Johnnie Cake Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) In light of the recent Power Point presentation on Mormon Leak wherein the quorum of 12 discuss how Business Weekends, which are evidently free unassigned weekends for members of the 12 to use any way they see fit. In other words these are weekends specifically set aside within their schedules to be used at their discretion as they find necessary. However in an statement by church spokesperson Eric Hawkins...where in he says..." Elder Oaks was not scheduled for an assignment that weekend so decided to use his free time to visit an area with a concentration of members, knowing that members have questions from time to time that trouble them." seems somewhat deflective of Elder Oaks true purpose for visiting Boise...to confront the ever increasing drift to Snufferism in the Boise area. The leaks exposes the truth that Snufferism was a concern of the 12 and that these "Business Weekends" are purposely scheduled with in their regular schedule to allow members of the 12 to address various problems that pop up within the church. That's certainly understandable. What I don't understand is why the church spokesman was disingenuous in framing Elder Oaks visit in such a deflective manner instead of just admitting that yes it was a calculated decision to address a problem the 12 is aware of in the church as to why people are leaving the church and we wanted to nip it in the bud. See link for more context. kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-holds-special-meeting-to-denounce-false-prophet Edited March 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 3
Popular Post bluebell Posted March 2, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2017 I'm not seeing it; can you elaborate, restate, or something? I'm not sure how the spokesperson was lying, if it's true that Elder Oaks had a free weekend and decided--on his own--to use it to help a stake that was struggling. 8
Popular Post rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2017 I think this is the problem with the spokespeople approach to addressing things in general. It doesn't matter if you are left, right, Mormon, non-Mormon, whatever. Spokespeople spin news in favor of who they represent, and it comes across as "nothing to see here, folks" / Baghdad Bob-ish. I don't care whom you favor and whom you dislike --- that's how spokespeople come across. I would rather hear more directly from the Brethren themselves, rather than through layers of bureaucrats and PR people. I know that the size of the church and its corporate operations make this difficult, but I think this alone would help with a lot of issues of perception people have. 7
Buckeye Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm not seeing it; can you elaborate, restate, or something? I'm not sure how the spokesperson was lying, if it's true that Elder Oaks had a free weekend and decided--on his own--to use it to help a stake that was struggling. Agreed. The PPT explicitly cites Oaks' visit as an example of Business Weekend, and in the same slide says that such weekends are not assignments. So I'm not seeing the contradiction. At best, the spokesman's statement could be read to under-emphasize the fact that Elder Oaks specifically targeted Boise for a visit rather than just happening to be there for no reason. I'll grant that that's a possible reading, but its in no wise required and, even if true, is not a contradiction and hardly merits further discussion. PS - Another example of a Business Weekend given in the slides is Elder Holland's visit to "the east" to talk about councils. I assume this means to the eastern US, since he had recently toured many stakes - including mine - and talked about councils. I had no idea about "Business Weekends" at the time. I'm grateful that he spent his own time to come speak with us. It was a great blessing to my ward. 4
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Spokespeople seem to be asked to lie all the time. I'd hate to do it. I once worked for a company and my job at different times put me in the public eye. But I was told what I could say and couldn't say and when to defer to a paid spokesperson. I hated to defer because the spokesperson didn't know what he/she was talking about and/or lied to hide intentions it seems. But I did it, sometimes while standing right there. Icky. Anyway, this does sound pretty squirrely. I recall a few years ago Elder Oaks just randomly, or so he said, popped in at our ward. He sat in the youth SS lesson that day. I was scheduled to teach and was ready to go, but the other lady teacher took over before I showed up in the class room. She didnt' have anything prepared but seemed to want to teach in front of Elder Oaks. Probably good because I probably would have brought up things the kids were interested in like SSM and such. 1
bluebell Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 31 minutes ago, Buckeye said: Agreed. The PPT explicitly cites Oaks' visit as an example of Business Weekend, and in the same slide says that such weekends are not assignments. So I'm not seeing the contradiction. At best, the spokesman's statement could be read to under-emphasize the fact that Elder Oaks specifically targeted Boise for a visit rather than just happening to be there for no reason. I'll grant that that's a possible reading, but its in no wise required and, even if true, is not a contradiction and hardly merits further discussion. PS - Another example of a Business Weekend given in the slides is Elder Holland's visit to "the east" to talk about councils. I assume this means to the eastern US, since he had recently toured many stakes - including mine - and talked about councils. I had no idea about "Business Weekends" at the time. I'm grateful that he spent his own time to come speak with us. It was a great blessing to my ward. That's what i'm seeing too. It seems weird to say that Elder Oaks was told to go and visit Boise when there is absolutely no evidence to support that. 1
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 43 minutes ago, rongo said: I think this is the problem with the spokespeople approach to addressing things in general. It doesn't matter if you are left, right, Mormon, non-Mormon, whatever. Spokespeople spin news in favor of who they represent, and it comes across as "nothing to see here, folks" / Baghdad Bob-ish. I don't care whom you favor and whom you dislike --- that's how spokespeople come across. I would rather hear more directly from the Brethren themselves, rather than through layers of bureaucrats and PR people. I know that the size of the church and its corporate operations make this difficult, but I think this alone would help with a lot of issues of perception people have. So each of the brethren would also need to schedule time to make announcements to the press? 1
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, ksfisher said: So each of the brethren would also need to schedule time to make announcements to the press? No, not each of them. They could take turns, or be assigned. It's not like it's a daily occurrence. And there are Seventies, too.
