Bikeemikey Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think the way Tacenda presented the info pushed a few buttons. It did mine, but since someone else responded I felt no need.One can gossip as easily with the truth as with out. What makes the difference between gossip and simple presentation of experience is the purpose behind it. I don't think Tacenda was all that careful with her phrasing, IIRC.Sure... Tacenda obviously has an agenda. She should also be informed that her rationalization-justification point is silly. Just trying to point out to Scott that he's got his own tail between his teeth and not the stick he thought he was chasing.
Calm Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Scott lloyd has already conceded that a GA may eat out on Sundays... he's going to agree with you... he is still got a be in his bonnet about proving a specific instance of this already permissible action false though...Go figure.I get the impression he is more intent on demonstrating the inappropriateness of sharing such information in that particular way rather than having a problem with the information itself...he can correct me if I am wrong, as always. Perhaps I am reading into his words my own reaction, though I believe if it was the same, mine was more mild which is one reasons I said nothing (the other was that Scott has said something and I didn't think it appropriate to dogpile on Tacenda once the point was made).
ERayR Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Scott lloyd has already conceded that a GA may eat out on Sundays... he's going to agree with you... he is still got a be in his bonnet about proving a specific instance of this already permissible action false though...Go figure.I didn't take it that way. The bee in his bonnet was from the way it was presented and the inferred innuendo.
Bikeemikey Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I get the impression he is more intent on demonstrating the inappropriateness of sharing such information in that particular way rather than having a problem with the information itself...he can correct me if I am wrong, as always. Perhaps I am reading into his words my own reaction, though I believe if it was the same, mine was more mild which is one reasons I said nothing (the other was that Scott has said something and I didn't think it appropriate to dogpile on Tacenda once the point was made).Oh I agree that is his intention... that's why I think he should leave the "veracity" issues alone and actually go after the point that matters.
Bikeemikey Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I didn't take it that way. The bee in his bonnet was from the way it was presented and the inferred innuendo.could be right... still confused about why so much time invested in the accuracy of the story though.
Deborah Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 could be right... still confused about why so much time invested in the accuracy of the story though.Because the source isn't always that credible. 1
Calm Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) could be right... still confused about why so much time invested in the accuracy of the story though.He's a journalist, it is in his nature to insist on accuracy in reporting. Edited July 27, 2013 by calmoriah
Thinking Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Could it be that the server with whom Tacenda conversed was recalling that the General Authorities who ate there came on Saturday rather than Sunday?I think it would be easier for a worker to get the days mixed up than a general authority. This is a non starter.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think it would be easier for a worker to get the days mixed up than a general authority. This is a non starter.Tacenda characterized the breakfast buffet as a Sunday event, not as a weekend event. Apparently she was unaware it is served on Saturday as well. I'm theorizing that the server who conversed with her was only reporting that some General Authorities occasionally come there for the buffet without meaning to imply that they do it on Sunday, but Tacenda, apparently unaware that the buffet is a Saturday occurrence as well, drew the inference that the General Authorities who come for the buffet do it on Sunday. Mistaken inference of unintended meaning is a common way that false rumors get spread. I'm saying that might have happened in this case.
Stone holm Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think it would be easier for a worker to get the days mixed up than a general authority. This is a non starter.My gosh people who cares if a GA ate at the Mall on Sunday or not, what in the heck does that have to do whether the project was inspired or not.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 could be right... still confused about why so much time invested in the accuracy of the story though.Because a story with questionable accuracy should not be used to spread the rumor that General Authorities are casual about Sabbath observance. A corollary to that is such a story used for that purpose ought to have its accuracy challenged.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 My gosh people who cares if a GA ate at the Mall on Sunday or not, what in the heck does that have to do whether the project was inspired or not.The Homestead is not at City Creek. It's a resort in the mountains east of Salt Lake City and Provo. But I agree the subject is a thread derailment. Tacenda seems to have a habit of doing that.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Nawh, that was back in the time when the dinosaurs still roamed the Earth and apostles and other GAs came to Stake Conferences. Now I try to avoid Stake Conference if possible, the last Stake Conference I attended that had a GA was when Dallin Oakes came and made an offensive anti-gay slur against Vermonters while he continually hitched up his pants like a Southern politician. Have decided that I could live with out that kind of stuff in my life. So I watch them on the net that way I can click them off if they are too boring or go off the rails. The Church is true, but it is not necessary to put GAs on some kind of pedestal and we have earnestly strived to make sure that the GAs are insulated from comments or criticisms, so they can travel in their happy little bubbles. I can't resist the observation that your assertion that Church leaders live in bubbles stems more from your own irritation at having your political views contradicted than it does from reality. It pretty much confirms my suspicion.
