Panel About The Conference

[why me]

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/reflections-lds-general-conference

 

Interesting discussion.

 

John makes comments about apologetics about 21 minutes into the tape.

Edited October 10, 2013 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I found it interesting that the Church declined to participate in the program and was very candid in saying why:

 

The church is continually engaged in important conversations about our beliefs and practices including takeaways from general conference.

 

However, a group of critics known for their personal agendas does not provide a forum for a reasonable and balanced discussion.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

John makes comments about apologetics about 21 minutes into the tape.

I listened at that point (have not had time to hear the whole podcast yet). I was saddened to see he is still propounding the line that last year's purge at the Maxwell Institute was directed by high-level Church leaders.

 

This has been denied by people in a position to know, and, I, for one, disbelieve him.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

I listened at that point (have not had time to hear the whole podcast yet). I was saddened to see he is still propounding the line that the last year's purge at the Maxwell Institute was directed by high-level Church leaders.

 

This has been denied by people in a position to know, and, I, for one, disbelieve him.

 

 

He has yet to produce a shred of evidence.  Why take the risk of a defamation lawsuit?  It makes no sense.  The interviewer's discomfort after Dehlin's accusation was obvious. 

 

I understand that Rosalynde was a late addition...perhaps because PA wasn't interested in podcasting with critics.  She is not a critic of the church.

 

Dehlin is also setting up a connection between Elder Oak's talk and future gay suicides.

[Scott Lloyd]

He has yet to produce a shred of evidence.  Why take the risk of a defamation lawsuit?  It makes no sense.  The interviewer's discomfort after Dehlin's accusation was obvious. 

 

Dehlin seems to run with his own unsubstantiated suppositions much of the time. I noticed that Fabrizio did move off of it very quickly after Dehlin made his slurs.

 

I understand that Rosalynde was a late addition...perhaps because PA wasn't interested in podcasting with critics.  She is not a critic of the church.

 

That was my impression. I suspected she was added later. The statement does correctly characterize the other two, though

 

Dehlin is also setting up a connection between Elder Oak's talk and future gay suicides.

 

That's scurrilous.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

Does anyone else see a problem when four members of the Church are publically labeled as critics of the Church by an anonymous Church spokesperson?

[ERayR]

I found it interesting that the Church declined to participate in the program and was very candid in saying why:

 

I would say this is pretty succinct.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does anyone else see a problem when four members of the Church are publically labeled as critics of the Church by an anonymous Church spokesperson?

The statement was a response to the radio station from the Church declining the invitation to come on the program and giving the reason why. It was Fabrizio and KUER who made the choice to make it public, which they have a right to do.

 

And no, I don't see a problem with it. Two of the program participants are clearly and obviously, by definition, critics with  personal agendas. Fabrizio led into it by saying that when the invitation was made it was mentioned who "some" of the people on the program would be, so the Church response could not be construed as necessarily applying to all the program participants. Apparently, the lineup hadn't been fully settled on at the time the invitation was made, so there could conceivably have been other critics invited to be on as well, hence the characterization "a group of critics known for their personal agendas."

 

Edited to add:

 

If the Church had simply declined the invitation and not said why,  someone might be criticizing it for being insular and hostile, so I guess this is a case of being damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

I listened at that point (have not had time to hear the whole podcast yet). I was saddened to see he is still propounding the line that last year's purge at the Maxwell Institute was directed by high-level Church leaders.

 

This has been denied by people in a position to know, and, I, for one, disbelieve him.

I think that john is playing to his audience and former believers in him. Also, he seems to need to be center stage in a "mormon transformation" whenever that may happen. The mormon church is rather small with just a few personalities that take center stage: Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, a couple of  Ordain Women leaders. Absent are those who came to the church: Don Bradley and Maxine Hanks. What the station needed to do was to invite one of these two, or you or Dan. Why have a church spokesperson on board at all? It seems like a setup for sure.

