Rock Waterman - Nyt Article About Online Comments

[ALarson]

Thanks for posting that link, Tacenda.  It's kind of funny that they misspelled "Apostasy" in Rock's disciplinary council letter

 

I haven't listened to the podcast, have you (or anyone else)?

Edited May 28, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

The comments are interesting to read through, this one caught my eye:

 

...Excommunication as a tool to ensure uniformity has historically been used for political purposes. Persecution of dissenters is certainly well established historically. To keep this brief, historical hierarchies, whether they be Roman or first century Jewish, are self-perpetuating structures that are ultimately in place because God wills it to be so. Those who challenge the hierarchy are ultimately challenging God. We recently discussed this aided by an article dealing with Jesus’ conflict with the Jewish authorities in a Biblical Studies paper I am involved with here at the University.

Excommunication then is a tool to ensure uniformity, which is not unity. The church may eventually learn that uniformity does not create unity, but by the time it does, it will be too late for many.

....

[Buckeye]

Thanks for posting that link, Tacenda.  It's kind of funny that they misspelled "Apostasy" in Rock's disciplinary council letter

 

I haven't listened to the podcast, have you (or anyone else)?

 

I would laugh but I've been guilty of the same thing ... misspelling apostasy, that is, not actual apostasy (at least so far )

[Tacenda]

I would laugh but I've been guilty of the same thing ... misspelling apostasy, that is, not actual apostasy (at least so far )

Me too, just the other day I misspelled it here on the board.  But shoot, there is no such word, I was hoping it would be somewhere in the dictionary!     

[Buckeye]

Me too, just the other day I misspelled it here on the board.  But shoot, there is no such word, I was hoping it would be somewhere in the dictionary!     

 

Any chance that the british spell it with a "c" ?

[Scott Lloyd]

There are pros and cons to it, but anonymity has its place. Joseph concealed his and other's identities in some D/C sections (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_code_names_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants). Christ sometimes kept his identity concealed (see, e.g., Luke 24:13-35).

I don't dispute that it "has its place."

 

Again, the point of my post was to challenge the idea that it is somehow scandalous or "Orwellian" for the Church to keep track of who among its own membership are making defamatory statements about it in public.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, you crack me up. I can picture you lacing your online gloves in search of a fight. You don't disappoint

So you have no response then? (Not to the point about your posting anonymously; I really don't care about that. But to the challenge to your remark that the Church is "Orwellian"?)

[Scott Lloyd]

Right, not Orwellian at all, because as long as they only discipline in extreme cases, secretly monitoring their activity is just fine.  Nothing to see here folks, move along…

I'm seeing quite a bit of derision and indignant hyperventilating here about my comment, but nothing that really addresses it in substance. I think that's remarkable.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Any chance that the british spell it with a "c" ?

It's a common error, but as far as I know, there is no normative alternate spelling for apostasy.

 

Another common spelling error is in the verb form, apostatize. It seems many people are prone to spelling (and pronouncing) it "apostacize."

 

Edited to add:

 

Having poked around a bit, I've now learned that apostacy is an "archaic variant" for apostasy.

 

So there you have it: It was a normative spelling in days of yore but not today.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

In my experience, the vast majority of times that bishops meet with members to discuss their online comments, those comments became known to the bishop not because of a committee in SLC but by being forwarded the comments from other members in the area. For example, a member makes a FB post supporting same-sex marriage and another member, who is FB friends, forwards that post to the bishop saying "I'm worried about Sister Smith teaching my kids in primary." Happens all the time.

Do you approve or disapprove of that happening? Or are you indifferent to it?

[Buckeye]

I don't dispute that it "has its place."

 

Again, the point of my post was to challenge the idea that it is somehow scandalous or "Orwellian" for the Church to keep track of who among its own membership are making defamatory statements in public about it.

 

Scandal is in the eye of the beholder. My guess is most people judge the "tracking" based on their perceptions of whether what is being tracked is wrong. Most (all?) people would be fine with tracking evidence of child abuse or investor fraud. I certainly would. But when it comes to public dissent against church policies or teaches, that is where it can become "scandal" if the viewer thinks the dissent should be protected.

 

I also think some of the "scandal" is a result of the church committees not simply forwarding materials to SP/Bishop's attention, but forwarding with the instruction "make this stop." That's where the local leaders get put into a bind. They may feel that they are able to deal with the dissent and keep everyone at peace, but when SLC keeps saying "deal with this" they feel they have no choice to but issue discipline. As an example of this pressure, I'd refer anyone to Dehlin's 4-part interview with Christine Jeppson Clark, discussing her GA father's pressure on local leaders to discipline the september six - including at one point removing a SP who would not act: (http://mormonstories.org/christine-jeppsen-clark-daughter-of-general-authority-malcolm-jeppsen/)

[Buckeye]

Do you approve or disapprove of that happening? Or are you indifferent to it?

 

Bishops are overworked. I'd much prefer for members to work out concerns between themselves. If the members really can't find a way to be comfortable with their different views/actions, I'm fine with a bishop using his best judgment to keep harmony in the ward - including calling the members in together or separately to discuss ways to keep the peace. If the problem is rampant, the bishop may consider holding a 5th sunday lesson on how to disagree without being disagreeable. Considering the changing landscape of SSM, that's probably something a lot of wards could benefit from.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scandal is in the eye of the beholder. My guess is most people judge the "tracking" based on their perceptions of whether what is being tracked is wrong.

I think that's a reasonable analysis.

 

Most (all?) people would be fine with tracking evidence of child abuse or investor fraud. I certainly would. But when it comes to public dissent against church policies or teaches, that is where it can become "scandal" if the viewer thinks the dissent should be protected.

 

 

In other words, whether or not one thinks a person ought to be able to make derogatory public statements about the Church of Jesus Christ and not be held accountable for them.

 

One could look at membership in the Church as being something of a contract between the member and the institution. The Church agrees to provide whatever spiritual and/or tangible benefits that might be available with membership and the member agrees to abide by certain conditions of membership. So long as making defamatory public statements about the Church remains an offense that carries a potential penalty of disfellowshipment or excommunication, I see it as perfectly reasonable for the Church to endeavor to take steps to enforce the contract, including the monitoring of statements that are made in any public forum where substantial numbers stand to be influenced thereby.

 

Again, to say that is Orwellian is overwrought nonsense.

 

 

 

I also think some of the "scandal" is a result of the church committees not simply forwarding materials to SP/Bishop's attention, but forwarding with the instruction "make this stop." That's where the local leaders get put into a bind. They may feel that they are able to deal with the dissent and keep everyone at peace, but when SLC keeps saying "deal with this" they feel they have no choice to but issue discipline.

 

I'm not willing to concede that such a thing happens often or even that it happens at all. My understanding is that it is the local leadership that conducts the disciplinary councils, and that the determination rests with those councils or, in the case of an appeal, with the First Presidency.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Bishops are overworked. I'd much prefer for members to work out concerns between themselves. If the members really can't find a way to be comfortable with their different views/actions, I'm fine with a bishop using his best judgment to keep harmony in the ward - including calling the members in together or separately to discuss ways to keep the peace. If the problem is rampant, the bishop may consider holding a 5th sunday lesson on how to disagree without being disagreeable. Considering the changing landscape of SSM, that's probably something a lot of wards could benefit from.

As a general principle, I agree that it is far better to try to resolve things directly with an individual. I know I get incensed when someone goes over my head without approaching me first.

 

At the same time, I think it is reasonable for a parent to be concerned about the quality of instruction a child is receiving in any official Church setting, be it Sunday School class, Primary, seminary, whatever.

[Buckeye]

...

 

One could look at membership in the Church as being something of a contract between the member and the institution. The Church agrees to provide whatever spiritual and/or tangible benefits that might be available with membership and the member agrees to abide by certain conditions of membership. So long as making defamatory public statements about the Church remains an offense that carries a potential penalty of disfellowshipment or excommunication, I see it as perfectly reasonable for the Church to endeavor to take steps to enforce that standard, including the monitoring of statements that are made in any public forum where substantial numbers stand to be influenced thereby.

 

Again, to say that is Orwellian is overwrought nonsense.

 

...

 

 

The "orwellian" phrase is not mine. I believe action can be appropriate for some types of speech - e.g., defamation, fraud. As for simple dissent, it depends on the importance of the issue and the type of action taken. For disagreement with the church over political issues - Zion's curtain, ERA, etc. - I don't think any action is appropriate. For dissent on core doctrines - e.g., a member does not believe in the atonement - I would think it could be appropriate to limit which classes they teach and things like that, but not to remove their membership.

[Scott Lloyd]

The "orwellian" phrase is not mine. I believe action can be appropriate for some types of speech - e.g., defamation, fraud. As for simple dissent, it depends on the importance of the issue and the type of action taken. For disagreement with the church over political issues - Zion's curtain, ERA, etc. - I don't think any action is appropriate. For dissent on core doctrines - e.g., a member does not believe in the atonement - I would think it could be appropriate to limit which classes they teach and things like that, but not to remove their membership.

OK, but the issue at hand seems to be not the sort of penal action, if any, that ought to be taken for certain questionable public statements but whether or not it is good and proper for the Church to try to keep track of such public statements in the first place. I see nothing wrong with that.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm seeing quite a bit of derision and indignant hyperventilating here about my comment, but nothing that really addresses it in substance. I think that's remarkable.

That could be because there's not much substance to the comment.

 

We each have limits to what we think is proper and what is not. Some people are just fine with the concept of NSA data mining from phone, email, online communications without a warrant. Others get upset because they feel it is intrusive. It's about individual comfort level. The concept of monitoring citizens (or members) with the possibility of inflicting dire consequences is Orwellian. Whether or not its appropriate is another question.

 

During ERA rallies in Utah the church would monitor attendance, take down licence plate numbers and have the police check the records for names which would then allow the church to compare the names of attendees to memership records. Is that kind of monitoring going too far. For some yes. For others...I guess its possible some people may still think that is appropriate. Regardless of your opinion about appropriateness, it is Orwellian.

 

Having an official committee within the church that monitors the speach of its members is Orwellian. We can disagree about whether or not it is appropriate, but the fact that the monitoring is taking place is Orwellian. If this were a governement practice of monitoring to crack down against perceived dissent I doubt there would be much disagreement, though there probably would be some. Some people just like to lace the gloves and find a fight.

[ttribe]

I am uncomfortable with the Church keeping files on the public statements of its members as a general policy.

 

That being said, neither Waterman nor Snuffer (nor their respective acolytes) should be surprised at the Church moving to excommunicate them.  Each of them was, effectively, calling for a coup and overthrow of current leadership.  No way they wouldn't be thrown out for such actions.  Snuffer's assertion that the Church (as an entity) became apostate because of his excommunication is the height of arrogance and/or delusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

That could be because there's not much substance to the comment.

 

We each have limits to what we think is proper and what is not. Some people are just fine with the concept of NSA data mining from phone, email, online communications without a warrant. Others get upset because they feel it is intrusive. It's about individual comfort level. The concept of monitoring citizens (or members) with the possibility of inflicting dire consequences is Orwellian. Whether or not its appropriate is another question.

 

During ERA rallies in Utah the church would monitor attendance, take down licence plate numbers and have the police check the records for names which would then allow the church to compare the names of attendees to memership records. Is that kind of monitoring going too far. For some yes. For others...I guess its possible some people may still think that is appropriate. Regardless of your opinion about appropriateness, it is Orwellian.

 

Having an official committee within the church that monitors the speach of its members is Orwellian. We can disagree about whether or not it is appropriate, but the fact that the monitoring is taking place is Orwellian. If this were a governement practice of monitoring to crack down against perceived dissent I doubt there would be much disagreement, though there probably would be some. Some people just like to lace the gloves and find a fight.

Wow. Government tapping of phones. Intrusion. Invasion of privacy. "Dire consequences"

 

So much sophistry, hyperbole, unsubstantiated assertion and inapplicable comparison and allusion going on here, it's hard to know where and how to start to deal with all of this.

 

Some things to bear in mind: The Church of Jesus Christ is not the government. Membership therein is strictly voluntary and is a sort of contract that, like all contracts, is sustained by conditions, a point I made previously that you conveniently avoided addressing. Just as you have steadfastly avoided answering the question of whether you believe one should be able to make derogatory public statements about the Church without being accountable for them, with the associated "dire" consequences of such accountability being limited in their severity to the withholding of membership privileges, which privileges are conditioned in any event upon contractual (read "covenantal") obligations.

 

Just as you are not compelled to belong to the Church, the Church is not compelled to extend membership to you and is justified in every reasonable sense in setting forth (and, if it comes to it, enforcing) conditions for such membership.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I am uncomfortable with the Church keeping files on the public statements of its members as a general policy.

 

I don't know how much of that is done "as a general policy." But would you have the Church administer discipline without having documentary evidence of offenses committed?

 

That being said, neither Waterman nor Snuffer (nor their respective acolytes) should be surprised at the Church moving to excommunicate them.  Each of them was, effectively, calling for a coup and overthrow of current leadership.  No way they wouldn't be thrown out for such actions.  Snuffer's assertion that the Church (as an entity) became apostate because of his excommunication is the height of arrogance and/or delusion.

 

Well said.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

I don't know how much of that is done "as a general policy." But would you have the Church administer discipline without having documentary evidence of offenses committed?

Whether it is a general policy or not is the part I'm still not clear on. But I have no problem with the Church accumulating evidence if it already has "probable cause" (so to speak). Edited May 28, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

 

During ERA rallies in Utah the church would monitor attendance, take down licence plate numbers and have the police check the records for names which would then allow the church to compare the names of attendees to memership records. Is that kind of monitoring going too far. For some yes. For others...I guess its possible some people may still think that is appropriate. Regardless of your opinion about appropriateness, it is Orwellian.

 

 

Since HappyJackWagon didn't provide a source for this, but stated it a priori as though it were confirmed fact, I tried to do an Internet search on it. I found a similar assertion on the New Order Mormon discussion board, but I haven't been able to locate anything so far to indicate it is anything beyond mere rumor mongering.

 

Can anyone here give a solid source for this claim?

[Scott Lloyd]

Whether it is a general policy or not is the part I'm still not clear on. But I have no problem with the Church accumulating evidence if it already has "probable cause" (so to speak).

OK.

 

It just seems to me it would be a herculean (nay, impossible) task to keep files on the public statements made by each and every man, woman and child in the Church.

[ttribe]

OK.

 

It just seems to me it would be a herculean (nay, impossible) task to keep files on the public statements made by each and every man, woman and child in the Church.

I agree. I just don't have a feel for what would trigger such tracking in the current environment.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. I just don't have a feel for what would trigger such tracking in the current environment.

Perhaps something such as Buckeye suggested: a ward member raising a concern with a bishop. Said bishop might then appeal to Church headquarters for help in his investigation.

 

Maybe in the age of Google, there is not as much utility for the Strengthening Members Committee as there may have been in the past.