Panel About The Conference

[Stone holm]

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.

They may have a different understanding.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I didn't say I don't understand why it happens. I just think it unproductive at best and disrespectful at worst.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

My understanding of the term does not bind me or anyone else to be politically correct.

[rockpond]

My understanding of the term does not bind me or anyone else to be politically correct.

 

My objection to what the PA person said has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.

Edited October 15, 2013 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

My objection to what they said has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.

So you say. I'm perceiving otherwise.

[rockpond]

So you say. I'm perceiving otherwise.

 

What is it that you perceive?

[Stone holm]

My understanding of the term does not bind me or anyone else to be politically correct.

You know, I think we need a phrase similar to politically correct for this discussion board which applies to people who always defend whatever thing the Church PA decides to put out for public consumption. Have to think on that...course some people already apply the term politically correct to that, so need a variant.

[wenglund]

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

 

To help our good brother rockpond grasp this salient point, I was going to suggest that his ward members start social media campaigns for all their pet agendas for his Ward. Some suggestions might be:

 

1. Soft chairs for the priesthood just as for the Relief Society.

2. Shorter prayers.

3. No testimonies from children under age 12.

4. And, if the above rule is implemented, then create a social media page for letting children under age 12 bear their testimonies, and back and forth.

5. Greater reverence (i.e. less socializing) in the chapel.

6. More socializing in the chapel.

7. No sacrament for late comers.

8. Sacrament passed no matter how late the comers.

9. Paper rather than plastic sacrament cups.

10. Colored shirts for priesthood holders.

11. Only white shirts for priesthood holders.

12. Bow ties instead of neck ties.

13. Room tempurature set at 72 degrees.

14. Room tempurature set at 73 degrees.

15. Room tempurature set at 74 degrees.

16. No floral arrangements.

17. More floral arrangements.

18. No floral arrangements with purple flowers.

 

..and on and on and on.

 

Perhaps, then, the well-intentioned rockpond will clue into the remarkable ineffectiveness of bottom-up, "the masses" management style, whether in Christ's Church or otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

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.

 

But there is similar lines of thinking. Having characteristics of being a bigot do not excuse someone from being labeled a bigot. You, personally, do not deserve the pejorative. You have never led me to believe that you are considering the language and attitude you use and express.

 

I don't mind being called a critic either. I can honestly say that I have no problem being harshly critical. I'm not one to coddle someone's feelings and being on this board has definitely taught me that tact where political correctness is concerned and political correctness itself are absolutely worthless.

[Damien the Leper]

To help our good brother rockpond grasp this salient point, I was going to suggest that his ward members start social media campaigns for all their pet agendas for his Ward. Some suggestions might be:

 

1. Soft chairs for the priesthood just as for the Relief Society.

2. Shorter prayers.

3. No testimonies from children under age 12.

4. And, if the above rule is implemented, then create a social media page for letting children under age 12 bear their testimonies, and back and forth.

5. Greater reverence (i.e. less socializing) in the chapel.

6. More socializing in the chapel.

7. No sacrament for late comers.

8. Sacrament passed no matter how late the comers.

9. Paper rather than plastic sacrament cups.

10. Colored shirts for priesthood holders.

11. Only white shirts for priesthood holders.

12. Bow ties instead of neck ties.

13. Room tempurature set at 72 degrees.

14. Room tempurature set at 73 degrees.

15. Room tempurature set at 74 degrees.

16. No floral arrangements.

17. More floral arrangements.

18. No floral arrangements with purple flowers.

 

..and on and on and on.

 

Perhaps, then, the well-intentioned rockpond will clue into the remarkable ineffectiveness of bottom-up, "the masses" management style, whether in Christ's Church or otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

While I may not agree with the top-down authoritarianism you proscribe...I think I can at least empathise with the direction of your argument.

[CV75]

Sorry, jumping in late:

 

If this is about what constitutes “a forum for a reasonable and balanced discussion,” I think the Church leadership would refer to their scriptural guidance (as they do with financial affairs, as explained by Elder Bednar in a recent conference talk). D&C 50 describes the elements of a “a forum for a reasonable and balanced discussion,” and I think this is the standard they uphold for the various councils throughout the Church. I don't think the most serious considerations of the day deserve any lesser treatment.

[Stone holm]

Sorry, jumping in late:

 

If this is about what constitutes “a forum for a reasonable and balanced discussion,” I think the Church leadership would refer to their scriptural guidance (as they do with financial affairs, as explained by Elder Bednar in a recent conference talk). D&C 50 describes the elements of a “a forum for a reasonable and balanced discussion,” and I think this is the standard they uphold for the various councils throughout the Church. I don't think the most serious considerations of the day deserve any lesser treatment.

 

So where exactly does that take you?

[Scott Lloyd]

To help our good brother rockpond grasp this salient point, I was going to suggest that his ward members start social media campaigns for all their pet agendas for his Ward. Some suggestions might be:

 

1. Soft chairs for the priesthood just as for the Relief Society.

2. Shorter prayers.

3. No testimonies from children under age 12.

4. And, if the above rule is implemented, then create a social media page for letting children under age 12 bear their testimonies, and back and forth.