[Stone holm]

The statement was a response to the radio station from the Church declining the invitation to come on the program and giving the reason why. It was Fabrizio and KUER who made the choice to make it public, which they have a right to do.

 

And no, I don't see a problem with it. Two of the program participants are clearly and obviously, by definition, critics with  personal agendas. Fabrizio led into it by saying that when the invitation was made it was mentioned who "some" of the people on the program would be, so the Church response could not be construed as necessarily applying to all the program participants. Apparently, the lineup hadn't been fully settled on at the time the invitation was made, so there could conceivably have been other critics invited to be on as well, hence the characterization "a group of critics known for their personal agendas."

 

Edited to add:

 

If the Church had simply declined the invitation and not said why,  someone might be criticizing it for being insular and hostile, so I guess this is a case of being damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I can understand the Church declining, not sure I agree that it was very graceful to add the snarky tag line at the end.

[rockpond]

If the Church had simply declined the invitation and not said why,  someone might be criticizing it for being insular and hostile, so I guess this is a case of being damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

I think the tough question for the church is:  who to send?

 

Could a member of the public affairs team really speak with any authority (in an improvisational radio panel)?  Probably not... they'd just be speaking as a church member who happens to have some additional insight as a result of their job.

 

Do they send an apostle?  President Monson?  That seems odd to me as the point was to reflect upon what was said in conference by the apostles & the prophet.

 

Maybe you get a stake president to sit on the panel.

 

I think that Fabrizio did a good job of moderating (I don't live in Utah but I liked his style enough that I might try to download more podcasts done by him).

 

And while I think Rosalynde helped balance positions... another well spoken church member/blogger with differing views might have been a nice addition that would negate the need for some kind of official church representative -- basically I'm agreeing with Why Me's point.

 

Also, I know that they view Brooks, Dehlin, and Kate Kelly as critics but they along with Givens and Prince are, in a way, becoming leaders/organizers of what seems to be a growing segment of church members.  That could dissipate as the Brethren speak out more to the disaffected but, right now, I see it as a trend worth considering.

Edited October 11, 2013 by rockpond

[cdowis]

The question is not "who" but "why".  The church is very wise by realizing that it has absolutely nothing to gain by participating in such a discussion.

 

They can join us here on this forum and we will be delighted to discuss the issues.  Very often a verbal discussion is won on "charisma" points, rather than on facts, while a forum such as mormondialogue encourages intelligent and thoughtful comments, especially the CFR rule.

[rockpond]

The question is not "who" but "why".  The church is very wise by realizing that it has absolutely nothing to gain by participating in such a discussion.

 

They can join us here on this forum and we will be delighted to discuss the issues.  Very often a verbal discussion is won on "charisma" points, rather than on facts, while a forum such as mormondialogue encourages intelligent and thoughtful comments, especially the CFR rule.

 

I didn't feel like anyone "won".  It was just a discussion with everyone sharing their thoughts on what was said (though it obviously focused on the "higher profile" talks).

[why me]

The question is not "who" but "why".  The church is very wise by realizing that it has absolutely nothing to gain by participating in such a discussion.

 

 

Doug could have asked Scott to be on the panel. Or Don Bradley. Or Maxine Hanks. It is obvious that the church had nothing to gain from sending someone to sit on such a panel. Anything that would have come out of the spokesperson's mouth, would have been seized on by the critics to malign the church.

[why me]

I didn't feel like anyone "won".  It was just a discussion with everyone sharing their thoughts on what was said (though it obviously focused on the "higher profile" talks).

True, no one won. However, if the church had a representative, the church would have lost for sure. One slip up and the tape would be played by critics for years to come.

[rockpond]

Anything that would have come out of the spokesperson's mouth, would have been seized on by the critics to malign the church.

 

First, I agree that sending a church public affairs spokesperson would have been inappropriate as they cannot really speak, impromptu, for the church.  But the attitude expressed here intrigues me.  Have we reached that point where we're afraid of engaging in public discourse for fear of how the critics will use our words?  Or maybe I'm not really interpreting you correctly.

[daz2]

Scott, do you have a link to the church's declining to send someone?  Or how did you get access to it?

[theplains]

The question is not "who" but "why".  The church is very wise by realizing that it has absolutely nothing to gain by participating in such a discussion.

 

The LDS Church seems to shy away from any venue that would highlight the key differences

between their church and other mainline Christian churches.  There was a meeting/debate

between a Stake President in my area with another Christian a few years ago.  The Latter-day

Saint was only expecting 'milk' to be discussed and he was caught off guard when 'meat' was

thrown in.  But this didn't stop the other priesthood holders from handing out Book of Mormons

to their Christian audience afterwards ... in the spirit of conversion after all :-). 

 

But hopefully there will be more dialogue like Millet/Johnson are/were doing.

 

Regards,

Jim

[cdowis]

There was a meeting/debate between a Stake President in my area with another Christian a few years ago.  The Latter-day

Saint was only expecting 'milk' to be discussed and he was caught off guard when 'meat' was

thrown in.  

And that is why has the church advised us to avoid debates -- for precisely this reason.

 

"How was Joseph Smith able to carry those gold plates weighing 240 pounds?"  is pretty typical (see McKeever on youtube at Manti.

 

Apologetics can be pretty specialized, and a stake president is unlikely to be prepared for such questions.  He figures he can just wing it, and his title will represent that he should know the answers to such questions.  Even for members of this forum, a verbal real-time discussion/debate can be tricky.

 

I offered my help to our Bishop for such situations, but he pretty much shrugged it off.  

Edited October 12, 2013 by cdowis

[why me]

First, I agree that sending a church public affairs spokesperson would have been inappropriate as they cannot really speak, impromptu, for the church.  But the attitude expressed here intrigues me.  Have we reached that point where we're afraid of engaging in public discourse for fear of how the critics will use our words?  Or maybe I'm not really interpreting you correctly.

I don't know if that is the case. But poor Gordon B. Hinckley is still hearing it over his Larry King interview and that was eons ago. In fact, this is the only thing that the critics wish to have people remember him for. The poor guy was not allowed to misspeak and or say something unclearly. At 90 something he needed to be clear as sunshine. The critics latched on to every word and soaked it dry.

[Stone holm]

And that is why has the church advised us to avoid debates -- for precisely this reason.

 

"How was Joseph Smith able to carry those gold plates weighing 240 pounds?"  is pretty typical (see McKeever on youtube at Manti.

 

Apologetics can be pretty specialized, and a stake president is unlikely to be prepared for such questions.  He figures he can just wing it, and his title will represent that he should know the answers to such questions.  Even for members of this forum, a verbal real-time discussion/debate can be tricky.

 

I offered my help to our Bishop for such situations, but he pretty much shrugged it off.

so that we not have more meat in our intellectual and spiritual diet? I'm confused?

[cdowis]

so that we not have more meat in our intellectual and spiritual diet? I'm confused?

 

No, so that we will follow Christ's admonition, not to cast pearls before swine.

[Stone holm]

No, so that we will follow Christ's admonition, not to cast pearls before swine.

We seem to have discerned a huge increase in the swine population...probably due to a decrease in meat consumption...bacon anyone?

[Scott Lloyd]

I can understand the Church declining, not sure I agree that it was very graceful to add the snarky tag line at the end.

I suppose what is snark to one person is candor to another. Again the Church declined the invitation and honestly explained why.

Again, if they had declined to give a reason, I wonder whether you or someone else would be finding fault with them for that.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, do you have a link to the church's declining to send someone? Or how did you get access to it?

I merely listened to the podcast (link in the OP) and transcribed Fabrizio's reading of the Church's response to the invitation.

I wouldn't have quoted the response here if it hadn't already been made public on the broadcast.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd