What NOT to Say (and what TO say) to a Loved One Leaving the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Not to mention priesthood responsibility. If you haven't authority or stewardship for the person to be reproved, IMO, the verses do not apply.

What about mothers dealing with their children? What about parents who are not members of the Church?

What about secular settings, i.e. employer-employee relationships? What about teachers and students?

I have long felt that the principles of leadership in D&C 121, while applying especially to priesthood holders, are just plain good advice for anyone in a leadership capacity in whatever sphere or setting. Better than any self-help book on management or human relations than I've yet come across.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It depends where one is in the process of leaving the Church. If one is still in the preliminary stages of doubting and has not altogether rejected the teachings of the Church, there may still be time for some well-placed and well-considered reproof as, presumably, both parties are still operating to one degree or another from a standpoint of shared belief.

In the example I shared, the account from Elder Ballard, his asking the returned missionary how long it had been since he read the scriptures and then securing from him a commitment to spend at least an hour a day doing that might be regarded as reproof. Reproof need not be harsh or demanding. It need only be clear and focused (a definition of "sharpness").

And incidentally, I don't concede that reproof can only come from one who is in a position of superiority or authority. I can conceive that, under the right circumstances and with the right kind of relationship, a friend could effectively reprove a peer if the attitudes of both were conducive to it.

 

Could be a generational thing and or an experience thing, I just look at this much differently.  I don't agree with Ballard's advice on this topic, my experiences dealing with a lot of people is that listening and empathy is so much more effective and important.  People want to be heard, they want to be validated, they don't need a preaching to.  When someone is heard, respected and their concerns validated, they generally make better decisions afterwards by themselves.  

I'm not saying you can't help a peer, but reproving is rarely helping from my perspective its a less effective method, and this is coming from someone (me) who thinks D&C 121 is inspired and one of my favorite pieces of scripture.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Could be a generational thing and or an experience thing, I just look at this much differently.  I don't agree with Ballard's advice on this topic, my experiences dealing with a lot of people is that listening and empathy is so much more effective and important.  People want to be heard, they want to be validated, they don't need a preaching to.  When someone is heard, respected and their concerns validated, they generally make better decisions afterwards by themselves.  

 

I think you are neglecting elements of the story related by Elder Ballard.

Much of the interaction did consist of Elder Ballard listening. He listened so carefully, he asked the young man to write down his concerns. He was empathetic. He offered to help after local priesthood leaders had merely told the young man just to forget his concerns.

And Elder Ballard was not hasty or cavalier about it.  He said he would need 10 days to work on it.

Only after all that, did Elder Ballard gently ask the young man how long it had been since he had read the scriptures and, upon learning that it had been quite a while, ask for a commitment on his part to read at least an hour a day during the time that Elder Ballard was researching answers to the concerns.

I don't know where you got the idea Elder Ballard did not listen to or respect the young man or that he engaged in preaching to him, other than to get him to do what the young man knew he should have been doing anyway all along. That's probably one of the first things a missionary learns, daily scripture study.

Furthermore, the young man, after following this counsel, did make his own decision and solved his own problem, just as you say here, but apparently it was only after following Elder Ballard's gentle admonition. He came back and said he that he didn't need the answers to his questions; that he had determined for himself that the Church teachings were true. Elder Ballard, diligent teacher that he is, saw to it that the young man got the answers anyway.

If Elder Ballard was not respectful and empathetic in this situation, I wonder what, in your view, being respectful and empathetic looks like.

Co-incidentally, I have just come from Elder Ballard's office where, within the last hour, I interviewed him and two of his brethren from among the General Authorities. I have met with him one-on-one on several prior occasions. A more gentle, unassuming and loving man I have not known.

 

Quote

I'm not saying you can't help a peer, but reproving is rarely helping from my perspective its a less effective method, and this is coming from someone (me) who thinks D&C 121 is inspired and one of my favorite pieces of scripture.

I didn't say it was effective all the time, only that I could conceive of situations and circumstances in which it would be an effective, even the most effective, course of action. Saying that it is never effective or even that it is "rarely effective" is just as fallacious as saying it is always effective.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Guest]

On January 15, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Sky said:

I really like this woman and think that her advise is really good.  

In the same vein, I can think of lots of things that disaffected and ex-Mormons probably should and shouldn't say to traditional believers (using words like sheeple, corporation, accusing believers of blind obedience, etc.).  

 

 

Just say, I love you. I value your thoughts and opinions, and I do not wish to lose them because our views on some issues have changed. I love you unconditionally, and not just because we shared simular beliefs in only one area. So, I wish to speak openly, so tell me now if there are ares that you do not wish to talk about. If there are areas, I will respect it, and if your views change, then feel free to address them in the future. Also know that I will keep everything in the strictest confidence, as I have always done. I am first and foremost your friend. 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

15 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I hope you are kidding....

I probably would not say it unless they asked or made an issue of it.  Overall people have the right to make their decisions.  I even extend that to my family.  As much as I love my kids, if they decide to leave the church one day that will be their choice.  I may be hurt for a few weeks but I will get over it.  My kids are not my property and they in the end must decide for themselves if they want be part of our eternal family. If they chose not to be a part of it, that is their choice.  We will make due with what we have.  I don't want to be with anyone who does not want to be there with us.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are neglecting elements of the story related by Elder Ballard.

Much of the interaction did consist of Elder Ballard listening. He listened so carefully, he asked the young man to write down his concerns. He was empathetic. He offered to help after local priesthood leaders had merely told the young man just to forget his concerns.

And Elder Ballard was not hasty or cavalier about it.  He said he would need 10 days to work on it.

Only after all that, did Elder Ballard gently ask the young man how long it had been since he had read the scriptures and, upon learning that it had been quite a while, ask for a commitment on his part to read at least an hour a day during the time that Elder Ballard was researching answers to the concerns.

I don't know where you got the idea Elder Ballard did not listen to or respect the young man or that he engaged in preaching to him, other than to get him to do what the young man knew he should have been doing anyway all along. That's probably one of the first things a missionary learns, daily scripture study.

Furthermore, the young man, after following this counsel, did make his own decision and solved his own problem, just as you say here, but apparently it was only after following Elder Ballard's gentle admonition. He came back and said he that he didn't need the answers to his questions; that he had determined for himself that the Church teachings were true. Elder Ballard, diligent teacher that he is, saw to it that the young man got the answers anyway.

If Elder Ballard was not respectful and empathetic in this situation, I wonder what, in your view, being respectful and empathetic looks like.

Co-incidentally, I have just come from Elder Ballard's office where, within the last hour, I interviewed him and two of his brethren from among the General Authorities. I have met with him one-on-one on several prior occasions. A more gentle, unassuming and loving man I have not known.

 

I didn't say it was effective all the time, only that I could conceive of situations and circumstances in which it would be an effective, even the most effective, course of action. Saying that it is never effective or even that it is "rarely effective" is just as fallacious as saying it is always effective.

I agree that Elder Ballard seems like a very gentle and kind person, this was no attempt to portray him otherwise.  Since neither of us were there, we can't know how the story happened, this is Elder Ballard's recollection/perception.  I see this as a narrative told for a specific purpose in mind, it could be apocryphal, or it could be very close to the facts, we just don't know.

The element of listening that I think is missed often, is that the person listening might not actually understand or sincerely attempt to understand the person speaking.  That's where real empathy is so important.  But if the person listening doesn't comprehend the experience of the other person, then their listening skills aren't helping much.  .  

Elder Ballard, might not comprehend what someone having a crisis of faith's experience is like, and he may not be able to give good counsel to that person because of his lack of understanding.  I have seen this play out with other church leaders, not Elder Ballard in particular, but its common enough from my observations.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that Elder Ballard seems like a very gentle and kind person, this was no attempt to portray him otherwise.  Since neither of us were there, we can't know how the story happened, this is Elder Ballard's recollection/perception.  I see this as a narrative told for a specific purpose in mind, it could be apocryphal, or it could be very close to the facts, we just don't know.

The element of listening that I think is missed often, is that the person listening might not actually understand or sincerely attempt to understand the person speaking.  That's where real empathy is so important.  But if the person listening doesn't comprehend the experience of the other person, then their listening skills aren't helping much.  .  

Elder Ballard, might not comprehend what someone having a crisis of faith's experience is like, and he may not be able to give good counsel to that person because of his lack of understanding.  I have seen this play out with other church leaders, not Elder Ballard in particular, but its common enough from my observations.  

Obviously neither of us were there, but we do have Elder Ballard's account that can be subjected to evaluation, and, without inserting facts or conjecture that are not sustained by the account as it is given, I just don't see anything there that could in any way be construed that he did not listen or did not understand or that he did not treat this circumstance with the utmost sensitivity, respect, wisdom, kindness, patience, diligence, etc.

Furthermore, Elder Ballard warned CES instructors in an address he gave last February to avoid "overclaiming." I think he has been careful to avoid that in this account. He does not state or imply that the story he tells can be replicated in every instance, or that everyone who is suffering a loss of faith is apt to be so malleable and responsive to efforts to rescue him. Elder Ballard is simply telling the experience as he lived it and suggesting that there may be some occasions when a person simply needs to be reminded to "give the Lord equal time." (For what it's worth, I witnessed a similar instance a few years ago: Basically, a young man resolved his own faith struggle by immersing himself in scripture and pure doctrine and, presumably, prayer and service. I don't know that he got his questions satisfactorily answered, but all indications were that they ceased to be an issue for him.)

And knowing Elder Ballard personally as I do, I don't believe that this is apocryphal. That is, I don't believe he is one to make up a story and pass it off as fact just to illustrate a point.

But you could go on suspecting that it is apocryphal, and there would be really nothing I could do about it.

Just like you can disbelieve that I met personally with Elder Ballard in his office just before I responded to your post yesterday. It was a remarkable coincidence, and it seems just a bit too convenient and contrived, doesn't it? Except that in this instance, I'll have some corroborative evidence: There will be a newspaper article published this weekend under my by-line based on my conversation yesterday with Elder Ballard and the other two brethren who were present.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I probably would not say it unless they asked or made an issue of it.  Overall people have the right to make their decisions.  I even extend that to my family.  As much as I love my kids, if they decide to leave the church one day that will be their choice.  I may be hurt for a few weeks but I will get over it.  My kids are not my property and they in the end must decide for themselves if they want be part of our eternal family. If they chose not to be a part of it, that is their choice.  We will make due with what we have.  I don't want to be with anyone who does not want to be there with us.

I respect very much how you feel and think.  I just know you would not say your above post to your children.  Best to you.  Should they ever leave...I know that you would not love them less.  Just feel that in my bones. 

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously neither of us were there, but we do have Elder Ballard's account that can be subjected to evaluation, and, without inserting facts or conjecture that are not sustained by the account as it is given, I just don't see anything there that could in any way be construed that he did not listen or did not understand or that he did not treat this circumstance with the utmost sensitivity, respect, wisdom, kindness, patience, diligence, etc.

Furthermore, Elder Ballard warned CES instructors in an address he gave last February to avoid "overclaiming." I think he has been careful to avoid that in this account. He does not state or imply that the story he tells can be replicated in every instance, or that everyone who is suffering a loss of faith is apt to be so malleable and responsive to efforts to rescue him. Elder Ballard is simply telling the experience as he lived it and suggesting that there may be some occasions when a person simply needs to be reminded to "give the Lord equal time." (For what it's worth, I witnessed a similar instance a few years ago: Basically, a young man resolved his own faith struggle by immersing himself in scripture and pure doctrine and, presumably, prayer and service. I don't know that he got his questions satisfactorily answered, but all indications were that they ceased to be an issue for him.)

And knowing Elder Ballard personally as I do, I don't believe that this is apocryphal. That is, I don't believe he is one to make up a story and pass it off as fact just to illustrate a point.

But you could go on suspecting that it is apocryphal, and there would be really nothing I could do about it.

Just like you can disbelieve that I met personally with Elder Ballard in his office just before I responded to your post yesterday. It was a remarkable coincidence, and it seems just a bit too convenient and contrived, doesn't it? Except that in this instance, I'll have some corroborative evidence: There will be a newspaper article published this weekend under my by-line based on my conversation yesterday with Elder Ballard and the other two brethren who were present.

I'm not so much doubting the validity of the story, I said it might be apocryphal, but we don't know.  One other element of narrative story telling that should be considered is that stories are selectively chosen to illustrate a point that the author wants to emphasize.  In this case, Elder Ballard may have met will multiple other individuals who had challenges with their faith, and the outcomes were completely different, perhaps they weren't able to resolve their questions and they may have left the church over it.  But Elder Ballard hasn't chosen to tell those stories, he selected a story that he wants to use for a specific purpose.  Its possible that this one story is an exception to the rule, rather than the rule when it comes to meeting with people over these kinds of issues, yet because the outcome of this story is promoting a particular positive result from Elder Ballard's perspective, it is the story that he chooses to share.  

That's just another thing to consider when thinking critically about stories that are presented.  Besides the element that we aren't hearing, the perspective of the young man that talked with Elder Ballard.  His perspective might be entirely different, and he might not agree with the way that this story was presented.  

I think we need to be critical thinkers when it comes to narratives that are presented, thats not to say we doubt everything said, but it is to say that we consider the motivations and perspectives being presented, as well as those things omitted from the presentation.  

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not so much doubting the validity of the story, I said it might be apocryphal, but we don't know.  One other element of narrative story telling that should be considered is that stories are selectively chosen to illustrate a point that the author wants to emphasize.  In this case, Elder Ballard may have met will multiple other individuals who had challenges with their faith, and the outcomes were completely different, perhaps they weren't able to resolve their questions and they may have left the church over it.  But Elder Ballard hasn't chosen to tell those stories, he selected a story that he wants to use for a specific purpose.  Its possible that this one story is an exception to the rule, rather than the rule when it comes to meeting with people over these kinds of issues, yet because the outcome of this story is promoting a particular positive result from Elder Ballard's perspective, it is the story that he chooses to share.  

That's just another thing to consider when thinking critically about stories that are presented.  Besides the element that we aren't hearing, the perspective of the young man that talked with Elder Ballard.  His perspective might be entirely different, and he might not agree with the way that this story was presented.  

I think we need to be critical thinkers when it comes to narratives that are presented, thats not to say we doubt everything said, but it is to say that we consider the motivations and perspectives being presented, as well as those things omitted from the presentation.  

I find it interesting that you can't allow even one reported experience to stand that contradicts your mindset, so you are determined to cast doubt on it if not discredit it altogether.

But you can't persuasively do that based on anything Elder Ballard has recounted, so you must resort to superimposing upon his account your own suppositions and conjecture.

As I indicated earlier, when one is bound and determined to do that, there's not a whole lot I can do about it except to point it out when I see it happening.

So, having done that now, I will leave you to harbor your own cynicism.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find it interesting that you can't allow even one reported experience to stand that contradicts your mindset, so you are determined to cast doubt on it if not discredit it altogether.

But you can't persuasively do that based on anything Elder Ballard has recounted, so you must resort to superimposing upon his account your own suppositions and conjecture.

As I indicated earlier, when one is bound and determined to do that, there's not a whole lot I can do about it except to point it out when I see it happening.

So, having done that now, I will leave you to harbor your own cynicism.

You don't understand my perspective, that is clear, as you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying.  Oh well, I thought since you're involved in the media for a profession that you would appreciate and understand critical media literacy and analysis.  Instead what you call cynicism on my part is the likely the same approach you take to perspectives that you personally disagree with.  To each his own, I stand by my comments as I think they are fair.  

[Mystery Meat]

On 1/17/2017 at 2:48 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

What about mothers dealing with their children? What about parents who are not members of the Church?

What about secular settings, i.e. employer-employee relationships? What about teachers and students?

I have long felt that the principles of leadership in D&C 121, while applying especially to priesthood holders, are just plain good advice for anyone in a leadership capacity in whatever sphere or setting. Better than any self-help book on management or human relations than I've yet come across.

Fair enough, but when it comes to matters of the restored Gospel, one does not take the authority to rebuke another unto themselves. So if you are inclined to rebuke someone about how they live the Gospel or view the Church, you should probably make sure you have a priesthood stewardship first.

[Sky]

I took it upon myself to rebuke somebody (my brother) one time, thinking I was the righteous one and could do no wrong.  BIG mistake!  One wrong move and it can sometimes take years to repair the relationship with the other person.  Not worth it.  This happened over 10 years ago.  And is my brother back in the Church now?  No!     

So my advise is don't do it, unless you are absolutely sure the Spirit is 100% behind it.  At the very least, make sure the person you are rebuking knows that you really do love them!  But be careful and prudent about it!    

If they have already made their decision and are out of the Church anyway, there's really not a whole lot that can be done.  At some point you have to honor their agency and ability to make their own choices.  And if maintaining a relationship with that person is still important, then both parties need to find a way to do that.  

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I respect very much how you feel and think.  I just know you would not say your above post to your children.  Best to you.  Should they ever leave...I know that you would not love them less.  Just feel that in my bones. 

I will always love my kids.  I just will not feel guilt or let it destroy my life if they choose a different course.  Unless of course I had something to do with it or could have done more in raising them and there is more I can and need to do.   My goal is to return to the Celestial Kingdom.  I hope my kids join me but in the end they have to want it for themselves.  If they choose something less, that is just what I will have to accept.  That is one good thing about the whole gospel.  Nobody will be forced into heaven.  Some people just don't want it or care and God will grant them their wish.

Edited January 19, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Sky said:

So my advise is don't do it, unless you are absolutely sure the Spirit is 100% behind it.  At the very least, make sure the person you are rebuking knows that you really do love them!  But be careful and prudent about it!    

In other words, "reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost and afterward showing forth an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved lest he esteem thee to be his enemy." 

That's what the Doctrine and Covenants says. That's all I've advocated here. (And I've not said "rebuke."  "Reprove" or "reproof" is the terminology I've used. Let's recognize the substantial difference in connotation there.) 

Reproof -- ever so gentle, benevolent and ultimately beneficial -- is what Elder Ballard gave in the incident I've cited. The young man must have known Elder Ballard loved him or he wouldn't have come to Elder Ballard seeking counsel. It wasn't a matter of censure, but of loving, caring counsel (that had been solicited) and of earnest desire to help. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Fair enough, but when it comes to matters of the restored Gospel, one does not take the authority to rebuke another unto themselves. So if you are inclined to rebuke someone about how they live the Gospel or view the Church, you should probably make sure you have a priesthood stewardship first.

I have hesitated until now to respond to this because I haven't wanted to belabor it.

But consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Bert and Ernie are members of the same elders quorum, though neither holds a position of leadership in the quorum or a position of priesthood leadership in the ward or stake to which they belong.

In conversation, Ernie tells Bert that from time to time he slaps his wife around when he thinks she has it coming. Ernie thinks that is his right, he says, as head of the household and as a priesthood holder, a position that makes him ruler over his wife.

As respectfully as he can under the circumstances, Bert chides Ernie, telling him his view of the rights and authority of the priesthood is misguided. Bert cites Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-44 relative to principles of priesthood leadership and tells Ernie he should ponder that passage and repent of his past violence toward his wife.

So, in your view, is Bert in the wrong to thus reprove Ernie, having no ordained priesthood stewardship over him?

[Sky]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have hesitated until now to respond to this because I haven't wanted to belabor it.

But consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Bert and Ernie are members of the same elders quorum, though neither holds a position of leadership in the quorum or a position of priesthood leadership in the ward or stake to which they belong.

In conversation, Ernie tells Bert that from time to time he slaps his wife around when he thinks she has it coming. Ernie thinks that is his right, he says, as head of the household and as a priesthood holder, a position that makes him ruler over his wife.

As respectfully as he can under the circumstances, Bert chides Ernie, telling him his view of the rights and authority of the priesthood is misguided. Bert cites Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-44 relative to principles of priesthood leadership and tells Ernie he should ponder that passage and repent of his past violence toward his wife.

So, in your view, is Bert in the wrong to thus reprove Ernie, having no ordained priesthood stewardship over him?

Sounds like a possible case of domestic violence/ abuse to me, in which case law enforcement may need to be involved.  

Ernie is in violation of both the law of the land and the law of the Church.  

I never meant to say or imply that correction /reproving betimes with sharpness isn't necessary.  It all depends on the situation and the context.  In many cases, I don't think it's appropriate.  

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I will always love my kids.  I just will not feel guilt or let it destroy my life if they choose a different course.  Unless of course I had something to do with it or could have done more in raising them and there is more I can and need to do.   My goal is to return to the Celestial Kingdom.  I hope my kids join me but in the end they have to want it for themselves.  If they choose something less, that is just what I will have to accept.  That is one good thing about the whole gospel.  Nobody will be forced into heaven.  Some people just don't want it or care and God will grant them their wish.

I understand where you are coming from and of course you will always love your children.  There is kind of a kink in your plan though..whether you had anything to do with a different course or not...there are people in your ward that will immediately look down on you and say that you did not raise your children right...no matter what.  A ward can do this to you.  I am sure you have no worries for your children...but be ready for that.  It changes a person..it hurts and it changes everything.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Sounds like a possible case of domestic violence/ abuse to me, in which case law enforcement may need to be involved.  

Ernie is in violation of both the law of the land and the law of the Church.  

I never meant to say or imply that correction /reproving betimes with sharpness isn't necessary.  It all depends on the situation and the context.  In many cases, I don't think it's appropriate.  

I notice you didn't directly answer the question.

I posed this hypothetical to challenge Mystery Meat's declared position that one Church member should never reprove another unless he has some ordained calling that gives him a position of priesthood authority over that person. I gather from your response here that you don't believe that to be necessarily so.

I agree Ernie would be in violation of the law. I purposely constructed an extreme situation to show that reproof is sometimes appropriate even if you're not formally called to administer it.

 

[Sky]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I notice you didn't directly answer the question.

I posed this hypothetical to challenge Mystery Meat's declared position that one Church member should never reprove another unless he has some ordained calling that gives him a position of priesthood authority over that person. I gather from your response here that you don't believe that to be necessarily so.

I agree Ernie would be in violation of the law. I purposely constructed an extreme situation to show that reproof is sometimes appropriate even if you're not formally called to administer it.

 

Yes, I think there are times when reproof is appropriate, even without a formal calling to administer it.  Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough?  Does that answer your question? 

The point of the article in the OP still stands. 

Do you mostly agree with the point that Dr. Julie Hanks was trying to make, or are you just trying to poke holes in her arguments?  I cannot tell.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Oh well, I thought since you're involved in the media for a profession that you would appreciate and understand critical media literacy and analysis.

 

Nothing either ethically or professionally binds me to automatically assume without evidence that when someone tells me a purportedly true story in good faith he has likely devised that story from whole cloth just to make a point. And yes, making such an automatic assumption does reflect a general attitude of cynicism.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Sky said:

Yes, I think there are times when reproof is appropriate, even without a formal calling to administer it.  Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough?  Does that answer your question?  

 

Yes, that answers my question, and in this I agree with you.
 

Quote

 

The point of the article in the OP still stands. 

Do you mostly agree with the point that Dr. Julie Hanks was trying to make, or are you just trying to poke holes in her arguments?  I cannot tell.

 

As I recall, I said in my first post on this board that some items on her list make sense to me, but not all. I stand by that expressed opinion.

I've not been inclined to deal point by point with each item on the list, and I'm not so inclined now. So no, it's not my intent to poke holes. In fact, I doubt I'll have much more to say on this thread.

I did take exception to her first item, that you should never ask someone in the process of leaving the Church if he has been reading the scriptures. I specifically gave an incident recounted by Elder Ballard in which asking that question had good results for someone who had come to him seeking counsel.

[Mystery Meat]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have hesitated until now to respond to this because I haven't wanted to belabor it.

But consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Bert and Ernie are members of the same elders quorum, though neither holds a position of leadership in the quorum or a position of priesthood leadership in the ward or stake to which they belong.

In conversation, Ernie tells Bert that from time to time he slaps his wife around when he thinks she has it coming. Ernie thinks that is his right, he says, as head of the household and as a priesthood holder, a position that makes him ruler over his wife.

As respectfully as he can under the circumstances, Bert chides Ernie, telling him his view of the rights and authority of the priesthood is misguided. Bert cites Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-44 relative to principles of priesthood leadership and tells Ernie he should ponder that passage and repent of his past violence toward his wife.

So, in your view, is Bert in the wrong to thus reprove Ernie, having no ordained priesthood stewardship over him?

I think Bert is pretty naive if he thinks that is going to fix the issue. Bert should tell someone who has actually authority (from God, man or both) so that person can take appropriate action. 

Bert would be right to do something; he would be wrong to be the one to rebuke without the authority to do so.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Nothing either ethically or professionally binds me to automatically assume without evidence that when someone tells me a purportedly true story in good faith he has likely devised that story from whole cloth just to make a point. And yes, making such an automatic assumption does reflect a general attitude of cynicism.

The importance of critical analysis of all forms of media is an essential skill that is needed not just in your profession, but everyone in society ought to understand these concepts for the public good.  We form so many opinions through our exposure to information through all mediums, that thinking uncritically about the information presented, not presented, and crafted in calculated ways for our consumption is to our own detriment both individually and as a society.  There is a good article about the importance of this topic that I would recommend.  In it the authors state:

Quote

In the 21st century, critical media literacy is an imperative for participatory democracy because new information communication technologies and a market-based media culture have fragmented, connected, converged, diversified, homogenized, flattened, broadened, and reshaped the world. These changes have been reframing the way people think and restructuring societies at local and global
levels.

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/2007_Kellner-Share_CML-is-not-Option.pdf

I try to apply these concepts to messages communicated in all settings including religious ones.  Its not cynicism, its critical analysis.   

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think Bert is pretty naive if he thinks that is going to fix the issue. Bert should tell someone who has actually authority (from God, man or both) so that person can take appropriate action. 

Bert would be right to do something; he would be wrong to be the one to rebuke without the authority to do so.

I said "reprove," not "rebuke."

And the question is not whether his action wold "fix the issue," but whether he would be wrong in his reproof (which, by way of definition, means expression of disapproval). You haven't explained why he would be wrong. All you've done is reassert your statement. Are you really insisting one should remain silent if something like that came up in a conversation with a fellow priesthood holder? Why? And more particularly, why is it wrong not to do so?

One might, in such a situation, elect to remain silent for whatever reason. I wouldn't criticize such a choice. There might be good reasons for it. But to state or imply that choosing not to remain silent would warrant censure strikes me as beyond the pale.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd