Panel About The Conference

[Stone holm]

The time for change arose 35 years ago when President Kimball formally said (in a letter published to the church) that women should pray in all meetings which they attend. Do you disagree with that being the point at which the change should have happened? When the Prophet said to do it?

These "councils" you speak of didn't make the change for 34 years. Is that a pace you are comfortable with?

You can go ahead and parse words however you'd like... Movement... Campaign... Social Media initiative. Whatever you want to name it and whoever actually started it, it seemed to get the job done. I think that the Brethren were listening to what these sisters had to say. And we're all better for it.

I don't see much evidence of change emanating from local councils, the council system is mainly a governance control mechanism which when it comes to important policy issues allows the upper level management to exert fairly tight top down control. I don't see much if any bottom upward influence regarding policy. We are a very well and tightly controlled organization.

[Scott Lloyd]

How about we get back on topic before this thread is closed? I'd like to see some discussion on Dan Peterson's response to Dehlin's allegations in the KUER program.

[rockpond]

How about we get back on topic before this thread is closed? I'd like to see some discussion on Dan Peterson's response to Dehlin's allegations in the KUER program.

Can you provide a link? I wasn't aware that he responded. I googled for it but couldn't find anything.

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you provide a link? I wasn't aware that he responded. I googled for it but couldn't find anything.

I did provide a link in my post above (#175). But here it is again.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

The time for change arose 35 years ago when President Kimball formally said (in a letter published to the church) that women should pray in all meetings which they attend. Do you disagree with that being the point at which the change should have happened? When the Prophet said to do it? These "councils" you speak of didn't make the change for 34 years. Is that a pace you are comfortable with? You can go ahead and parse words however you'd like... Movement... Campaign... Social Media initiative. Whatever you want to name it and whoever actually started it, it seemed to get the job done. I think that the Brethren were listening to what these sisters had to say. And we're all better for it.

That is fine political rhetoric, so politic away! Attribute all the credit you want to whomever you want to make it seem that your pet interest got the job done--we're all used to that around here! -- LOL

 

The time for agency-directed change can only be identified once it happens. The Church operates on the principles of agency. The best time for women to pray in general conference was when the assignments were given and accpeted.

 

Of course often change can be slow. With patience and other charitable attributes we can be comfortable with both rapid and slow changes that our sustained leaders are inspired to implement.

 

And it is important to discern the differences between "Movement... Campaign... Social Media initiative" in how they oppose the inspired council process, to avoid being deceptively getting caught up in them and find oneself at odds with the council process.

[rockpond]

I did provide a link in my post above (#175). But here it is again.

 

Sorry, somehow I missed that in your previous post.

 

I read it... I think it was appropriate for Peterson to write a formal response (to the response that Dehlin gave to the KUER caller) but I didn't really catch anything that seemed new to me from when all this happened a last year.

[rockpond]

That is fine political rhetoric, so politic away! Attribute all the credit you want to whomever you want to make it seem that your pet interest got the job done--we're all used to that around here! -- LOL

 

The time for agency-directed change can only be identified once it happens. The Church operates on the principles of agency. The best time for women to pray in general conference was when the assignments were given and accpeted.

 

Of course often change can be slow. With patience and other charitable attributes we can be comfortable with both rapid and slow changes that our sustained leaders are inspired to implement.

 

And it is important to discern the differences between "Movement... Campaign... Social Media initiative" in how they oppose the inspired council process, to avoid being deceptively getting caught up in them and find oneself at odds with the council process.

 

Not a pet interest of mine.  I hadn't ever given it any thought prior to last year.  Neither had my wife.  But I was happy to see it happen and I don't need to deny credit to anyone.

[CV75]

Not a pet interest of mine.  I hadn't ever given it any thought prior to last year.  Neither had my wife.  But I was happy to see it happen and I don't need to deny credit to anyone.

I'm happy about it too. But I know where the credit lies!

[rockpond]

I'm happy about it too. But I know where the credit lies!

 

That's awesome.  So where does the credit lie and how do you know?

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, somehow I missed that in your previous post.

 

I read it... I think it was appropriate for Peterson to write a formal response (to the response that Dehlin gave to the KUER caller) but I didn't really catch anything that seemed new to me from when all this happened a last year.

Dan has made the denials before in a fragmented way through board posts and such. But I don't recall his position being set down so thoroughly and definitively as it is here. It is valuable for that, especially if Dehlin, Meldrum and others continue to spread falsehood, innuendo and ill-informed supposition on this matter. Should such continue, it's nice to have a single, reliable on-line source to which one can direct people for a correct understanding of what transpired last year with regard to the Purge.

 

From the blog post:

 

I’m tired of these matters, but I won’t willingly permit my history to be falsified, and I won’t stand by and watch as others claim that I’ve been condemned by my Church and rejected by its leaders.

 

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

That's awesome.  So where does the credit lie and how do you know?

I explained that already! Do you have a specific question relative to a specific post that I haven't addressed?

[rockpond]

I explained that already! Do you have a specific question relative to a specific post that I haven't addressed?

 

I guess I was wondering if you had a more specific thought than saying it was "the councils" and the leaders of those councils responding to the Lord's will.

 

But if that's your answer, I'm okay with that.  I honor the incredible patience you have in being comfortable with the councils and leaders taking over 33 years to respond after the Lord made his will manifest through the prophet.

[rockpond]

Dan has made the denials before in a fragmented way through board posts and such. But I don't recall his position being set down so thoroughly and definitively as it is here. It is valuable for that, especially if Dehlin, Meldrum and others continue to spread falsehood, innuendo and ill-informed supposition on this matter. Should such continue, it's nice to have a single, reliable on-line source to which one can direct people for a correct understanding of what transpired last year with regard to the Purge.

 

Funny... I had that same thought when I read it:  I had picked up bits and pieces (from Peterson & others) on this board but it was really nice to hear his account of the events in one single, well written (of course) post.  I enjoyed reading it for that reason.

 

In terms of the events that transpired, I don't think that Peterson & Dehlin (per his short statement on KUER) are all that far apart.  But in terms of how they view the motivations of persons behind the events... they are worlds apart.

 

I think both men do great work.  I'm not sure what that caller hoped to accomplish by raising the issue in that forum... I'd rather have the "feud" be forgotten.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

In terms of the events that transpired, I don't think that Peterson & Dehlin (per his short statement on KUER) are all that far apart.

I'm astounded that you would say that. The General Authorities of the Church were not involved in the Purge. Dan was not told "to find other employment."

[Calm]

I'm astounded that you would say that. The General Authorities of the Church were not involved in the Purge. Dan was not told "to find other employment."

I am wondering about this as well.

Dehlin is claiming that his call started the ball rolling that led to the change, IOW he is responsible for Dan and others for being dismissed as editors and the Review being revamped.

Edited October 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I am wondering about this as well.

Dehlin is claiming that his call started the ball rolling that led to the change, IOW he is responsible for Dan and others for being dismissed as editors and the Review being revamped.

I wonder whether rockpond is reading for comprehension.

[rockpond]

I'm astounded that you would say that. The General Authorities of the Church were not involved in the Purge. Dan was not told "to find other employment."

 

Well, I don't know about "the Purge" and Dehlin didn't comment on that on Fabrizio's show.

 

Regarding involvement of a GA... from Peterson's post:

 

"Several weeks later, I was asked, during a meeting with the director of the Maxwell Institute, to withdraw the critique of Mr. Dehlin’s writing and broadcasts from the forthcoming issue of the FARMS Review.  He said that the president of BYU had been contacted by an unidentified General Authority regarding the matter, and that the president of BYU had, in turn, contacted him, which was why he was talking to me.  I immediately complied with his request, noting that we had another article that could easily be inserted in its stead."

 

And regarding "finding other employment":

 

"Toward the very end of that tour, however, on 14 June 2012, I received an email from the Institute’s director dismissing me as editor of the Review and suspending its publication..."

 

I know that Peterson retained his employment at BYU.  Dehlin used the euphemism "find other employment" which to me seems consistent with saying that he was released as the editor of the Review.

[rockpond]

I wonder whether rockpond is reading for comprehension.

 

Really, Scott?

[CV75]

I guess I was wondering if you had a more specific thought than saying it was "the councils" and the leaders of those councils responding to the Lord's will.

And I said I explained that in numerous posts.

 

But if that's your answer, I'm okay with that.  I honor the incredible patience you have in being comfortable with the councils and leaders taking over 33 years to respond after the Lord made his will manifest through the prophet.

If that is all you understand or are willing to explore, I am OK with that as well.

[rockpond]

And I said I explained that in numerous posts.

 

If that is all you understand or are willing to explore, I am OK with that as well.

 

Did you explain something more specific than what I quoted from your post?  If so, I apologize for missing it.  I have read all your posts.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I don't know about "the Purge" and Dehlin didn't comment on that on Fabrizio's show.

