sethpayne Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 You may twist what I said if you like, but the fact remains, if you follow the Brethren you won't go wrong. How am I twisting what you said? Also, I wonder what investors in the Kirtland Safety Society would have to say about the view you express here. 1
smac97 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I agree Kelly could have been less strident. But then again, the Church PR department had some borderline snarky responses to OW. Heaven knows we've all been guilty of being too strident in our lives. It's hard to rein that in about issues we're passionate about. Most of us have not contacted The New York Times and characterized our bishops as "cowardly and unchristlike," or publicly demanded a profound change in doctrine, and also declared that "nothing less will suffice," or publicly accused the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women, or publicly accused the Church of "silencing" women, or falsely accused the Church of disciplining Kate Kelly because of her gender, or that "all positions of authority and leadership require ordination to the priesthood," or that Kate Kelly has been prohibited from speaking to others in Church, and so on. Thanks, -Smac 2
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 What "borderline snarky comments"? And by the way, what you call "the Church PR department" acts at the behest of the Church leadership. As Michael Otterson said, Church Public Affairs does not "free-lance." "Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved." Also: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-asks-activist-group-to-reconsider-general-conference-protest-plans
sethpayne Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) All in all, they seem to have done better than the apostates. There is no question that leaders of our Church leaders have a history with many wonderful successes. But there have also been some difficult challenges and errors along the way. Love this quote from BY: What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. Interestingly he states in the same speech: Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye. BY talks about "persons" knowing for themselves that they are on the right path -- he doesn't say that we need to "obtain" the right path from Church leaders. So I wonder why there is so much discord over this issue? I think there are several ways that all parties involved here can become "one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye." It's part of being a family. Even when you may disagree on some details you still love each other and find ways to work things out. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/Authoritarianism/Quotes Edited June 16, 2014 by sethpayne 1
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Look again, dude: Are you seriously suggesting that Kate Kelly, in making these observations, was referring to all religions except the LDS Church? Thanks, -Smac I was specifically responding to your accusation that she said the Church is guilty of "insidious discrimination". You seem to object when Kelly's language isn't precise. It's equally imprecise to claim she said that. I think we can all agree that the LDS Church, like many conservative faiths, does engage in gender discrimination. The question is whether or not we think it's right. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 How am I twisting what you said? Also, I wonder what investors in the Kirtland Safety Society would have to say about the view you express here.The Kirtland Safety Society is a little-understood episode in Church history that has long been exploited by the enemies of the Church for their own hostile purposes, aided and abetted, alas, by some of our own people who themselves aren't informed enough to view the matter in proper perspective. I gained considerable enlightenment a couple of years ago when I attended a lecture by Jeffrey N. Walker, one of the managing editors in the Joseph Smith Papers Project and a faculty member at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU. Here is my published summary of his lecture. 2
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Most of us have not contacted The New York Times and characterized our bishops as "cowardly and unchristlike," or publicly demanded a profound change in doctrine, and also declared that "nothing less will suffice," or publicly accused the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women, or publicly accused the Church of "silencing" women, or falsely accused the Church of disciplining Kate Kelly because of her gender, or that "all positions of authority and leadership require ordination to the priesthood," or that Kate Kelly has been prohibited from speaking to others in Church, and so on.Thanks,-Smac Then again, most of us aren't faced with excommunication while unable to respond in person. Her words were not charitable, but I think they were understandable. I think most of us would feel the same way if we were in her position. Would I respond using her language? I hope not. Nobody's perfect, though. Edited June 16, 2014 by Gray
Calm Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 "Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved."I equate "snarky" with "sarcastic". I don't see anything remotely sarcastic in the above. 1
sethpayne Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 The Kirtland Safety Society is a little-understood episode in Church history that has long been exploited by the enemies of the Church for their own hostile purposes, aided and abetted, alas, by some of our own people who themselves aren't informed enough to view the matter in proper perspective. I gained considerable enlightenment a couple of years ago when I attended a lecture by Jeffrey N. Walker, one of the managing editors in the Joseph Smith Papers Project and a faculty member at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU. Here is my published summary of his lecture. Thanks for the link, Scott. My knowledge of this incident comes mostly from RSR so I can certainly benefit from additional perspectives. 1