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: Agreed. The PPT explicitly cites Oaks' visit as an example of Business Weekend, and in the same slide says that such weekends are not assignments. So I'm not seeing the contradiction. At best, the spokesman's statement could be read to under-emphasize the fact that Elder Oaks specifically targeted Boise for a visit rather than just happening to be there for no reason. I'll grant that that's a possible reading, but its in no wise required and, even if true, is not a contradiction and hardly merits further discussion. PS - Another example of a Business Weekend given in the slides is Elder Holland's visit to "the east" to talk about councils. I assume this means to the eastern US, since he had recently toured many stakes - including mine - and talked about councils. I had no idea about "Business Weekends" at the time. I'm grateful that he spent his own time to come speak with us. It was a great blessing to my ward. I don't know. it seems like the spokesperson's message is suggesting he just happened to travel to Boise when it seems apparent he went there because he knew there were issues to discuss with them, whether he was free that weekend or not doesn't really matter, or whether someone else in the Quorum or 1st presidency directed them to go or not. The additional point was that it wasn't just Oaks who went. It was a couple of high level Church people and they discussed the very issue that seemed to be the trouble. The spokesperson was quotes as saying when questioned whether this was in response to the Snuffer issue, "Elder Oaks was not scheduled for an assignment that weekend so decided to use his free time to visit an area with a concentration of members, knowing that some members have questions from time to time that trouble them." this claim from the link in 2015 was interesting: "But the church denies last weekend’s meeting came in response to any of that. " "Any of that" was in reference to as quoted from Snuffer "I know that there are people that are blogging in the Boise area and talking about meetings that are taking place up there and fellowships that are forming". Ah well...it seems to be a fib, but not a big deal of course. Just kind of funny. Of course the content of the message it appears pretty much spelled out the purpose of Oaks' visit. Not sure why it was denied. 3
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 45 minutes ago, bluebell said: That's what i'm seeing too. It seems weird to say that Elder Oaks was told to go and visit Boise when there is absolutely no evidence to support that. The issue isn't that Oaks was told to go anywhere, though.
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The issue isn't that Oaks was told to go anywhere, though. I don't get what the issue is. The OP says that Elder Oaks had an unscheduled weekend and and he identified Boise as a place that he's concerned about and could benefit from his presence. This seems to be what he did and what the church spokesperson reported him doing. What is the issue? 3
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I don't get what the issue is. The OP says that Elder Oaks had an unscheduled weekend and and he identified Boise as a place that he's concerned about and could benefit from his presence. This seems to be what he did and what the church spokesperson reported him doing. What is the issue? I outlined my thoughts two posts above yours. Feel free to disagree if you like. The spokesman apparently was asked if Oaks went in response to the issues they face up there. The spokesman apparently said no and said essentially he just happened to go where there were a concentration of LDS people.
hope_for_things Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: In light of the recent Power Point presentation on Mormon Leak wherein the quorum of 12 discuss how Business Weekends, which are evidently free unassigned weekends for members of the 12 to use any way they see fit. In other words these are weekends specifically set aside within their schedules to be used at their discursion as they find necessary. However in an statement by church spokesperson Eric Hawkins...where in he says..." Elder Oaks was not scheduled for an assignment that weekend so decided to use his free time to visit an area with a concentration of members, knowing that members have questions from time to time that trouble them." seems somewhat deflective of Elder Oaks true purpose for visiting Boise...to confront the ever increasing drift to Snufferism in the Boise area. The leaks exposes the truth that Snufferism was a concern of the 12 and that these "Business Weekends" are purposely scheduled with in their regular schedule to allow members of the 12 to address various problems that pop up within the church. That's certainly understandable. What I don't understand is why the church spokesman was disingenuous in framing Elder Oaks visit in such a deflecting manner instead of just admitting that yes it was a calculated decision to address a problem the 12 is aware of in the church as to why people are leaving the church and we wanted to nip it in the bud. See link for more context. kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-holds-special-meeting-to-denounce-false-prophet An interesting question would be, what time for an Apostle is considered "free time". Do they have a full 40 hour work week schedule? What days and nights and hours are scheduled by the church, and which hours are free time. My guess is that they have some kind distinction between their personal time and church business time. I'm guessing he may have been factually relating that this time was previously scheduled as free time for Elder Oaks, but that because of the circumstances, they changed his free time to official church business. Who knows.... These guys really need to be retired and spending their last years with their families and on vacations, not working for the church, its sad... 1
bluebell Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 29 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know. it seems like the spokesperson's message is suggesting he just happened to travel to Boise when it seems apparent he went there because he knew there were issues to discuss with them, whether he was free that weekend or not doesn't really matter, or whether someone else in the Quorum or 1st presidency directed them to go or not. The additional point was that it wasn't just Oaks who went. It was a couple of high level Church people and they discussed the very issue that seemed to be the trouble. The spokesperson was quotes as saying when questioned whether this was in response to the Snuffer issue, "Elder Oaks was not scheduled for an assignment that weekend so decided to use his free time to visit an area with a concentration of members, knowing that some members have questions from time to time that trouble them." this claim from the link in 2015 was interesting: "But the church denies last weekend’s meeting came in response to any of that. " "Any of that" was in reference to as quoted from Snuffer "I know that there are people that are blogging in the Boise area and talking about meetings that are taking place up there and fellowships that are forming". Ah well...it seems to be a fib, but not a big deal of course. Just kind of funny. Of course the content of the message it appears pretty much spelled out the purpose of Oaks' visit. Not sure why it was denied. The spokesman is saying that the 12 have certain weekends where they can decide who they feel they need to go see and what they feel needs to be discussed-weekends that are still considered part of the business of being an apostle (and so not personal weekends but business weekends) but where they are free to choose what business to attend to and where to attend to it on their own without being given an assignment. Oaks certainly could have seen that the other GAs were scheduled to speak and decided that he also should go as well. If he wasn't assigned to go but decided to go on his own then what the spokesperson described about business weekends is the truth. 4
bluebell Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: An interesting question would be, what time for an Apostle is considered "free time". Do they have a full 40 hour work week schedule? What days and nights and hours are scheduled by the church, and which hours are free time. My guess is that they have some kind distinction between their personal time and church business time. I'm guessing he may have been factually relating that this time was previously scheduled as free time for Elder Oaks, but that because of the circumstances, they changed his free time to official church business. Who knows.... These guys really need to be retired and spending their last years with their families and on vacations, not working for the church, its sad... What's sad is that you think you know better than these men what they should be doing and how they should be spending their time. 4
hope_for_things Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: What's sad is that you think you know better than these men what they should be doing and how they should be spending their time. Whats sad is that you disagree with my common sense and reason. 1
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I outlined my thoughts two posts above yours. Feel free to disagree if you like. The spokesman apparently was asked if Oaks went in response to the issues they face up there. The spokesman apparently said no and said essentially he just happened to go where there were a concentration of LDS people. The spokesman said, as quoted in your post, " a concentration of members, knowing that some members have questions from time to time that trouble them." So Elder Oaks did go there because of "issues they face us there" as you've put it. What the church spokesperson is denying is that the visit was specifically linked to the activities of Denver Snuffer or any of the claims Snuffer is making about the Boise area. This doesn't seem to be a denial that Snuffer was among the reasons for Elder Oaks visit, just that Snuffer is not the specific reason or the only reason. 2
rongo Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 27 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I don't get what the issue is. The OP says that Elder Oaks had an unscheduled weekend and and he identified Boise as a place that he's concerned about and could benefit from his presence. This seems to be what he did and what the church spokesperson reported him doing. What is the issue? I think the issue is that the Church spokespeople tried to portray this has having nothing to do with Denver Snuffer, when it's pretty obvious that it was in reaction to that (especially given the nature of Elder Oaks's message). Elder Oaks may well have chosen to go on his own time or on his own to address it, but it was the PR goal of creating distance between reacting to Snuffer that comes across, well, spokespeople-like. 3
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm guessing he may have been factually relating that this time was previously scheduled as free time for Elder Oaks, but that because of the circumstances, they changed his free time to official church business. Who knows.... These guys really need to be retired and spending their last years with their families and on vacations, not working for the church, its sad... As has been explained above and in the article cited in the OP, the apostles have weekends when they work, but this work is at their discretion and not by assignment. It was Elder Oaks choice to go to Boise. "These guys" [apostles] are doing the work that they love. It is voluntary. They are doing it because they love to serve the Lord and they love those whom they serve. What better way to spend ones life. 2
bluebell Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Whats sad is that you disagree with my common sense and reason. One person's common sense and reason is another person's foolishness. I have no doubt that I spend my time sometimes in ways that people consider sad, and I have no doubt that you spend your time sometimes in ways that people consider sad. Such is life. 3
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, bluebell said: The spokesman is saying that the 12 have certain weekends where they can decide who they feel they need to go see and what they feel needs to be discussed-weekends that are still considered part of the business of being an apostle (and so not personal weekends but business weekends) but where they are free to choose what business to attend to and where to attend to it on their own without being given an assignment. Oaks certainly could have seen that the other GAs were scheduled to speak and decided that he also should go as well. If he wasn't assigned to go but decided to go on his own then what the spokesperson described about business weekends is the truth. I'm not sure what your point is now.. I've made my point. it seems the spokesperson was asked if he went in response to the whole snuffer business, meaning the needs of the members. The spokesperson, as was reported responded with no. But it seemed apparent that he did go and respond to the issue, so it was a funny reportable thing back in 2015. Now it seems even more apparent he went and addressed the Snuffer issue. Whether it was on his free weekend or not isn't relevant. Whether someone sent him or not isn't relevant. Whether he went because he felt something needed to be discussed is interesting because what was discussed was the Snuffer issue. Edited March 2, 2017 by stemelbow
JulieM Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: That's what i'm seeing too. It seems weird to say that Elder Oaks was told to go and visit Boise when there is absolutely no evidence to support that. I don't know that he was "told" to go, but I think it was planned to address issues that Rowe was causing maybe. It's interesting that when I posted this yesterday (on the other thread): "It's also a bit revealing that 3 men are named (one virtually unknown from what I've read), but no women are named. Why didn't Kate Kelly or Julie Rowe have a bubble (but Robert Norman did?)." The responses I got were that Rowe wasn't as big a threat anymore since the church held the special conference in Idaho to have Oaks address the problem. Edited March 2, 2017 by JulieM 2
bluebell Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm not sure what your point is now.. I've made my point. it seems the spokesperson was asked if he went in response to the whole snuffer business, meaning the needs of the members. The spokesperson, as was reported responded with no. But it seemed apparent that he did go and respond to the issue, so it was a funny reportable thing back in 2015. Now it seems even more apparent he went and addressed the Snuffer issue. Whether it was on his free weekend or not isn't relevant. Whether someone sent him or not isn't relevant. Whether he went because he felt something needed to be discussed is interesting because what was discussed was the Snuffer issue. I guess my point is that there is no evidence that anyone has lied so it seems wrong to me to assume that someone has lied. 1
stemelbow Posted March 2, 2017 Posted March 2, 2017 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: The spokesman said, as quoted in your post, " a concentration of members, knowing that some members have questions from time to time that trouble them." So Elder Oaks did go there because of "issues they face us there" as you've put it. What the church spokesperson is denying is that the visit was specifically linked to the activities of Denver Snuffer or any of the claims Snuffer is making about the Boise area. This doesn't seem to be a denial that Snuffer was among the reasons for Elder Oaks visit, just that Snuffer is not the specific reason or the only reason. uh....ok. I'm not sure I care that much anymore. I don't quite get whether it matters if this was part of the reason or the sole reason. It seems to be a bit of a fib either way.
Recommended Posts