Light is Good.

[sheilauk]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

How about this:  Is it at all concerning that we've got pages and pages of LDS posters here repeating and rehashing hearsay and allegations about a man, rewriting and reinforcing them until they take on a life of their own, all without any real evidence?

It's a concern for me. 

Namaste. 

There is evidence.   There is the word of a number of women who have experienced it directly themselves.   That is not hearsay.  You may discount their evidence or give it little weight, others can choose to do the opposite, thats what we all do with evidence, but it is still evidence.  

[flameburns623]

The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability is a parachurch ministry which helps other parachurch ministries and some churches strike an appropriate balance between privacy of donors and the effective use of funds.  

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Standards

Take note that member organizations are expected to provide regular,  detailed,  financial statements, readily available to members/donors, which allow the donors to evaluate for themselves whether the funds donated are being properly and effectively utilized.

Because of the televangelist scandals of the 1990's,  many if not most Evangelical parachurch organizations belong to something like the ECFA, and a lot of churches likewise. 

Similar things are being done to ensure independent oversight and recordkeeping to protect parishioners and clergy from incidents of ecclesial abuse and to ensure a fair and thorough investigation when such is alleged.  Privileged personal information remains privileged, but g

The Community of Christ has (supposedly) maintained a higher degree of exchange of dialogue between hierarchy and laity, as part of it's understanding of "Common Consent". Although revelation and governance still flow from the top down, changes do not take place, (ideally???? I don't know this firsthand), until the matters have had some measure of vetting before the whole church. 

Generally, when people speak of wanting "more light" within a church, these are the sort of steps they wish to see undertaken to ensure that the widest possible involvement of all members at every level is enabled.

Personal privacy is not compromised nor do congregations micromanage the meal breaks of the General Authorities, but collegiality, multivalent accountability,  and a greater measure of representative democracy are provided for. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that light and disclosure must exist in all areas of mutual organisation, especially in a church which seeks to glorify truth.  In an organisation by God, I believe I would see members sit in council about church practices and policy, such councils being either open to the membership's audience, perhaps even participation.

I don't see the possibility of God setting total authority of his church in one mortal or even a small group of mortals.  In such a case of extreme power, such individuals would rightly be subject to extreme scrutiny. But, alas, even as in practice TCJCLDS more and more resembles such a group claiming such extreme authority, they very clearly separate their workings from extreme scrutiny.

Why not air the councils of the Twelve to the membership? Why not model to the church how Christ's apostles bridge disagreement and work for consensus?

 

Members do sit in council, in their respective units of organization (family, branch/ward, stake, etc.; quorum and auxiliary, etc.). This is accomplished in smaller and increasingly larger units of organization so that the Lord’s instruction and aims expressed in D&C 88:122 are followed: “Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.”

To accomplish this for every individual member, the keys or authority are delegated in a particular order, with God being the most scrutinized of all, and His delegates being rightly scrutinized by those same standards and principles. Authority is delegated by revelation and ordinance on condition of the Lord’s will, but power (or faith) in the priesthood is delegated only on condition of the personal worthiness of whomever is exercising the authority of the delegated priesthood (and God follows that principle as well). Thus authority is primarily granted under God’s will (to the willing recipient), but power is primarily granted as a function of the delegate’s will as it aligns with God’s by faith.

The model given from the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve is the interaction of councils and common consent. The spiritual principles underlying common consent (with the attendant sustaining) and transparency are faith and knowledge respectively, and they are also two sides of the same coin (Alma 32). This is how and why in LDS teachings, both faith and knowledge are referred to as principles of power and action.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability is a parachurch ministry which helps other parachurch ministries and some churches strike an appropriate balance between privacy of donors and the effective use of funds.  

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Standards

Take note that member organizations are expected to provide regular,  detailed,  financial statements, readily available to members/donors, which allow the donors to evaluate for themselves whether the funds donated are being properly and effectively utilized.

Because of the televangelist scandals of the 1990's,  many if not most Evangelical parachurch organizations belong to something like the ECFA, and a lot of churches likewise. 

Similar things are being done to ensure independent oversight and recordkeeping to protect parishioners and clergy from incidents of ecclesial abuse and to ensure a fair and thorough investigation when such is alleged.  Privileged personal information remains privileged, but g

The Community of Christ has (supposedly) maintained a higher degree of exchange of dialogue between hierarchy and laity, as part of it's understanding of "Common Consent". Although revelation and governance still flow from the top down, changes do not take place, (ideally???? I don't know this firsthand), until the matters have had some measure of vetting before the whole church. 

Generally, when people speak of wanting "more light" within a church, these are the sort of steps they wish to see undertaken to ensure that the widest possible involvement of all members at every level is enabled.

Personal privacy is not compromised nor do congregations micromanage the meal breaks of the General Authorities, but collegiality, multivalent accountability,  and a greater measure of representative democracy are provided for. 

This article is interesting as it touches on these same points in a slightly different way (particularly "The Government of the Church" and "Practice and Procedure" sections): https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/11-law-common-consent-dc-26

Of course not everyone draws the same "Conclusion," where the more advanced principles of Zion replace more secular values such as "collegiality" and "multivalent accountability," and require more Christ-centered charity and righteousness of the member.

And some, knowing this, would ask the Church to operate differently and cry foul when she does not compromise higher for lesser principles and practices.

[Meadowchik]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Members do sit in council, in their respective units of organization (family, branch/ward, stake, etc.; quorum and auxiliary, etc.). This is accomplished in smaller and increasingly larger units of organization so that the Lord’s instruction and aims expressed in D&C 88:122 are followed: “Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.”

To accomplish this for every individual member, the keys or authority are delegated in a particular order, with God being the most scrutinized of all, and His delegates being rightly scrutinized by those same standards and principles. Authority is delegated by revelation and ordinance on condition of the Lord’s will, but power (or faith) in the priesthood is delegated only on condition of the personal worthiness of whomever is exercising the authority of the delegated priesthood (and God follows that principle as well). Thus authority is primarily granted under God’s will (to the willing recipient), but power is primarily granted as a function of the delegate’s will as it aligns with God’s by faith.

The model given from the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve is the interaction of councils and common consent. The spiritual principles underlying common consent (with the attendant sustaining) and transparency are faith and knowledge respectively, and they are also two sides of the same coin (Alma 32). This is how and why in LDS teachings, both faith and knowledge are referred to as principles of power and action.

I actually don't see common consent as functioning in practice in the church today. Nowadays it seems more a symbol of loyalty than anything else.

Faith in my opinion should be more about overcoming challenges to growth and serving, and less about hoping or believing the brethren are truly conducting Christ's work in their councils when we cannot see their councils.

I do not see the Brethren as possibly being God's authority on earth, but it would imo be healthier for the organisation if the transparency of their councils and doings was as extreme as the authority they claim.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I actually don't see common consent as functioning in practice in the church today. Nowadays it seems more a symbol of loyalty than anything else.

This is true and is evidenced by:

a) how rare it is to see a dissenting vote,

b) the way the culture looks down on any dissenting voters. 

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, sheilauk said:

There is evidence.   There is the word of a number of women who have experienced it directly themselves.   That is not hearsay.  You may discount their evidence or give it little weight, others can choose to do the opposite, thats what we all do with evidence, but it is still evidence.  

Is there evidence that he's not a model feminist?  Yes.  But that isn't what I asked.  The statement was made that he hasn't lived up to the standard he set for himself.  That's the evidence I asked about. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is true and is evidenced by:

a) how rare it is to see a dissenting vote,

b) the way the culture looks down on any dissenting voters. 

Yes, and if there is really only one "good" option in practice, then it's not a real choice and it's not true consent. Real consent would have rightous optionS, fo example, multiple good choices, or alternative subsequent votes, or some other avenue to seek genuine consent.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I actually don't see common consent as functioning in practice in the church today. Nowadays it seems more a symbol of loyalty than anything else.

Faith in my opinion should be more about overcoming challenges to growth and serving, and less about hoping or believing the brethren are truly conducting Christ's work in their councils when we cannot see their councils.

I do not see the Brethren as possibly being God's authority on earth, but it would imo be healthier for the organisation if the transparency of their councils and doings was as extreme as the authority they claim.

I understand that you don’t see these things, and I know how difficult it must be (having concluded that power and authority are unhealthily exercised in the extreme) to keep an open mind so as to evaluate explanations like this  (Posted 9 minutes ago ) at face value.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is true and is evidenced by:

a) how rare it is to see a dissenting vote,

b) the way the culture looks down on any dissenting voters. 

a) Where Zion is of one heart and one mind, the votes will typically sustain the Lord's selection of servants in faith. Where non-contentious dissent might exist for a season, people arrive at Zion's one heart and one mind through good-faith participation in councils, as I described here: Posted 49 minutes ago

b) The Zion culture does not look down on dissenters so much as have sorrow for them.

---

Unfortunately I won’t be able to post further until next week. Enjoy the two-way discussion!

Edited May 24, 2017 by CV75

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand that you don’t see these things, and I know how difficult it must be (having concluded that power and authority are unhealthily exercised in the extreme) to keep an open mind so as to evaluate explanations like this  (Posted 9 minutes ago ) at face value.

a) Where Zion is of one heart and one mind, the votes will typically sustain the Lord's selection of servants in faith. Where non-contentious dissent might exist for a season, people arrive at Zion's one heart and one mind through good-faith participation in councils, as I described here: Posted 49 minutes ago

b) The Zion culture does not look down on dissenters so much as have sorrow for them.

---

Unfortunately I won’t be able to post further until next week. Enjoy the two-way discussion!

So much of your post seems to operate under the assumption that it already IS God's work and church. I understand that, inside that bubble it can be hard to see the moral and spiritual systemic hazards in such a nontransparent organization. 

You have a good week, too.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand that you don’t see these things, and I know how difficult it must be (having concluded that power and authority are unhealthily exercised in the extreme) to keep an open mind so as to evaluate explanations like this  (Posted 9 minutes ago ) at face value.

a) Where Zion is of one heart and one mind, the votes will typically sustain the Lord's selection of servants in faith. Where non-contentious dissent might exist for a season, people arrive at Zion's one heart and one mind through good-faith participation in councils, as I described here: Posted 49 minutes ago

b) The Zion culture does not look down on dissenters so much as have sorrow for them.

---

Unfortunately I won’t be able to post further until next week. Enjoy the two-way discussion!

What you describe here is exactly the loyalty test Meadowchik noted:  agree with the vote or we'll feel sorrow for you. 

[Meadowchik]

On 23/05/2017 at 7:01 AM, Rain said:

I think light is always good. I think many of us will disagree with what light actually is. Without thinking hard to figure out if I am correct I would say light is something like Godly knowledge. And it's a two way thing. The organization should be helping it's members find Godly knowledge for themselves and the members should be using Godly knowledge to view t he organization. And if you look at the whole plan of God then you can see that I'm talking about all organizations, not just the church.

Other things that people may view as light - most likely just little pieces of the whole puzzle. 

A provisional way to shine more light is to start in all common areas: finances of the church, policy decisions, doctrine assents, membership ordinances, excommunications, all these directly implicate the general membership of the church, be it the relationship between leadership and membership or between a member and the entire church, or God and the church. I believe that with Christ, all truth is bearable, all can be resolved, love of Christ can cast out any and all fear and disharmony that is exposed by light.

[Rain]

What I'm  saying it I don't feel that truth and light are necessarily the same thing. 

It is true that I just sat on a bed. I'm not afraid of you knowing that.  It's not something I go about sharing with everyone, but I don't care who knows, but it didn't give you any light and/or Godly knowledge. 

Sometimes people seem to think that we must know everything for there to be light. That if we don't show everything we must be hiding darkness. It's just not true.  Which I am assuming you agree with.

However, we will disagree on what should be known, why it should be known, how it should be known, whether it was "hidden" or not etc. You may feel that the church is hiding something and shouldn't feel afraid to share the truth. I may feel the thing gives someone no real enlightenment and really there is just not time enough to share everything so the church needs to be wise in what it shares. 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

...excommunications

You can't be serious!  Public shaming for very personal transgressions?  No, some truths are better left private.   

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I believe that with Christ, all truth is bearable, all can be resolved, love of Christ can cast out any and all fear and disharmony that is exposed by light.

You are right that all truth is bearable with Christ, the problem is that not all have Christ. 

Then you do believe that the US government should reveal all confidential information?  Still curious as to how you would answer that.

Edited May 24, 2017 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'll help.  Yes, it is concerning.

Speaking for people and putting words in their mouth is helpful? Particularly while they're vomiting out their guts, can't see straight, and can't respond for hours? That sounds like help??

I'm not concerned, yet. In large part because many of those talking up are people that were primarily effected and aren't anonymous aliases. FYI. I'm just too shot to talk on that string. Because it entails more reading and research than I can currently afford physically to do. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 24, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Meadowchik]

Just now, BlueDreams said:

Speaking for people and putting words in their mouth is helpful? Particularly while they're vomiting out their guts, can't see straight, and can't respond for hours? That sounds help??

I'm not concerned, yet. In large part because many of those talking up are people that were primarily effected. FYI. I'm just too shot to talk on that string. Because it entails more reading and research than I can currently afford physically to do. 

I'm sorry you were ill and hope you feel better soon.

FYI, I didn't and don't presume to speak for you but I did answer his question for myself since you couldn't for you.

 

[BlueDreams]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm sorry you were ill and hope you feel better soon.

FYI, I didn't and don't presume to speak for you but I did answer his question for myself since you couldn't for you.

 

Then just claim it as your own not as help. That's your right, of course. 

 

Thanks for the concern. 

With luv,

BD 

 

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

You can't be serious!  Public shaming for very personal transgressions?  No, some truths are better left private.   

You are right that all truth is bearable with Christ, the problem is that not all have Christ. 

Then you do believe that the US government should reveal all confidential information?  Still curious as to how you would answer that.

If a church matter cannot be handled by the church appropriately in a more public fashion, maybe it is inappropriate in the first place as a church matter. Spiritual advice and counsel is one thing...using the information as excommunication from the church body is another.

When the government by the people represents people who unanimously believe in Christ and covenant to follow Christ, we may be more ready to live without state secrets. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Other than the hearsay being tossed around on the other thread, is there actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

I'm not sure dismissing it all as hearsay is very helpful.  Some of what is discussed is first hand accounts. 

One lady "Joanna S" said, "some were full fledged profiting and taking advantage of women (please pay your women podcasters EQUALLY, as you have your male podcaster for years)".  And we learned that Natasha Parker is getting paid 1/6th what Dan Wotherspoon had made for the same amount fo work--something I somehow refused to see for a  while.  So in this case, her hearsay may have more meat then initially thought.  That's not to say there might be other reasons why the disparity, afterall Sister Parker is sticking by John and OSF.  But it also lends support for the hearsay.  It seems like there are few instances of this kind of thing--someone alleges and there are other pieces shared here or there that corroborates. 

This also does not mean there is not a lot of hearsay, though. 

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Then just claim it as your own not as help. That's your right, of course. 

 

Thanks for the concern. 

With luv,

BD 

 

It was a rhetorical quip. 

You took the time to say you couldn't answer but still didn't answer and, frankly, I was happy to snark about the irony.

 

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure dismissing it all as hearsay is very helpful.  Some of what is discussed is first hand accounts. 

One lady "Joanna S" said, "some were full fledged profiting and taking advantage of women (please pay your women podcasters EQUALLY, as you have your male podcaster for years)".  And we learned that Natasha Parker is getting paid 1/6th what Dan Wotherspoon had made for the same amount fo work--something I somehow refused to see for a  while.  So in this case, her hearsay may have more meat then initially thought.  That's not to say there might be other reasons why the disparity, afterall Sister Parker is sticking by John and OSF.  But it also lends support for the hearsay.  It seems like there are few instances of this kind of thing--someone alleges and there are other pieces shared here or there that corroborates. 

This also does not mean there is not a lot of hearsay, though. 

That thread content is still inconsistent with the rules as recently enforced, unless the rules are meant to favor subjects that are LDS partisan and disfavor subjects that may paint the church negatively.

It is also strange to have a forum where the mods do not use the same personal handle that they use when they post as participants. 

In other words, the level of transparency on this board, or more specifically the lack of it, is unusually poor for a discussion board.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Meadowchik

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That thread content is still inconsistent with the rules as recently enforced, unless the rules are meant to favor subjects that are LDS partisan and disfavor subjects that may paint the church negatively.

It is also strange to have a forum where the mods do not use the same personal handle that they use when they post as participants. 

In other words, the level of transparency on this board, or more specifically the lack of it, is unusually poor for a discussion board.

I agree with you there

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure dismissing it all as hearsay is very helpful.  Some of what is discussed is first hand accounts. 

One lady "Joanna S" said, "some were full fledged profiting and taking advantage of women (please pay your women podcasters EQUALLY, as you have your male podcaster for years)".  And we learned that Natasha Parker is getting paid 1/6th what Dan Wotherspoon had made for the same amount fo work--something I somehow refused to see for a  while.  So in this case, her hearsay may have more meat then initially thought.  That's not to say there might be other reasons why the disparity, afterall Sister Parker is sticking by John and OSF.  But it also lends support for the hearsay.  It seems like there are few instances of this kind of thing--someone alleges and there are other pieces shared here or there that corroborates. 

This also does not mean there is not a lot of hearsay, though. 

The allegation is that Dehlin is not paying women fairly because of the pay difference between Dan and Natasha.  But the financial evidence (that we have) from 2015 shows that Dan's podcast brought in almost $30k and he as paid about $35k.  Natasha's podcast brought in around $2k and she was paid almost $6k.  She received 300% of the revenue her podcast produced while Dan received about 116% of the revenue his podcast brought in.

So while it is true that Dan, a male, was paid 6x more than Natasha, a female, his podcast made 15x more revenue than Natasha's.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The allegation is that Dehlin is not paying women fairly because of the pay difference between Dan and Natasha.  But the financial evidence (that we have) from 2015 shows that Dan's podcast brought in almost $30k and he as paid about $35k.  Natasha's podcast brought in around $2k and she was paid almost $6k.  She received 300% of the revenue her podcast produced while Dan received about 116% of the revenue his podcast brought in.

So while it is true that Dan, a male, was paid 6x more than Natasha, a female, his podcast made 15x more revenue than Natasha's.

Which could very well account for the difference.  I agree.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

If a church matter cannot be handled by the church appropriately in a more public fashion, maybe it is inappropriate in the first place as a church matter.

Are you suggesting that adultery, child/spousal abuse, etc. should not be subject to church discipline unless it can be done in a public fashion?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

When the government by the people represents people who unanimously believe in Christ and covenant to follow Christ, we may be more ready to live without state secrets. 

You believe that the only good reason for state secrets to be withheld is because not every US citizen is a covenant Christian?

Edited May 24, 2017 by pogi