Bikeemikey Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Because a story with questionable accuracy should not be used to spread the rumor that General Authorities are casual about Sabbath observance.A corollary to that is such a story used for that purpose ought to have its accuracy challenged.Sure why not... you seem apt to do it regardless.I still think it is redundant to challenge the accuracy of a story depicting an event that you have already accepted as possible.Your challenge of the event in no way undermines the "rationalization-justification" argument that if a GA has done it we can to... In fact, quiblling over the veracity of the event comes off as more of a gurdgling admission that such an argument may be true.But, to each their own.
Bikeemikey Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I can't resist the observation that your assertion that Church leaders live in bubbles stems more from your own irritation at having your political views contradicted than it does from reality.It pretty much confirms my suspicion.Is it not possible that poorly expressed political views may actually be evidence of such "living in a bubble"?
Stone holm Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I can't resist the observation that your assertion that Church leaders live in bubbles stems more from your own irritation at having your political views contradicted than it does from reality. It pretty much confirms my suspicion.Oh it's good to have suspicions. What is interesting is the acknowledgement here that GAs are expressing political views from the pulpit. But try to imagine a group which leads an Organization which by doctrine asserts that any criticism of them is sinful, and which discourages anyone from corresponding directly with them instead of their lowest echelon of leaders and spends the bulk of their time conferring with leaders and being briefed about issues which primarily involve the world's elite or major crisises. Then explain to me how tone deafness and surprise as to the reactions of the masses fails to occur. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Is it not possible that poorly expressed political views may actually be evidence of such "living in a bubble"?I'm not persuaded the view was expressed poorly. I've noticed Stone holm tends to have a thin skin on such things.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Oh it's good to have suspicions. What is interesting is the acknowledgement here that GAs are expressing political views from the pulpit. Church leaders have always reserved the right to speak out on moral issues, even when such issues are in the political arena. Nothing new or out-of-the-ordinary about that, especially when they are counseling members of the flock in an ecclesiastical setting. But try to imagine a group which leads an Organization which by doctrine asserts that any criticism of them is sinful, and which discourages anyone from corresponding directly with them instead of their lowest echelon of leaders and spends the bulk of their time conferring with leaders and being briefed about issues which primarily involve the world's elite or major crisises. Then explain to me how tone deafness and surprise as to the reactions of the masses fails to occur.This strikes me as caricature. The Brethren are as capable of insightful observation as anyone else. I'd say more so than most, given the right to inspiration attendant to their divine calling and their extensive travel among people of various nations and backgrounds.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I still think it is redundant to challenge the accuracy of a story depicting an event that you have already accepted as possible.I never admitted that General Authorities are casual in their Sabbath observance, which is what it seemed the anecdote was intended to convey. And I think it folly to draw extrapolations from rumors that are likely inaccurate in the first place.
Sleeper Cell Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Oh it's good to have suspicions. ... But try to imagine a group which leads an Organization which by doctrine asserts that any criticism of them is sinful ... and spends the bulk of their time conferring with leaders and being briefed about issues which primarily involve the world's elite or major crisises. Then explain to me how tone deafness and surprise as to the reactions of the masses fails to occur.Sounds like typical Republican criticism of the Obama administration.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Sounds like typical Republican criticism of the Obama administration.Hush. Don't compare Stone holm to Republicans. That's bound to set him off.
ERayR Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 could be right... still confused about why so much time invested in the accuracy of the story though.Oh you know when one gets a bee in their bonnet you just can't leave it alone til it quits buzzing.
ERayR Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Sounds like typical Republican criticism of the Obama administration.Careful now, you are releasing a bee in my bonnet and there is no politics ant this board.
Stone holm Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 Hush. Don't compare Stone holm to Republicans. That's bound to set him off.Oh not so much, in fact I used to be one, but then I went through the 12 step program and cured myself. However, you do live in the State with the highest concentration of the species.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) Oh not so much, in fact I used to be one, but then I went through the 12 step program and cured myself. However, you do live in the State with the highest concentration of the species.There now, Sleeper Cell, see what you've gone and done? He's trying to pick a fight with me now, one of the least inclined on this board to get political. Edited July 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts