Unfortunate Wording In Church Reaction

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course the church has a large number of extremely professional lawyers conducting their legal affairs... Said lawyers also happen to not be members of the quorum of the 12.

And your point is what?

How does this contradict my observation that the Quorum of the Twelve has three members (that I can think of off hand) with backgrounds in the legal profession? Just admit that your statement about "a single judge" was ill thought-out.

[jwhitlock]

At present, having the same training and degree many of the Leadership I have no reason to believe the Leadership would make a comment that, in opinion, opposes the Constitition. And it is evident that I am not alone in my supposition of how the statement comes across.

Well, since the Leadership is uneducated, this statement is at least somewhat consistent with that concept.

[Bikeemikey]

And your point is what?

How does this contradict my observation that the Quorum of the Twelve has three members (that I can think of off hand) with backgrounds in the legal profession? Just admit that your statement about "a single judge" was ill thought-out.

The quorm of the 12 has one ex judge to my knowledge. My comment was tongue and cheek- sounds like, as you said, there are at least three in the 12 with a legal background.

[Mark Beesley]

Your just being silly.

I guess your struggles with the proper use of apostrophes is not limited to possessives.

[jwhitlock]

Your just being silly.

I can only comment on my experience and that of those I know.

The you might phrase you're[sic] posts that way, instead of giving the clear impression that everyone in the church outside of America is as hostile to the church's public policy statements as you are.

[Scott Lloyd]

And I am only giving my feedback on how the Church statement comes across. The Church is welcome clarigy its position. Notably, this current statement, is a second statement issued by the Church - regarding the will of the people and the judiciary - wherein the statement comes across as hostility to Constitutional process; thus I feel justified in the supposition that the Church is opposed to the judiciary adjudicating the Constitutionality of laws.

May I then offer the supposition that, you too are opposed to the judiciary adjudicating on the Constitutionality of laws? I have no reason to believe that newsroom statement was written by any of the many Lawyers who comprise the leadership of the Church. I have reason to believe a "news release" is a news release, written and edited by people who are uneducated in Constitutional processes. Had the "new release" had "Official Statement" (not everything in the newsroom is labeled "Official Statement") then I would have reason to beleive the Leadership of the Church was directly involved writting the statement.

At present, having the same training and degree many of the Leadership I have no reason to believe the Leadership would make a comment that, in opinion, opposes the Constitition. And it is evident that I am not alone in my supposition of how the statement comes across.

I find extremely odd the notion that the Church would allow a statement to be released under its imprimatur on a matter as important as this one without having the highest among the leadership of the Church sign off on it.

And I notice you still have not contradicted my supposition that you believe the Church specifically and faith groups in general should keep their mouths shut regarding all public issues regardless of the subject matter.

And this is the third time I've raised the point.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

The you might phrase you're[sic] posts that way, instead of giving the clear impression that everyone in the church outside of America is as hostile to the church's public policy statements as you are.

Oh, you mean you found my pejorative tone unfair?

I hope my point is made.

[Bikeemikey]

I guess your struggles with the proper use of apostrophes is not limited to possessives.

Yep my grammar sucks and its because I grew up in a nation that allows gay marriage :-) - made worse of course due to my posting on my phone.

[Kenngo1969]

The California referendum system is instrumental in its current financial woes. Basically the people of California have proven that direct democracy of this kind does notmworkmfor them.

I don't doubt that many referenda, once passed and enacted, carry with them weighty fiscal consequences. However, what may be said regarding some referenda (and perhaps regarding many referenda) is not necessarily true of all referenda. I believe, with all due respect, that you're overgeneralizing.

[jwhitlock]

Oh, you mean you found my pejorative tone unfair?

I hope my point is made.

Unfair? Hardly the word I would have used.

Actually, I find your posts to be rather inconsistent. You make a clear statement that you're speaking for non-American members of the church, and then you say you're not. Yet you still want to make some kind of point that you "know" that the church's public statements with the word "our" in them are generally offensive to non-Americans.

