stemelbow Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 "Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," seems to me to fit rather neatly into the category of calumny (or defamation, if you prefer). Maybe my respect, admiration and love for the leaders of the Church has made me oversensitive. I think I get where you're coming from, Scott. I'm not a fan of saying things like that about leaders, not because leaders haven't done anything negative, but because we all do. It just seems too harsh to label them without really knowing where they are coming from. Seems a little hypocritical, when it comes down to it, to be harshly judgmental of the leaders while appealing to members to not be judgmental of those like me (the unorthodox type). We all can do better. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) For me, the lack of professional clergy in the church is a two-edge sword. On one hand, it helps to give purpose and responsibility to everyone. I've seen many members grow through callings. On the other hand, though, it means that anyone who expresses some disbelief is viewed as a bigger threat than they would be to most other churches because. They are not just a "member" but a primary teacher, scoutmaster, or even a bishop. Because all the sheep in our flock are also, to some degree, shepards, we end up killing a lot of sheep in our zeal to protect the flock.Imagery (similes, metaphors, analogies, allegories, parables, etc.) are comparisons made for illustrative purposes that apply only in a limited sense to the things they are compared to. One who might be viewed in one sense as being (or having been) a sheep of the flock might, in another sense, be regarded as playing the role of the ravenous wolf in the imagery used by the Savior. No one could reasonably argue that a wolf ought not at minimum be removed from the flock. Edited May 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I think I get where you're coming from, Scott. I'm not a fan of saying things like that about leaders, not because leaders haven't done anything negative, but because we all do. It just seems too harsh to label them without really knowing where they are coming from. Seems a little hypocritical, when it comes down to it, to be harshly judgmental of the leaders while appealing to members to not be judgmental of those like me (the unorthodox type).We all can do better.Thank you for that recognition.
ttribe Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) "Twisted, covered up, whitewashed, rationalized and straight-up lied about (the truth)," seems to me to fit rather neatly into the category of calumny (or defamation, if you prefer). Maybe my respect, admiration and love for the leaders of the Church has made me oversensitive. I get that the statement is insulting. Lots of things are insulting but are not slander. I also get that the word "calumny" can be hyperbole, but Smac's defense of the word seemed to be rooted in a precise meaning - that the Calderwoods intentionally lied about their criticism. I see no reason to believe that they don't actually believe in the truthfulness of their statement (even if others disagree). That being said, I understand your feelings on the matter. Edited May 27, 2015 by ttribe
Duncan Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 lolz, don't you see the irony? I tried and got kicked out for doing it tried what?
stemelbow Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 tried what? I think he's saying he tried to stay. he got kicked out for trying to establish a bigger tent--I think that's what he means with the rest of his line. I think it remains the case, though, that he was kicked out because it was feared that he would continue to influence people to leave. Whether that ever happened or not is probably a little immaterial at this point. 2
Tacenda Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I'm late to the party, is SeattleGrunge Carson? If so Carson, do you mind telling a little about what started your faith crisis? I listened to your excommunication MS's podcast, twice now. And I failed to hear what happened. Mind wanders a lot.
stemelbow Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I'm late to the party, is SeattleGrunge Carson? If so Carson, do you mind telling a little about what started your faith crisis? I listened to your excommunication MS's podcast, twice now. And I failed to hear what happened. Mind wanders a lot. Didn't he indicate he never really had a spiritual witness, often felt bad that he did not, continued to try and get one, but it never came. As that was his reality, he tried to maintain but realized more and more that he just didnt' believe. hah...you want more and from the horses mouth, but I wanted to see if my sporadic paying attention did any justice to his perspective.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) I get that the statement is insulting. Lots of things are insulting but are not slander. I also get that the word "calumny" can be hyperbole, but Smac's defense of the word seemed to be rooted in a precise meaning - that the Calderwoods intentionally lied about their criticism. I see no reason to believe that they don't actually believe in the truthfulness of their statement (even if others disagree). That being said, I understand your feelings on the matter.I hope you can see that Smac's denoting their words as calumny is no more egregious than what they themselves have done with the public accusations they have made against the collective leadership of the Church. Edited May 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I'm late to the party, is SeattleGrunge Carson? If so Carson, do you mind telling a little about what started your faith crisis? I listened to your excommunication MS's podcast, twice now. And I failed to hear what happened. Mind wanders a lot. Yes, SG is Carson.He mentioned something about a temple visit on his was home from his mission that deeply troubled him.Care to offer some more details on that, SG/C?
rockpond Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) This is interesting to me because this is my sentiment, yet your interpretation of what i mean by it is not what i would expect, nor is it accurate of what i would be trying to say. I'd be fine if someone said 'well, she lacks belief that it came of revelation just as much as she lacks belief that it didn't come of revelation.' To just suppose one half of that statement though would probably bug me. Okay. I'll do my best to acknowledge that distinction moving forward. Edited May 27, 2015 by rockpond
ERayR Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 When considering whether something is defamatory, statements made in good faith and based upon a reasonable belief are generally considered true statements, especially when phrased as a belief or a perception ("I feel . . . " or "I have come to see that . . ."). Yet you call those statements calumnies. Where's your evidence that they were not made in good faith or based upon a reasonable belief. Just out of curiosity. Do you thing they were lying when they were bearing testimony for the Church or when they were bearing testimony against it? 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Just out of curiosity. Do you thing they were lying when they were bearing testimony for the Church or when they were bearing testimony against it?Neither... I think they were sincere in both instances.I once had the Restored Gospel and "the church" conflated, and I sincerely testified that "the church was true" because I sincerely believed they were the same thing.
Mystery Meat Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Neither... I think they were sincere in both instances.I once had the Restored Gospel and "the church" conflated, and I sincerely testified that "the church was true" because I sincerely believed they were the same thing. They are not. But the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) acts as the keys to the Restored Gospel. Without those keys, a person cannot access the Restored Gospel in its entirety.
hope_for_things Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I see the nuance you are getting at - and I agree that nuance is important, especially in the context of this thread. For me, if someone says that they don't know that the priesthood ban was commanded or just allowed by God, that is an expression of a lack of belief that it came of revelation. But you bring up an important point with the tone & nuance with which people approach these issues: Givens apparently rejects Section 132 as defining polygamy to be an eternal principle. The Kirk Van Allen wrote a blog post explaining why he rejected Section 132 as a revelation from God. I'm willing to be that the Givens interview was listened to many more times than Van Allen's blog post was read. Van Allen was threatened with church discipline within just a couple weeks of his blog post. Years have gone by since Givens public statement (and what could even be considered "public opposition" when it comes to polygamy) and Deseret Book is publishing his book. Very different outcomes but also very different approaches, nuance, and tone. I’ve wondered about this as well. A person could describe the difference as substance vs. style. How you say something is more important than what you said. It seems to rub some people wrong when beliefs are directly challenged in clear ways, but if some level of nuance in language is introduced, then people are more forgiving. Not sure it’s fair, and it seems to give preferential treatment to more well educated speakers who have learned the art of speaking this way. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 They are not. But the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) acts as the keys to the Restored Gospel. Without those keys, a person cannot access the Restored Gospel in its entirety. I disagree. A church is merely a potential place where Priesthood and members can gather to work, worship, and fellowship, the organization does not hold any keys, except the ones to the door. 1
ERayR Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Neither... I think they were sincere in both instances.I once had the Restored Gospel and "the church" conflated, and I sincerely testified that "the church was true" because I sincerely believed they were the same thing. The Church is the vessel (framework) to carry the Restored Gospel to the world. 1
JLHPROF Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I disagree. A church is merely a potential place where Priesthood and members can gather to work, worship, and fellowship, the organization does not hold any keys, except the ones to the door. I think that's a bit of a stretch. I agree that the corporate Church is merely an organization, a place etc.But a Church is also a term used for a gathering of the faithful, for example, there is the Church of the Firstborn.When we speak of the LDS Church we may be talking of either the corporate administrative organization, or we may be talking of the organization of members into which we are confirmed members by priesthood ordinance following baptism.One is temporal, the other spiritual.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 The Church is the vessel (framework) to carry the Restored Gospel to the world. What is more important- the vessel or what is inside the vessel?Some would argue that the vessel is damaged.
Yirgacheffe Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I went to the link and read the opening post twice. It says nothing about Internet posting.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65403-apostasy-boundary-maintenance-and-strong-communities/?p=1209497798
ERayR Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 What is more important- the vessel or what is inside the vessel?Some would argue that the vessel is damaged. Both are essential to do the work. Think of it as the Church is the body and the Restored Gospel is the spirit. Some do argue that. That does not give them the right to get out their hammer and nails and rebuild the structure. That is for the agents of he whose structure it is to do. I think it takes a pretty big ego to try and supplant God's anointed. I Chronicles 16:21-2221 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
ttribe Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I hope you can see that Smac's denoting their words as calumny is no more egregious than what they themselves have done with the public accusations they have made against the collective leadership of the Church. I get it.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Both are essential to do the work. Think of it as the Church is the body and the Restored Gospel is the spirit. Some do argue that. That does not give them the right to get out their hammer and nails and rebuild the structure. That is for the agents of he whose structure it is to do. I think it takes a pretty big ego to try and supplant God's anointed. I Chronicles 16:21-2221 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.You do realize your arguments are all the same one's used by the "elders of the church" when those crazy desert prophets were calling them to repentance, right?"Lehi, buddy, if there is something wrong with the church, we will fix it. We are the leaders, it's our job, not yours. So could you just be quiet." Edited May 27, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
toon Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Just out of curiosity. Do you thing they were lying when they were bearing testimony for the Church or when they were bearing testimony against it? How would I know? I generally presume that, when people say, "I believe . . ." they're telling the truth. Same for when people say, "I no longer believe . . ." It's a rebuttable presumption, but also not something I'm going to get uptight about.
ERayR Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 You do realize your arguments are all the same one's used by the "elders of the church" when those crazy desert prophets were calling them to repentance, right?"Lehi, buddy, if there is something wrong with the church, we will fix it. We are the leaders, it's out job, not yours. So could you just be quiet." Yep and the Catholic Church told the reformers and they told Joseph Smith and on and on so what is your point. Not my argument. It is probably in your Bible too. Here it is for you again. I Chronicles 16:21-2221 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
Recommended Posts