canard78 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Church leaders have repeatedly declared the concept of a "loyal opposition" to be inappropriate within the setting of the Church of Jesus Christ, most recently at the general conference of this past April: I know for sure that DB is aware of that talk and quote. Given he's a self-professed member of the loyal opposition it's a bit pointless quoting it at him because he would simply point out that he (loyally) opposes it... Just for the record, I oppose the conference statement too... but not loyally. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 30 minutes ago, canard78 said: I know for sure that DB is aware of that talk and quote. Given he's a self-professed member of the loyal opposition it's a bit pointless quoting it at him because he would simply point out that he (loyally) opposes it... Just for the record, I oppose the conference statement too... but not loyally. I don't quote it with any hope of persuading him. I intend it as a point of information for anyone who might read his post. And at the risk of stating the obvious, I would also point out that, given the Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize a "loyal opposition," there is no such body for DB to be a member of that the Church recognizes. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, canard78 said: Praise to Fiona who... gave a fireside and made some points about hero worshipping... Dang it... doesn't scan... How about -- Praise to Fiona, who said, "Don't worship heroes, "And do not sing 'Praise to the Man' anymore." It might be doggerel, but at least it fits the meter. Edited May 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
flameburns623 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: I just interviewed Patrick last night. The episode is up but is only for Premium Members. SOOOOOOOOOOO Good. he takes any question and is authentic and blunt that the Church has issues that need to be overcome but never says anything that one could call unfaithful. Some highlights - Leaders who dismiss those who leave over doubt as taking the easy way out are likely speaking out of their own frustration and that for most who leave over doubt it is one of the hardest things they have done and we should not be dismissive of it. - Church must ASAP form a new theology around the role of a prophet - Men are privileged in the church and this needs addressed - Dissenters or "loyal opposition" need space to disagree and that a church that allows such shows more confidence and maturity. - Wards and Stakes need to works to provide safer space for people to ask tough questions and for members to disagree respectfully Listening to the podcast now. Link to comment
canard78 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: How about -- Praise to Fiona, who said, "Don't worship heroes, "And do not sing 'Praise to the Man' anymore." It might be doggerel, but at least it fits the meter. Bravo sir! And "doggerel"... thanks for the new word. Now to find a way of fitting it into conversation today... 1 Link to comment
canard78 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't quote it with any hope of persuading him. I intend it as a point of information for anyone who might read his post. And at the risk of stating the obvious, I would also point out that, given the Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize a "loyal opposition," there is no such body for DB to be a member of that the Church recognizes. You're right that the church doesn't recognise it, but that doesn't mean that it can't exist. I understand the origin of the phrase and recognise that it's usually used in a democratic situation where the part in authority recognises and legitimises the opposition and the fact that despite their opposition they remain loyal to the overall authority. I'm not claiming for a moment that the church is doing that, it is clearly not. But... if the underlying meaning of "loyal opposition" is defined as a person or group who opposes the leadership while remaining loyal to the source of that leadership's authority (in the church's case, you'd say it was God), then they could reasonably call themselves a "loyal opposition" even if the leadership doesn't want them to oppose or recognise their right to do so. I, on the other hand, sometimes oppose actions or statements by the church leadership without claiming to also have feilty to the church's claimed source of authority. 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 14 hours ago, canard78 said: Bravo sir! And "doggerel"... thanks for the new word. Now to find a way of fitting it into conversation today... I may have been a bit imprecise in my usage of it. I said my words fit the meter; doggerel, by definition, does not. I suppose I was going for a secondary definition, "verse or words that are badly written or expressed." 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, canard78 said: You're right that the church doesn't recognise it, but that doesn't mean that it can't exist. Which is why I said there is no such body for Mr. Reel to belong to that the Church recognizes. Quote I understand the origin of the phrase and recognise that it's usually used in a democratic situation where the part in authority recognises and legitimises the opposition and the fact that despite their opposition they remain loyal to the overall authority. I'm not claiming for a moment that the church is doing that, it is clearly not. But... if the underlying meaning of "loyal opposition" is defined as a person or group who opposes the leadership while remaining loyal to the source of that leadership's authority (in the church's case, you'd say it was God), then they could reasonably call themselves a "loyal opposition" even if the leadership doesn't want them to oppose or recognise their right to do so. One could argue in theory from a Latter-day Saint perspective that a person is not being loyal to the Source Authority if he rejects that Authority's word and will as divinely revealed through prophets and apostles. Edited May 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
canard78 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Which is why I said there is no such body for Mr. Reel to belong to that the Church recognizes. One could argue in theory from a Latter-day Saint perspective that a person is not being loyal to the Source Authority if he rejects that Authority's word and will as divinely revealed through prophets and apostles. One could indeed. But one would first have to believe that the Source Authority's will and word was being revealed through the prophets... which the (so called) loyal opposition apparently don't. I'll acknowledge that this sets them up with something of a contradiction: If they think that the prophet is not a reliable source of God's will, one wonders what makes them so confident that they are instead. To be honest I've concluded we're probably all just our own sources of our own word and will. 2 Link to comment
DBMormon Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 On 5/12/2016 at 6:11 PM, flameburns623 said: Listening to the podcast now. Would love to know what you thought? and thanks for being a supporter! 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 On 5/12/2016 at 6:11 PM, flameburns623 said: Listening to the podcast now. Did the author really endorse the concept of a "loyal opposition" in the Church and use that specific terminology in doing so, or is that merely the interviewer's interpolation of what he did say? (I've no intention of paying money to hear the thing; that's why I'm asking you.) Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 (edited) On 1/20/2016 at 1:02 PM, cinepro said: I attended a fireside last Sunday where Fiona Givens (Teryl's wife) spoke, and she recommended this book. On another note, she made an interesting comment on the subject of "Hero worship", to the point that we should consider not singing "Praise to the Man" anymore. On 1/20/2016 at 1:09 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Well, if Fiona Givens said it, we'd darn well better sit up and take notice. Or, on the other hand, is this one more instance of "hero worship"? On 1/20/2016 at 1:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Hypothetical response: "But Scott, I don't worship Fiona, I only admire her." To which I respond: That's what I do with Joseph Smith when I sing "Praise to the Man." On 1/20/2016 at 1:32 PM, cinepro said: A better analogy would be if someone were to suggest that we sing "Praise to the Woman" as a hymn about Fiona Givens, to which I (and probably she) would also have reservations. On 1/20/2016 at 1:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Fiona Givens is not Joseph Smith. And I reject your a priori premise that singing "Praise to the Man" amounts to worshiping Joseph Smith (see my last post, the one I made just prior to this one). Game Over. Please deposit another quarter. On 1/21/2016 at 8:37 PM, cinepro said: I never said you agreed. I was only sharing what I thought was an interesting observation on the subject from someone who has traveled and spoken widely about the challenges facing many LDS these days. I guess if you ever have the opportunity to hear her speak and she brings it up, you can express your disagreement in the Q&A afterward. On 1/21/2016 at 9:11 PM, Scott Lloyd said: So because she has "traveled and spoken widely," we're supposed to genuflect when she (or you) upbraids us because we enjoy singing "Praise to the Man"? We're supposed to bow our heads in abject and abashed acknowledgement that singing a hymn expressing admiration for and honoring the divinely appointed mission of the prophet of the Restoration amounts to unseemly "hero worship"? I'm not buying it, regardless of how "widely traveled" or academically credentialed the speaker is. On 5/11/2016 at 4:07 PM, canard78 said: Praise to Fiona who... gave a fireside and made some points about hero worshipping... Dang it... doesn't scan... On 5/11/2016 at 5:23 PM, Scott Lloyd said: How about -- Praise to Fiona, who said, "Don't worship heroes, "And do not sing 'Praise to the Man' anymore." It might be doggerel, but at least it fits the meter. On 5/12/2016 at 11:15 PM, canard78 said: Bravo sir! And "doggerel"... thanks for the new word. Now to find a way of fitting it into conversation today... Hey canard78, your fault! You got me thinking. On the train just now, I put my mind to it, and by the time I got home, I had one verse and a chorus: Praise to Fiona (Sung to the tune of "Praise to the Man") Praise to Fiona who said, "Don't worship heroes, "And do not sing 'Praise to the Man' anymore." Odes to Church leaders we'll eschew with conviction. We won't sing "We thank thee for prophets" like before. [Chorus] Hail to Fiona, our conscience and mentor! Her books and her firesides now show us the way-ay-ay-ay. Never again shall we languish in error. Words from Fiona are the order of the day. (c) R. Scott Lloyd, 2016 Edited May 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
flameburns623 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did the author really endorse the concept of a "loyal opposition" in the Church and use that specific terminology in doing so, or is that merely the interviewer's interpolation of what he did say? (I've no intention of paying money to hear the thing; that's why I'm asking you.) Taking a break from the road after driving almost six hours from St. Louis: reviewed the podcast again so that I could better answer the question. Mr. Lloyd: when the podcast becomes free, at about 27 or 28 minutes in, the question of a "loyal opposition" is asked by Bill Reel, who cites Dallas Oaks' opposition to such a concept. Patrick Mason acknowledges that many Church leaders have concerns about this terminology and he goes into some analysis about why: the LDS Church has been strong partly due to it's fundamental sense of unity, etcetera. Maaon never really endorses the idea of a loyal opposition, as such. He has spent some time already talking about how the Saints, due to their early years of overt persecution and subsequent history of ridicule and belittlement, have made "knowingness", the sure Word of Testimony, a hallmark. While that strategy has served the LDS well when much of the conversation could be controlled and directed, the Internet has ripped a lot of that away. It always did leave a segment of those who want to be Mormon alienated and excluded: in the modern era, those feelings are becoming epidemic. Explicitly, he cautions that Sacrament Meetings, Priesthood/Relief Society and Sunday School cannot become venues of debate and controversy. But he and Bill spend some time discussing how there is need for greater tolerance of doubt, of being able to affirm, "I do not yet KNOW, but I do BELIEVE, and I do HOPE for sure knowledge". (A General Authority statement, and perhaps a Scripture, are cited and are shaping the language used here). For Saints possessed of a sure testimony to sit more comfortably in the pews with people who are struggling, prepared to listen to them, to love them, and to embrace them as Saints equally. So, no I don't think it fair to say that Patrick endorsed the idea pf a loyal opposition. I think that language came from Bill. Patrick was more centered on finding better inclusion and acceptance and compassion on behalf of those with faith crises. 2 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 On 1/26/2016 at 3:05 PM, Buckeye said: I have in mind specifically Captain Moroni. In the war chapters in the BOM, he repeatedly uses dishonesty to defend his people against the Lamanites. For instance, he pretends to move his troops in one direction only to have the army take a city when most of the Lamanite army leaves in pursuit of that fake force. And he gets the Lamanite guards drunk under pretext that they're being friendly, when in fact it was just so that they could arm the Nephite POWs in their possession. There are many other examples. I can't find the verse right now (any help appreciated), but there is an aside at one point where Captain Moroni defends his actions by saying, "look, I know I'm being dishonest in my war dealings with the Lamanites, but don't judge me because I'm only doing this to save my people and the Lamanites intend to wipe us out." For 20th century anglo readers, the comment is kind of odd because, of course we think it's okay to use strategem in war. But Moroni was from a culture that valued honestly more greatly than we do (look at how the enemy can be left to go on nothing more than a promise to no longer fight) and so Moroni felt some compulsion to defend himself from what he presumed would be our latter-day judging eye. Even if a culture values honesty more than we do today still does not mean that being honest in warfare is a good thing to do. Deception, misinformation, and doing whatever is needed to gain the upper hand is the best way to go. I think Moroni understood that tactics in war are universal and timeless and we would understand the reasons for it. Better to be dishonest and get the war over faster and save lives than being honest and more people get killed. Link to comment
flameburns623 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 12 hours ago, DBMormon said: Would love to know what you thought? and thanks for being a supporter! I've now listened twice. It's well done. This is like the sixth podcast of yours I have listened to. Note in my response to Scott Lloyd that I felt your question about the "loyal opposition" was leading to some degree and that Patrick's response was more nuanced and did not wholly endorse the idea. I think the racism-in-the-1940's among General Authorities is a bit of a non sequitur in a Church which embraces an open Canon and continuing revelation. It doesn't trouble me so deeply as you that 15 GA's once defended the exclusion of Blacks from the Priesthood, but now current General Authorities embrace the 1978 Declaration as revelation. I guess I am much more skeptical of generational sin, and particularly of generational atonement for sins of earlier generations. I'm more inclined to say, let the dead past bury it's dead and let us move forward from where we are right now. Mason, of course, is a historian, steeped by profession in the past, ergo more attuned to your sensibilities on this than to mine. Weird since y'all are sociopolitically progressive, where I am traditionalist. Gotta hit the road again. Another hour of driving. Miles to go before I sleep. 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 1 hour ago, flameburns623 said: Taking a break from the road after driving almost six hours from St. Louis: reviewed the podcast again so that I could better answer the question. Mr. Lloyd: when the podcast becomes free, at about 27 or 28 minutes in, the question of a "loyal opposition" is asked by Bill Reel, who cites Dallas Oaks' opposition to such a concept. Patrick Mason acknowledges that many Church leaders have concerns about this terminology and he goes into some analysis about why: the LDS Church has been strong partly due to it's fundamental sense of unity, etcetera. Maaon never really endorses the idea of a loyal opposition, as such. He has spent some time already talking about how the Saints, due to their early years of overt persecution and subsequent history of ridicule and belittlement, have made "knowingness", the sure Word of Testimony, a hallmark. While that strategy has served the LDS well when much of the conversation could be controlled and directed, the Internet has ripped a lot of that away. It always did leave a segment of those who want to be Mormon alienated and excluded: in the modern era, those feelings are becoming epidemic. Explicitly, he cautions that Sacrament Meetings, Priesthood/Relief Society and Sunday School cannot become venues of debate and controversy. But he and Bill spend some time discussing how there is need for greater tolerance of doubt, of being able to affirm, "I do not yet KNOW, but I do BELIEVE, and I do HOPE for sure knowledge". (A General Authority statement, and perhaps a Scripture, are cited and are shaping the language used here). For Saints possessed of a sure testimony to sit more comfortably in the pews with people who are struggling, prepared to listen to them, to love them, and to embrace them as Saints equally. So, no I don't think it fair to say that Patrick endorsed the idea pf a loyal opposition. I think that language came from Bill. Patrick was more centered on finding better inclusion and acceptance and compassion on behalf of those with faith crises. Thank you for that summary. Well done It's pretty much as I would have expected. Link to comment
canard78 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Hey canard78, your fault! You got me thinking. On the train just now, I put my mind to it, and by the time I got home, I had one verse and a chorus: Praise to Fiona (Sung to the tune of "Praise to the Man") Praise to Fiona who said, "Don't worship heroes, "And do not sing 'Praise to the Man' anymore." Odes to Church leaders we'll eschew with conviction. We won't sing "We thank thee for prophets" like before. [Chorus] Hail to Fiona, our conscience and mentor! Her books and her firesides now show us the way-ay-ay-ay. Never again shall we languish in error. Words from Fiona are the order of the day. (c) R. Scott Lloyd, 2016 Love it In the month where the UK has been commemorating 400 years since Shakespeare's death, I think it's safe to say the spirit of the bard lives on. I might come back and curse you in a few hours though because I'm fairly sure you've just given me an ear worm. 1 Link to comment
canard78 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 8 hours ago, flameburns623 said: I've now listened twice. It's well done. This is like the sixth podcast of yours I have listened to. Note in my response to Scott Lloyd that I felt your question about the "loyal opposition" was leading to some degree and that Patrick's response was more nuanced and did not wholly endorse the idea. I think the racism-in-the-1940's among General Authorities is a bit of a non sequitur in a Church which embraces an open Canon and continuing revelation. It doesn't trouble me so deeply as you that 15 GA's once defended the exclusion of Blacks from the Priesthood, but now current General Authorities embrace the 1978 Declaration as revelation. I guess I am much more skeptical of generational sin, and particularly of generational atonement for sins of earlier generations. I'm more inclined to say, let the dead past bury it's dead and let us move forward from where we are right now. Mason, of course, is a historian, steeped by profession in the past, ergo more attuned to your sensibilities on this than to mine. Weird since y'all are sociopolitically progressive, where I am traditionalist. Gotta hit the road again. Another hour of driving. Miles to go before I sleep. Drive safe! Thanks for the summary. I'll perhaps give it a listen at some point. While I would agree that it's not surprising that the 15 church leaders of the 1940s were influenced by culture in their attitudes to race, doesn't it become a problem when that cultural bias is the basis for them making statements of doctrine? This, beyond anything else, is the biggest barrier between me and Mormonism. The church's claims and doctrines are dependent on the principle that its prophetic leaders have both the authority and ability to make statements that represent God's will. The disavowal today of false doctrines of the past completely undermines the principle of prophetic reliability. It's a broken model. Did his podcast interview (or book) touch on that principle at all? 3 Link to comment
flameburns623 Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 On 5/14/2016 at 7:45 AM, canard78 said: Drive safe! Thanks for the summary. I'll perhaps give it a listen at some point. While I would agree that it's not surprising that the 15 church leaders of the 1940s were influenced by culture in their attitudes to race, doesn't it become a problem when that cultural bias is the basis for them making statements of doctrine? This, beyond anything else, is the biggest barrier between me and Mormonism. The church's claims and doctrines are dependent on the principle that its prophetic leaders have both the authority and ability to make statements that represent God's will. The disavowal today of false doctrines of the past completely undermines the principle of prophetic reliability. It's a broken model. Did his podcast interview (or book) touch on that principle at all? Mason believes the LDS Church has a duty to itself to develop a theology of Prophets, a duty unique to it's own mission, since there is no other Christian organization which sees the role of Prophet in quite the unique way that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints sees them. The LDS theology of Prophets will need to plumb the meaning of how prophet and apostles can teach things in one era which are seen differently or are even rejected as error by another generation. 1 Link to comment