Given the lack of eloquence of those on this thread your[sic] siding with, and your agreement with the claim that the church's statement on the SCOTUS decision is illogical and uneducated, I'd recommend that you rethink some of the points that you're trying to make.

[Bikeemikey]

Unfair? Hardly the word I would have used.

Actually, I find your posts to be rather inconsistent. You make a clear statement that you're speaking for non-American members of the church, and then you say you're not. Yet you still want to make some kind of point that you "know" that the church's public statements with the word "our" in them are generally offensive to non-Americans.

Given the lack of eloquence of those on this thread your[sic] siding with, and your agreement with the claim that the church's statement on the SCOTUS decision is illogical and uneducated, I'd recommend that you rethink some of the points that you're trying to make.

I think it pretty apparent you have not read my posts at all - I have not made any comments related to the statements logic or the level of education of those writing it.

I am simply highlighting that the tone of the statement was church wide pejorative even though the issue at hand is USA specific.

My only comment about changing the statement was to consider adding a "to saints in the USA" or some such.

Furthermore, having grown up outside the USA I can assure you the trend of presenting proximate USA specific issues as general church issues does get non-USA Mormons frustrated - not speaking for all but simply speaking for those I know.

Granted New Zealanders as a general rule are very anti-authorization in general...

Furthermore, it seems I must now apologize to you for offending your aesthetic sensibilities with my lack of eloquence.

So be it - I will be prettier next time.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

I am simply highlighting that the tone of the statement was church wide pejorative even though the issue at hand is USA specific.

I'm puzzled by your continued application of the word pejorative. Would you mind giving your definition of it?

ETA: Perhaps I'll help by quoting this online definition:

a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase

Is that what you mean to say? Are you really saying that Church is conveying negative connotations or belittling or disparaging something by using the pronoun our in relation to the U.S. government?

Do you see why I'm puzzled?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

I think it pretty apparent you have not read my posts at all - I have not made any comments related to the statements logic or the level of education of those writing it.

Oh please. Your post #48 did exactly that when you wholeheartedly agreed with jim_mason's assertion about the uneducated nature of the statement. Simply more evidence of the inconsistency you exhibit in your statements.

If you're trying to make the point that gay marriage, relationships, and behavior are only an American issue when it comes to church principles, then your viewpoint is rather narrow indeed.

Otherwise, you don't need to worry. We Americans have no intention of authorizing you to do anything.

[Calm]

Furthermore, having grown up outside the USA I can assure you the trend of presenting proximate USA specific issues as general church issues does get non-USA Mormons frustrated - not speaking for all but simply speaking for those I know.

In my experience in Canada, the response was some frustration, but not in an antagonistic way...more of like rolling your eyes when a family member says something tacky, but not offensive. There was one member---and thus likely a few more who felt that way but not so extreme---who would get up and walk out when on the 4th of July weekend the US anthem was sung in church due to the chorister having strong ties to the US along with many other members of the ward who were either from the States (and had married Canadians and moved there) or had extended family living in the States. I even felt it was totally inappropriate when he did had two US themed songs and only one Canadian one on a Sunday that was July 1st, Canada Day rather than waiting to have the US anthem, etc. played the next week.

I don't think they interpreted it as meaning they were somehow of less value to the Church or secondclass members. Is that what you believe NZers in general interpret such comments as being?

Edited June 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

I'm puzzled by your continued application of the word pejorative. Would you mind giving your definition of it?

ETA: Perhaps I'll help by quoting this online definition:

Is that what you mean to say? Are you really saying that Church is conveying negative connotations or belittling or disparaging something by using the pronoun our in relation to the U.S. government?

Do you see why I'm puzzled?

Perhaps there is a better word for it - one that is not so negatively laden.

The belittling component was part of the intended meaning.

Over generalization that presents the church as American vs the much more global multicultural community it actually is can have a belittling impact on the non-USA members.

Ask yourself, in the general conference prayer I referred to earlier, if the conference prayer had been given by a member from Iraq who had prayed for the speedy defeat and withdrawal of enemy forces oppressing Iraq how would that have gone down.

The issues I am referring to are when a political disposition applicable to a USA religious base is transmitted as "our" position to a broader global church.

It should also be note that letters were sent from around the world to church headquarters about the prayer in general conference and for the most part prayers in general conference do not reference troops - it used to be the case that every closing prayer did.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

In my experience in Canada, the response was some frustration, but not in an antagonistic way...more of like rolling your eyes when a family member says something tacky, but not offensive. There was one member---and thus likely a few more who felt that way but not so extreme---who would get up and walk out when on the 4th of July weekend the US anthem was sung in church due to the chorister having strong ties to the US along with many other members of the ward who were either from the States (and had married Canadians and moved there) or had extended family living in the States. I even felt it was totally inappropriate when he did had two US themed songs and only one Canadian one on a Sunday that was July 1st, Canada Day rather than waiting to have the US anthem, etc. played the next week.

I don't think they interpreted it as meaning they were somehow of less value to the Church or secondclass members. Is that what you believe NZers in general interpret such comments as being?

In a way, this reminds me of the controversy a decade ago regarding the Church Plaza on Main Street in downtown Salt Lake City. Some non-Utahns tried to cast that as a purely local or provincial issue. But the fact is, the headquarters of the Church belong to all its members, regardless of where they live, and they all have or should have an interest in safeguarding the environs around the sacred spaces where the prophets and apostles receive revelation to administer the Church.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

This thread is awesome!. My favorite I've seen at MDD in a long time!

*Pulls up a chair and grabs the popcorn...*

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps there is a better word for it - one that is not so negatively laden.

The belittling component was part of the intended meaning.

Then I'm even more troubled by it, because there was definitely no intent on the part of the Church or its leaders with this statement to belittle anyone. No one can reasonably say there was.

Over generalization that presents the church as American vs the much more global multicultural community it actually is can have a belittling impact on the non-USA members.

And this strikes me as taking offense where none is given.

Ask yourself, in the general conference prayer I referred to earlier, if the conference prayer had been given by a member from Iraq who had prayed for the speedy defeat and withdrawal of enemy forces oppressing Iraq how would that have gone down.

I haven't been following your posts that closely; I don't know what prayer you mean.

The issues I am referring to are when a political disposition applicable to a USA religious base is transmitted as "our" position to a broader global church.

It should also be note that letters were sent from around the world to church headquarters about the prayer in general conference and for the most part prayers in general conference do not reference troops - it used to be the case that every closing prayer did.

Again, I'm not acquainted with the prayer in question. If it was as you describe it, perhaps you and others would have a point.

But on a matter such as the preservation of traditional marriage and the family unit, it seems to me that Latter-day Saints ought to be of one mind where that concept is threatened and ought to be willing to support the leadership of the Church on public policy that affects this doctrine rather than casting it aside as purely a U.S. concern.

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread is awesome!. My favorite I've seen at MDD in a long time!

*Pulls up a chair and grabs the popcorn...*

Yeah, we've probably given this thread more attention than it deserves.

[Stone holm]

There seems to be this confusion about the idea that civil liberties should be at the whim of the majority. There also seems to be confusion about the oath of office that most officials have to take. A governor and the attorney general have a duty as a result of their official standing to not defend or enforce laws they deem to be unconstitutional. As a result to do so, once they have reached that conclusion would violate their oath of office.

The State of California has different rules with regards to standing than do the Federal Courts. This was not a surprise ruling, everyone knew from the get go that there was a potential standing problem. The Church's statement came off as sort of pouty. I have no problem with the Church having stated its stance on SSM -- the political aside at the beginning of the release was unnecessary and innappropriate. It came off as a knee jerk reaction which was unbecoming for the Church.

[Bikeemikey]

Then I'm even more troubled by it, because there was definitely no intent on the part of the Church or its leaders with this statement to belittle anyone. No one can reasonably say there was.