5. Greater reverence (i.e. less socializing) in the chapel.

6. More socializing in the chapel.

7. No sacrament for late comers.

8. Sacrament passed no matter how late the comers.

9. Paper rather than plastic sacrament cups.

10. Colored shirts for priesthood holders.

11. Only white shirts for priesthood holders.

12. Bow ties instead of neck ties.

13. Room tempurature set at 72 degrees.

14. Room tempurature set at 73 degrees.

15. Room tempurature set at 74 degrees.

16. No floral arrangements.

17. More floral arrangements.

18. No floral arrangements with purple flowers.

 

..and on and on and on.

 

Perhaps, then, the well-intentioned rockpond will clue into the remarkable ineffectiveness of bottom-up, "the masses" management style, whether in Christ's Church or otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Love it!

[jkwilliams]

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.

I've been called an anti-Mormon, wolf in sheep's clothing, and so forth, more times than I can count. I don't like being called those things because they don't reflect who I am and are clearly meant as pejorative attacks on my character. If I'm "anti-" something it means I am against something, and I am not against the LDS church at all. Also, as you well know, I'm too transparently evil to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Being called those names used to get to me, but then I realized that it doesn't matter what people say about you as long as your conscience is clear, and mine is.

I don't mind the term "critic," as sometimes I am critical of the LDS church, but I'm not one of those people who wishes harm on the church or hopes that it will shrivel up and disappear. Mormonism is good for a lot of people, and as long as that's true, I hope it sticks around.

[Scott Lloyd]

But there is similar lines of thinking. Having characteristics of being a bigot do not excuse someone from being labeled a bigot. You, personally, do not deserve the pejorative. You have never led me to believe that you are considering the language and attitude you use and express.

 

I don't mind being called a critic either. I can honestly say that I have no problem being harshly critical. I'm not one to coddle someone's feelings and being on this board has definitely taught me that tact where political correctness is concerned and political correctness itself are absolutely worthless.

I've re-read this post about a dozen times now, and still can't make sense of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been called an anti-Mormon, wolf in sheep's clothing, and so forth, more times than I can count. I don't like being called those things because they don't reflect who I am and are clearly meant as pejorative attacks on my character. If I'm "anti-" something it means I am against something, and I am not against the LDS church at all. Also, as you well know, I'm too transparently evil to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Being called those names used to get to me, but then I realized that it doesn't matter what people say about you as long as your conscience is clear, and mine is.

I don't mind the term "critic," as sometimes I am critical of the LDS church, but I'm not one of those people who wishes harm on the church or hopes that it will shrivel up and disappear. Mormonism is good for a lot of people, and as long as that's true, I hope it sticks around.

If you are not anti-Mormon, great. I've never held otherwise.

 

And it's refreshing to see a critic who is willing to own the term. I applaud you.

[Scott Lloyd]

You know, I think we need a phrase similar to politically correct for this discussion board which applies to people who always defend whatever thing the Church PA decides to put out for public consumption. Have to think on that...course some people already apply the term politically correct to that, so need a variant.

Well, Public Affairs uses the term "spokesperson" a lot. I don't approve. I think it's an awkward coinage forced upon us by radical feminists of the '60s and '70s, and it amounts to a corruption of the language. The Associated Press Stylebook does not permit it, and neither does any newspaper I have ever worked for.

 

So that's one thing that Public Affairs puts out for public consumption that I don't like and would never defend.

 

Does that let me off the hook?

 

Edited to add:

 

Of course, given his political bent, Stone holm probably thinks it's grand that Public Affairs uses "spokesperson."   There could hardly be anything more politically correct than to use this awkward "-person" construction (spokesperson, businessperson, chairperson, fireperson, policeperson, etc. ad nauseam).

Edited October 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

So where exactly does that take you?

It takes me to D&C 88 (naturally), which has additional instructions for how individuals are to behave and participate (originally given for the school of the prophets) in the operation of Church councils to create a forum that benefits all: especially verses 63-80; 118-126.

[rockpond]

To help our good brother rockpond grasp this salient point, I was going to suggest that his ward members start social media campaigns for all their pet agendas for his Ward. Some suggestions might be:

 

1. Soft chairs for the priesthood just as for the Relief Society.

2. Shorter prayers.

3. No testimonies from children under age 12.

4. And, if the above rule is implemented, then create a social media page for letting children under age 12 bear their testimonies, and back and forth.

5. Greater reverence (i.e. less socializing) in the chapel.

6. More socializing in the chapel.

7. No sacrament for late comers.

8. Sacrament passed no matter how late the comers.

9. Paper rather than plastic sacrament cups.

10. Colored shirts for priesthood holders.

11. Only white shirts for priesthood holders.

12. Bow ties instead of neck ties.

13. Room tempurature set at 72 degrees.

14. Room tempurature set at 73 degrees.

15. Room tempurature set at 74 degrees.

16. No floral arrangements.

17. More floral arrangements.

18. No floral arrangements with purple flowers.

 

..and on and on and on.

