Panel About The Conference

[Stone holm]

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.

Oh snark is probably snark.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh snark is probably snark.

Then this ain't it.

[Stone holm]

Then this ain't it.

You really think so? On another blog I was dubbed the King of Snark by one of my admirers. You know a snarky comment, actually the best snarky comments have some honesty in them....course it always helps to have a personal agenda when you fire one off. An honest statement can either be snarky or sometimes an excuse, but normally if you are someone or an entity trying to project a certain gravitas (which would not include me) , it's probably best to have your designated talking suit avoid both.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I stated earlier in this thread that I didn't think it appropriate for the church to send a representative (for a couple reasons I mentioned).  So I am okay with PA declining to participate.

 

I do find it interesting, however, that they labeled them as "critics" when it would appear that they have been paying attention and making changes that seem to be in response to issues raised by those panelists.  I know that some say it's just coincidence and I have no evidence that it isn't, but...

 

After 180 years of not having women pray in conference, they invited women to pray -- right after a women's group (of which Brooks was a major supporter) made the request.

 

After Kelly and the OW group requested access to the priesthood session, it was announced that the church would do a live broadcast for the first time in history.

 

For a couple years now, following his survey, Dehlin has been repeatedly discussing reasons why people leave the church or lose faith... reasons that do not include being lazy or sinful.  This conference, President Uchtdorf echoed that cry.

 

Like I said, these could all be total coincidence.  Or they might not be.  And because of the way the church has responded to these issues, I think it was unnecessary to add the remark that the panelists are critics with personal agendas.  It struck me as somewhat rude considering that all of these individuals are active members of the church (to the best of my understanding).

[Stone holm]

I stated earlier in this thread that I didn't think it appropriate for the church to send a representative (for a couple reasons I mentioned).  So I am okay with PA declining to participate.

 

I do find it interesting, however, that they labeled them as "critics" when it would appear that they have been paying attention and making changes that seem to be in response to issues raised by those panelists.  I know that some say it's just coincidence and I have no evidence that it isn't, but...

 

After 180 years of not having women pray in conference, they invited women to pray -- right after a women's group (of which Brooks was a major supporter) made the request.

 

After Kelly and the OW group requested access to the priesthood session, it was announced that the church would do a live broadcast for the first time in history.

 

For a couple years now, following his survey, Dehlin has been repeatedly discussing reasons why people leave the church or lose faith... reasons that do not include being lazy or sinful.  This conference, President Uchtdorf echoed that cry.

 

Like I said, these could all be total coincidence.  Or they might not be.  And because of the way the church has responded to these issues, I think it was unnecessary to add the remark that the panelists are critics with personal agendas.  It struck me as somewhat rude considering that all of these individuals are active members of the church (to the best of my understanding).

I gave you a bump for this for sheer guts, but I wouldn't bet too strongly that you are correct.

[Calm]

 

After 180 years of not having women pray in conference, they invited women to pray -- right after a women's group (of which Brooks was a major supporter) made the request.

Again...I believe there is sufficient support for the Church assigning the prayers prior to the group's petition.  I am not saying they weren't influenced by what was going on socially, just that there wasn't a direct connection between the group's request and the change, but rather both were due to a mutual source, the ongoing discussion.

[rockpond]

Again...I believe there is sufficient support for the Church assigning the prayers prior to the group's petition. I am not saying they weren't influenced by what was going on socially, just that there wasn't a direct connection between the group's request and the change, but rather both were due to a mutual source, the ongoing discussion.

I think that there is a good chance that prayers were assigned before receipt of the petition but were prompted by the discussion advanced prior by the women behind the petition.

And I think it's a great thing. It doesn't make me doubt the prophetic calling of the Brethren simply because they may have listened. Or maybe it never reached the level of the top 15... Maybe it was entirely handled within a "lower" sphere of church leadership. That's fine as the clear instruction to let women pray in conference was provided 34 years ago by President Kimball.

[Tacenda]

I gave you a bump for this for sheer guts, but I wouldn't bet too strongly that you are correct.

I wish I could remember the exact quote from John Dehlin in a recent podcast I listened to. He said after spending thousands of dollars, I want to say it was 40 to 50 thousand, and spending many (?) hours away from his family, it was all done for the church, in this circumstance, Pres. Uchtdorf, to admit there were things done in the church that were wrong and members that lose faith don't do it because of laziness or sin.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I do find it interesting, however, that they labeled them as "critics" when it would appear that they have been paying attention and making changes that seem to be in response to issues raised by those panelists.  I know that some say it's just coincidence and I have no evidence that it isn't, but...

 

After 180 years of not having women pray in conference, they invited women to pray -- right after a women's group (of which Brooks was a major supporter) made the request.

 

I believe it was calmoriah who cited a conversation with a Church Public Affairs guy at the recent FAIR Conference who said the matter of women praying in conference had already been under discussion before the activists started making noise in public about it.

 

I suspect that's often the case with such things, and we need not credit the noisy activists with bringing about what was coming down the pike anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wish I could remember the exact quote from John Dehlin in a recent podcast I listened to. He said after spending thousands of dollars, I want to say it was 40 to 50 thousand, and spending many (?) hours away from his family, it was all done for the church, in this circumstance, Pres. Uchtdorf, to admit there were things done in the church that were wrong and members that lose faith don't do it because of laziness or sin.

I think what he said is that reasons are complex. As I understood it, he didn't rule out laziness or sin, but implied that they shouldn't be automatically assumed.

 

If my understanding is wrong, I'm open to correction.

[rockpond]

I believe it was calmoriah who cited a conversation with a Church Public Affairs guy at the recent FAIR Conference who said the matter of women praying in conference had already been under discussion before the activists started making noise in public about it.

 

I suspect that's often the case with such things, and we need not credit the noisy activists with bringing about what was coming down the pike anyway.

 

I can get behind the idea that they heard the rumblings that the group was making and decided to ask women to pray.

 

But I don't buy that after 182 years of general conferences (and 34 years after Pres. Kimball's letter) that they just happened to invite women to pray independently of the movement that was going on.  Far too coincidental.

 

Then you add in the first ever live broadcast of priesthood coinciding with the request by the OW and it sure seems like they are listening.

Edited October 14, 2013 by rockpond

[jkwilliams]

I think what he said is that reasons are complex. As I understood it, he didn't rule out laziness or sin, but implied that they shouldn't be automatically assumed.

 

If my understanding is wrong, I'm open to correction.

 

If all else fails, laziness or sin will do. I think it's a wonderful thing for him to publicly acknowledge that some of us may leave for what we believe to be legitimate reasons. You may not agree with our reasons, but it's nice to hear that someone thinks we might actually be sincere in our beliefs, even if we're mistaken. That seems a much more charitable approach than assuming evil intent.

 

And reading your signature, Scott, I feel you are holding back too much: tell us what you really think of critics and apostates.

[rockpond]

I think what he said is that reasons are complex. As I understood it, he didn't rule out laziness or sin, but implied that they shouldn't be automatically assumed.

 

If my understanding is wrong, I'm open to correction.

 

Here's the quote.  I apologize for the length but I'm not sure what to cut out...

 

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

 

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

 

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

 

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.

 

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

 

Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

 

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

[Calm]

I believe it was calmoriah who cited a conversation with a Church Public Affairs guy at the recent FAIR Conference who said the matter of women praying in conference had already been under discussion before the activists started making noise in public about it.

Depends on what you mean by "making noise".  The suggestion has been out in the public discourse for a number of years, I believe, but as opposed to responding directly the letwomenpray group's petition, it was done prior to that.  I don't know if it was done prior to the group discussing the possibility of the petition.

 

I can get behind the idea that they heard the rumblings that the group was making and decided to ask women to pray.

 

That group wasn't the only one who ever rumbled about conference prayers.

Edited October 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Depends on what you mean by "making noise".  The suggestion has been out in the public discourse for a number of years, I believe, but as opposed to responding directly the letwomenpray group's petition, it was done prior to that.  I don't know if it was done prior to the group discussing the possibility of the petition.

 

I tend to believe that it was likely done in response to the group discussing the petition (not sure how public that was) or the initiation of the petition (which was public) if not the actual delivery of the petition.

[Calm]

I tend to believe that it was likely done in response to the group discussing the petition (not sure how public that was) or the initiation of the petition (which was public) if not the actual delivery of the petition.

I would be surprised if it was in response to the initiation petition, my memory says when I asked him about the involvement of the letwomenpray, that he stated the decision had been made prior to that coming up.

[rockpond]

I would be surprised if it was in response to the initiation petition, my memory says when I asked him about the involvement of the letwomenpray, that he stated the decision had been made prior to that coming up.

 

The letter writing campaign began in early January.  Do we think that they make prayer assignments more than 3 months in advance?  It's possible.

 

But if the FAIR person is suggesting that the decision had nothing to do with the Let Women Pray movement, I'm sorry, but I don't believe him.

[Calm]

The letter writing campaign began in early January.  Do we think that they make prayer assignments more than 3 months in advance?  It's possible.

 

But if the FAIR person is suggesting that the decision had nothing to do with the Let Women Pray movement, I'm sorry, but I don't believe him.

Not the assignment but the decision to allow women to pray could have been in discussion months before the assignments were made...

 

It wasn't a FAIR person, it was Mark Tuttle.

[rockpond]

Not the assignment but the decision to allow women to pray could have been in discussion months before the assignments were made...

 

It wasn't a FAIR person, it was Mark Tuttle.

 

Oh yeah... public affairs.  Sorry I got mixed up after you referenced the FAIR conference.

 

Either way, like I said, too coincidental for me to believe that it wasn't in response to Let Women Pray.  And, in my view, no reason to have a problem with them listening to that movement and acting in response.

[Calm]

Oh yeah... public affairs.  Sorry I got mixed up after you referenced the FAIR conference.

 

Either way, like I said, too coincidental for me to believe that it wasn't in response to Let Women Pray.  And, in my view, no reason to have a problem with them listening to that movement and acting in response.

Why not?  Letwomenpray was in response to something being discussed extensively themselves.  So why couldn't church leaders get the same idea from the same place LWP did?

 

I don't have a problem either save for what has been said.

Edited October 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Why not?  Letwomenpray was in response to something being discussed extensively themselves.  So why couldn't church leaders get the same idea from the same place LWP did?

 

I don't have a problem either save for what has been said.

 

What do you mean:  "what has been said"?

 

Who & where was it being discussed extensively prior to Let Women Pray?  (I'm obviously not trying to suggest that LWP invented the idea of women praying in conference... just going off my experience that I hadn't really heard about it prior to their publicity efforts.)

Edited October 14, 2013 by rockpond

[phaedrus ut]

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?

 

Why would you want to directly address important social topics when you can offer a back handed insult to members of your own church?  It's funny that these "critics known for their personal agendas" are the ones busting there butts trying to make the church less intollerant and offering answers to difficult questions. 

 

I'm not sure why but something about that response sounded familiar to me.

[jkwilliams]

Why would you want to directly address important social topics when you can offer a back handed insult to members of your own church?  It's funny that these "critics known for their personal agendas" are the ones busting there butts trying to make the church less intollerant and offering answers to difficult questions. 

 

I'm not sure why but something about that response sounded familiar to me.

 

It's understandable that the church wouldn't want want to go on Fabrizio's show, but the backhanded insult was a bit surprising. Maybe whoever it was who sent the response figured KUER wasn't worth the effort of a polite response.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's understandable that the church wouldn't want want to go on Fabrizio's show, but the backhanded insult was a bit surprising. Maybe whoever it was who sent the response figured KUER wasn't worth the effort of a polite response.

Would it have been more polite just to give a flat refusal with no explanation?

 

Or would it have been preferable to offer a politically correct but less-than-forthcoming reason?

 

LIke I say, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

Speaking as a journalist, if I'm in Fabrizio's or KUER's position, I want the spokesman/spokeswoman to be honest about the reason for not coming on the program.

 

Furthermore, if you consider it an insult to be regarded as a critic with an agenda, don't be a critic with an agenda.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Would it have been more polite just to give a flat refusal with no explanation?

 

Or would it have been preferable to offer a politically correct but less-than-forthcoming reason?

 

LIke I say, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

Speaking as a jouranlist, if I'm in Fabrizio's or KUER's position, I want the spokesman/spokeswoman to be honest about the reason for not coming on the program.

 

Furthermore, if you consider it an insult to be regarded as a critic with an agenda, don't be a critic with an agenda.

 

I vote for a refusal with no explanation. I just found it odd that they lumped all those folks together as critics. As an evil critic myself, I don't see them that way.