And this strikes me as taking offense where none is given.

I haven't been following your posts that closely; I don't know what prayer you mean.

Again, I'm not acquainted with the prayer in question. If it was as you describe it, perhaps you and others would have a point.

But on a matter such as the preservation of traditional marriage and the family unit, it seems to me that Latter-day Saints ought to be of one mind where that concept is threatened and ought to be willing to support the leadership of the Church on public policy that affects this doctrine rather than casting it aside as purely a U.S. concern.

As to the doctrinal content of the statement I feel it was extremely important for the church as a whole. I have said as much since the beginning of the thread.

That has never been a focus of my objection. My objection was that such a focus was the minority part is the statement as well as the majority part of the statement being addressed as "our" meaning church wide "our" when it was clearly localized USA political issue.

How to address the question of gay marriage in society is a local culture by culture and country by country discussion. Many countries where the church is strong (again drawing specifically on my personal experience growing up in there) have already negotiated the balance between religious positions and political ones and homosexuality is a sin and marriage is permissible.

As to the prayer - in 2002, right after ingot off my mission, a closing prayer in one of the general conference sessions prayed for the "freedom fighters in Iraq". It created a substantial stir and it was considered very rude and belittling to dominate a global church conference with a local USA centric (high charges political) issue. Such a prayer would be highly appropriate at a local USA meeting, but it was considered extremely objectionable in the church wide general conference forum.

[Bikeemikey]

In my experience in Canada, the response was some frustration, but not in an antagonistic way...more of like rolling your eyes when a family member says something tacky, but not offensive. There was one member---and thus likely a few more who felt that way but not so extreme---who would get up and walk out when on the 4th of July weekend the US anthem was sung in church due to the chorister having strong ties to the US along with many other members of the ward who were either from the States (and had married Canadians and moved there) or had extended family living in the States. I even felt it was totally inappropriate when he did had two US themed songs and only one Canadian one on a Sunday that was July 1st, Canada Day rather than waiting to have the US anthem, etc. played the next week.

I don't think they interpreted it as meaning they were somehow of less value to the Church or secondclass members. Is that what you believe NZers in general interpret such comments as being?

I don't think most people I know are antagonistic about it, nor are they hostile. Most of the time They do find it irritating, sometimes offensive (the prayer in conference i referenced rose to that level).

In New Zealand we normally just deal with it locally by never playing American anthems (it just seems obvious that we wouldn't to those in nz). There is a lot of eye rolling too, as you mentioned. Once in a while people feel the need to assert themselves when a particularly Zealous USA-LDS member feels the need to assert some USA centric doctrinal perspective on something ... Pretty much harmless.

I don't think people tend to feel less value - just recently there was a major dispute between salt lake church and local church leaders about the closing of a local church school and then the proposed demolition of the buildings. Some people certainly felt like second class members there.

The church is very new. It has only been a global church since McKay and really only been bigger outside the USA than in for a decade or so. It just takes getting used to for both sides.

The pew study from last year showed USA Mormons among the most conservative of Americans - another cultural hurdle is that this is really not the case for a lot of countries outside the USA where the church is strong.

[Stone holm]

I remember once sitting in a High Council room with Elder Faust when he dressed down a Stake Relief Society President for pushing for more Stake meetings, to which he responded that "Unneccessary sacrifice is of Satan." In that same vein, unnecessary and pointless political jabs made during Church releases cause unnecessary irritation to people. I would not suggest they are of Satan, but I would suggest that they involve unrighteous dominion.

[jwhitlock]

I would not suggest they are of Satan, but I would suggest that they involve unrighteous dominion.

And you would be absolutely wrong.

[Stone holm]

And you would be absolutely wrong.

Explain to me what ecclesiastical purpose was possibly served by taking the political jab? None. All it served to do was alienate people from Mormonism, gratuitous insults of that nature are nearly always a public relations and spiritual miscue.