Panel About The Conference

[rongo]

With John, it depends on who you talk to. I used to think he was a critic, but these days he's gone back to the fold, as far as I can see.

I think his coming back into the fold is tactical (based on his actions since then). As I've tried to weigh whether or not he's sincere, I have repeatedly asked myself "Is this man insane?" (given the terms his stake president gave him). Why does he continue to agitate and do things like the Doug Fabrizio show appearance (with his role as critic commenting on Conference and developments)? It's not like the Church spokesman was out in left field by characterizing him as a critic. 

 

I can't believe people still follow or listen to him.  I don't think he'll be able to resist being John Dehlin and will blow the cover off of everything for good. He likes to hear himself talk (ever watched one of his podcasts?) and be perceived as an edgy, avant garde person at the epicenter of Mormon/cultural streams. He will be swept off in the coming years.

[rockpond]

I don't see it as hearsay on Dan's part. The way he phrased it, it sounds to me like he has received direct and unsolicited assurances from members of the Twelve, and he has said this as explicitly as he possibly can without coming right out and identifying them, which, for whatever reason, he feels it would be inappropriate to do.

By the way, your paraphrasing above, that he has received direct assurances from members of the 12, is incorrect per his blog post in which he does not identify his source as being a member of the 12.

But, y'know, might be my bad comprehension.

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, your paraphrasing above, that he has received direct assurances from members of the 12, is incorrect per his blog post in which he does not identify his source as being a member of the 12.

 

It's a reasonable interpretation of what he did say. Look more closely at it.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Hearsay Evidence:

testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person rather than on direct personal knowledge or experience

Peterson's statement that an apostle was not involved and Dehlin's statement that an apostle was involved are both hearsay no matter how strongly they feel about their respective sources.

 

His statement as to the involvement of an apostle had to do with his dismissal as editor. Dehlin said Church leaders told BYU officials that "apologists" at the Maxwell Institute needed to find other employment. This is a reckless supposition and claim on Dehlin's part.

[Stone holm]

What do you mean? I was responding to rongo's statement that she and the rest are critics.

If you look back up the thread, you would understand the sarcasm, it wasn't aimed at you...sorry if it was misunderstood.

[CV75]

I do believe the Church decisions are made through councils and the council process... how could I not?  I am a part of them.

 

My point is simply that the campaigning (social media, blogging) most likely triggered those who make conference prayer decisions (maybe a council) to include women.  That seems to be the most likely scenario.  Scott Trotter's statement (quoted in the article you linked) says that assignments were made in December.  If those assignments included women (which we don't know) and if they were not changed (which we also don't know) than it would mean that the LWP campaign likely did not impact it though earlier blogging activities could have.

“Triggered”? “By campaigns”? “Most likely?” I really don’t think so! “If …” and “if …?” Who are you crediting now, LWP or earlier blogging activity? Perhaps it’s better to credit a more general movement that started decades ago, and before that, over a century ago? In politics, anything is better than acknowledging that something good happened (or since you are holding to the “ifs”, even might have happened) without you. The same posturing is used to second-guess and project so many other policy changes.

 

But let’s say you are crediting whatever happened to those living within our lifetimes. What you are proposing is the stuff of comic books—the villain makes the hero! so the villain gets the credit. We might as well apply that logic to credit Satan for triggering Jesus to be our Savior.

 

You’ve hearkened a couple of times back to President Kimball’s announcement to regional representatives, without really analyzing the context of and the actual instructions in the statement, and what it meant back in 1978. Perhaps this is why you cannot accept that ours are prophets for our day, when the faithful saints are receptive to the changes put forth by leades they sustain.

 

(P.S.: You keep referring to your credentials as if they mean something or support rather than allow pause for your position. This is as bad as claiming revelation— let’s see if an idea can  stand by itself.)

[Pahoran]

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. 

 

 

IOW, it was an ambush.  The so-called "Christians" led him to expect a courteous discussion and then pulled a fast one.

 

Hardly surprising, really.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Pahoran! So good to see you back.

[rockpond]

It's a reasonable interpretation of what he did say. Look more closely at it.

It's not a reasonable interpretation. It does not say that he received assurances directly from one of the 12. You are reading that into it because you seem to desperately need Peterson to be right and Dehlin to be wrong.

You still haven't satisfied the CFR and your unsubstantiated claim is still sitting there.

[rockpond]

“Triggered”? “By campaigns”? “Most likely?” I really don’t think so! “If …” and “if …?” Who are you crediting now, LWP or earlier blogging activity? Perhaps it’s better to credit a more general movement that started decades ago, and before that, over a century ago? In politics, anything is better than acknowledging that something good happened (or since you are holding to the “ifs”, even might have happened) without you. The same posturing is used to second-guess and project so many other policy changes.

But let’s say you are crediting whatever happened to those living within our lifetimes. What you are proposing is the stuff of comic books—the villain makes the hero! so the villain gets the credit. We might as well apply that logic to credit Satan for triggering Jesus to be our Savior.

You’ve hearkened a couple of times back to President Kimball’s announcement to regional representatives, without really analyzing the context of and the actual instructions in the statement, and what it meant back in 1978. Perhaps this is why you cannot accept that ours are prophets for our day, when the faithful saints are receptive to the changes put forth by leades they sustain.

(P.S.: You keep referring to your credentials as if they mean something or support rather than allow pause for your position. This is as bad as claiming revelation— let’s see if an idea can stand by itself.)

Your responses seem to be going further and further out in bizarre tangents. Have I suggested the the prophets are not prophets for our day? No, I absolutely believe in and sustain the prophet. I tend to believe that it was the prophet that responded to the LWP movement and instructed that women be invited to pray in conference. (That's a statement of belief, not knowledge.)

If you think I have misconstrued something from President Kimball's 1979 letter, please elaborate. Your claim that I haven't analyzed the context is incorrect.

I didn't realize that saying I participate in councils was putting forth a "credential". I'd venture to say that most members of the church with 30-40 years under their belt have participated in councils. That's how the church is organized and, for the most part, we all take a turn.

Regarding who I am crediting, I can't really follow your first couple paragraphs. You seem unwilling to identify who you credit other than saying "councils" and "leaders".

I'll try to explain again to see if I can be more clear... The evidence leads me to believe that sometime between the wear pants to church campaign and when the LWP petition was actually delivered that the Brethren heard of the request. I imagine they discussed it and decided to respond accordingly.

[Stone holm]

IOW, it was an ambush.  The so-called "Christians" led him to expect a courteous discussion and then pulled a fast one.

 

Hardly surprising, really.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Yeah and it is very unlikely that these so called "Christians" would know how to digest meat anyway.

[rockpond]

I think his coming back into the fold is tactical (based on his actions since then). As I've tried to weigh whether or not he's sincere, I have repeatedly asked myself "Is this man insane?" (given the terms his stake president gave him). Why does he continue to agitate and do things like the Doug Fabrizio show appearance (with his role as critic commenting on Conference and developments)? It's not like the Church spokesman was out in left field by characterizing him as a critic.

I can't believe people still follow or listen to him. I don't think he'll be able to resist being John Dehlin and will blow the cover off of everything for good. He likes to hear himself talk (ever watched one of his podcasts?) and be perceived as an edgy, avant garde person at the epicenter of Mormon/cultural streams. He will be swept off in the coming years.

I think there is a larger issue stemming from this...

It seems like the non-LDS media has increasingly been going to individuals like Brooks, Dehlin, and Givens for statements and responses regarding the church. (This has been my perspective living outside of the "Mormon corridor".)

If we, as a church, are content to let them speak for the church and the LDS population, then there isn't a problem.

But if we are not content with that then somehow don't we need to figure out a way to get LDS leadership out there into the realm of public discourse doing interviews and panels.

Or am I wrong and they can just stick to speaking in LDS venues?

Thoughts?

[Stone holm]

I think there is a larger issue stemming from this...

It seems like the non-LDS media has increasingly been going to individuals like Brooks, Dehlin, and Givens for statements and responses regarding the church. (This has been my perspective living outside of the "Mormon corridor".)

If we, as a church, are content to let them speak for the church and the LDS population, then there isn't a problem.

But if we are not content with that then somehow don't we need to figure out a way to get LDS leadership out there into the realm of public discourse doing interviews and panels.

Or am I wrong and they can just stick to speaking in LDS venues?

Thoughts?

My thought is be careful what you ask for if you don't want GAs going political in public.

[rockpond]

My thought is be careful what you ask for if you don't want GAs going political in public.

That's a good point. Elder Oaks has actually done a number of public speeches over the past few years... Many of a religious AND political nature.

Edited October 18, 2013 by rockpond

[CV75]

I'll try to explain again to see if I can be more clear... The evidence leads me to believe that sometime between the wear pants to church campaign and when the LWP petition was actually delivered that the Brethren heard of the request. I imagine they discussed it and decided to respond accordingly.

I understand your belief, and why anything else appears bizarre and tangential for you, but I’m not inclined to think the relationship you’re describing is so simple, cut and dried, black and white, directly related, etc. The Brethren live in the same complex world we do, and in a Church where some members are inclined to politick and others to counsel. Being of the latter tendency, I tend to give credit to the Lord through the process laid out in D&C 50 and 88, and since the council process doesn’t accommodate politicking, politicking (or those that politick) can’t be given credit.

[rockpond]

I understand your belief, and why anything else appears bizarre and tangential for you, but I’m not inclined to think the relationship you’re describing is so simple, cut and dried, black and white, directly related, etc. The Brethren live in the same complex world we do, and in a Church where some members are inclined to politick and others to counsel. Being of the latter tendency, I tend to give credit to the Lord through the process laid out in D&C 50 and 88, and since the council process doesn’t accommodate politicking, politicking (or those that politick) can’t be given credit.

 

Got it, I think.  So your belief is that the Brethren, in their council, felt inspired to invite sisters to pray in conference, right?  You and I are in agreement with that.

 

But I don't think that the inspiration was sought and received completely independent of the requests that were being made by some of the sisters of the church (blogging & LWP campaign).  The Brethren do live in a complex world and they don't exist in a vacuum.  I assume they heard the request and either petitioned the Lord or realized (per Pres. Kimball's previous counsel) that it was an appropriate request and moved forward.

 

I was pleased to see it happen but doubt that the Brethren even gave it as much thought as the media.

[CV75]

I think there is a larger issue stemming from this... It seems like the non-LDS media has increasingly been going to individuals like Brooks, Dehlin, and Givens for statements and responses regarding the church. (This has been my perspective living outside of the "Mormon corridor".) If we, as a church, are content to let them speak for the church and the LDS population, then there isn't a problem. But if we are not content with that then somehow don't we need to figure out a way to get LDS leadership out there into the realm of public discourse doing interviews and panels. Or am I wrong and they can just stick to speaking in LDS venues? Thoughts?

I think on one hand, we may not like what some members say in the popular media, but we acknowledge their agency to do so, to cultivate a relationship with the popular media and to form a following. I'm not sure how interesting a GA would be to the popular media or its consumers, and they have acknowledged that the world and the Church are moving further and further apart. So popularity by the general world's standard will not work for them in the long run.

 

On the other hand, I think the individual, day-to-day (and mundane) lives of each member has so much more to say about the Church than can be found in any media venue (Church or popular), that this may be the way to go to reach those who are searching for what we have versus those who depend on the popular media to inform them. What we have of real value is lived out in real relationships, not delivered as media attractions. This seems consistent with the emphasis on members and missionaries working closer and closer together, and sending out more missionaries to do that.

[Stone holm]

I understand your belief, and why anything else appears bizarre and tangential for you, but I’m not inclined to think the relationship you’re describing is so simple, cut and dried, black and white, directly related, etc. The Brethren live in the same complex world we do, and in a Church where some members are inclined to politick and others to counsel. Being of the latter tendency, I tend to give credit to the Lord through the process laid out in D&C 50 and 88, and since the council process doesn’t accommodate politicking, politicking (or those that politick) can’t be given credit.

 

Trying to understand exactly what you are referring to as the "council process", you seem to be suggesting that the council process actually receives large amounts of influence flowing up from the Ward and Stake level councils.  I don't see a lot of evidence of this upward flow.  If you are talking about getting informational input into the Council process, then you would need to get it in from outside the process since the Council process in the Church is primarily a top downward process to maintain orthodoxy.  If a concept is "unorthodox" then for it to get considered it has two choices try to bull its way up through the established Councils which by their very nature are designed to repress the concept, or you have to by-pass them.  Personally, I don't pay much attention to Church Orthodoxy anymore and tend not to care except when someone goes off on a rant that makes us all look bad, but for those who feel there is a possibility that the Lord doesn't agree with certain policies and continue to care -- I can see where they might want to by-pass the obstacles to touch the Master's robe so to speak.

[CV75]

I assume they heard the request and either petitioned the Lord or realized (per Pres. Kimball's previous counsel) that it was an appropriate request and moved forward.

This is an assumption I do not share. Obviously they heard about the request, but for a looooong time before that they had been training the Church rank and file on how to operate in the council format, and especially how to involve the sisters more effectively in that process. I can remember this going on in the early 1990s and reiterated from time to time since. So it makes far more sense to me that the decision to assign women to pray in general conference was made as a result of the council process involving the women in the Church leadership heirarchy, irrespective of any politicking by a few that has been going on forever in some form or another on some topic or another. This is why the Church seems to move at its own pace by those who politick (and it does!): because they don't understand how councils work.

 

I think Prsident Kimball's instructions were faithfully carried out as the statement specified. General Conference wasn't listed as one of the meetings, which wasn't an issue at the time and for decades since, and no one ever claimed it was meant to be until they recontextualized the statement to provide a false legitimacy for their cause.

[CV75]

Trying to understand exactly what you are referring to as the "council process", you seem to be suggesting that the council process actually receives large amounts of influence flowing up from the Ward and Stake level councils.

No, I am not suggesting that. On the same token, politicking hasn't any more influence (and quite a bit less). There is a two-way flow of council outcomes between the general and local units of the Church; none between the politicking organizations and the Church. What is a disgruntled member to do? Hopefully sit down and counsel in the right spirit, but they don't have to. I think sitting down a counseling in the right spirit at any level is what leads to positive changes in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not a reasonable interpretation. It does not say that he received assurances directly from one of the 12.

 

He said this:

 

Moreover, I’ve received unsought-for but direct assurances from absolutely unimpeachable sources—than whom no better, no more relevant sources can possibly exist—that the Twelve as such played no part in this matter.  (I don’t feel that I can say more than that publicly.  But I continue, so far as I can tell, to have quite good relations with the leaders of the Church.)

 

(Emphasis in boldface mine)

 

There can be no better, more "relevant" or more "unimpeachable" sources on what the Twelve did than members of the Twelve themselves.

 

You can be as intentionally obtuse as you want to be, but the message here, as I said, is as explicit as Dan could possibly make it without actually identifying the sources by name.

 

You are reading that into it because you seem to desperately need Peterson to be right and Dehlin to be wrong. You still haven't satisfied the CFR and your unsubstantiated claim is still sitting there.

 

There has been a perfectly adequate answer to the CFR -- and it's all the answer you're getting. Go ahead and raise a complaint if you want to.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I think on one hand, we may not like what some members say in the popular media, but we acknowledge their agency to do so, to cultivate a relationship with the popular media and to form a following. I'm not sure how interesting a GA would be to the popular media or its consumers, and they have acknowledged that the world and the Church are moving further and further apart. So popularity by the general world's standard will not work for them in the long run.

On the other hand, I think the individual, day-to-day (and mundane) lives of each member has so much more to say about the Church than can be found in any media venue (Church or popular), that this may be the way to go to reach those who are searching for what we have versus those who depend on the popular media to inform them. What we have of real value is lived out in real relationships, not delivered as media attractions. This seems consistent with the emphasis on members and missionaries working closer and closer together, and sending out more missionaries to do that.

I agree with your second paragraph but disagree with the first paragraph... I think that a GA (particularly an apostle) who could have engaged in public discourse in the way that, for example Brooks did during the presidential campaign, would have been very interesting to the popular media. Whether it would have appropriately advanced the mission of the church... I don't know. But I'm not sure that Brooks, as the de facto spokesperson, advanced the mission either.

[Stone holm]

No, I am not suggesting that. On the same token, politicking hasn't any more influence (and quite a bit less). There is a two-way flow of council outcomes between the general and local units of the Church; none between the politicking organizations and the Church. What is a disgruntled member to do? Hopefully sit down and counsel in the right spirit, but they don't have to. I think sitting down a counseling in the right spirit at any level is what leads to positive changes in the Church.

There is precious little evidence of upward flow.

[rockpond]

This is an assumption I do not share. Obviously they heard about the request, but for a looooong time before that they had been training the Church rank and file on how to operate in the council format, and especially how to involve the sisters more effectively in that process. I can remember this going on in the early 1990s and reiterated from time to time since. So it makes far more sense to me that the decision to assign women to pray in general conference was made as a result of the council process involving the women in the Church leadership heirarchy, irrespective of any politicking by a few that has been going on forever in some form or another on some topic or another. This is why the Church seems to move at its own pace by those who politick (and it does!): because they don't understand how councils work.

I think Prsident Kimball's instructions were faithfully carried out as the statement specified. General Conference wasn't listed as one of the meetings, which wasn't an issue at the time and for decades since, and no one ever claimed it was meant to be until they recontextualized the statement to provide a false legitimacy for their cause.

So the church had been training us on the use of councils and involving sisters for two decades and the decision (independent of the blogging/campaign activity) happened to come right at the same time? Like I said, it's an astonishing coincidence.

Gen Con was not specifically called out in Pres. Kimball's letter but it does fall under the scope of "all meetings that sisters attend". But I'm curious, if the LWP campaign had "false legitimacy" why were sisters allowed to pray? Obviously the request was legitimate even if it wasn't what led to the decision.

[rockpond]

He said this:

(Emphasis in boldface mine)

There can be no better, more "relevant" or more "unimpeachable" sources on what the Twelve did than members of the Twelve themselves.

You can be as intentionally obtuse as you want to be, but the message here, as I said, is as explicit as Dan could possibly make it without actually identifying the sources by name.

There has been a perfectly adequate answer to the CFR -- and it's all the answer you're getting. Go ahead and raise a complaint if you want to.

True, the very best source would be the 12 themselves but he did not say that he received it from the 12. He doesn't even say that his source received it from the 12. It's still hearsay not factual evidence.

That said, if that's the only thing you're contending is at odds between the two accounts (Peterson's blog & Dehlin's KUER statement) then I'm back to feeling that their recounting of the events that transpired are really not that far apart. And maybe we could put the feud behind us and move forward.