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

[treehugger]

I had already read it. What point do you wish to make by referring me back to it?

Add-on: It's not self-evident to me that when a BYU department head speaks the thinking has been done, if that's what you're implying.

why is post 42 is so difficult to understand? Where did I mention Bradford, MI, or Dr Peterson in relation to the OP?

I will try again.

Criticize the business decisions of the church all to ones heart content.

If a person believes the business decision criticized, is a business decision that was directed or the person believes was directed by an Apostle or other General Authority; then I believe the person is entering dangerous territory that approaches criticism of the Church.

------------------------

Side note, it would help if people just addressed the question with presupposing anything.

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[Scott Lloyd]

why is post 42 is so difficult to understand? Where did I mention Bradford, MI, or Dr Peterson in relation to the OP?

I will try again.

Criticize the business decisions of the church all to ones heart content.

If a person believes the business decision criticized, is a business decision that was directed or the person believes was directed by an Apostle or other General Authority; then I believe the person is entering dangerous territory that approaches criticism of the Church.

I had understood that already and was puzzled about the need to reiterate it.

My point is that it is not clear that the Gerald Bradford's decision or behavior was mandated from the general Church leadership, and unless it becomes known that it was, I don't view it as binding upon me as a Church member to support it.

[ERayR]

I had understood that already and was puzzled about the need to reiterate it.

My point is that it is not clear that the Gerald Bradford's decision or behavior was mandated from the general Church leadership, and unless it becomes known that it was, I don't view it as binding upon me as a Church member to support it.

Scott I would be surprised if the general Church leadership had any direct contact with Dr. Bradford. The proper channels would be to take the concern to the committee that oversees BYU who in turn, if they had thought it necessary, would have taken it to the president of BYU, who then would have contacted Bradford.

[treehugger]

Selek, I respectfully ask that you address the CFRs in post 46.

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[selek1]

Selek, I respectfully ask that you address the CFRs in post 46.

Respectfully, I already did.

I stated my reasons in Post #33, #43, and #45.

To continue:

Your post #42 in this thread, and your comment in Bem McGuire's apologetics/polemics thread suggest that criticizing any decision "involving" (a wonderfully nebulous term, btw) apostle is the same as criticizing the Church.

You have strongly implied (and been very, very careful to avoid plainly stating) that you believe the Bradford/MI decision "involved" an apostle.

Logically, you are therefore arguing that criticizing the Bradford decision is equivalent to criticizing the Church.

There are two problems with this argument (aside from the inherent dishonesty in its presentation).

First, you have not given us a logical or rationale reason why any decision "involving" an Apostle is automagically beyond question or reproach.

Second, you have provided no evidence that the MI decision actually "involved" one of the General Authorities, let alone an apostle.

Edited June 26, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I have been following the discussions between you and treehugger with interest. Why I do not agree with all of treehuggers positions as argued and also do not agree with all of the language used in expressing them, I can honestly say i in no way see your conclusions about treehuggers subtext or motives are not supported by the quotes you have been using.

Setting aside the double negative in the last sentence, I'm disappointed that you don't see the evidence the way I do.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who sees it that way. Perhaps the problem lies in your perception of my attitude- this isn't the first time you've attempted to call me on the carpet (with varying amounts of heat).

When I read your posts I consistently see conclusions about the individual being extrapolated well beyond the scope of the post.

I find this ironic, as I have (over the last several months) taken pains to differentiate between the posters (as individuals) and the content of their posts/actions.

I see that you have been around the boards a lot and know many of these better far better than I ever will, however, the conclusions you draw, from limited if any evidence, regarding certains posters "real" intentions undermines the credibility o some of the excellent insights and arguments you often make.

Thank you for the compliment. The criticism is (again) ironic, as I have taken care not to view individual posts in isolation, but as part of the overall tapestry of the poster's conduct.

If you look at anyone I've "engaged" in the past few weeks, you'll find my name among those visiting their profile.

Unless they are someone I know well, I make it a point to check at least their last dozen posts before responding- to make sure I've got some kind of feel for the general tenor of their posts.

This entire thread is now derailed by unsupportable claims you made about a posters intentions, in a very hostile manner I might add, rather than te merit of the question addressed in the opening post.

On the contrary, the presuppositions and assumptions which underly treehugger's arguments are crucial in understanding not only her arguments as stated, but the reasoning and intentions behind them.

