rockpond Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 No. But neither am I intentionally oblivious to obvious intent from a pattern of public statements and behavior. There are typically many ways one might express something; the English language is beautifully versatile in that respect. But that does not excuse wresting a man's words from context and reading in unintended meaning. It's striking to me how often the phrase "take him at his word" is used to rationalize such a thing. I don't consider it to be wresting his words from their context and reading in an unintended meaning. I think too often we make assumptions about things. I see it often in the church and I imagine I'm guilty as well -- so I'm trying to change. Here's an example... Back when medical marijuana was legalized here in my state, I had a conversation with a member of our stake high council. He made it clear that not just the use of medical marijuana but any involvement in the industry (though legal) would disqualify one from holding a temple recommend. Come to find out, a couple years later, that actually the First Presidency was okay with medical marijuana use by a temple recommend holder. I just think we need to be careful in making assumptions.
rockpond Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) No, you take him at the words Ms Kelly chose to put into his mouth.OTOH, I take him at his actual word.And he uttered not one word "exhorting" anyone to start agitating. Indeed, I never once heard him use the word "agitate" or its cognates with any degree of approval. So let's put that deceitful old canard to bed, shall we?Regards,Pahoran Is that where this thing originated? From Kelly taking his words out of context? And rockpond swallows it? Good grief! No, Pahoran is incorrect. I went to the source. And I linked to my source when I brought it up (and the source was not OW/Kelly). Here's the link again: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm And here's the relevant text from the interview: RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ? GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen. RB: So you’d have to get a revelation? GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. Well, Kate Kelly wasn't satisfied. So she decided that the best course of action, per President Hinckley, was to ask for the Prophet to pray about that revelation. Did she later go "off the rails"? In my opinion, yes. But I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming she had bad motives from the start. Edited February 19, 2015 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 No, Pahoran is incorrect. I went to the source. And I linked to my source when I brought it up (and the source was not OW/Kelly). Here's the link again: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm And here's the relevant text from the interview: RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ? GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen. RB: So you’d have to get a revelation? GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. Well, Kate Kelly wasn't satisfied. So she decided that the best course of action, per President Hinckley, was to ask for the Prophet to pray about that revelation. Did she later go "off the rails"? In my opinion, yes. But I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming she had bad motives from the start. It wasn't "per President Hinckley." That was clearly not his intent. 1
KevinG Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Note "our women". Not "all of our women" or "each of our women"Of course he could have been a secret polyandrist and been referring to his family group. 1
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 It wasn't "per President Hinckley." That was clearly not his intent. He said that a revelation could be received to grant the priesthood to women. "But there's no agitation for that." Why not at least say, "Well, Kate Kelly could easily have interpreted that to mean that *asking* the prophet to seek such a revelation was an acceptable thing to do."? She's excommunicated. She "lost". But can't we in the smallest way acknowledge the good in her? As I said earlier, everyone isn't a "black hat" or a "white hat". We're all brothers and sisters. Wouldn't it be nice to try to find the kindest possible way to view her rather than assuming it was malicious intent from the very beginning?
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 He said that a revelation could be received to grant the priesthood to women. "But there's no agitation for that." Why not at least say, "Well, Kate Kelly could easily have interpreted that to mean that *asking* the prophet to seek such a revelation was an acceptable thing to do."? She's excommunicated. She "lost". But can't we in the smallest way acknowledge the good in her? As I said earlier, everyone isn't a "black hat" or a "white hat". We're all brothers and sisters. Wouldn't it be nice to try to find the kindest possible way to view her rather than assuming it was malicious intent from the very beginning? Kate Kelly was not asking. She and her organization were demanding it.
Pahoran Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 He said that a revelation could be received to grant the priesthood to women. "But there's no agitation for that." Why not at least say, "Well, Kate Kelly could easily have interpreted that to mean that *asking* the prophet to seek such a revelation was an acceptable thing to do."? She's excommunicated. She "lost". But can't we in the smallest way acknowledge the good in her? As I said earlier, everyone isn't a "black hat" or a "white hat". We're all brothers and sisters. Wouldn't it be nice to try to find the kindest possible way to view her rather than assuming it was malicious intent from the very beginning?You're moving the goal posts. (Again.) You previously confidently asserted that Ms Kelly was simply taking President Hinckley's advice. Now you are saying that maybe there's room in his simple observation for a Kelly-like interpretation.Well, maybe there is. And since we're talking maybes, here's an alternative: maybe Ms Kelly heard what President Hinckley said, and muttered to herself, "Oh, there isn't, is there? Well I'll show you, you old male codger!"I'm sure Ms Kelly does have some good in her. It's just that what she is best known for, namely her envy-based trouble-making, does not tend to show the good she has to her best advantage.In fact, I venture to suggest that it obscures the good she has.Regards,Pahoran
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Kate Kelly was not asking. She and her organization were demanding it.From the OW mission statement:"We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer."
Pahoran Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 From the OW mission statement: "We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer." Because, of course, any competent marketing analyst can tell you that if you plan to blackmail or coerce someone in public, you should always be completely up front about that. Regards, Pahoran 2
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 You're moving the goal posts. (Again.) You previously confidently asserted that Ms Kelly was simply taking President Hinckley's advice. Now you are saying that maybe there's room in his simple observation for a Kelly-like interpretation.Well, maybe there is. And since we're talking maybes, here's an alternative: maybe Ms Kelly heard what President Hinckley said, and muttered to herself, "Oh, there isn't, is there? Well I'll show you, you old male codger!"I'm sure Ms Kelly does have some good in her. It's just that what she is best known for, namely her envy-based trouble-making, does not tend to show the good she has to her best advantage.In fact, I venture to suggest that it obscures the good she has.Regards,PahoranNope, not moving the goal posts. I didn't say it was President Hinckley's "advice".And yes, her intent could have been as you said... To show that old codger. Which would mean that she was deceptive from day one. And I suppose there are reasons to believe that. But we all do things that obscure the good in us.
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Because, of course, any competent marketing analyst can tell you that if you plan to blackmail or coerce someone in public, you should always be completely up front about that.Regards,PahoranYep. You can look at her that way. But, I don't. Based on our interactions here, I could choose to look at you a certain way. But I don't. Edited February 20, 2015 by rockpond
Popular Post Calm Posted February 20, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 20, 2015 From the OW mission statement:"We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer."Wouldn't sincerity have someone open up to hearing the answer was "no", though? 5
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Wouldn't sincerity have someone open up to hearing the answer was "no", though?I think there are two possible responses. The first is what I said a few posts back... That Kate Kelly went off the rails at some point. Got too demanding. Lost her sincerity or original vision. The other is that they haven't yet been answered. Yes, the PR dept told them to cease and desist. But that isn't really an answer to their question. There were some conference talks given but none that specifically replied to the request they were making. I understand that some here will disagree but try to look at it from their perspective. And also, consider that since Kelly's excommunication the OW group seems to have returned to its original more reverent approach. 1
Stone holm Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I don't consider it to be wresting his words from their context and reading in an unintended meaning. I think too often we make assumptions about things. I see it often in the church and I imagine I'm guilty as well -- so I'm trying to change. Here's an example... Back when medical marijuana was legalized here in my state, I had a conversation with a member of our stake high council. He made it clear that not just the use of medical marijuana but any involvement in the industry (though legal) would disqualify one from holding a temple recommend. Come to find out, a couple years later, that actually the First Presidency was okay with medical marijuana use by a temple recommend holder. I just think we need to be careful in making assumptions.You gotta be kidding!
Stone holm Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Nope. All true.Did he ever contemplate the name of a certain Center at BYU named after casino owners?
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Did he ever contemplate the name of a certain Center at BYU named after casino owners? Oh, believe me, you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of the team that plays in that center than this guy. But his view is not uncommon. I guess MMJ is a "worse" sin than gambling.
Stone holm Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Because, of course, any competent marketing analyst can tell you that if you plan to blackmail or coerce someone in public, you should always be completely up front about that.Regards,PahoranNot following the logic here. Asking to sincerely pray about an issue is coercing people? If so we, as a people, do that almost constantly and it's one of the first things we ask investigators to do. Not saying that I agree with all OW tactics, but this request is hard to consider objectionable under any Christian standard.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 From the OW mission statement:"We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer."And the KKK is not in the white supremacist business anymore. They just believe in separation of the races. It is on their website so it must be true. And then we have North Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Wow, it is nice to see another democratic republic isn't it? Run by the people too. They are our natural allies. Why do we not have better relations? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I think there are two possible responses. The first is what I said a few posts back... That Kate Kelly went off the rails at some point. Got too demanding. Lost her sincerity or original vision. The other is that they haven't yet been answered. Yes, the PR dept told them to cease and desist. But that isn't really an answer to their question. There were some conference talks given but none that specifically replied to the request they were making. I understand that some here will disagree but try to look at it from their perspective. And also, consider that since Kelly's excommunication the OW group seems to have returned to its original more reverent approach.The "PR Department" doesn't free-lance (using Michael Otterson's phrasing here). They exist to serve the Brethren, and function at their behest. And the conference talks, it seems to me, have been as direct as they can be short of singling out Kate Kelly and others by name in public, which would be unkind in that setting by men in their position. Edited February 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 .....................................................................But history seems to suggest, that the break offs happen when the Church institutes a new position and the conservatives do not accept the new position. Plural Marriage is adopted -- RLDS breaks off, change in Priesthood Quorums Temple Lot breaks off, Plural Marriage halted -- FLDS breaks off. Name one schism in the Church that resulted in a group wanting something liberalized or changed and didn't get their way and they break off. Can't think of a single one.Affirmation: Gay Mormons United, Community of Christ (RLDS), Church of Jesus Christ (Davis), Church of Jesus Christ of All Latter-day Saints (later Restoration Church of Jesus Christ), Circling the Wagons Conferences, Foundation for Reconciliation, Lesbian and Gay Historical Society of Utah, Mormons for Marriage (M4M), Mormon Stories Regional Support Community, Mormon Transhumanist Association, New Order Mormons (NOM), Ordain Women (OW), People Can Change, Peyote Way Church of God, Queer Nation Utah, Ranting fanatical Maniacs club (RfM) / Recovery from Mormonism (RfM), Reformation Community of Christ, Reform Mormonism (RM), Resignation Group, The United Order Family of Christ (Homosexual Church of Jesus Christ), etc. 4
Bernard Gui Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 An interesting blog post from our friend Daniel Peterson with an associated link. The projected scenario he describes sounds vaguely familiar -- as though something similar had happened in real life fairly recently (wink, wink; nudge, nudge).Maybe I have missed it, but no one seems to have picked up on your wink, wink, nudge, nudge.I will see your winks and nudges and raise you a lifted eyebrow. 4
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 The "PR Department" doesn't free-lance (using Michael Otterson's phrasing here). They exist to serve the Brethren, and function at their behest. And the conference talks, it seems to me, have been as direct as they can be short of singling out Kate Kelly and others by name in public, which would be unkind in that setting by men in their position.Some people still hold to the antiquated belief that the Prophet should speak for the Church.
stemelbow Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Some people still hold to the antiquated belief that the Prophet should speak for the Church. The prophet is as subject to making an error as anyone else. With this world of scrutinizing, at least potentially, anything said officially by an org, seems like a decent idea to have professionals help shape the public messages--but I haven't really agreed with all the messages myself. I couldn't get a job doing that if I was the last around, type of thing.
rockpond Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 The prophet is as subject to making an error as anyone else. With this world of scrutinizing, at least potentially, anything said officially by an org, seems like a decent idea to have professionals help shape the public messages--but I haven't really agreed with all the messages myself. I couldn't get a job doing that if I was the last around, type of thing. I'm not opposed to him having professionals help craft the message.
Recommended Posts