Panel About The Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

There is no virtue in trying to find middle ground where one party is clearly wrong and the other is right.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

There is no virtue in trying to find middle ground where one party is clearly wrong.

 

Fine, Scott.  What precisely did Dehlin say on KUER that was wrong and then provide your reference to prove it.  Or retract the statement.

[CV75]

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.

Well, I did say, “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.”

 

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.

And I thought that was related to the fact that decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made several weeks prior to the LWP campaign in January. (Maybe I got that from another thread?) It's here, though: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/55627824-180/women-conference-general-church.html.csp

 

Are you trying to say there were councils between the bloggers/LWP and the LDS Leadership? If there was, were the bloggers/LWP too dull to read the tea leaves as to the direction the Church was going and got pushy, or were they just too pushy anyway to refrain from the letter campaign? Why didn't we hear about any good-faith discussions between the parties?

 

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.

If you don't believe Church decisions are made through councils or the council process, I don't accept your reasoning that the council must be identified by name, just as I can't accept your view that campaigning is a decision-making/directing/influencing process in the council process and outcomes of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fine, Scott.  What precisely did Dehlin say on KUER that was wrong and then provide your reference to prove it.  Or retract the statement.

I don't need to do that. It's all quoted and finely detailed in Dan's blog post to which I have twice provided a link. For convenience, here it is again.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Well, I did say, “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.”

 

And I thought that was related to the fact that decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made several weeks prior to the LWP campaign in January. (Maybe I got that from another thread?) It's here, though: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/55627824-180/women-conference-general-church.html.csp

 

Are you trying to say there were councils between the bloggers/LWP and the LDS Leadership? If there was, were the bloggers/LWP too dull to read the tea leaves as to the direction the Church was going and got pushy, or were they just too pushy anyway to refrain from the letter campaign? Why didn't we hear about any good-faith discussions between the parties?

 

If you don't believe Church decisions are made through councils or the council process, I don't accept your reasoning that the council must be identified by name, just as I can't accept your view that campaigning is a decision-making/directing/influencing process in the council process and outcomes of the Church.

 

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.

[rockpond]

I don't need to do that. It's all quoted and finally detailed in Dan's blog post to which I have twice provided a link.

 

Nothing in Dan's blog post provides any factual evidence to dispute what Dehlin said in the KUER panel.  CFR still stands or you may retract your statement about Dehlin being "clearly wrong".

[Scott Lloyd]

Nothing in Dan's blog post provides any factual evidence to dispute what Dehlin said in the KUER panel.  CFR still stands or you may retract your statement about Dehlin being "clearly wrong".

I'm retracting nothing. I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

 

The CFR is already answered with the blog post, to which I have thrice provided a link.

[DBMormon]

I found it interesting that the Church declined to participate in the program and was very candid in saying why:

Interesting how all three participants are active LDS within the Church's tent of membership

[rockpond]

I'm retracting nothing. I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

 

The CFR is already answered with the blog post, to which I have thrice provided a link.

 

I do not have a problem with comprehension.  Dan's blog post is his account but does not present any factual evidence that contradicts Dehlin's KUER statement with the exception of what may or may not have been meant by the statement of "needing to find new employment" (since Peterson was clearly only dismissed from his editor position).

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting how all three participants are active LDS within the Church's tent of membership

Membership in the Church does not oblige a Church representative to appear on a radio show with anyone.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Nominal membership does not oblige a Church representative to appear on a radio show with anyone.

 

Nominal membership?  What do you mean by that?

[Scott Lloyd]

Nominal membership?  What do you mean by that?

You're right. The descriptor was unnecessary.

 

I'll amend my post to say, "Membership in the Church does not oblige a Church representative to appear on a radio show with anyone."

 

That more clearly conveys what I meant to say.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 Dan's blog post is his account but does not present any factual evidence that contradicts Dehlin's KUER statement ....

I regard this as factual evidence:

 

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.

 

Now, you may feel disposed to dismiss this because he has not been more explicit and has (wisely, perhaps) chosen not to identify anyone by name. I am not so inclined.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

You're right. The descriptor was unnecessary.

 

I'll amend my post to say, "Membership in the Church does not oblige a Church representative to appear on a radio show with anyone."

 

That more clearly conveys what I meant to say.

 

True.  But it does call for extreme care in how the decline is put.

[Scott Lloyd]

True.  But it does call for extreme care in how the decline is put.

I don't concede that the refusal, in this instance, was expressed recklessly.

[rongo]

I don't concede that the refusal, in this instance, was expressed recklessly.

I like that they were referred to as critics. They are. 

[Stone holm]

I don't concede that the refusal, in this instance, was expressed recklessly.

 

Does the use of the term imply disloyalty?  This is not a rhetorical question?

[jkwilliams]

I like that they were referred to as critics. They are.

I've never considered Joanna Brooks to be a critic. If anything, I find her too willing to put a positive spin on things the church does and teaches. If she's a critic, she kind of stinks at it. Maybe being a critic explains why the folks over on RfM hate her so much.

[Stone holm]

I've never considered Joanna Brooks to be a critic. If anything, I find her too willing to put a positive spin on things the church does and teaches. If she's a critic, she kind of stinks at it. Maybe being a critic explains why the folks over on RfM hate her so much.

 

Oh my....all from the careful word of a spokesperson....

[rongo]

I've never considered Joanna Brooks to be a critic. If anything, I find her too willing to put a positive spin on things the church does and teaches. If she's a critic, she kind of stinks at it. Maybe being a critic explains why the folks over on RfM hate her so much.

I wouldn't know what RfM says about her or anything else. I've read her articles, though.

 

Just Joanna? Not Dehlin, too?

[jkwilliams]

Oh my....all from the careful word of a spokesperson....

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

[rockpond]

I regard this as factual evidence:

Now, you may feel disposed to dismiss this because he has not been more explicit and has (wisely, perhaps) chosen not to identify anyone by name. I am not so inclined.

Yep, it's hearsay just as Dehlin's statement that an apostle was involved is hearsay.

So is that the only fact that we're disputing? Cause if so, I'm gonna fall back to my previous statement that I don't see the two accounts as being that far apart with respect to the actual events.

Edited October 17, 2013 by rockpond

[jkwilliams]

I wouldn't know what RfM says about her or anything else. I've read her articles, though.

 

Just Joanna? Not Dehlin, too?

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep, it's hearsay just as Dehlin's statement that an apostle was involved is hearsay. So is that the only fact that we're disputing? Cause if so, I'm gonna fall back to my previous statement that I don't see the two accounts as being that far apart with respect to the actual events.

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.

 

But, like I say, I can't do anything about your comprehension skills.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[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.

But, like I say, I can't do anything about your comprehension skills.

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.

You have not presented factual evidence to support your claim that Dehlin was clearly wrong. And your ad hominem attack on my comprehension doesn't bolster your argument.