary.  Again, could and should have been reported to those in authority over this bishop.

And again, publicly humiliating the bishop for his genuine mistake is not going to be helpful.

Well, I'll go with Elder Oaks rather than you.  You seem to be bent on pursuing public humiliation of LDS leaders who cross you or tick you off.  Your proposal comes across and vindictive and punitive.  Elder Oaks, on the other hand, has presented a calm and reasoned and scriptural basis for pursing alternative remedies.

Yes, the pound-of-flesh mentality is manifest in what you are proposing.  No need to elaborate.  We get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok. Bishops make mistakes and one doesn't have to go to the press to express displeasure.  How about expressing disagreement in gospel doctrine class or out in the foyer?  A lot of times, if constructive criticism is expressed immediately and with tact, then there isn't the mass disaffection you claim would happen.  I've seen it done and the bishop and the ward survived.  Couldn't it be done reasonably or is that impossible to even imagine?  Incidentally, my bishop survived the revelation row and no one left the ward because of the disagreement.  In fact, my bishop went on to serve as a mission president and is still active today.  I didn't leave because of it either if you can believe that.  Now as far as possible criminal behavior, the church has learned that its prior policy of trying to sweep abuse under the rug does not work and this is where criticism, public and loud, should be allowed.  Kids should be taught to stand up to inappropriate acts especially from authority.  Fear of questioning leaders due to this unfortunate policy of keeping it to oneself or going to the bishop in private will not stop the behavior sadly.  Even the church recognizes that the proper way is to go to the police.  This is pretty public if you ask me.  Also, if that doesn't work, if one is in a small mormon town where cover-up of abuse is a definite possibility, then go to the press and do whatever is necessary to out the abuser and get the abuser jailed.

Finally, do you actually believe that holding everyone to the same standard is somehow wrong?  This isn't the military where questioning authority might get people killed and even there society doesn't allow the Nuremberg defense.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

True, but almost nobody knows about it.

True.  Nearly every Mormon man I know who is done with kids have had vasectomies.  I didn't know the Church's policy was to not get them unless health concerns for the man or future child is at issue. 

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, why bother explaining how limiting distribution of an administrative handbook makes the Brethren worse than those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ?

I mean, the truth of your accusation is self-evident, right?  No need for an explanation.  At all.

-Smac

You've misread me, completely.  I don't know how to help resolve this other than to ask you go back and try again. 

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 It would be different, I suppose, if the Church had fines, incarceration, confiscation of property and the death penalty at its disposal, but the reality is it doesn't.

Well, not anymore.

Edited November 16, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The premise of your complaint here is that people are entitled to Church membership/fellowship no matter what they do. That’s not true.

You are right...That's not a true statement of my premise at all.  not even close. 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Choices have consequences. And the Church is not the federal government. It’s a private entity. 

If you come into my home and behave in a way I don’t like, I have the right to boot you out. It’s not interfering with your rights if I do. 

And I called his post gibberish because he was making absurd and over-the-top claims. That ought to be clear enough. To use your words, it was “for effect,” “to bring the point home.”

Well whatever, Scott.  I enjoyed the point made. 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, what’s with the scare quotes around “do it or else church discipline”?  Whom are you quoting there? 

It's a bit of a summation of things people have said they have been told.  Admittedly it was not a quotation per se, but a statement capturing the idea I remember hearing. 

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  The suggestions here have been worse.  The suggestion is not that the Brethren are stupid, but that they are conniving.  That their behavior is worse that those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

That was not the suggestion.  Things can get so out of hand in these conversations if people continue to read into comments.  The suggestion was the Church (not the brethren....two different things) are being like the Pharisees in one particular way--favoring the letter of the law over the spirit of it.  When I said the Church is trying to out Pharisee the Pharisees the context suggested I am saying the Church is trying to create a very detailed written record of law.  I don't see a reason to get all worked up over this, Smac, and try to paint this as me saying something I did not.  Gray is correct in pointing out the Pharisees were not evil.  The caricatures painted in the NT were likely not real.  they came from stories handed down over decades and recorded by people, most likely, wanting to make a point about the Pharisees and other groups.  They were just people. It'd be wise to treat them with some amount of respect and take them by their word rather than the word of those who were intent on mischaracterize them. 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And these accusations are being made publicly.  To the entire world.  By members of the Church.

You apparently missed the public accusation, by a member of the Church (apparently), that the Brethren are "out phariseeing the Pharisees."

The Pharisees, you see, were conniving and sinister villains.  They conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

And in this thread the Brethren are accused, publicly, by a member of the Church, of doing worse than that.

The Brethren's unexplained decision to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in literally every unit in the Church is, by your compatriot's reckoning, worse than the conspiracy to murder the Savior of the World.

That, my friend, is "hyperbole."

Perhaps so.  I'm ambivalent on that issue.  I'm fine either way.

Including when that "wondering" includes baseless public slandering of good and decent men, it seems.

I get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah...wow.  You've misunderstood.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Ok. Bishops make mistakes and one doesn't have to go to the press to express displeasure. 

One also doesn't have to go to Facebook or other social media platforms.  If a bishop makes a mistake in his duties as a bishop, there are ways to address such things.  Publicly humiliating him is not the way to go.

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How about expressing disagreement in gospel doctrine class or out in the foyer? 

I don't get it.  What's with your fixation on publicizing your beef with the bishop?  Are you looking to tear down the morale of the ward?  Are you hoping to encourage others to view the bishop with suspicion and distrust?  Are are trying to confuse children and new members by openly dressing down the person who is supposed to be "sustained" as the local leader?  Do you want to foment discord and animosity and division in the ward?

Again, there are plenty of ways to address a disagreement with a bishop.  Elder Oaks addresses this at length.  I again encourage you to give his article some real study.

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

A lot of times, if constructive criticism is expressed immediately and with tact, then there isn't the mass disaffection you claim would happen. 

Right.  Meanwhile, constructive criticism can also be expressed with discretion, or addressed with those in authority over the bishop, such that the risk of "mass disaffection" and other very real negative consequences are avoided or substantially reduced.

You seem fixated on publicly rebuking a bishop.  In dressing him down in front of those he serves.  In seeing that he is humiliated.  In seeing that he is - as you put it - "take{n} ... down a notch."  I don't think that is healthy or constructive.  Rather, I think the reasoned and scriptural approach outlined by Elder Oaks is a substantially superior course of action.

I actually had a rather on-point experience with this issue some years ago.  It involved a fairly high-ranking leader of the Church who made some remarks, probably a bit off-the-cuff, which caused some distress and consternation to many in the audience (the remarks were construed as disparaging the church-related efforts of those in the audience).  The audience took a prolonged break, during which those running the meeting retired to another room.  When they returned, one of the other leaders, speaking with great tact and aplomb, very briefly addressed the previous distressing remarks, and conveyed a retraction of them from the leader who had made them.  Then the meeting resumed.

I suspect that the other leaders present took corrective action during the prolonged break.  I suspect they spoke with the leader and laid out what had gone wrong.  I suspect they worked out a resolution of this matter, which was then played out to the audience.  

I say "I suspect" here because . . . I don't know.  The other leaders in the meeting did not rise up and publicly rebuke and humiliate the leader for his distressing remarks.  They did not put him on trial before the audience, in the "Court of Public Opinion," as it were.  Instead, they quietly and discretely addressed and resolved the issue in a way that the leader was not publicly disparaged and humiliated (or "take{n} ... down a notch"), but that also allowed the error to be corrected forthwith.

Food for thought.

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I've seen it done and the bishop and the ward survived.  Couldn't it be done reasonably or is that impossible to even imagine? 

If all you care about is "survival," I guess.  But if we are interested in taking the course of conduct which is far less likely to humiliate the bishop, to diminish his standing in the community, to injure his reputation, to embarrass him and his family, to risk divisiveness and contempt, and which course of conduct comports with counsel we have received from Elder Oaks (a prophet, seer and revelator, speaking in that capacity), then I think that's the better way to go.

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Incidentally, my bishop survived the revelation row and no one left the ward because of the disagreement.  In fact, my bishop went on to serve as a mission president and is still active today.  I didn't leave because of it either if you can believe that. 

And yet here you are, publicly setting yourself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of Elder Oaks.

I don't know you.  And I hope you continue your journey in the Church.  But what you are advocating here is unhealthy.  Wrong.  Vindictive.  Punitive.  And quite at odds with the reasoned and scriptural counsel we have received from a prophet, seer, and revelator (Elder Oaks).

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Now as far as possible criminal behavior, the church has learned that its prior policy of trying to sweep abuse under the rug does not work and this is where criticism, public and loud, should be allowed.

Actual criminal behavior falls outside the parameters of a bishop's authority and discretion.  

Possible criminal behavior is another matter.  If a person's reputation can be destroyed by public accusations of misconduct, and nothing else, then "criticism, public and loud" can be very risky.  The Church will, understandably, release a bishop who is accused of criminal behavior.  Not because his guilt is presumed, but because ongoing criminal charges would unfortunately be a substantial impediment to him fulfilling his calling.  But you are apparently calling for something else.  You apparently want to publicly ruin and humiliate people (to be specific, you want to ruin and humiliate your fellow Latter-day Saints) who are only accused of misconduct.  No weighing of evidence.  No reasoned assessment.  No presumption of innocence.  Just knee-jerk "criticism, public and loud." 

To me, this reeks of vindictiveness.  An LDS man serving as a bishop and charged with criminal misconduct would have a very hard time keeping things together.  So would his family.  His wife and children.  And then comes along the self-appointed likes of people who demand public humiliation and ruination of an entire family for possible criminal behavior of the man.

Don't get me wrong.  I do not want to excuse criminal behavior at all, particularly when it is done by a bishop.  And he should definitely be punished if found guilty.  But yours is a type of vigilantism.  People like you presume to be the judge, jury and executioner in the Court of Public Opinion.  I find that . . . problematic.

Heaven help the wife and children of any bishop who crosses your path and ticks you off.  Imagine the humiliation and embarrassment of having their husband/father charged with a crime.  And then imagine how much more deep and painful that humiliation and embarrassment would be for them because some self-appointed ax-grinder chooses to ratchet up public outcry by going out on social media "public and loud" to denounce their husband/father based on his possible criminal behavior.

I can't speak to the apparent schadenfreude which would drive an individual to gleefully anticipate weaponizing public opinion to humiliate and destroy the reputation of another person, and potentially the lives of that person's loved ones.  

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Kids should be taught to stand up to inappropriate acts especially from authority. 

Undoubtedly so.  Yes.  No question.

Call the police?  Yes.

Work with prosecutors?  Yes.

Report a bishop to those in authority over him?  Yes.

Stoke a social media firestorm against a bishop and his family because he has been charged with a crime?  Well, no.

Publicly humiliate a bishop in front of other members of the ward?  No.

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Fear of questioning leaders due to this unfortunate policy of keeping it to oneself or going to the bishop in private will not stop the behavior sadly. 

No such policy exists.  It is a falsehood to declare otherwise.

Again, Elder Oaks article addresses this issue at length.

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Finally, do you actually believe that holding everyone to the same standard is somehow wrong?  This isn't the military where questioning authority might get people killed and even there society doesn't allow the Nuremberg defense.

No.

To the contrary, I'd like to see bishops get the same sort of respect and discretion for their mistakes that all the other members get for theirs.  Publicly humiliating a bishop because you disagree with him is not cool.  Arguing with the bishop in the hallway at church is not cool.  If the bishop screws up (outside of a criminal context), then following Elder Oaks counsel is, I think, much better than following yours.

-Smac