Mormon Leaks

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

ETA:  I forgot about the use of (and chuckling at) the term "church-broke".  That's disappointing at best.

In context, since he was talking about his staff IIRC, I think church-broke (which I haven't otherwise in any other context), simply means that his staff had few if any LDS people. Feel free to provide additional helpful context if you disagree.

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

In context, since he was talking about his staff IIRC, I think church-broke (which I've otherwise not heard in any other context), simply means that his staff had few if any LDS people. Feel free to provide additional helpful context if you disagree.

I don't believe that is what he meant.  There is a good explanation on Wheat and Tares.  Here is an excerpt, emphasis added:

"In one of the recently leaked videos of meetings with the 70 and the quorum of the twelve, an Oregon senator, the man who introduced Gordon Smith (no longer in office, praise be) uses the term “church broke” to describe Smith’s staffers who would defer to direction from church headquarters rather than taking initiative or listening to his constituents.

This term is used by church leaders, often with a chuckle (as in the video), as a way to describe people the church desires most, those who are willing to do whatever they are told, no questions asked. It seems to be a tongue in cheek term. Given that the senator also divulged confidential information in the meeting and said that his loyalties were to the church over his constituents, the term is certainly a dangerous idea to those of us who believe in the separation of church and state as well as to any Mormons seeking political office in the wake of this leaked video. This senator’s comments aligned with the criticism leveled toward Romney, that he would put his church’s interests above the country’s. Just because Gordon Smith did it doesn’t mean Romney would, but the meeting is pretty unsavory since nobody checked him for his reckless comments.

The use of the term “church broke” means relinquishing your personal conscience entirely to what church leaders tell you to do. In the video the senator linked his support for the Iraq war with paving the way for missionary work that wasn’t going to be able to progress under Saddam Hussein. But leaving the lauded senator’s horrifying remarks aside, let’s talk about the term “church broke,” what it means, and why it’s being used. Often an analogy is powerful because it reveals even more than we intend when investigated more closely. This is why Jesus’ parables are so effective and timeless."

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So far, I think that is the only odd/damaging thing to come out of the leaked videos.  Here we have the apostles being given a lengthy presentation on a matter of national security, safety, and potentially church security and when it concludes the most pressing questions they seem to have revolve around the sexual orientation of Assange & Manning and whether or not the media has adequately reported on Manning's homosexuality.

ETA:  I forgot about the use of (and chuckling at) the term "church-broke".  That's disappointing at best.

I feel for the gay members out there if they witnessed this.

[notHagoth7]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe that is what he meant.  There is a good explanation on Wheat and Tares.  Here is an excerpt, emphasis added:

"In one of the recently leaked videos of meetings with the 70 and the quorum of the twelve, an Oregon senator...uses the term “church broke” to describe Smith’s staffers who would defer to direction from church headquarters rather than taking initiative or listening to his constituents.

This term is used by church leaders, often with a chuckle (as in the video), as a way to describe people the church desires most, those who are willing to do whatever they are told, no questions asked. It seems to be a tongue in cheek term....

 

Wheat and Tares is free to interpret that phrase however they wish. As are you.

 

Meanwhile, from the context of the actual video, while I can see how someone critical of the church *might* opt for the definition you champion here, I respectfully and emphatically disagree.

 

By a similar standard, is someone who blithely accepts the interpretation that Wheat and Tares offers somehow "Wheat-and-Tares broke"?

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, mong00se said:

The focus on Chelsea Mannings sexuality in the wiki-leaks video were strange to me

It was within the context of whether this was part of a broad "gay agenda" -- Mannings, Assange, the media.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

It was within the context of whether this was part of a broad "gay agenda" -- Mannings, Assange, the media.

And what does the "gay agenda" have to do with a briefing on a national security issue?

[rockpond]

del

Edited October 4, 2016 by rockpond
quoted incorrectly

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

 

Wheat and Tares is free to interpret that phrase however they wish. As are you.

 

Meanwhile, from the context of the actual video, while I can see how someone critical of the church *might* opt for the definition you champion here, I respectfully and emphatically disagree.

 

By a similar standard, is someone who blithely accepts the interpretation that Wheat and Tares offers somehow "Wheat-and-Tares broke"?

I haven't "blithely accept[ed] the interpretation from Wheat and Tares".  I listened to the clip and made my own judgment.  I used Wheat and Tares because it was faster than typing up my own explanation.

I did a quick search and found another article from a journal out in Oregon...

Here's the quote from an article in the Willamette Weekly:

Ralph Hardy, the Mormon elder who introduces Smith in the video, notes at 4:20 that although Smith's Senate staff was light on Mormons, it was "church broke"– i.e., very attentive to church needs.

"In fact, not many months ago, his legislative director called on the phone and he  said 'Ralph, you haven't called us for six weeks—what are we supposed to be doing?'"

[notHagoth7]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I haven't "blithely accept[ed] the interpretation from Wheat and Tares".  I listened to the clip and made my own judgment....

I'm not suggesting you didn't use your own judgment. (Anyone who makes *any* assertion/conclusion is executing *some* form of judgment.)

Nor am I suggesting that Wheat and Tares didn't use their own judgment.

I simply disagree with such judgment from both of you.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ralph Hardy, the Mormon elder who introduces Smith in the video, notes at 4:20 that although Smith's Senate staff was light on Mormons, it was "church broke"– i.e., very attentive to church needs.

Pardon my being a stickler for facts and all, but nowhere did Ralph say that "church broke" actually means "very attentive to church needs".  It is merely a reporter imposing his interpretation/judgment upon such a phrase.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"In fact, not many months ago, his legislative director called on the phone and he  said 'Ralph, you haven't called us for six weeks—what are we supposed to be doing?'"

And you're saying that his legislative director was *not* one of his staff members?  And that his own staff members are *not* supposed to be taking direction from him, their boss? Gasp!!!

Color me shocked, appalled, stymied. (Or not.) To think that an hiring manager would *ever* be directing his/her own staff!!!

What ever happened to freedom and liberty, where employees should be able to play Pokemon-Go 40 hours/week?  

;0)

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

Unless I'm mistaken, from these examples of selective quote-mining, this entire thing appears to be *much* ado about nothing.

Mountains. Molehills.

[notHagoth7]

Have I overlooked something significant and/or compelling?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Unless I'm mistaken, from these examples of selective quote-mining, this entire thing appears to be *much* ado about nothing.

Mountains. Molehills.

It can be amusing to watch how strenuously those who wish the Church ill will struggle to find something scandalous where there is nothing scandalous to be found. They end up making themselves look silly.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

I'm not suggesting you didn't use your own judgment. (Anyone who makes *any* assertion/conclusion is executing *some* form of judgment.)

Nor am I suggesting that Wheat and Tares didn't use their own judgment.

I simply disagree with such judgment from both of you.

Pardon my being a stickler for facts and all, but nowhere did Ralph say that "church broke" actually means "very attentive to church needs".  It is merely a reporter imposing his interpretation/judgment upon such a phrase.

And you're saying that his legislative director was *not* one of his staff members?  And that his own staff members are *not* supposed to be taking direction from him, their boss? Gasp!!!

Color me shocked, appalled, stymied. (Or not.) To think that an hiring manager would *ever* be directing his/her own staff!!!

What ever happened to freedom and liberty, where employees should be able to play Pokemon-Go 40 hours/week?  

;0)

Well, based on your response here I can see that you don't even understand what happened in the video clip.  Hint:  Ralph Hardy is not the senator.

It would appear that you decided to dismiss the issue without having understand what actually happened.  You'll pardon me for attaching zero credibility to your "emphatic disagreement".

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Have I overlooked something significant and/or compelling?

Whether or not something is significant or compelling is in the eye of the beholder.

Based on what you've written here, I would conclude that you haven't actually looked into the videos for yourself so any conclusions you made are relatively worthless.

[notHagoth7]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, based on your response here I can see that you don't even understand what happened in the video clip.  Hint:  Ralph Hardy is not the senator.

It would appear that you decided to dismiss the issue without having understand what actually happened.  You'll pardon me for attaching zero credibility to your "emphatic disagreement".

I actually watched the clip last weekend...and admittedly don't recall who is named what. Nor will I attempt to remember 1 minute after this post. (I generally don't use my precious-few brain cells memorizing names I have zero need to recall later.) 

If that somehow makes me less than credible with some, I suppose the sun will still set 

 

As to your assertion that I don't understand what actually happened...that's a separate matter. Each is left to judge on their own.

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Based on what you've written here, I would conclude that you haven't actually looked into the videos for yourself so any conclusions you made are relatively worthless.

I will readily admit that I have *not* watched *each and every one* of the videos.

Some I didn't watch at all.

Some I only watched in part.

A small handful I watched (or listened while multitasking on other things) end to end.

Instead, after watching a few, I lost interest when the supposedly-shocking hype didn't even come close to matching the simple reality playing out on video/audio.

 

But did I play the content I commented on? Yep. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

I actually watched the clip last weekend...and admittedly don't recall who is named what. Nor will I attempt to remember 1 minute after this post. (I generally don't use my precious-few brain cells memorizing names I have zero need to recall later.) 

If that somehow makes me less than credible with some, I suppose the sun will still set 

 

As to your assertion that I don't understand what actually happened...that's a separate matter. Each is left to judge on their own.

It wasn't that you didn't remember names it was that your response showed a fundamental misunderstanding of what was communicated in the clip, particularly with regard to the "church-broke" comment.  So all of your disagreement about my interpretation and that of others was really just a waste of my time.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Instead, after watching a few, I lost interest when the supposedly-shocking hype didn't even come close to matching the simple reality playing out on video/audio.

 

But did I play the content I commented on? Yep. 

As I said early on in this discussion, I didn't see anything shocking.  So in that regard, I agree with you.

And while you may have played the content you commented on, I see no sign that you understood it.

[notHagoth7]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I said early on in this discussion, I didn't see anything shocking.  So in that regard, I agree with you.

OK.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And while you may have played the content you commented on, I see no sign that you understood it.

Then I am listening, and will repeat verbatim:

" Feel free to provide additional helpful context if you disagree.....Have I overlooked something significant and/or compelling?"

 

(And to clarify, by "context", I'm specifically requesting *direct* citations from the actual footage...not commentary/opinion from other sources.)

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I feel for the gay members out there if they witnessed this.

I do too.  I have a question though...does anyone think that votes for a war in Iraq would open missionary doors?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

OK.

Then I am listening, and will repeat verbatim:

" Feel free to provide additional helpful context if you disagree.....Have I overlooked something significant and/or compelling?"

 

(And to clarify, by "context", I'm specifically requesting *direct* citations from the actual footage...not commentary/opinion from other sources.)

I provided direct citations from the actual footage.  Remember... that was when you showed your misunderstanding of what happened.

I answered your question about significant or compelling.

For me, I found their odd obsession with the sexual orientation of Assange and Manning to be significant (though not shocking).

The church-broke commentary was interesting... showing that even an LDS senator outside of the "Mormon corridor" still wanted input from church leaders on his legislative work.

In the compelling category:  I would recommend listening to the entire YSA presentation, it was really great and definitely kept my interest.  It is nice to have the curtain pulled back just a bit and see how these men do (some of) the work to lead the church.  And since it occurred some time ago, we now have hindsight to see how some of the recommended changes were implemented.  I listened to it while on the treadmill and was thinking:  "oh, we should do that... and that... with the YSA's in our ward".  I probably should have stopped and taken some notes.  It was that good.

[notHagoth7]

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I do too.  I have a question though...does anyone think that votes for a war in Iraq would open missionary doors?

There is no single answer.

War [anywhere] hardens some hearts. And softens others. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/62.41?lang=eng#40

Just as any trial/tribulation does.

Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

So far, I think that is the only odd/damaging thing to come out of the leaked videos.  Here we have the apostles being given a lengthy presentation on a matter of national security, safety, and potentially church security and when it concludes the most pressing questions they seem to have revolve around the sexual orientation of Assange & Manning and whether or not the media has adequately reported on Manning's homosexuality.

ETA:  I forgot about the use of (and chuckling at) the term "church-broke".  That's disappointing at best.

Maybe their questions were all answered in the presentation.  I just saw the clip.  I also saw the pirate video, they didn't discuss that either, iirc thanked him for the information.  Just because someone is briefed on something, doesn't mean they feel it is essential to discuss at that time.

I do think that conversation was "odd" in and of itself.  I don't get why this needs to be approached as this is all that is happening on the subject though (whether explicitly or implicitly) and that the discussions held are all that is thought on the issue by those involved.

We don't know the background of "church-broke" for that group.  It could very well be a usually self-deprecating comment that was an inside joke that no one ever took seriously but just poked fun at each other with like those who use TBM at times or call themselves the "morg" or brain dead robots, etc.  I had not heard the term before, but apparently it has been around for awhile as one can see from googling.  (not saying it is used just for LDS, but I could see it being used on occasion among those involved in meetings because those who do the briefing are well aware of the conspiracy claims, etc....though it may have been more on target for at least Brother Smith than intended).

Deleted last bit because rockpond has better link indicating usage

Edited October 5, 2016 by Calm

[cdowis]

I assume "church broke" is a humorous reference to full tithe paying members.  "You actually pay ten percent of your income to your church?"

[Duncan]

Just a clarify is thar Bro. Ralph Hardy deceased now and bro. Smith he is not a senator anymore?