 

Regarding involvement of a GA... from Peterson's post:

 

"Several weeks later, I was asked, during a meeting with the director of the Maxwell Institute, to withdraw the critique of Mr. Dehlin’s writing and broadcasts from the forthcoming issue of the FARMS Review.  He said that the president of BYU had been contacted by an unidentified General Authority regarding the matter, and that the president of BYU had, in turn, contacted him, which was why he was talking to me.  I immediately complied with his request, noting that we had another article that could easily be inserted in its stead."

 

Dehlin said:

 

And I’m very pleased to say that these church leaders, and I understand that there was an apostle involved in the decision, they made the decision not only that that type of apologetics wasn’t welcome in the Church, but that the types of people who were sponsoring it probably needed to find new employment. And I think that’s a wonderful decision and I support it.”

 

Nothing in what transpired justifies that conclusion. General Authorities were not involved in the "new direction" the director of the institute decided to take. They did not dictate  that a certain "type of apologetics" (namely the work of Dan and colleages) "was not welcome in the Church." And they certainly didn't dictate that anyone then associated with the Institute neded to "find new employement."

 

And regarding "finding other employment":

 

"Toward the very end of that tour, however, on 14 June 2012, I received an email from the Institute’s director dismissing me as editor of the Review and suspending its publication..."

 

I know that Peterson retained his employment at BYU.  Dehlin used the euphemism "find other employment" which to me seems consistent with saying that he was released as the editor of the Review.

 

 

 

If it was meant as a euphemism, it was an extremely irresponsible and inflammatory use of language. I don't know why you refuse to see that.

 

Edited to add:

 

I don't know why you call it a "euphemism." A euphemism is typically a word or phrase used to soften an expression, not make it harsher.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

If it was meant as a euphemism, it was an extremely irresponsible and inflammatory use of language. I don't know why you refuse to see that.

My two cents: If I were Dan, I wouldn't keep responding to this stuff, but I understand why he felt he had to respond. That said, Dehlin's smug gloating does not speak well of him.

[rockpond]

Dehlin said:

 

Nothing in what transpired justifies that conclusion. General Authorities were not involved in the "new direction" the director of the institute decided to take. They did not dictate  that a certain "type of apologetics" (namely the work of Dan and colleages) "was not welcome in the Church." And they certainly didn't dictate that anyone then associated with the Institute neded to "find new employement."

 

If it was meant as a euphemism, it was an extremely irresponsible and inflammatory use of language. I don't know why you refuse to see that.

 

Alright - I'm not gonna get back into a debate on this.  I apologize for trying to find some middle ground.

 

As jkwilliams said, I didn't like the boastful way that Dehlin responded on KUER but, it should be noted, the call also came as an attack (remember Fabrizio said that the caller did not indicate to the screener that he'd be saying that) and not something Dehlin brought up of his own accord.

 

And, as I noted above, I think both men do great work.  I wish the feud could end and we could get back to working together to build up the church.

[CV75]

Did you explain something more specific than what I quoted from your post?  If so, I apologize for missing it.  I have read all your posts.

I explained an awful lot of things in my posts, so I don't know... I explained how councils differ from campaigns, how the processes relate to each other in the Church setting, and how the "right time" for something is properly determined. Others have explained how the LWP group can't rightly be credited for the change in conference prayer assignments, and I think they provided more compelling evidence than you did. These things are part of how I know that councils, and not campaigns (in this specific case, LWP) led to women offering opening and closing prayers in General Conference.

[rockpond]

I explained an awful lot of things in my posts, so I don't know... I explained how councils differ from campaigns, how the processes relate to each other in the Church setting, and how the "right time" for something is properly determined. Others have explained how the LWP group can't rightly be credited for the change in conference prayer assignments, and I think they provided more compelling evidence than you did. These things are part of how I know that councils, and not campaigns (in this specific case, LWP) led to women offering opening and closing prayers in General Conference.

 

I had asked who you attributed the credit to (for making the decision to have women pray in conference) since you said that credit could not go to LWP.  Your original answer to that was councils and leaders of those councils.  I wondered if you had a more specific answer to that since you "know" that LWP did not deserve the credit.  Not that I am hung up on who deserves the credit, I'm just curious since you have claimed to know.

 

There has been no fact based explanation as to why the LWP group "can't rightly be credited for the change" other than the personal conversation Calmoriah recounted in which it was stated that the decision was made prior to the "media frenzy".  Since LWP's efforts, and efforts of other similarly-minded bloggers, began long before the media frenzy, I don't see how that conversation could be interpreted to factually declare that LWP had nothing to do with the change.

 

Since you can't even tell me which council made the decision, I don't find your reasoning all that compelling either.  But it's okay, you are welcome to your opinion.  As I've stated before, I just don't see any need to deny what LWP helped accomplish.