consiglieri Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 On 5/11/2016 at 3:49 PM, Scott Lloyd said: And at the risk of stating the obvious, I would also point out that, given the Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize a "loyal opposition," there is no such body for DB to be a member of that the Church recognizes. May I suggest that Elder Oaks does not speak for the Church? We have been taught in recent years that doctrine is not found in the statements of random church leaders, but is established only when all church leaders speak unanimously on a given subject. If this is the case, the mere fact Elder Oaks disparaged the idea of a "loyal opposition" is not binding on the LDS Church or its members. Link to comment
canard78 Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 33 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: Mason believes the LDS Church has a duty to itself to develop a theology of Prophets, a duty unique to it's own mission, since there is no other Christian organization which sees the role of Prophet in quite the unique way that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints sees them. The LDS theology of Prophets will need to plumb the meaning of how prophet and apostles can teach things in one era which are seen differently or are even rejected as error by another generation. If the church officially distances itself from the misleading teachings of the past, then it will be a significant step indeed. I don't just mean the misleading teachings about race. I mean the bigger teaching that when a prophet teaches that he is speaking the mind and will of God. That, on a much higher level, is a position that is unsustainable. If the church were to explicitly acknowledge that the prophets see through the exact same "dark glass" as everyone else and that they are organisational leaders, not people with supernatural "seer" or "mouthpiece of God" abilities then it would be a very significant step towards greater credibility. I can't imagine that will happen in my lifetime though. Link to comment
flameburns623 Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 11 minutes ago, canard78 said: If the church officially distances itself from the misleading teachings of the past, then it will be a significant step indeed. I don't just mean the misleading teachings about race. I mean the bigger teaching that when a prophet teaches that he is speaking the mind and will of God. That, on a much higher level, is a position that is unsustainable. If the church were to explicitly acknowledge that the prophets see through the exact same "dark glass" as everyone else and that they are organisational leaders, not people with supernatural "seer" or "mouthpiece of God" abilities then it would be a very significant step towards greater credibility. I can't imagine that will happen in my lifetime though. That is far beyond what Patrick Mason is saying He believes that the LDS Church definitely WANTS and NEEDS to preserve the roles of Prophets and Apostles as unique spokespersons for God. However, he recognizes that sometimes these leaders have spoken out-of-turn on God's behalf, and Saints need a touchstone by which to distinguish doctrinal versus binding versus speculative comments. Not far removed from the very careful ways in which the RCC defines 'ex cathedra' Papal pronouncements from other sorts of statements. Or the distinctions in both the EO and RCC between dogmatic "ecumenical councils" as opposed to merely locally-binding councils. 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: That is far beyond what Patrick Mason is saying He believes that the LDS Church definitely WANTS and NEEDS to preserve the roles of Prophets and Apostles as unique spokespersons for God. However, he recognizes that sometimes these leaders have spoken out-of-turn on God's behalf, and Saints need a touchstone by which to distinguish doctrinal versus binding versus speculative comments. Not far removed from the very careful ways in which the RCC defines 'ex cathedra' Papal pronouncements from other sorts of statements. Or the distinctions in both the EO and RCC between dogmatic "ecumenical councils" as opposed to merely locally-binding councils. Bringing back common consent might be a good way to accomplish that. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: May I suggest that Elder Oaks does not speak for the Church? We have been taught in recent years that doctrine is not found in the statements of random church leaders, but is established only when all church leaders speak unanimously on a given subject. If this is the case, the mere fact Elder Oaks disparaged the idea of a "loyal opposition" is not binding on the LDS Church or its members. The only instances I'm aware of in which Church leaders have addressed the notion of a "loyal opposition" in the Church they have uniformly spoken against it. And the statements have come in general conference, which is an authoritative venue. Link to comment
Mystery Meat Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 58 minutes ago, Gray said: Bringing back common consent might be a good way to accomplish that. I wasn't aware it ever left? Unless of course you misunderstood common consent to be some sort of democractic voting mechanism, then I could understand your confusion. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts