Panel About The Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

I vote for a refusal with no explanation.

You're the one who brought the accusation that they were impolite. Refusing to give a reason strikes me as less polite than offering one.

 

 

I just found it odd that they lumped all those folks together as critics.

 

 

I already addressed this earlier.

 

They may not have been lumping all of them together. One of the panelists, according to Juliann, was a last minute addition and probably would not be regarded as a critic by the Church. Fabrizio said on the broadcast that, when extending the invitation, KUER had mentioned "some," not all, of the individuals who would be on the program. Perhaps even one or two critics with agendas -- and the possibility that more might be added -- was enough to dissuade the Church representatives from coming on the show.

 

I, for one, can sympathize.  Hypothetically speaking, in that position,  I don't see any personal advantage to be gained or anything productive to be accomplished by going on a radio show with a number of individuals apt to take potshots at me or the group I represent. I would find other ways to get my message out.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[phaedrus ut]

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.

 

It's not damned if you do or damned if you don't.  If you do, don't write something unprofessional and negative.  Calling someone a "critic" of the church is close to calling them a anti-mormon and both terms carry a simlar stigma.  It's poor PR and comes off a bit juvenile and unsophisticated.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not damned if you do or damned if you don't.  If you do, don't write something unprofessional and negative. 

Well, obviousy, I don't see it as unprofessional, and I would call it descriptive, not negative.

 

Calling someone a "critic" of the church is close to calling them a anti-mormon and both terms carry a simlar stigma. 

 

 

Well if the "stigma" bothers someone, maybe they ought not be a critic of the Church. Or if criticizing the Church is something they cherish, then perhaps they should not let the stigma bother them. Wear it with pride as a badge of honor. (I direct you to my sig line, the portion in teal-colored type.)

 

It's poor PR and comes off a bit juvenile and unsophisticated.

 

Again, I could hardly disagree more strongly.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[phaedrus ut]

Well, obviousy, I don't see it as unprofessional and negative.

Well if the "stigma" bothers someone, maybe they ought not be a critic of the Church. Or if criticizing the Church is something they cherish, then perhaps they should not let the stigma bother them. Wear it with pride as a badge of honor. (I direct you to my sig line, the portion in teal-colored type.)

Again, I could hardly disagree more strongly.

 

If you were the person in Public Affairs what would you have written?

[Scott Lloyd]

If you were the person in Public Affairs what would you have written?

Probably something similar.

 

I found it refreshingly candid. I applaud it.

 

Edited to add:

 

And I find it more than a little ironic to be chiding a Church spokesman for allegedly being negative about individuals whose fault-finding is the very thing that makes them prominent.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

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.)

I came across it privately and on blogs and boards where LDS women frequent....it was part of the idea of women becoming a greater visible presence.

 

"What had been said" is what has been published and I have been told by church officials.  I am open to the possibility that I misunderstood what MT stated and made an unwarranted assumption.  Still I find it hard to believe knowing that the Brethren were aware of the discussion and having discussions with various people on various topics that this wasn't one of them.

Edited October 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I came across it privately and on blogs and boards where LDS women frequent....it was part of the idea of women becoming a greater visible presence.

 

"What had been said" is what has been published and I have been told by church officials.  I am open to the possibility that I misunderstood what MT stated and made an unwarranted assumption.  Still I find it hard to believe knowing that the Brethren were aware of the discussion and having discussions with various people on various topics that this wasn't one of them.

For all Rockpond knows, the matter could have been raised quietly, through normal channels, outside the view of a prying or sensation-seeking public.

 

I'm amused at the notion that something has never been thought of before if it has never been the subject of public protest or political activism.

[Calm]

For example, here is a blog from Oct 2012.  My understanding is All Enlisted's "Let Women Pray" got going after their 'women wear pants to church' demonstration, which was December 16 2012.

 

https://www.facebook.com/WearPantsToChurchDay

 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/9597/women-in-general-conference-weekend-poll/

•  

 

 

What do you think the church should do to boost gender equality in General Conference? (choose up to your top 3 ideas)

•  Speakers should quote more women.
•  There should be more female speakers.
•  Have women give both opening and closing prayers.
•  Nothing - don't fix what ain't broken.
•  Focus should be on Christ only; gender equality is irrelevant.
•  Talk about the importance of motherhood as a blessing that is only available to women.
•  Encourage women equally to lead within the church, to serve missions, and to finish their education.
•  Invite some women to address priesthood session.
•  Don't limit female auxilliary leadership callings to 5 years.
•  Select a female church university president.
•  Equate fatherhood with motherhood, not priesthood with motherhood.
•  Invite the wives of apostles to speak along with their husbands. Make apostleship more of a "couples" calling.

 

 

[Calm]

An article from the SLTrib from August 2012:

 

These women -- some of whom consider themselves feminists, while others avoid that label -- point to little changes that would pay big dividends: treating a president of the local Relief Society (the church's main women's group) like her male counterpart and assigning her to be a regular speaker at conferences and in worship services; quoting more women in sermons and Sunday school lessons; selecting more women to speak and pray at churchwide General Conferences.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/mormon-women-seeking-midd_n_1815131.html

[rockpond]

I came across it privately and on blogs and boards where LDS women frequent....it was part of the idea of women becoming a greater visible presence.

"What had been said" is what has been published and I have been told by church officials. I am open to the possibility that I misunderstood what MT stated and made an unwarranted assumption. Still I find it hard to believe knowing that the Brethren were aware of the discussion and having discussions with various people on various topics that this wasn't one of them.

"Church officials" meaning public affairs people or General Authorities?

[Calm]

"Church officials" meaning public affairs people or General Authorities?

PA people

 

More examples of discussion:

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/10/01/let-my-people-pray-its-time-to-consider-having-women-give-openingclosing-prayers-in-general-conference/

 

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Womens-Voices-Womens-Prayers-Rosalynde-Welch-10-06-2011.html

 

http://empoweringldswomen.blogspot.com/2010/11/non-doctrinal-changes-to-improve-gender.html

 

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/38420-sisters-praying-conference.html

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Agreed. The line in my signature makes the same point as you, Scott. In general terms.

[Damien the Leper]

For all Rockpond knows, the matter could have been raised quietly, through normal channels, outside the view of a prying or sensation-seeking public.

 

I'm amused at the notion that something has never been thought of before if it has never been the subject of public protest or political activism.

Of course subjects concerning women and feminism have been discussed. After all, we have misogynists who saw to it that Sonia Johnson was excommunicated. But that's fine. Anti-ERA advocates and propagandists are nothing new and are hardly worth recognition.

I, however, wouldn't say that either the church or the LWP group can claim to be the first to come up with the idea. Neither are that mindful or clever where such issues are concerned.

[rockpond]

For all Rockpond knows, the matter could have been raised quietly, through normal channels, outside the view of a prying or sensation-seeking public.

 

I'm amused at the notion that something has never been thought of before if it has never been the subject of public protest or political activism.

 

It could have been raised quietly although I'm not sure what constitutes "normal channels" for you.  Because, you see, I don't feel the need to characterize what they did as a public protest or political activism.  From my POV, it was an attempt by members of our church to let the Brethren know about something that was important to them...  Something that we, as a church, had been counseled to do by President Kimball over three decades prior.  Sometimes we all need a little nudge to do the right thing.  Nothing about what they did was bothersome to me such that I need to deny them credit for the accomplishment.

 

The Let Women Pray movement used social media but it was your industry that brought their efforts to the attention of the "prying and sensation-seeking public".

 

Calmoriah has identified that the subject of women praying in conference was being written about as early as 2010.  And yet it didn't actually happen until the conference immediately following the Let Women Pray initiative.  Quite a coincidence.  Similarly, it was a coincidence that they chose to live broadcast priesthood session after the OW request.  And it's a coincidence that after all of Dehlin's surveys and podcasts on the subject, an apostle got up and proclaimed what Dehlin has been trying to communicate.

 

But this brings us back to why I suspect you feel the need to imply that it must be nothing more than a coincidence... You see these brothers and sisters as critics.  You defend public affairs for labeling them as such.  I don't see them as critics.  As far as I am aware, Brooks, Dehlin, and Kelly are all active, faithful members of the church.  I believe that they are all sincere in trying to do what is best.  And because I don't see them as critics, I can be pleased in the observation that the good Brethren who I sustain to lead this church are listening.  And together "we will all become better as a result." (Uchtdorf)

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed. The line in my signature makes the same point as you, Scott. In general terms.

But, you see, if I truly believe something deserves criticizing, I don't mind being identified as a critic of that thing. If I truly am opposed to something, I don't mind being identified as anti- that thing (see the line in my signature). On the other hand, I would very much mind being labeled a bigot, which truly is a pejorative.

 

So you are not making the same point I am making.

[Stone holm]

It could have been raised quietly although I'm not sure what constitutes "normal channels" for you.  Because, you see, I don't feel the need to characterize what they did as a public protest or political activism.  From my POV, it was an attempt by members of our church to let the Brethren know about something that was important to them...  Something that we, as a church, had been counseled to do by President Kimball over three decades prior.  Sometimes we all need a little nudge to do the right thing.  Nothing about what they did was bothersome to me such that I need to deny them credit for the accomplishment.

 

The Let Women Pray movement used social media but it was your industry that brought their efforts to the attention of the "prying and sensation-seeking public".

 

Calmoriah has identified that the subject of women praying in conference was being written about as early as 2010.  And yet it didn't actually happen until the conference immediately following the Let Women Pray initiative.  Quite a coincidence.  Similarly, it was a coincidence that they chose to live broadcast priesthood session after the OW request.  And it's a coincidence that after all of Dehlin's surveys and podcasts on the subject, an apostle got up and proclaimed what Dehlin has been trying to communicate.

 

But this brings us back to why I suspect you feel the need to imply that it must be nothing more than a coincidence... You see these brothers and sisters as critics.  You defend public affairs for labeling them as such.  I don't see them as critics.  As far as I am aware, Brooks, Dehlin, and Kelly are all active, faithful members of the church.  I believe that they are all sincere in trying to do what is best.  And because I don't see them as critics, I can be pleased in the observation that the good Brethren who I sustain to lead this church are listening.  And together "we will all become better as a result." (Uchtdorf)

 

Raised quietly, does he mean like trying to call the First Presidency or writing them a letter -- something they have specifically discouraged --- or perhaps writing your Bishop and hoping that he conveys it to his Stake President and then waiting for an interview with the Stake President and hoping he will transmit it to the Regional or Area Representative and then hoping that the Regional or Area Representative passes it along to a Secretary of the First Presidency and hoping the Secretary doesn't send back a condescending blow off letter?  Is this the meaning of raising it quietly?  Or as it is sometimes call totally ineffectively?  Not that I think the OW stunt of trying to crash the PH meeting was appropriate, but I can see how that sort of thing might tend to happen given the relatively closed channels of communication.

[Scott Lloyd]

Raised quietly, does he mean like trying to call the First Presidency or writing them a letter -- something they have specifically discouraged --- or perhaps writing your Bishop and hoping that he conveys it to his Stake President and then waiting for an interview with the Stake President and hoping he will transmit it to the Regional or Area Representative and then hoping that the Regional or Area Representative passes it along to a Secretary of the First Presidency and hoping the Secretary doesn't send back a condescending blow off letter?  Is this the meaning of raising it quietly?  Or as it is sometimes call totally ineffectively?  Not that I think the OW stunt of trying to crash the PH meeting was appropriate, but I can see how that sort of thing might tend to happen given the relatively closed channels of communication.

It's not hard for me to conceive of ways short of publicity stunts and media shows to make suggestions and concerns known to Church leadership. General leaders of the women's auxiliaries travel to various parts of the Church and meet with with women locally. Women are included in ward and stake councils, and conceivably, such things could be made known on that level and passed up the line to area and general leadership.

 

Granted, such a process might be frustratingly slow for some. But the question, I think, had to do with whether or not the media shows were the only way this and other matters could have been brought to the attention of the Brethren. I just don't buy it.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

It's not hard for me to conceive of ways short of publicity stunts media shows to make suggestions and concerns known to Church leadership. General leaders of the women's auxiliaries travel to various parts of the Church and meet with with women locally. Women are included in ward and stake councils, and conceivably, such things could be made known on that level and passed up the line to area and general leadership.

 

Granted, such a process might be frustratingly slow for some. But the question, I think, had to do with whether or not the media shows were the only way this and other matters could have been brought to the attention of the Brethren. I just don't buy it.

 

As someone who sits in those ward councils and supports the two female led organizations in the ward, I want and hope for that structure to work.

 

But it would appear, whether you agree or not, that what you call "publicity stunts & political activism" are actually getting results.  Sorry.

[Scott Lloyd]

As someone who sits in those ward councils and supports the two female led organizations in the ward, I want and hope for that structure to work.

 

But it would appear, whether you agree or not, that what you call "publicity stunts & political activism" are actually getting results.  Sorry.

Maybe so, maybe not. No way to tell definitively.

 

 

The Church public affairs guy whom calmoriah cited indicated that it was already in the works to have women pray in general conference.

 

It is obvious women will not be admitted to priesthood meeting. And I see no movement officially toward priesthood ordination of women.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

It's not hard for me to conceive of ways short of publicity stunts and media shows to make suggestions and concerns known to Church leadership. General leaders of the women's auxiliaries travel to various parts of the Church and meet with with women locally. Women are included in ward and stake councils, and conceivably, such things could be made known on that level and passed up the line to area and general leadership.

 

Granted, such a process might be frustratingly slow for some. But the question, I think, had to do with whether or not the media shows were the only way this and other matters could have been brought to the attention of the Brethren. I just don't buy it.

Yep, that is what he meant.

[rockpond]

 

The Church public affairs guy whom calmoriah cited indicated that it was already in the works to have women pray in general conference.

 

It is obvious women will not be admitted to priesthood meeting. And I see no movement officially toward priesthood ordination of women.

 

Yes, but he didn't indicate from when it was "already in the works".  We don't know what triggered the dialogue within the halls of whatever offices make such decisions.  And while I also see no movement toward priesthood ordination of women, I am happy about the live broadcast of the priesthood session.  And my understanding of the revelatory process & church governance doesn't require me to dismiss the efforts of Kelly, Brooks, & Dehlin as that of "critics".

Edited October 15, 2013 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep, that is what he meant.

Whether or not going through channels is "totally ineffective" is debatable.

 

I suppose one might view it as "totally ineffective" if what he is pushing for is raised, considered, discussed and then decided against. Doesn't mean the system is ineffective, it just means the proposal was not viable to begin with and probably never will be viable even if a media show is staged about it.

 

Other than raising a lot of sound and fury, I'm not persuaded that the media-show route is effective.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, but he didn't indicate from when it was "already in the works".  We don't know what triggered the dialogue within the halls of whatever offices make such decisions.  And while I also see no movement toward priesthood ordination of women, I am happy about the live broadcast of the priesthood session. 

So it's now available for public viewing a couple of days earlier than in the past. What a coup!

 

Are you sure the Kate Kelly crowd are all that happy about it? Weren't they saying that nothing short of ordaining women "would suffice"?

 

And my understanding of the revelatory process & church governance doesn't require me to dismiss the efforts of Kelly, Brooks, & Dehlin as that of "critics".

 

My understanding of the definition of the word critic makes me quite comfortable in identifying them as such.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

So it's now available for public viewing a couple of days earlier than in the past. What a coup!

 

Are you sure the Kate Kelly crowd are all that happy about it? Weren't they saying that nothing short of ordaining women "would suffice"?

 

My understanding of the definition of the word critic makes me quite comfortable in doing so.

 

I never suggested it was a "coup".  And I doubt that they are happy about not being let in.  But I'm not a part of that group and I am happy that if they want to watch it live, they can.

 

My understanding of the term "body of Christ" (1 Cor 12) makes me quite uncomfortable with the church PA office's use of the term critic.

[Stone holm]

Whether or not going through channels is "totally ineffective" is debatable.

 

I suppose one might view it as "totally ineffective" if what he is pushing for is raised, considered, discussed and then decided against. Doesn't mean the system is ineffective, it just means the proposal was not viable to begin with and never will be viable even if a media show is staged about it.

 

Other than raising a lot of sound and fury, I'm not persuaded that the media-show route is effective.

Well that depends on where in the chain the inquiry gets cut off with the condescending blow off. My bet would be it doesn't get past the Stake President. Given blow off letters are so commonplace, I certainly can understand why people might use other ways of getting their issues heard. Not that I necessarily approve, I just understand why this sort of thing happens from time to time. One would have to be willfully ignorant not to at least understand why it happens.