That is very disappointing for me as I am not close to the people and debate at hand but very interested in discussion of the facts/opinions related to what happened, not your personal opinion as to the negative motives of the individual asking the question.

Even if all of treehuggers motives are insidious, that does not make discussion of the question/topic started by that person insidious.

I understand that- my own intention, however, is not only to see the iteration of the facts and opinions involved, but to understand them.

As I noted in Post #55, treehugger has been remarkably short on facts, and demonstrably coy about stating her opinion plainly.

Neither helps your familiarity with the "facts/opinions related to what happened" (your goal) or contributes to an understanding of the arguments being offered (my goal).

Nor, for the record, do I consider her opinions "insidious". Once those opinions have been dragged kicking and screaming into the light (since she's reluctant to state them plainly), one has little trouble assessing and understanding them.

"Invidious" strikes me as a far more accurate characterization- since those opinions seem designed to divide "true" Latter-day Saints from critics of the MI decision.

Edited June 26, 2012 by selek1

[treehugger]

Respectfully, I already did.

I stated my reasons in Post #33, #43, and #45.

You have not provided the evidence to support your currently patently false claim, specifically your claim about william shcyver.

here is your claim:

selek1, on 25 June 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

Will Schryver has made every effort to correct treehugger's caricature- but she won't have it.

CFR, that Wiliam made any effort, much less "every effort" to correct my caricature. You have made a what remains a patently false statement. In your own words "put up" or your suggested alternative.

To continue:

Your post #42 in this thread, ... thread suggest that criticizing any decision "involving" (a wonderfully nebulous term, btw) apostle is the same as criticizing the Church.

You failed and continue to fail an very important point that I have repeated at least twice. Scott Lloyd understands it, perhaps you should talk to him.

In fact, IF you understood, what I was stating to Scott Lloyd, you would stop with your none sense.

Here once again.

Criticize the business decisions of the church all to ones heart content.

If a person believes the business decision criticized, is a business decision that was directed or the person believes was directed by an Apostle or other General Authority; then I believe the person is entering dangerous territory that approaches criticism of the Church.

Do you agree that if a person - knows or believes that a business decision was directed by a General Authority - that the person is entering dangerous territory that approaches criticism of the Church?

You have strongly implied (and been very, very careful to avoid plainly stating) that you believe the Bradford/MI decision "involved" an apostle.

No I have not. If you dropped your insufferable mind-reading, discussions with you would be very much worthwhile.

I quite like StarTrek, and I find RC Battle Ships truely enjoyabel - though I haven't a ship of my own, I would however, be partial to Battle Ship Texas.

Logically, you are therefore arguing that criticizing the Bradford decision is equivalent to criticizing the Church.

There are two problems with this argument (aside from the inherent dishonesty in its presentation).

First, you have not given us a logical or rationale reason why any decision "involving" an Apostle is automagically beyond question or reproach.

Second, you have provided no evidence that the MI decision actually "involved" one of the General Authorities, let alone an apostle.

Sorry V.I.K.I, but your logic is unsound, baseless and bears the stench of witch hunt.

What is unfortunate is that I can not even offer you an olive branch, for the moment I offer it, your claim of witch and the evidence you would claim would not rise to quality of evidence submitted in the witch trial Sir Bedevere's presided over.

You are trying to shame me into cheering for your personal vendetta/pet cause.

You use the same tactics you rail against.

Secondly you are engaging in what is a "when did you stop beating your wife" approach.

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott I would be surprised if the general Church leadership had any direct contact with Dr. Bradford. The proper channels would be to take the concern to the committee that oversees BYU who in turn, if they had thought it necessary, would have taken it to the president of BYU, who then would have contacted Bradford.

OK.

And unless more information is forthcoming, I feel at liberty to hold an express my own opinion about this decision and the deplorable way it was carried out.

[treehugger]

OK.

And unless more information is forthcoming, I feel at liberty to hold an express my own opinion about this decision and the deplorable way it was carried out.

And I support your right to do so.

[ERayR]

OK.

And unless more information is forthcoming, I feel at liberty to hold an express my own opinion about this decision and the deplorable way it was carried out.

I am agreeing with you and feel exactly the same way.

[ERayR]

Do you agree that if a person - knows or believes that a business decision was directed by a General Authority - that the person is entering dangerous territory that approaches criticism of the Church?

No. One General Authority is not the church.

However, if that business decision had come through the proper channels, proper committee of GA's, from the committee to the head of the church business involved, from the head of the organization to the department involved then I would not question the decision publicly. I might however privately, to myself, wonder, but only for a minute.

[treehugger]

Selek,

I offer the following in hope to end your truely insufferable and what I consider juvenile badgering, and yes, you have badgered me on this point endlessly. And you badgering has not been to provide any amount of substance or necessary information to the discussion.

and I will use caps for clarity and not yelling.

I DO NOT CARE ONE BIT ABOUT BYU, BRADFORD, OR THE MANNER IN WHICH PETERSON WAS INFORMED OF THE DECISION.

In fact, there was a few month period in my life where I came very close to not paying a full tithe, because I did not support my tithing going to BYU.

I do not care about bradford, peterson, or anyone else involved with what happened. In as much as I do have concern for any of them, it is simply the Christian responsibility.

I really do not care (which means I neither rail against or express my support) what happened. Why? because what happened does not affect my salvation. More importantly, I was not involved, and Daniel Peterson seems the closet to having first hand knowledge of what, how, why things happened. Bill Hamblin provided second hand accounts, as have all others.

So please stop your relentless pestering on a most irrelevant point. You are out on a witch hunt and I will have not part of it.

what difference does is make if I stated

"May Dr. Peterson rot" or

"Dr. Peterson is the 3rd only to Christ and the Propehts of righteous, honorable men to ever walk the earth. And may pestilence, disease, famine, fall upon Bradford and may his posterity be wiped from the earth"

Edited June 26, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

No. One General Authority is not the church.

However, if that business decision had come through the proper channels, proper committee of GA's, from the committee to the head of the church business involved, from the head of the organization to the department involved then I would not question the decision publicly. I might however privately, to myself, wonder, but only for a minute.

the manner of the decision being made as you present if what I meant to state. But as I am not involved in Church business decision I can only assume that at some point a General Authority would be the one giving the instruction.

[cwald]

Selek,

I offer the following in hope to end your truely insufferable and what I consider juvenile badgering, and yes, you have badgered me on this point endlessly. And you badgering has not been to provide any amount of substance or necessary information to the discussion.....

Isn't that what Selek is all about? Every thread...every discussion....every new poster...it is very annoying.

[Calm]

selek, a new avatar for you:

[Somebodyz]

Isn't that what Selek is all about? Every thread...every discussion....every new poster...it is very annoying.

No it isn't. But the blind won't see.

You and treehugger, IMO enjoy bullying and badgering him.

[Somebodyz]

selek, a new avatar for you:

[cwald]

No it isn't. But the blind won't see.

You and treehugger, IMO enjoy bullying and badgering him.

OMG! Really. Unbelievable.

[alter idem]

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 most members allow more leeway for criticism of church businesses compared to criticism of the church. My daughter is attending BYU and I've been critical of some of their policies and procedures, which have her jumping through ridiculous hoops at times. I don't feel I am criticizing the church because BYU isn't the church. It may have a lot of members running it but they are paid employees and if their work is not up to par, they'll get criticized for it. I also give them praise when they do things right:)

The church is different. People are called by inspiration and they are not paid, they serve at the behest of church leaders and they try to do their best, but they haven't lobbied for those positions and they aren't paid for them. I'm more wary of criticizing church leaders because I believe I am supposed to give them my support and sustaining help and prayers on their behalf.

[cwald]

The church is different. People are called by inspiration and they are not paid, they serve at the behest of church leaders and they try to do their best, but they haven't lobbied for those positions and they aren't paid for them.

Are prophets, apostles, 70's, mission presidents paid or given a stipend?

And if they are paid/stipend...is okay to be critical of them?

Edited June 26, 2012 by cwald

[Hestia]

It appears Selek and Treehugger have made this personal. They are excused from this thread; others take note.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are prophets, apostles, 70's, mission presidents paid or given a stipend?

And if they are paid/stipend...is okay to be critical of them?

Maybe if they were actually paid. I would say they get more of what looks like an allowance. They need money to live, some of them. I am willing to bet the more wealthy GA's don't take a dime.

[ERayR]

Isn't that what Selek is all about? Every thread...every discussion....every new poster...it is very annoying.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

[ERayR]

selek, a new avatar for you:

Can I be his little brother?

[cwald]

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Don't make it personal...I guess you didn't get the message.