Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I'm all in favor of using Shakespeare to understand the human condition... but maybe using Iago's (contorted) justification for his seemingly meaningless animosity isn't the best choice...? There is another literary instance in which a fictional character utters a truism that is in marked contrast with the character's own behavior. In Charles D-i-c-kens's famous novel, the spendthrift Wilkins McCawber gives this advice to young David Copperfield: Quote "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." I believe there may be method to such madness. By that I mean that, for the reader, the statement is all the more striking by reason of the paradox in which it is framed, all the more memorable in its truth as it is seen contrasting with the behavior or integrity of the character who speaks it. 3
MiserereNobis Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I believe there may be method to such madness. By that I mean that, for the reader, the statement is all the more striking by reason of the paradox in which it is framed, all the more memorable in its truth as it is seen contrasting with the behavior or integrity of the character who speaks it. Quite true. I retract my comment to you. Another Shakespearean example of this could be the advice given by Polonius to his son Laertes in Hamlet. Polonius was obviously created to be the fool, yet he still utters such wisdoms as: "Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel; But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatch'd, unfledged comrade." "Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice; Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment." "Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry." And perhaps his most famous advice: "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." 3
Calm Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: The Bishop wasn't even present. Has he been vilified? I've only heard him spoken of in positive terms. I have seen him vilified a number of times. Sometimes they aren't paying attention to anything but the headline and assume it is him who was presiding. However, many were simply along the lines of he was a lying sob for something he said in the email or they just condemned him for being part of the vile hierarchy that is Church leadership. Edited June 23, 2017 by Calm 1
CV75 Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Your statement made me curious. It took me just a few minutes to find their last name, then their address, facebook pages, etc. Why would you expose your child to such easy publicity? The only thing I can think of is insulated naiveté and a lack of understanding of proper boundaries between a parent and child. 2
CV75 Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, rockpond said: It's sad to me that we've still seen no response from the Brethren regarding this. Have they been quoted somewhere in a new story that I missed? What news organization has asked the Brethren to comment? Edited June 23, 2017 by CV75
rockpond Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 28 minutes ago, CV75 said: What news organization has asked the Brethren to comment? I'm not aware of any.
rockpond Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Calm said: I have seen him vilified a number of times. Sometimes they aren't paying attention to anything but the headline and assume it is him who was presiding. However, many were simply along the lines of he was a lying sob for something he said in the email or they just condemned him for being part of the vile hierarchy that is Church leadership. I haven't seen him referenced or villified (since he wasn't involved) but maybe I'm reading the right news stories. I also am unaware of an email... do you have a link for that?
rockpond Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I wonder if you're sad or just disappointed this social media isn't being magnified in public the way it would be if the leadership of the Church chose to make a a public issue of it. Sad. I'd like to hear from the Brethren on this. I think it would help. Social media regarding the incident has been magnified quite enough!
cacheman Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: What news organization has asked the Brethren to comment? The New York Times asked but the church spokesman said no comment. Not sure if any other news orgs have contacted them.
Rain Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: The bishop is Savannah's dad's best friend, don't you think that would put him in a predicament. He would have to choose Savannah or the church. I guess I'm the odd guy out in thinking this way, out of you and Calm. I thought the relationship was that Savannah's best friend's dad was the bishop, not that the dad was best friends with the bishop. But either way, I think he was put in a predicament. It just puts him in a different one depending on if he were there or not. Did you imagine this happening to you, where you are the leader and someone waits till you are out of town to speak rules again what you support? If you did and you still felt this would have been a kindness then I am ok with your thoughts because we are all different. I just have a hard time seeing how people would feel that way. I may have to ask my son as he has some rather unique ways of thinking, how he would feel. -------- For those who may not have noticed the start of this line of conversation, this started with the idea of what if the family did know the bishop would be out of town, not that the family did know. 1
CV75 Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 27 minutes ago, cacheman said: The New York Times asked but the church spokesman said no comment. Not sure if any other news orgs have contacted them. From the NYT article: "A spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had no comment." I'm wondering at what level they asked. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/mormon-girl-gay-speech.html 2 hours ago, rockpond said: I'm not aware of any. I'm not sure why the Church would comment on a viral video, but here's an example on a youth-related issue where they have: https://www.lds.org/church/news/videos-of-72-hour-service-challenge-go-viral?lang=eng 1
Bob Crockett Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 16 hours ago, Calm said: No, he only saw it, asked if he could help, was apparently given a few recordings, which he edited, adding her reading the part she did get to say, iirc. It was invited friends who recorded it, In one comment, it sounds like two were specifically asked. However, in other descriptions, it sounds like a number of others who had been invited and knew what was happening pulled out their phones and started recording as well. Must have been somewhat startling for the leaders on the stand. ---- He was also promoting it on his YouTube page as well as on Reddit, but he was involved after the fact. I don't know if anybody has made this point. but I would take offense at a video recording of a sacrament meeting I'm in. I have a right to be there without public display of what is going on, and it is an invasion of privacy of every congregant therein. Although I don't much give a hoot as to what this little girl had to say, perhaps the bishopric should have just stopped proceedings and asked that phones be put down. 4
Jeanne Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 What is sad in all the pros and cons of this whole situation is..that first, no real response from the authorities of the church..and two..it doesn't matter..no one is listening. 1
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted June 23, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: What is sad in all the pros and cons of this whole situation is..that first, no real response from the authorities of the church..and two..it doesn't matter..no one is listening. It deserves no response from the authorities of the Church. There is absolutely nothing they need to say. 5
Tacenda Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 42 minutes ago, Rain said: I thought the relationship was that Savannah's best friend's dad was the bishop, not that the dad was best friends with the bishop. But either way, I think he was put in a predicament. It just puts him in a different one depending on if he were there or not. Did you imagine this happening to you, where you are the leader and someone waits till you are out of town to speak rules again what you support? If you did and you still felt this would have been a kindness then I am ok with your thoughts because we are all different. I just have a hard time seeing how people would feel that way. I may have to ask my son as he has some rather unique ways of thinking, how he would feel. -------- For those who may not have noticed the start of this line of conversation, this started with the idea of what if the family did know the bishop would be out of town, not that the family did know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tEBUOXm5-A I was wrong, they didn't know the bishop wasn't going to be there. And they are family friends with the bishop. I don't know if it's through the dad's being good friends yet, maybe it states later in the video. But if you start watching around 34 min. in they state that they didn't know he wouldn't be there, but they felt he would be supportive, and felt that he would have let her speak. So they didn't intentionally speak knowing he wouldn't be there afterall. If you watch starting at 28 min. in they discuss about if it was all staged. Looks to me it wasn't. And Savannah just wanted her friend to video it for their Rainbow group, don't know what that is for sure. I guess it's a group that supports LGBT youth that are LDS.
ttribe Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 All this talk of no need for a reply makes me feel like this scripture deserves to be referenced here (Matthew 18:10-14): https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/18?lang=eng
ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 35 minutes ago, Jeanne said: What is sad in all the pros and cons of this whole situation is..that first, no real response from the authorities of the church..and two..it doesn't matter..no one is listening. What would they say that they haven't said before? As has been mentioned before, this is a local matter. The bishopric and stake presidency are the appropriate authorities to handle the situation with the family.
ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, ttribe said: All this talk of no need for a reply makes me feel like this scripture deserves to be referenced here (Matthew 18:10-14): https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/18?lang=eng Who are you accusing here?
Jeanne Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It deserves no response from the authorities of the Church. There is absolutely nothing they need to say. How about just acknowledging Savannah? Not her parents..not whoever did the video..but to her..that she is valued and what she says matters...though they disagree. She knows what a testimony is..this is hers...none of his have the same testimonies ever..but acknowledge this child of God. My heck..what would Jesus do? Shut up Savannah..just shut up??
ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: My heck..what would Jesus do? Shut up Savannah..just shut up?? Are you really sure that you would know what Jesus would do? And are you accusing her local leaders of not caring about Savannah? Do you really know what is in their hearts? 1
JLHPROF Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 36 minutes ago, ttribe said: All this talk of no need for a reply makes me feel like this scripture deserves to be referenced here (Matthew 18:10-14): https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/18?lang=eng Or how about Proverbs 22:6 and I Peter 1:14-15
ttribe Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 28 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Who are you accusing here? Why did you take that as an accusation? Do the scriptures not apply to this little girl?
JLHPROF Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, Jeanne said: My heck..what would Jesus do? And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. 1
ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, ttribe said: Why did you take that as an accusation? Do the scriptures not apply to this little girl? The first line of the scripture you've linked to is "Take heed that ye despise not these little ones." Are you saying that someone is despising her? Perhaps that's not what you intended and I've misunderstood.
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, Jeanne said: How about just acknowledging Savannah? Not her parents..not whoever did the video..but to her..that she is valued and what she says matters...though they disagree. She knows what a testimony is..this is hers...none of his have the same testimonies ever..but acknowledge this child of God. My heck..what would Jesus do? Shut up Savannah..just shut up?? SEE http://ldsmag.com/of-testimonies-and-twelve-year-olds/
Recommended Posts