Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: You must be hiding under some rock if you haven't already encountered all the psychological abuse this new policy has created among faithful Mormons since it was leaked two months ago. Or are they all just lying about it? Who are "they?" What "psychological abuse" are you talking about?
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I don't know the clinical definition of psychological abuse. But the policy certainly fits Elder Oaks' Oct 2012 definition of psychological abuse. Cherry-picking a GA statement and abusing it by applying it to a situation it does not fit, all for polemical purposes, is a standard anti-Mormon tactic. 1
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 31 minutes ago, rockpond said: Perhaps you should re-read the thread of comments. I haven't accused Elder Oaks of abusing children. Nor have I. Agreeing to institute a policy that has the direct effect of causing psychological abuse to children, using Elder Oaks' own definition, is what I am saying. But I don't speak for Rockpond.
rockpond Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I still very much hold to the routinization of charisma. Within the past hour I've been lambasted for doing so, to the point I'm now questioning whether there is much use in carrying on conversations with some on this board. I haven't noticed anyone here really responding to your link to that article? Is it on another thread? I read that Bushman article some time back when you posted it. I don't recall having any disagreement with Bushman's application of Weber's theory. But without re-reading it (don't have time right now) I'm not sure how the "routinization of charisma" relates back to our specific dialogue.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You remind me of an old joke pertaining to headline writers: "If governor doesn't fit, try mayor." What you said is if "elder" doesn't fit, try "president." What was it Bruce R. McConkie said? "Only an Elder?"
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 46 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll guess you'll have to take that up with Elder Oaks. I'll take it up with someone who's abusing Elder Oaks's statement by forcing it onto a completely unrelated situation. Namely, you. And any other anti-Mormon who resorts to the same consciously deceptive tactic. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 40 minutes ago, Jeanne said: What is the matter with you? That was a crass and disgusting comment. What? Hoping that someone will follow the counsel of an apostle is "crass and disgusting?" I see. 1
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I meant my own experience and observation hasn't warranted my viewing the Brethren as being habitual liars. Nobody has called the "Brethren" habitual liars. Please stop with the straw men already and try to deal with the issues. 1
rockpond Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Danzo said: I don't see it. You say that people are engaging in behaviors that abuse children using the church policy as justification? Have children been abused in your ward as a result of the policy? The policy excludes children from the full privileges of church membership (definition of ostracism). Elder Oaks indicated that such ostracism can be psychological abuse (that's how I read his quote, you can read and decide).
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: That's just too easy... Who is my neighbor?
Jeanne Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Danzo said: What does that have to do with the policy under discussion? 1 hour ago, Danzo said: What does that have to do with the policy under discussion? Just about everything.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: I'll take it up with someone who's abusing Elder Oaks's statement by forcing it onto a completely unrelated situation. Namely, you. And any other anti-Mormon who resorts to the same consciously deceptive tactic. What I hear you saying is that psychological abuse of children is bad. Unless it is the policy of the Church.
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Nobody has called the "Brethren" habitual liars. No. Just abusers of children. Such a craven, contemptible, hateful charge should be condemned. -Smac 2
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: The policy excludes children from the full privileges of church membership (definition of ostracism). Elder Oaks indicated that such ostracism can be psychological abuse (that's how I read his quote, you can read and decide). I have read. I have decided. I agree. (I am starting to think the ignorance of the point you have been making for pages now is largely feigned.)
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: What? Hoping that someone will follow the counsel of an apostle is "crass and disgusting?" I see. How do I give negative points?
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: The policy excludes children from the full privileges of church membership (definition of ostracism). That looks like a rather forced "definition of ostracism" to me. 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Elder Oaks indicated that such ostracism can be psychological abuse (that's how I read his quote, you can read and decide). I've read his quote. It doesn't even begin to address questions of formal membership or ordinances. You are intentionally abusing his quote, and you know it. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: I haven't noticed anyone here really responding to your link to that article? Is it on another thread? I read that Bushman article some time back when you posted it. I don't recall having any disagreement with Bushman's application of Weber's theory. But without re-reading it (don't have time right now) I'm not sure how the "routinization of charisma" relates back to our specific dialogue. I thought I had provided the link and that it would be clear enough. Let me quote directly from the article, with some passages emphasized in bold: Quote Richard Lyman Bushman, noted scholar and author on the Prophet Joseph Smith and emeritus professor of history at Columbia University in New York, delivered the opening presentation on "Joseph Smith and the Routinization of Charisma," which is defined in a theological sense as a divinely directed gift, grace or talent, such as prophecy. "How can we account for the success of this lay-led Church, which seems to run against all expectations?" Brother Bushman asked. He said that it's genius can be largely explained in the fact that the expectation of divine revelation has been built into the very administrative structure and offices of the Church, an expectation attributable to the Prophet himself. "Latter-day Saints know in their bones that only leadership based on righteousness and spirituality will work," Brother Bushman said, every new office holder knows it, and that, in itself, provides a check on the abuse of power within the Church. I'm puzzled that you don't see the application.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I just ran across this blog post from Ardis Parshal. It fits the discussion so well, I just had to post the link here. An excerpt: Quote “Never make a choice in life that leaves you waiting outside the House of God.” It was the perfect formulation for me: “The House of God” was tangible: I could visualize it and understood that there were specific expectations for entering the temple. Yet it was also symbolic and stood for all commandments and blessings and hopes and promises associated with the gospel. “Waiting outside” was also both specific and symbolic: What teenager doesn’t understand being “outside” while desperately wanting to belong? That longing for good things deferred extended beyond the walls of the temple and affected all goals and passions and priorities. “Make a choice” gave me great power over my own destiny: I was an agent, making choices that would lead me inside, or leave me waiting in the cold and dark. “Never make a choice in life that leaves you waiting outside the House of God.” Turning in a temple recommend to make a grand gesture of political protest would leave me literally outside the House of God, without the means of entering. Labeling apostles of Jesus Christ as bigots, claiming they are out of touch, saying they are dishonest, pitting my own wisdom and opinion and judgment against theirs, declaring boldly that I am right and they are wrong, that they are sacrificing our children to the God they have created in their own twisted and homophobic image would leave me outside of the Restoration. There is no point in having a prophet if I accept his leadership only when he is following me. Misrepresenting the words and impugning the motives of Church leaders, assuring already vulnerable brothers and sisters that the shepherd is leading the flock to destruction, that pointing the way to safety is punishment rather than concern for their eternal welfare, would not only leave me waiting outside but could make me complicit in others’ decisions to accompany me. We’ve been wrestling with the new policy concerning the children of same sex couples for more than two months now. I’ve listened more than I’ve spoken. I’ve tried to put myself, with compassion, in the shoes of others. I’ve thought, and considered, and prayed, and consulted. I’ve heard Church leaders speak, sometimes publicly and sometimes privately, and I’ve contrasted their voices with those of others. I will not condemn President Monson, or President Nelson, or any other prophet or apostle, for leading, for testifying, for doing the very thing they have been called to do. I will continue to try to understand. I will not make any choice in this matter that leaves me waiting outside the House of God. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 13 minutes ago, consiglieri said: How do I give negative points? I just awarded Russell a rep point for his post. You can consider that a negative one for you. 1
rockpond Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought I had provided the link and that it would be clear enough. Let me quote directly from the article, with some passages emphasized in bold: I'm puzzled that you don't see the application. And so your conclusion with respect to our dialogue today and Bushman's application of routinization is? I'm not playing dumb. Just honestly trying to understand. From my perspective, yes, there is an expectation of revelation as the process for running the church. But that expectation doesn't mean that there IS revelation. And, that expectation could very well lead to claims of revelation. Further, as members notice a seeming lack of revelation, they start to lose faith.
Jeanne Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Danzo said: Still no substance to your responses who are "they"? and what is the "abuse"? Danzo, why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Please stop the accusations of abuse against the Brethren. As the originator of this thread, I get to decide its scope. Slurring the Brethren in this way is not appropriate. Thanks, -Smac
Danzo Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: The policy excludes children from the full privileges of church membership (definition of ostracism). Elder Oaks indicated that such ostracism can be psychological abuse (that's how I read his quote, you can read and decide). This is just sad. I really hope you are not excluding children in your ward just because they are not baptized.
Jeanne Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Um, maybe because he merits it? By the way, the appropriate title these days is President Nelson. He has been president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. since the death of President Boyd K. Packer last year. And??? We know who he is but why is e better than anybody else?
Danzo Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Danzo, why do you ask questions you already know the answer to? I don't know the answers. People on this board are accusing members of the church of child abuse, specifically caused by the new policy. I haven't seen it, can you provide an example?
Recommended Posts