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I equate "snarky" with "sarcastic". I don't see anything remotely sarcastic in the above. snark·yˈsnärkē/adjectiveNORTH AMERICANinformal (of a person, words, or a mood) sharply critical; cutting; snide. "the kid who makes snarky remarks in class" cranky; irritable. "Bobby's always a bit snarky before his nap"
smac97 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 "Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved." Also: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-asks-activist-group-to-reconsider-general-conference-protest-plans Um, what "snark" is there in this statement? I'm honestly not seeing it. Kate Kelly has repeatedly declared that women should be ordained to the priesthood, and "nothing less will suffice." That seems like a textbook example of a non-negotiable demand. And the statement that "no matter what the intent" seems to be something of a fig leaf (that is, the PA Department recognizes that Kate Kelly could very well be sincere and well-intentioned in making her non-negotiable demand, but that such demands nevertheless "come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion." Do you think that Kate Kelly's actions have resulted in "encouraging conversation through love and inclusion" or "disappointment and heartache?" Note that nobody is talking about seeking revelation now. Nobody is having thoughtful and spiritual discussions about the role of women in the Church. Instead, we have discord. Division. Kate Kelly making public accusations against her bishop ("cowardly and unchristlike") and the Church ("sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women). The PA Department's comments were accurate, fair and - given today's article written by Kate Kelly - rather prescient. Nary a bit of snark to be seen. Thanks, -Smac 1
bluebell Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 snark·yˈsnärkē/adjectiveNORTH AMERICANinformal (of a person, words, or a mood) sharply critical; cutting; snide. "the kid who makes snarky remarks in class" cranky; irritable. "Bobby's always a bit snarky before his nap" What was sharply critical or cutting about the PA address? I thought they did a good job of putting forth their own honest assessment of the issue without being overly critical or mean spirited in anyway. I'm honestly not seeing it what they said that was so horrible. 2
smac97 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Then again, most of us aren't faced with excommunication while unable to respond in person. I'm not buying the "unable" bit. "Unwilling," yes. "Unable," no. Her words were not charitable, but I think they were understandable. "Understandable," yes. Acceptable, no. I think most of us would feel the same way if we were in her position. Would I respond using her language? I hope not. Nobody's perfect, though. Kate Kelly is largely responsible for the position she is in. She is responsible for her uncharitable and wholly inappropriate comments against her Bishop and against the Church. She is responsible for making public demands for changes in doctrine, and for declaring that "nothing less will suffice." I think I understand her position. But her position being "understandable" does not make it excusable or acceptable. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 "Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved." Also: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-asks-activist-group-to-reconsider-general-conference-protest-plansI don't see any of this as "snarky," borderline or otherwise. Direct, earnest, firm, yes. But snarky is defined by an on-line dictionary as "sharply critical; cutting; snide." I see none of that here.
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Um, what "snark" is there in this statement? I'm honestly not seeing it. Kate Kelly has repeatedly declared that women should be ordained to the priesthood, and "nothing less will suffice." That seems like a textbook example of a non-negotiable demand. And the statement that "no matter what the intent" seems to be something of a fig leaf (that is, the PA Department recognizes that Kate Kelly could very well be sincere and well-intentioned in making her non-negotiable demand, but that such demands nevertheless "come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion."Do you think that Kate Kelly's actions have resulted in "encouraging conversation through love and inclusion" or "disappointment and heartache?" Note that nobody is talking about seeking revelation now. Nobody is having thoughtful and spiritual discussions about the role of women in the Church. Instead, we have discord. Division. Kate Kelly making public accusations against her bishop ("cowardly and unchristlike") and the Church ("sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women).The PA Department's comments were accurate, fair and - given today's article written by Kate Kelly - rather prescient. Nary a bit of snark to be seen.Thanks,-Smac Well, I'd say the entire paragraph I quoted was borderline snarky. OW are the ones who tried initiate the conversation, but the Church hasn't been willing to have one about the issue. Suggesting that asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination is " divisive and suggestive of apostasy" can only escalate tensions, and isn't really fair.
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I don't see any of this as "snarky," borderline or otherwise. Direct, earnest, firm, yes. But snarky is defined by an on-line dictionary as "sharply critical; cutting; snide." I see none of that here. It's often easier to see snarkiness in statements we don't agree with, but harder to see them in statements we do agree with.
Gray Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I'm not buying the "unable" bit. "Unwilling," yes. "Unable," no. I don't think there is any reason to think she's lying about being unable to make the date across country in her former ward, given current circumstances.
Calm Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Well, I'd say the entire paragraph I quoted was borderline snarky. OW are the ones who tried initiate the conversation, but the Church hasn't been willing to have one about the issue. Suggesting that asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination is " divisive and suggestive of apostasy" can only escalate tensions, and isn't really fair. She specified what demands were considered divisive which were the "non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes". It wasn't the "prayerfully consider" part, it was the "no less will suffice" part. Edited June 16, 2014 by calmoriah 1
bluebell Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Well, I'd say the entire paragraph I quoted was borderline snarky. OW are the ones who tried initiate the conversation, but the Church hasn't been willing to have one about the issue. Suggesting that asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination is " divisive and suggestive of apostasy" can only escalate tensions, and isn't really fair. Where does the PA address say that suggesting that asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination is 'divisive' etc....? It always seemed obvious to me that the PA address was talking about OW's demand for the priesthood and their core concept that nothing less than women's ordination would be acceptable. I think you are adding things to that paragraph that aren't actually there. 1
Calm Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 It's often easier to see snarkiness in statements we don't agree with...Even when it isn't there. 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted June 16, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 16, 2014 Well, I'd say the entire paragraph I quoted was borderline snarky. OW are the ones who tried initiate the conversation, but the Church hasn't been willing to have one about the issue. I guess we'll have to disagree, then. I see no snark. I also disagree about the OW group trying "initiate" a "conversation." Publicly demanding the priesthood, and saying that "nothing less will suffice," is not a request for a "conversation." Defying the Church and protesting on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, is not a request for a "conversation." Kate Kelly characterizing her bishop to The New York Times as "cowardly and unchristlike" is not a request for a "conversation." Publicly accusing the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women is not a request for a "conversation." Moreover, just because the Church has declined to talk to the OW group about their non-negotiable, nothing-less-will-suffice demand for the priesthood does not meet that the Church is not communicating with more reasonable individuals and groups. Suggesting that asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination is " divisive and suggestive of apostasy" can only escalate tensions, and isn't really fair. The OW group has publicly demanded female ordination and stated that "nothing less will suffice." It is this demand to which the PA Department's was responsive. It is a distortion and caricature to suggest that the OW group is merely "asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination." Thanks, -Smac 6
bluebell Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I don't think there is any reason to think she's lying about being unable to make the date across country in her former ward, given current circumstances. It is interesting though that she has not simply asked for the date to be changed, as her bishop said was an option. She has always been able to fly to Utah from DC whenever she needed to for OW, so it's hard to fault her bishop for not thinking she could manage to fly back, especially if she were allowed to pick the day. I certainly don't know all the circumstances and am not suggesting she is lying. But like it said, it's very interesting that she, with all her skills and determination when it comes to OW issues, can't make it work out to her own benefit (which is what she is claiming-that it is detrimental to her not to be able to be there in person). 2
stemelbow Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Well, I'd say the entire paragraph I quoted was borderline snarky. OW are the ones who tried initiate the conversation, but the Church hasn't been willing to have one about the issue. Suggesting that asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination is " divisive and suggestive of apostasy" can only escalate tensions, and isn't really fair. What do we know about in regards to the initiating the conversation and the Church's response? I'm curious because I don't know how it got to the point of not stopping until women are ordained, type of stuff.
smac97 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I don't think there is any reason to think she's lying about being unable to make the date across country in her former ward, given current circumstances. Given her previous ability to raise funds to ship in protesters to Salt Lake City, there is ample reason to believe she could, with a few keystrokes, put out a public request for financial assistance, and she would be showered with money. I'm just not buying the I-can't-afford-the-airfare thing. I have some speculations about why she is choosing to not attend the disciplinary council, but I'll keep them to myself. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I'm curious because I don't know how it got to the point of not stopping until women are ordained, type of stuff.Their first public announcement was formulated that way, IIRC. It never got to the point of not stopping, it was always at that point with Ordain Women (the name should be a clue). As to the development to the point of the creation of OW, that would be much more complicated. There have been women who for decades have claimed that only ordination would suffice, I don't know if they've grown in numbers, I would think so given the internet's contribution to creating a movement.
Recommended Posts