 

Perhaps, then, the well-intentioned rockpond will clue into the remarkable ineffectiveness of bottom-up, "the masses" management style, whether in Christ's Church or otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Go for it!  I get requests and suggestions about the ward just about every single week.  I would probably find it preferable to have them organized into social media campaigns.

[jkwilliams]

If you are not anti-Mormon, great. I've never held otherwise.

 

And it's refreshing to see a critic who is willing to own the term. I applaud you.

 

Hmm. I know a lot of people who are more than willing to own the term. I'm not always a critic, though, as lately over on TWT I've been defending the church against the idea that, because its theology differs from mainstream Christianity's, it doesn't qualify as "Christian." So, does that mean I'm a "pro-Mormon"?

 

What I respect is when people stand up for what they believe in. If you believe Mormonism is true, then by all means express your belief. If you believe Mormonism isn't true, same thing. But I do dislike all the silly and pejorative labels (anti-Mormon, morgbot, etc.).

[CV75]

Go for it!  I get requests and suggestions about the ward just about every single week.  I would probably find it preferable to have them organized into social media campaigns.

Considering these are brothers and sisters of the same ward, on what basis might someone choose to resolve an issue through a social media campaign or through a council? For the sake of unity, on what basis is a campaign or a council obligated to interact and intersect with each other, and how? What does the new intersected/interacted structure look like and do, and how does it operate? How are decisions made, and by whom?

[wenglund]

Go for it!  I get requests and suggestions about the ward just about every single week.  I would probably find it preferable to have them organized into social media campaigns.

 

Okay....so you didn't get the point.

 

Perhaps if the each of the ward member social media sites involved non-Ward members, and contained content that was somewhat disparaging of your local leadership, and they each organized their own protests, and encouraged members to take matters into their own hands and/or to try and force their respective pet agendas on your congregation (like were the members in favor of more reverence in the chapel to begin nannying the chapel), and were the local press to get involved each time, and all this somewhat at the expense of Ward members do their Ward and gospel duties, do you suppose then you might get the point? (I am not counting on it since, in my experience, you seem pretty cemented to your views, to the point that even seemingly clear statements from apostles don't appear to give you pause.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 15, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

Considering these are brothers and sisters of the same ward, on what basis might someone choose to resolve an issue through a social media campaign or through a council? For the sake of unity, on what basis is a campaign or a council obligated to interact and intersect with each other, and how? What does the new intersected/interacted structure look like and do, and how does it operate? How are decisions made, and by whom?

 

Well, as you allude, I have a hard time seeing a social media campaign starting for a particular cause within our ward because the bishopric and ward council are so readily available to everyone.  That's not a criticism of the Brethren... it's obviously easier for us to be accessible to a ward of 400 than for them to be accessible to 15 million.

 

If some campaign were to start, I imagine we would quickly discuss it as a bishopric and then, likely, move it into the ward council.  I imagine plans would be made to act appropriately in response or speak with the members about why such an idea couldn't be implemented.

[rockpond]

Okay....so you didn't get the point.

 

Perhaps if the each of the ward member social media sites involved non-Ward members, and contained content that was somewhat disparaging of your local leadership, and they each organized their own protests, and encouraged members to take matters into their own hands and/or to try and force their respective pet agendas on your congregation (like were the members in favor of more reverence in the chapel to begin nannying the chapel), and were the local press to get involved each time, and all this somewhat at the expense of Ward members do their Ward and gospel duties, do you suppose then you might get the point? (I am not counting on it since, in my experience, you seem pretty cemented to your views, to the point that even seemingly clear statements from apostles don't appear to give you pause.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

With the exception of local press involvement, all of that already goes on in the ward.  There are pet agendas, there is nannying to enforce individual views, there are protests in the hallways, and an occasional disparaging remark on social media.  All of it is at the expense of our gospel duties.  As a bishopric, we work within that environment (on a vastly smaller scale than the general authorities of the church - let it be known that I am NOT comparing myself to them, just responding to your hypothetical).

 

So, I got your point.

 

And your parenthetical note at the end is incorrect.  Statements from the apostles do give me pause.  I clearly understand that according to Elder Oaks, I have been shown the exit door.  And yet, I still went right back to my responsibilities.  In fact, shortly after Elder Oaks' talk I put my suit on and went to our ward building for a meeting with the sister missionaries to discuss the status of our less active YSA's.  I am as unsure what to make of that as you are.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmm. I know a lot of people who are more than willing to own the term. I'm not always a critic, though, as lately over on TWT I've been defending the church against the idea that, because its theology differs from mainstream Christianity's, it doesn't qualify as "Christian." So, does that mean I'm a "pro-Mormon"?

What I respect is when people stand up for what they believe in. If you believe Mormonism is true, then by all means express your belief. If you believe Mormonism isn't true, same thing. But I do dislike all the silly and pejorative labels (anti-Mormon, morgbot, etc.).

Any term can be misapplied.

But inherently, the term anti-Mormon is neither pejorative or silly. It is not logical that one who truly opposes or detests Mormonism should take offense at having a term applied to him that correctly denotes his opposition to Mormonism. Again, see my sig line.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd