"ProgMormons"

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nope! Yours is invalid. See the kind of dialogue your contributions generate? LOL

If mine is invalid, so is yours. Is persuasion a kind of currency? Is trying to persuade people equivalent to offering them money? If no, your argument and my devil's advocate argument are incorrect. If yes, then the opposite is true. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What a hoot! That’s like giving Lowry Nelson credit for OD2, or Pharaoh’s magicians taking credit for getting things to work when Moses finally got around to the task (or Nebuchadnezzar’s magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and Chaldeans taking credit for giving Daniel the inspiration to finally get the dream right)!

 

Except I didn't give them credit.  I noted the correlation.  Make whatever conclusion you wish. 

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Except I didn't give them credit.  I noted the correlation.  Make whatever conclusion you wish. 

Yes, I realize that and perhaps incorrectly anticipated your conclusion. What conclusion do you make, or of what significance is the correlation to you?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I realize that and perhaps incorrectly anticipated your conclusion. What conclusion do you make, or of what significance is the correlation to you?

Our church leadership doesn't operate in a vacuum.  Scripture and our own history shows that events, people, questions, and concerns often lead to revelation and change.  

I think the efforts I mentioned likely brought an awareness to leadership that helped move us toward those changes.

And more in the future. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Our church leadership doesn't operate in a vacuum.  Scripture and our own history shows that events, people, questions, and concerns often lead to revelation and change.  

I think the efforts I mentioned likely brought an awareness to leadership that helped move us toward those changes.

And more in the future. 

Of course the kingdom of God interacts with the world, and the Lord who leads it responds to societal changes and directions to the extent it is necessary to fulfill His purposes. The efforts you mention are but a drop in the bucket of influences on the subject of priesthood ordination, and are not like the kinds of drops that operate congruently with the kingdom (i.e. councils) so as to move the world toward His purposes. For example, the devil's persuasion of Eve led to a change* but look where that got him! The mind of the Lord would not be changed, only the means by which He helped His children reach His blessings in light of what happened.

*(God's children entered this mortality in that particular way rather than an alternate way that didn't require the devil as a catalyst)

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course the kingdom of God interacts with the world, and the Lord who leads it responds to societal changes and directions to the extent it is necessary to fulfill His purposes. The efforts you mention are but a drop in the bucket of influences on the subject of priesthood ordination, and are not like the kinds of drops that operate congruently with the kingdom (i.e. councils) so as to move the world toward His purposes. For example, the devil's persuasion of Eve led to a change* but look where that got him! The mind of the Lord would not be changed, only the means by which He helped His children reach His blessings in light of what happened.

*(God's children entered this mortality in that particular way rather than an alternate way that didn't require the devil as a catalyst)

As I consider the history of polygamy and the race-based priesthood and temple ban, it seems like councils actually tended to slow the change process down.  

I happen to think that the writings of Lester Bush were a key catalyst for President Kimball.  I see the work of some of the Mormon feminists being similar with respect to how we will ultimate handle female ordination and polygamy.  

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I consider the history of polygamy and the race-based priesthood and temple ban, it seems like councils actually tended to slow the change process down.  

I happen to think that the writings of Lester Bush were a key catalyst for President Kimball.  I see the work of some of the Mormon feminists being similar with respect to how we will ultimate handle female ordination and polygamy.  

Not fast enough for you, eh? LOL

With regards to demonstrating readiness for priesthood ordination (and now apparently the call for changing it), you’ve been describing behaviors that run contrary to the Lord's ways of processing change in His kingdom, or of asking amiss (2 Nephi 4:35). Such ignorance, wickedness or inability to work within priesthood councils will abound and increase as time goes on, as prophesied, but is not what he means when He invites us to "draw near" to Him and knock (D&C 88:63), so He’s not listening, at least in the way they might want Him to or think He is. Many saints will be snookered while the Lord attends to His business in His own way.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not fast enough for you, eh? LOL

 

With regards to demonstrating readiness for priesthood ordination (and now apparently the call for changing it), you’ve been describing behaviors that run contrary to the Lord's ways of processing change in His kingdom, or of asking amiss (2 Nephi 4:35). Such ignorance, wickedness or inability to work within priesthood councils will abound and increase as time goes on, as prophesied, but is not what he means when He invites us to "draw near" to Him and knock (D&C 88:63), so He’s not listening, at least in the way they might want Him to or think He is. Many saints will be snookered while the Lord attends to His business in His own way.

 

You'll note those scriptures don't mention anything about councils.  And it isn't that there aren't "fast enough".  I didn't say that.  It's that historically they seem to resist change.

What you see as ignorance and wickedness is actually just members, studying, asking (that is what those two scriptures instruct), and putting their faith into action.

Frankly, I don't see you as having any knowledge or authority to declare who the Lord is "not listening" to.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll note those scriptures don't mention anything about councils.  And it isn't that there aren't "fast enough".  I didn't say that.  It's that historically they seem to resist change.

What you see as ignorance and wickedness is actually just members, studying, asking (that is what those two scriptures instruct), and putting their faith into action.

Frankly, I don't see you as having any knowledge or authority to declare who the Lord is "not listening" to.

Oh my... you want me to pull out all the council scriptures again? You know, the ones that counter all the approaches you're advocating? You said the councils tended to slow down change (the remark came across as if you think that's a problem); are you saying that is all well and good in your view? is there anything else you dislike about priesthood councils? LOL

Take the following lesson and it will enlighten you about who the Lord is and isn't listening to (and vice-versa) with regards to change:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

An excerpt;

"During a family dinner your uncle expressed his opinion that, given enough social pressure, the Church’s current position regarding a social issue will change in the future to be more in line with society’s position. To support this assertion, he mentioned that the Church changed its position on the practice of plural marriage and in allowing members of black African descent to hold the priesthood and receive temple ordinances. Other family members expressed different opinions on the matter. Since that discussion you have wondered if your uncle is right, and you have pondered the following question: Why does the Church sometimes seem to give in to social pressure in making changes in policy?"

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Oh my... you want me to pull out all the council scriptures again? You know, the ones that counter all the approaches you're advocating? You said the councils tended to slow down change (the remark came across as if you think that's a problem); are you saying that is all well and good in your view? is there anything else you dislike about priesthood councils? LOL

Take the following lesson and it will enlighten you about who the Lord is and isn't listening to (and vice-versa) with regards to change:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

An excerpt;

"During a family dinner your uncle expressed his opinion that, given enough social pressure, the Church’s current position regarding a social issue will change in the future to be more in line with society’s position. To support this assertion, he mentioned that the Church changed its position on the practice of plural marriage and in allowing members of black African descent to hold the priesthood and receive temple ordinances. Other family members expressed different opinions on the matter. Since that discussion you have wondered if your uncle is right, and you have pondered the following question: Why does the Church sometimes seem to give in to social pressure in making changes in policy?"

 

Are we having a serious conversation?  Because you keep ending things with "LOL".  I didn't say that I dislike priesthood councils or that there is anything in particular that I dislike about them.  Maybe you should read what I'm actually writing instead of making unsupported assumptions.  I participate in multiple councils each week within my ward.  They are great. While they have their limitations, I can't imagine running a ward in any other way.

I looked over the lesson and am quite familiar with the doctrine.  I've taught the NT class before.  I believe in those teachings and am not contradicting them with what I've written here.  If you think I have, than you have misunderstood.  Feel free to ask if there is something in particular that I've written here that you think contradicts the doctrine.  Just don't end your question with "LOL" 'cause I might not take you seriously.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are we having a serious conversation?  Because you keep ending things with "LOL".  I didn't say that I dislike priesthood councils or that there is anything in particular that I dislike about them.  Maybe you should read what I'm actually writing instead of making unsupported assumptions.  I participate in multiple councils each week within my ward.  They are great. While they have their limitations, I can't imagine running a ward in any other way.

I looked over the lesson and am quite familiar with the doctrine.  I've taught the NT class before.  I believe in those teachings and am not contradicting them with what I've written here.  If you think I have, than you have misunderstood.  Feel free to ask if there is something in particular that I've written here that you think contradicts the doctrine.  Just don't end your question with "LOL" 'cause I might not take you seriously.

I didn't think it was that serious... I mean, you gave the lesson all of, what, 10 minutes of your time (sounds like your giving me the ol' "been there, done that, I already know what I'm going to learn and how to counter it")?

