rockpond Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 That, of course, is your interpretation. It's colored by the distrust you have of anything that comes from the church that doesn't fit your worldly-view. There are other ways to look at it, though. Rather than just being "childish" (more sneering criticism of the PA department) because they didn't get the delay, perhaps - just perhaps - the church was actually blindsided by the BSA with a number of behind the scenes items related to the vote. From what I understand, Elder Holland, for instance, was only given one hour notification of the vote. The public tone of the church in the time before the vote relayed a willingness to work with the BSA. With the tone of the press release when the BSA vote occurred, it appears very likely that the BSA basically dissed the church in the way the vote was held and in the attitudes conveyed to the church. Otherwise, I doubt the church would have responded as strongly as they did. The press release sent a strong, public message to the BSA about what they did and how they did it. The tone of your post, on the other hand, portrays a clear antipathy towards the church PA department and those who direct it. The church is always guilty, in your mind, until proven innocent - which means agreeing with your "progressive" viewpoints. The vote was announced a month in advance. Not a surprise... even to the general public. And, the three GA's that are on the national board all cast their "no" votes. They got to be counted as a part of the 20% minority voting against the religious freedom of other church-sponsored units. The Church News statement published two weeks prior to the vote indicated that the Church wanted to retain its ability to choose scout leaders according to our values. And we did retain that ability. Which is why, IMO, we'll likely stay with the BSA.
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 How is it you claim to know his "mind" better than he does? From what he posts. And since he has such a wonderful understanding of what the true intentions of the PA department are, I suppose that turnabout is fair play. Or do you agree with his assessment that the PA department, and by association the church leaders who direct it, were just being "childish" in their announcement? 1
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 And if we can't find something to criticize, we'll just make something up! I've seen that too.
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 The vote was announced a month in advance. Not a surprise... even to the general public. And, the three GA's that are on the national board all cast their "no" votes. They got to be counted as a part of the 20% minority voting against the religious freedom of other church-sponsored units. The Church News statement published two weeks prior to the vote indicated that the Church wanted to retain its ability to choose scout leaders according to our values. And we did retain that ability. Which is why, IMO, we'll likely stay with the BSA. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? You might want to try actually looking at what the PA department says and asking "why did they say it that way" rather than assuming you know exactly what went on behind the scenes in the weeks before the vote was taken. As someone who actually does that on occasion, the announcement appears to me to address a far deeper rift than the surface reading you're giving it. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Of course they are. Not really. It's just a reminder that you have a low opinion of critics. Not exactly a news flash.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) That, of course, is your interpretation. It's colored by the distrust you have of anything that comes from the church that doesn't fit your worldly-view. There are other ways to look at it, though. Rather than just being "childish" (more sneering criticism of the PA department) because they didn't get the delay, perhaps - just perhaps - the church was actually blindsided by the BSA with a number of behind the scenes items related to the vote. From what I understand, Elder Holland, for instance, was only given one hour notification of the vote. The public tone of the church in the time before the vote relayed a willingness to work with the BSA. With the tone of the press release when the BSA vote occurred, it appears very likely that the BSA basically dissed the church in the way the vote was held and in the attitudes conveyed to the church. Otherwise, I doubt the church would have responded as strongly as they did. The press release sent a strong, public message to the BSA about what they did and how they did it. The tone of your post, on the other hand, portrays a clear antipathy towards the church PA department and those who direct it. The church is always guilty, in your mind, until proven innocent - which means agreeing with your "progressive" viewpoints.I strongly suspect as well that the Church's statement came as a result of a back story to which most are not privy -- not even rockpond. In fact it wouldn't surprise me that if all the facts were known, this statement by the Church that rockpond sees as so dastardly, would actually be seen as rather restrained. As I've said previously, "deeply troubled" is about as negative as the Church ever gets when commenting on a matter of current affairs. Edited August 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
ttribe Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 From what he posts. And since he has such a wonderful understanding of what the true intentions of the PA department are, I suppose that turnabout is fair play. Or do you agree with his assessment that the PA department, and by association the church leaders who direct it, were just being "childish" in their announcement? I've said absolutely nothing about my opinion on the matter. I merely believe your method of argument (claiming to know the minds of others) to be in bad faith.
jkwilliams Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 I strongly suspect as well that the Church's statement came as a result of a back story to which most are not privy -- not even rockpond. That's the only reasonable explanation I can think of. Wow, I'm agreeing with you. Who would have thought?
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Not really. It's just a reminder that you have a low opinion of critics. Not exactly a news flash. Critics do serve a purpose.
rockpond Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Did you even bother to read what I wrote? You might want to try actually looking at what the PA department says and asking "why did they say it that way" rather than assuming you know exactly what went on behind the scenes in the weeks before the vote was taken. As someone who actually does that on occasion, the announcement appears to me to address a far deeper rift than the surface reading you're giving it. Yes, I did read what you wrote. And I definitely have asked myself "why did they say it that way".
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 I strongly suspect as well that the Church's statement came as a result of a back story to which most are not privy -- not even rockpond. When I read the press release, my first impression was "boy, something's going on behind the scenes that's changed in the last few weeks". It was an uncharacteristic press release that sent an unusually strong message to the BSA. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Critics do serve a purpose. Leaving aside whether or not we expose truth, I think there is value in having someone there to remind you that your beliefs may not be self-evident and may sometimes require re-evaluation. 1
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 I've said absolutely nothing about my opinion on the matter. I merely believe your method of argument (claiming to know the minds of others) to be in bad faith. Interesting how you're identifying that trait in those defending the church and ignoring it in critics of the church. Of course, your observation is only valid if you believe that one must never make value judgments about what is being said based on what that person might mean. When a person posts the things they do, you get a pretty good idea over time of what their attitudes really are - at least in the context of discussing things on this board.
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Leaving aside whether or not we expose truth, I think there is value in having someone there to remind you that your beliefs may not be self-evident and may sometimes require re-evaluation. Yes, there must be opposition in all things. I'm grateful that such re-evaluation has pushed me more firmly into the fold of Christ and His church - all my faults notwithstanding. 2
ttribe Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Interesting how you're identifying that trait in those defending the church and ignoring it in critics of the church. Well, I'm not omnipresent. I saw your post. IIRC, you're an attorney, and I would think you'd know better than to engage in such a behavior. Of course, your observation is only valid if you believe that one must never make value judgments about what is being said based on what that person might mean. Actually, I think it's valid if you've never asked. Did you ask, or just infer? When a person posts the things they do, you get a pretty good idea over time of what their attitudes really are - at least in the context of discussing things on this board. Or, at least, you get a pretty good idea of what you think their attitudes are...unless you've actually asked. Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe
Kenngo1969 Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 I'm sure it doesn't matter. As a critic, you're going to find something to criticize no matter what they do. And if we can't find something to criticize, we'll just make something up! I've seen that too. Them's fightin' words. Ken breaks out the popcorn and attempts to control his salivation, so as not to drool down his chin ...
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Well, I'm not omnipresent. I saw your post. IIRC, you're an attorney, and I would think you'd know better than to engage in such a behavior. Actually, I think it's valid if you've never asked. Did you ask, or just infer? Or, at least, you get a pretty good idea of what you think their attitudes are...unless you've actually asked. Now, now. No need to call names. I'm not an attorney. I engage in respectable behavior. Inferring things is a problem if there's not adequate information. When a large history of information (in the form of posts on a variety of topics) is available, reasonable inferences can be made. I think the attitudes are pretty clear. Edited August 11, 2015 by jwhitlock
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Ken breaks out the popcorn and attempts to control his salivation, so as not to drool down his chin ... Send us a picture!
ttribe Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Now, now. No need to call names. I'm not an attorney. I engage in respectable behavior. I didn't remember correctly. Sorry about that. Inferring things is a problem if there's no adequate information. When a large history of information (in the form of posts on a variety of topics) is available, reasonable inferences have been made. I think the attitudes are pretty clear. I guess we could debate what constitutes "adequate," but it seems if he is the sole expert on what is happening inside his head, it might make sense to ask him what is going on inside his head, instead of inferring to score polemic points.
jwhitlock Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 I didn't remember correctly. Sorry about that. I guess we could debate what constitutes "adequate," but it seems if he is the sole expert on what is happening inside his head, it might make sense to ask him what is going on inside his head, instead of inferring to score polemic points. Well, that may be the difference in perspective. I'm not here to score points. I run things up the flagpole to see who salutes and who shoots and why. And, some people actually reveal quite a bit of what's going on inside their heads on this board without anyone asking. It's rather interesting that way. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Leaving aside whether or not we expose truth, I think there is value in having someone there to remind you that your beliefs may not be self-evident and may sometimes require re-evaluation. Likewise, maybe your unbelief isn't all that self-evident, either. But I won't hold my breath waiting for any re-evaluation to happen on your side of the aisle. That would be as futile as waiting for you to stop obsessing about what you've left but can't leave alone. 1
ttribe Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Likewise, maybe your unbelief isn't all that self-evident, either. But I won't hold my breath waiting for any re-evaluation to happen on your side of the aisle. That would be as futile as waiting for you to stop obsessing about what you've left but can't leave alone. Just couldn't resist the cheap insult, could you?
jkwilliams Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Yes, there must be opposition in all things. I'm grateful that such re-evaluation has pushed me more firmly into the fold of Christ and His church - all my faults notwithstanding. I'm happy that you've found peace and spiritual fulfillment in the church.
Recommended Posts