smac97 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 On 2/8/2016 at 0:39 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I think it would be very appropriate for you to send those links and to encourage this group to "do the right thing," as you say. I sent a fairly detailed message to Wendy Montgomery via Facebook. We'll see if she does anything with it or in response to it. I hope she does. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 47 minutes ago, sjdawg said: As far as I could tell there was no actual point to the referenced post beyond being caustic. I agree that your post had absolutely no point other than being caustic. Mine, however, had a serious point to make. A point about the actual subject, that is.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: I sent a fairly detailed message to Wendy Montgomery via Facebook. We'll see if she does anything with it or in response to it. I hope she does. Well, keep in mind that research shows that men give women twice as much negative feedback as they give to other men. Therefore they can safely ignore what you tell them, because you're only a man and you don't know any better. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: this has always been my understanding as well however just for fun I logged into my LDS.org account to see how it is presented. When I look at my ward leadership it lists the Bishop, First counselor, second counselor, executive secretary, ward clerk, and assistant ward clerk as the composition of the Bishopric. I agree with your definition of Bishopric but understand how someone could come to the conclusion that the other positions are also in the Bishopric. (If I use LDS.org website functionality to email the Bishopric leaders I noticed that it will email the Bishop, Councillors, secretary, and clerks. Its not doctrinal but it appears that functionally at least some consider the other positions as part of the Bishopric) Do not be misled. The ward executive secretary and the ward clerk and whatever assistant ward clerks there may be are ancillary to, not part of, the bishopric, and that is why you'll find those positions listed with the bishop and his counselors in the bishopric category of the "Local Unit Directory" on lds.org. In my lds.org account the positions are listed as follows: "Bishop," "Bishopric First Counselor" and "Bishopric Second Counselor." The other positions given there are not preceded by the word "Bishopric," as though to convey the understanding that the executive secretary and clerks are not part of the bishopric. Instead, they are each preceded by the word "ward," as in "ward executive secretary" and "ward clerk." Edited February 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
sjdawg Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do not be misled. The ward executive secretary and the ward clerk and whatever assistant ward clerks there may be are ancillary to, not part of the bishopric, and that is why you'll find those positions listed with the bishop and his counselors in the bishopric category of the "Local Unit Directory" on lds.org. In my lds.org account the positions are listed as follows: "Bishop," "Bishopric First Counselor" and "Bishopric Second Counselor." The other positions given there are not preceded by the word "Bishopric," as though to convey the understanding that the executive secretary and clerks are not part of the bishopric. Instead, they are each preceded by the word "ward," as in "ward executive secretary" and "ward clerk." I'm not misled. I agree with you. I'm simply saying that I can understand why some would suggest they are part of the Bishopric council. They attend Bishopric meeting, they are listed with the Bishopric, etc. I even worked with a Bishop who always took care to mention the executive secretary and ward clerk as part of his Bishopric when speaking of his leadership group. I understood that to be more in the spirit of unity than in anything doctrinal.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: I'm not certain that the misconception is all that common. I served as an Exec. Sec. and nobody ever accused me of being "in the bishopric." If it's "common", I suspect it's mostly common in (ahem) less-active circles. Perhaps it is relatively uncommon, but if it is happening at all, it is "all too common." I grew up with a clear and proper understanding of who constitutes the bishopric. But after I attained adulthood, in one of the wards where I served as executive secretary, I noticed the ward clerk when he spoke in sacrament meeting one day was referring to himself as being "in the bishopric." I raised my eyebrows, but I never bothered to correct him or broach the matter with anybody else, reasoning that it was a harmless enough misconception.. Later, when I began to post in online message boards, I noticed that it was not unusual for Mormon dissidents to refer to themselves as being or having been "in a bishopric." I became suspicious and, upon investigation, would often as not find that they actually had served in one of those ancillary roles and were not really "in the bishopric" at all, but seemed to be inflating their own ecclesiastical stature to lend themselves greater credibility. Then, when I saw Mitch Mayne trading politically on his new position and saying he was the first "openly gay" man to serve "in a bishopric," I realized that this misconception was being taken too far. Edited February 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I'm not misled. I agree with you. I'm simply saying that I can understand why some would suggest they are part of the Bishopric council. They attend Bishopric meeting, they are listed with the Bishopric, etc. I even worked with a Bishop who always took care to mention the executive secretary and ward clerk as part of his Bishopric when speaking of his leadership group. I understood that to be more in the spirit of unity than in anything doctrinal. There is no "bishopric council." There is only the bishopric, consisting of the bishop and two counselors. The executive secretary and clerk attend bishopric meeting in their ancillary roles. Smac mentioned several roles members of the bishopric fulfill that an executive secretary or clerk do not have the authority or calling to do. And a bishop should not refer to them as being "in the bishopric." Edited February 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 FYI Here is a discussion page on lds.org that directly addresses the question of whether the ward clerk (or executive secretary) are part of the bishopric.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 16 hours ago, Meadowchik said: When she issued her clarification in a certain FB group, the blogger who wrote Numbers Tell the Story pointed out that she checked with her that the numbers were for November and after, saying she had an affirmative answer from Wendy, here's the actual quote: Lisa Torcasso Downing (speaking to Wendy Williams Montgomery) "I don't question your integrity either. In fact, I relied on it. I confirmed these numbers with you in a closed group and made it clear I wanted that clarification because I intended to publish about them. I hope you aren't throwing me under the bus here. I specifically asked about suicides since Nov 5, not about reports since Nov 5. And you answered 34" [Bold/emphasis in original.] Ouch! 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 On 2/8/2016 at 4:23 PM, Daniel2 said: I agree. I think direct dialogue is always the best option, and I think it's entirely appropriate to engage Mama Dragons to fully understand events as they've transpired, as well as fully understand the intentions and motivations of Ms. Montgomery and others, with the intention of harmonizing truths from falsehoods, clarifying grey areas, and being certain we are discussing suicide in a way that preserves lives and avoids suicide contagion on ALL sides--including LGBT-allied groups like Mama Dragons. I look forward to hearing if they respond, as well. Largely, I agree with this post. But it does seem as though you're trying to leave the door open for just a teensy, weensy, teeny, tiny, itty, bitty, little bit of ends-justifying-the-means wiggle room for Ms. Montgomery. For clarification, you're not trying to do that ... are you?
Meadowchik Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: [Bold/emphasis in original.] Ouch! Then, Montgomery deflected the question and substance of Downing's reply. And Downing left it at that. No real clarification. 2
smac97 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 17 hours ago, Meadowchik said: When she issued her clarification in a certain FB group, the blogger who wrote Numbers Tell the Story pointed out that she checked with her that the numbers were for November and after, saying she had an affirmative answer from Wendy, here's the actual quote: Lisa Torcasso Downing (speaking to Wendy Williams Montgomery) "I don't question your integrity either. In fact, I relied on it. I confirmed these numbers with you in a closed group and made it clear I wanted that clarification because I intended to publish about them. I hope you aren't throwing me under the bus here. I specifically asked about suicides since Nov 5, not about reports since Nov 5. And you answered 34" I am not seeing this quote in the hyperlink. Can you provide a more direct link, or a screen cap (I don't doubt you, I just want to see these comments in context)? Thanks, -Smac
ALarson Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 10 hours ago, smac97 said: I sent a fairly detailed message to Wendy Montgomery via Facebook. We'll see if she does anything with it or in response to it. I hope she does. That's great and I hope she replies. Please share any reply here, if you feel you can without betraying confidences or privacy. It will be interesting to see if she even does reply.
smac97 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's great and I hope she replies. Please share any reply here, if you feel you can without betraying confidences or privacy. It will be interesting to see if she even does reply. I just sent a follow up message. No response yet.
ALarson Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I just sent a follow up message. No response yet. I would imagine she is getting many messages, so it will be interesting if she writes a group response or if she'll respond individually (or not at all). I'm sure you'll let us know!! Thanks.
Meadowchik Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I am not seeing this quote in the hyperlink. Can you provide a more direct link, or a screen cap (I don't doubt you, I just want to see these comments in context)? Thanks, -Smac I hope this works: https://m.facebook.com/groups/243098845790984?view=permalink&id=727890247311839
Meadowchik Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I just sent a follow up message. No response yet. Odds are she won't see it, unless you're FB friends. Even then, I'd be surprised if she answered. She said her clarification was the last and it appears she has had hundreds of inquiries from news outlets and individuals combined.
smac97 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Odds are she won't see it, unless you're FB friends. Even then, I'd be surprised if she answered. She said her clarification was the last and it appears she has had hundreds of inquiries from news outlets and individuals combined. You're probably correct. Still, I wanted to at least give her the opportunity to do the right thing. I find this statement by her rather galling: "It would be highly inappropriate of me to share information unofficially collected from grieving family members seeking support." Isn't that exactly what she did? Again and again and again (Affirmation and Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune)? Thanks, -Smac 3
Meadowchik Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: You're probably correct. Still, I wanted to at least give her the opportunity to do the right thing. I find this statement by her rather galling: "It would be highly inappropriate of me to share information unofficially collected from grieving family members seeking support." Isn't that exactly what she did? Again and again and again (Affirmation and Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune)? Thanks, -Smac And logically she only counted reports, not actual suicides, meaning she had no way of knowing if more than one person was reporting the same suicide. How much leeway for a lack of common sense is appropriate with such reporting?
smac97 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Posted February 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: And logically she only counted reports, not actual suicides, meaning she had no way of knowing if more than one person was reporting the same suicide. How much leeway for a lack of common sense is appropriate with such reporting? Affirmation described her as reporting on "documented" suicides. But she later declared that the number of suicides reported by her is "unverified." Thanks, -Smac
Meadowchik Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Affirmation described her as reporting on "documented" suicides. But she later declared that the number of suicides reported by her is "unverified." Thanks, -Smac Yup. Is she playing dumb with those terms? Who knows... BTW, the last I checked, her husband Thomas Palani Montgomery is heavily involved in the blog No More Strangers. You might contact them more effectively through the blog. Edited February 17, 2016 by Meadowchik
Jeanne Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Perhaps it is relatively uncommon, but if it is happening at all, it is "all too common." I grew up with a clear and proper understanding of who constitutes the bishopric. But after I attained adulthood, in one of the wards where I served as executive secretary, I noticed the ward clerk when he spoke in sacrament meeting one day was referring to himself as being "in the bishopric." I raised my eyebrows, but I never bothered to correct him or broach the matter with anybody else, reasoning that it was a harmless enough misconception.. Later, when I began to post in online message boards, I noticed that it was not unusual for Mormon dissidents to refer to themselves as being or having been "in a bishopric." I became suspicious and, upon investigation, would often as not find that they actually had served in one of those ancillary roles and were not really "in the bishopric" at all, but seemed to be inflating their own ecclesiastical stature to lend themselves greater credibility. Then, when I saw Mitch Mayne trading politically on his new position and saying he was the first "openly gay" man to serve "in a bishopric," I realized that this misconception was being taken too far. Huh...My ward clerk was incuded in all my council (repentance process) with the Bishop. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Huh...My ward clerk was incuded in all my council (repentance process) with the Bishop. I hope this works: https://m.facebook.com/groups/243098845790984?view=permalink&id=727890247311839 I'm still not seeing a comment from Lisa Torcasso Downing. I wonder if it has been removed from the Facebook page.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Huh...My ward clerk was incuded in all my council (repentance process) with the Bishop. If it's a disciplinary council you are referring to, I understand the ward clerk is on hand to take the minutes of the proceedings, but that doesn't make him a member of the bishopric, any more than his attendance at the weekly bishopric meeting makes him a member of the bishopric.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 9 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Huh...My ward clerk was incuded in all my council (repentance process) with the Bishop. Only as a recorder. He was not a "common judge" and had no voice in the bishopric's deliberations. (Although the bishop may have chosen to ask for his input, he didn't have any say in the decision.)
Recommended Posts