I can't imagine the Church making changes in any other way than the priesthood councils as laid out in D&C and elsewhere. You seem to be saying that the "-ists" and various campaigns operating outside these councils influence the decisions of these councils and their ratification, which contradicts the doctrine of councils and how changes are made.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I didn't think it was that serious... I mean, you gave the lesson all of, what, 10 minutes of your time (sounds like your giving me the ol' "been there, done that, I already know what I'm going to learn and how to counter it")?

I can't imagine the Church making changes in any other way than the priesthood councils as laid out in D&C and elsewhere. You seem to be saying that the "-ists" and various campaigns operating outside these councils influence the decisions of these councils and their ratification, which contradicts the doctrine of councils and how changes are made.

As a 45 yr old life-long member of the church, the doctrine contained in the lesson you linked to isn't really new to me.  And if you are discussing something with me, I appreciate it more when you make an actual point rather than asking me to wade through pages and pages of material with the hope that I might realize what point you are trying to bring up.  Case in point:  that lesson didn't dispute or disagree with anything I've said.

As for the people, writing, and campaigns I've mentioned:  I think that they influence the discussions that the councils have, that's been my point all along.  Those discussions lead to prayer, revelation, and decisions.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As a 45 yr old life-long member of the church, the doctrine contained in the lesson you linked to isn't really new to me.  And if you are discussing something with me, I appreciate it more when you make an actual point rather than asking me to wade through pages and pages of material with the hope that I might realize what point you are trying to bring up.  Case in point:  that lesson didn't dispute or disagree with anything I've said.

As for the people, writing, and campaigns I've mentioned:  I think that they influence the discussions that the councils have, that's been my point all along.  Those discussions lead to prayer, revelation, and decisions.

Your august credentials aside, the lesson does dispute or disagree with you because your remarks defend demanding change (of doctrine as well as practice and policy); exerting influence outside of the priesthood councils; the false notion that members have no access to priesthood councils; the false notion that readiness for the priesthood is a matter of institutional campaigning; a means and an objective that misapply the scriptures purported to support them; confusion between what institution is saying what; and biased speculation of the outcome of council participation. Those have been your points, along with the bolded you wrote above, which you aren't defending and don't need to because it's an opinion. Now if all of these are opinion, they don't need defending either (technically) but you seemed to invest an awful lot in defending them!

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your august credentials aside, the lesson does dispute or disagree with you because your remarks defend demanding change (of doctrine as well as practice and policy); exerting influence outside of the priesthood councils; the false notion that members have no access to priesthood councils; the false notion that readiness for the priesthood is a matter of institutional campaigning; a means and an objective that misapply the scriptures purported to support them; confusion between what institution is saying what; and biased speculation of the outcome of council participation. Those have been your points, along with the bolded you wrote above, which you aren't defending and don't need to because it's an opinion. Now if all of these are opinion, they don't need defending either (technically) but you seemed to invest an awful lot in defending them!

 

I'm not going to take the time to individually respond to each of those points you've stated about me:  They are all false.  All of them.  You aren't reading what I've actually written.  You seem to be making conclusions that are way outside of what I've actually stated.  Over and over again you've distorted what I've written.

If you'd like to have a discussion in which you DON'T impose your pre-conceived notions on me, let me know. 

[sam]

interesting

[CV75]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not going to take the time to individually respond to each of those points you've stated about me:  They are all false.  All of them.  You aren't reading what I've actually written.  You seem to be making conclusions that are way outside of what I've actually stated.  Over and over again you've distorted what I've written.

If you'd like to have a discussion in which you DON'T impose your pre-conceived notions on me, let me know. 

Well, the points aren't about you, they are a response to your assertion that the lesson doesn't disagree with you.

Apparently all you have written doesn't convey what you actually intend to mean--but they do leave a pattern with a distinct impression!

I'm not sure why you didn't get the point of my post (the one with the link to the lesson that you already know everything about) when I included the question, "Why does the Church sometimes seem to give in to social pressure in making changes in policy?" Your position seems to be pretty consistent that the Church does, and the points in the lesson (all of which you already know) show that she doesn't.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, the points aren't about you, they are a response to your assertion that the lesson doesn't disagree with you.

Apparently all you have written doesn't convey what you actually intend to mean--but they do leave a pattern with a distinct impression!

I'm not sure why you didn't get the point of my post (the one with the link to the lesson that you already know everything about) when I included the question, "Why does the Church sometimes seem to give in to social pressure in making changes in policy?" Your position seems to be pretty consistent that the Church does, and the points in the lesson (all of which you already know) show that she doesn't.

Again, you are wrong.  I don't disagree with the lesson.  I agree with and support the doctrines and teachings in that lesson.  I believe in the prophet and his calling.

I also believe that what I have written is clear and stands on its own despite your continued attempts to distort it.

I don't think that the church gives in to social pressure.  But, I believe that the Brethren listen and some of the activities/writings that we've discussed are likely to make them ponder, discuss, and pray about certain issues.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Again, you are wrong.  I don't disagree with the lesson.  I agree with and support the doctrines and teachings in that lesson.  I believe in the prophet and his calling.

I also believe that what I have written is clear and stands on its own despite your continued attempts to distort it.

I don't think that the church gives in to social pressure.  But, I believe that the Brethren listen and some of the activities/writings that we've discussed are likely to make them ponder, discuss, and pray about certain issues.

Thank you for finally clarifying (albeit in a heavily qualified way) that you “believe that the Brethren listen and some of the activities/writings that we've discussed are likely to make them ponder, discuss, and pray about certain issues.”

You and I discussed only the OW knockonthedoor campaign. I think the Brethren saw it as we all did, but I do not think it gave them pause to consider how ready the individuals were to receive the priesthood, which you explained, was OW’s objective.

Rather, I think the Brethren have demonstrated that they actively stay abreast of issues and trends for a lot longer, for example, than the askentrancetoconferncecenterforpriesthoodsession campaign -- decades longer -- and use such events (or blogs, or surveys for that matter) as neither catalyst nor substrate for pondering, discussing and praying about the "issues". They are aware of these things, and their proactivity doesn’t require them to be “woken up” by the moment's sjws and the like.

[Meadowchik]

On 7/29/2016 at 5:06 PM, rockpond said:

In reading your post here, I see where some of our differences are coming from.  You seem to link activism and attempts at social justice to be inherently political.  I don't make that connection and don't see a need for them to be connected.

I read the Oaks article this morning.  At the end he offers his methods to seek change when one sees a need.  Unfortunately, in the case of changes desired within the institutional church, they mostly amount to keeping one's thoughts on change to themselves.  The only exception is writing a letter to the general authorities in SLC which we have now been told not to do.  And, when done, seems to often result in the letter being sent back to one's stake president.  So really, there are no options for seeking change in the institutional Church.  You can pray and keep your thoughts to yourself.  

Bolded above is mine.

I think that just about anything is potentially political. That's one reason politics and religion are such sensitive subjects. But what I would say is that it's not always partisan. A person can express a value that is political but which does not spring out of some partisan alliance or partisan ideology.

"Social justice" is a term associated with the vocabulary of the left, but it is a concept that predates the American left. It can also be considered a very Christian concept. 

[CV75]

I like PragueMormons.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I like PragueMormons.

So do I!

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/facts-and-statistics/country/czech-republic

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/missionary/mission/czechoslovak?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/global-histories/czech-republic/cz-chronology?lang=eng

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Quote

 said: "There are {un}healthy and {in}appropriate ways to seek change in the Church . . .  which I think consist of tactics and rhetoric imported from political thinkers . . . directly or indirectly influenced . . . Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and similar sociopolitical concepts."

Quote

I feel like the "Alinsky slur" is tossed, all too often, at anyone that disagrees.  

I can't speak to that.  I didn't just "toss" it out there as a "slur."  I went to some length to explain what I saw as a deployment of Alinskyite principles in a specific situation.  For what it's worth, I don't think Alinsky is the fount of all things politically "progressive."  But I think it's hard to deny that his philosophy has had a profound influence on the tactics and rhetoric of "social justice" and similar "progressive" activists in our day.
...
Kate Kelly's rhetoric and tactics seem to be profoundly political.  She has publicly admitted that the tactics she used against the Church were based on "social activism":

Where did Kate Kelly get her "vocabulary and tactics?"  Which "activist efforts?"  What sort of "social activism" is she referencing here?

Alynskyite, I think.  See also here ("Those who feel John and Kate should be disciplined generally object to their tactics, which are straight out of the liberal playbook..."), here ("The main criticism that OW faced prior to the discussions was that their approach was wrong, borrowing too much in aesthetics and approach from the secular world of political organizing..."), here ("So, time for Sister Kelly to flipping clarify what the fetch she thought she was doing by arranging a protest ... The Brethren do not decide doctrine via political pressure, but by the spirit of revelation."), and here ("Church leaders do not want to change basic doctrines or practices in response to what they see as attempts {by Kate Kelly and her group} to publicly embarrass the Church over its basic doctrines and practices.").

Julienna Viegas-Haws is on record as using the "vocabulary" of political activism in her assessment of the Church.  See here ("One would think that because the leaders claim such proximity to Christ, they would be in the forefront of social justice issues. But it hasn't been the case...Many members wish the LDS Church were leading the cause for social justice...").

Carol Lynn Pearson has recently published a book in which she uses the purported results of a sham Facebook poll as the basis for her public demand that the LDS Church abandon a doctrine she does not like (polygamy).  Her use of media coverage adverse to the Church, public demands against the Church, efforts to embarrass and coerce the Church, etc. seem quite similar to those utilized by Kate Kelly.  If Kate Kelly's "vocabulary and tactics" are - by her own admission - derived from "activist efforts" and "social activism", then it does not seem much of a stretch to think that Carol Lynn Pearson is going to that same well.

In reading your post here, I see where some of our differences are coming from.  You seem to link activism and attempts at social justice to be inherently political.  I don't make that connection and don't see a need for them to be connected.

Bolded above is mine.

I think that just about anything is potentially political.

I agree that just about anything can be politicized.  I question whether some things should be politicized.

For example, above I gave example of rhetoric and behaviors of some critics and dissidents who are seeking coerce the Church into changing its policies, doctrines, etc.  They are appropriating political terminology and tactics in their efforts.  I don't think they should.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's one reason politics and religion are such sensitive subjects. But what I would say is that it's not always partisan. A person can express a value that is political but which does not spring out of some partisan alliance or partisan ideology.

I pretty much agree with you.  This goes back to my remarks in this thread back in July 2016:

Quote

1. Fusing Politics w/ Religious Belief is Dangerous: I think there is danger in fusing religious belief with political ideology.  The former can and should inform the latter, but there are always going to be some incompatibilities between them.  So the two need to be kept somewhat separate.

2. The Church is Not a Political Construct: I think there is danger in Latter-day Saints treating the LDS Church as a political construct.  That is, that the leaders are somehow elected by the membership of the Church, that they are "answerable" to us in the sense of developing and promulgating teachings and practices that should conform to the expectations of self-selected agitators within the Church.  There is also quite a bit of encouragement of "factionalization," with agitators working to divvy up the body of the Church, and then pitting the subgroupings against each other (gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, socioeconomic condition, etc.).  Consequently, some members feel at liberty to seize upon these tactics and rhetoric, which are normally used to pressure / coerce political leaders into taking a particular course of action, and deploy them against the Church and its leaders.  This tendency is destructive, divisive, and inappropriate.  See, e.g., Elder Oaks' remarks here.

3. Some "ProgMormons" Treat the Church as a Political Construct: I think the foregoing tendency - deploying politically-derived tactics and rhetoric in and against the Church and its leaders and members - is very off-putting to most active Latter-day Saints - including some (many?) "progressive" ones.  Kate Kelly is a good example of someone who views the Church in this way.  So is Julienna Viegas-Haws.  And more recently, Carol Lynn Pearson.  

I am open to correction on this, but my general sense is that so-called "Progressive Mormons" are more susceptible to this sort of thing.  (NOTE: I should note here that Latter-day Saints with other-than-"progressive" ideologies also create problems in the Church when they inject their politics into Church settings.)

4. Political Ideology Should Not Predominate Over Religious Principles: I think there is danger in letting the political ideology predominate over religious principles and beliefs.  As noted above, there is no political party or platform or ideology that perfectly meshes with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This has never happened, and it never will, not until "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess {at Judgment Day that Jesus Christ is our Lord}."  (Mosiah 27:31).  So we all make compromises and accommodations.  We look for political candidates, parties, and ideologies that hew most closely to those principles we deem important. 
...
5. Some "ProgMormons" Let Political Ideologies Dictate Their Moral Code (and So Do Some Conservatives):  I think the foregoing tendency (letting political/popular ideologies and trends predominate over prophetic/apostolic counsel and the Spirit) is a problem for some "Progressive" Latter-day Saints.  I also think this is not a problem restricted to the "Progressives" among us, as I see plenty of politically "conservative" Latter-day Saints (and members with other political inclinations as well) doing the same thing.

6. We All Need Wiggle Room: At the end of the day, in terms of holding religious and political points of view, there will always be issues about which reasonable minds can disagree as to both spheres.  We need to give each other some substantial elbow room to allow for principled and respectful disagreement, while remaining brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As I see it, Kate Kelly attempted to import her political ideology into the Church.  I think she let that ideology predominate over the principles found in the Restored Gospel.  I think she let that ideology color her perspective on the Church.  I think she came to look on the Church as a political construct, which is why she used politicized rhetoric and tactics against the Church (as have Julienna Viegas-Haws and Carol Lynn Pearson).

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

"Social justice" is a term associated with the vocabulary of the left, but it is a concept that predates the American left. It can also be considered a very Christian concept. 

From Wikipedia:

Quote

While the concept of social justice can be traced through the theology of Augustine of Hippo and the philosophy of Thomas Paine, the term "social justice" became used explicitly in the 1780s. A Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli is typically credited with coining the term, and it spread during the revolutions of 1848 with the work of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.  However, recent research has proved that the use of the expression "social justice" is older (even before the 19th century). For example, in Anglo-America, the term appears in The Federalist Papers, No. 7: "We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a war, not of parchment, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice."

I think the "associat{ion} with the vocabulary of the left" is pretty clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree that just about anything can be politicized.  I question whether some things should be politicized.

For example, above I gave example of rhetoric and behaviors of some critics and dissidents who are seeking coerce the Church into changing its policies, doctrines, etc.  They are appropriating political terminology and tactics in their efforts.  I don't think they should.

I pretty much agree with you.  This goes back to my remarks in this thread back in July 2016:

As I see it, Kate Kelly attempted to import her political ideology into the Church.  I think she let that ideology predominate over the principles found in the Restored Gospel.  I think she let that ideology color her perspective on the Church.  I think she came to look on the Church as a political construct, which is why she used politicized rhetoric and tactics against the Church (as have Julienna Viegas-Haws and Carol Lynn Pearson).

From Wikipedia:

I think the "associat{ion} with the vocabulary of the left" is pretty clear.

Thanks,

-Smac

So are you saying that any criticism of the church is invalid? If not, are you saying that criticism is always invalid if it springs from a value system apart from the church's? 

I think we can say that a church is by definition political in the essence of the term "political."

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So are you saying that any criticism of the church is invalid?

No.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

If not, are you saying that criticism is always invalid if it springs from a value system apart from the church's? 

Also no.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think we can say that a church is by definition political in the essence of the term "political."

I don't think we can say that at all.  I'm not even sure what you mean by it.

Political:

Quote

adjective

1. of, relating to, or concerned with politics:political writers.
2. of, relating to, or connected with a political party:a political campaign.
3. exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc.:a political machine; a political boss.
4. of, relating to, or involving the state or its government:a political offense.
5. having a definite policy or system of government:a political community.
6. of or relating to citizens:political rights.

Politics:

Quote

noun (used with a singular or plural verb)

1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs:The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
4. political methods or maneuvers:We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.
5. political principles or opinions:We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.
6. use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

The Church is a private religious organization, not a "political" one.

The Church is not affiliated with, nor does it endorse, any political party.  To the contrary, the Church is emphatically nonpartisan.

The Church does not "exercis{e} or seek{} power in the governmental or public affairs of a state."

And so on.

So I think that we cannot "say that a church is by definition political in the essence of the term 'political.'"  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.

Also no.

I don't think we can say that at all.  I'm not even sure what you mean by it.

Political:

Politics:

The Church is a private religious organization, not a "political" one.

The Church is not affiliated with, nor does it endorse, any political party.  To the contrary, the Church is emphatically nonpartisan.

The Church does not "exercis{e} or seek{} power in the governmental or public affairs of a state."

And so on.

So I think that we cannot "say that a church is by definition political in the essence of the term 'political.'"  

Thanks,

-Smac

The term I used was "political." It makes a difference.