CH1 Now online for all membership

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That was not the suggestion.  Things can get so out of hand in these conversations if people continue to read into comments.  The suggestion was the Church (not the brethren....two different things) are being like the Pharisees in one particular way--favoring the letter of the law over the spirit of it. 

Huh?  The General Authorities (not "the Church" - two different things) decided to limit the distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in each and every unit of the Church.

And for this, you have publicly accused them of being worse than the Pharisees.

The Pharisees in question were characterized by being self-righeous and hypocritical (arising from their excessive devotion to the letter of the law rather than to its spirit), to the extent that they conspired to kill the Savior.  So if you are saying "Yes, I am publicly accusing the General Authorities of being self-righteous and hypocritical, but not to the extreme extent of their conspiracy to kill Jesus," I'll go along with that.

It's still an incredibly offensive and false accusation.  Again, the thing which the General Authorities did which, in your view, makes them more self-righteous and hypocritical than the Pharisees was . . . to limit the distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in each and every unit of the Church.

The Church invests huge amounts of discretion in the local leaders and individuals.  Huge amounts of leeway to proceed as they see fit.  The Handbook has all sorts of generalized guidelines about all sorts of difficult and sensitive topics, such as abortion, how many children to have, cremation, vasectomies, and so on.  Some of these these things (such as members entering into same-sex marriage, or having gender reassignment surgery) are incompatible with continued membership in the Church.  Many (most?), however, are left to the discretion of not even the bishop, but to the individual.

So the accusation of the General Authorities doing things that make them worse than the Pharisees just doesn't hold.  At all.

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When I said the Church is trying to out Pharisee the Pharisees the context suggested I am saying the Church is trying to create a very detailed written record of law. 

"Detailed," and yet still leaving huge amounts of discretionary authority to local leaders and to individual members.

So not very "pharisaical" at all, IMO.

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see a reason to get all worked up over this, Smac, and try to paint this as me saying something I did not.  Gray is correct in pointing out the Pharisees were not evil.  The caricatures painted in the NT were likely not real. 

First, I don't get it.  You invoked the Pharisees for their value as a pejorative comparison (namely, that they were bad, but what the General Authorities have done with Handbook 1 is worse).  Now you are defending their behavior.  If the descriptions of them in the NT are merely "caricatures," then why did you present a comparison that relied upon those negative caricatures?

Second, "{t}he Lord denounced the Pharisees and their works in Matthew 23; Mark 7:1–23; and Luke 11:37–44."  I'm sure there was a lot of ignorance and misdirected zeal tied up in what they did.  And yet . . . 

Third, when a member of the Church comes to an LDS message board and publicly accuses the leaders of the Church - or the Church in its entirety - of being worse than the Pharisees, well, he should not be surprised when his flamebaiting remarks spark something.

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

they came from stories handed down over decades and recorded by people, most likely, wanting to make a point about the Pharisees and other groups.  They were just people.

Again, I don't get it.  You used the Pharisees as a descriptor to disparage the Church and its leaders.  Now they "were just people?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I don't get it.  You invoked the Pharisees for their value as a pejorative comparison (namely, that they were bad, but what the General Authorities have done with Handbook 1 is worse).  Now you are defending their behavior.  If the descriptions of them in the NT are merely "caricatures," then why did you present a comparison that relied upon those negative caricatures?

I shouldn't have invoked the name phariseee, for sure.  It was in bad taste, i'd say.  Of course I defend people.  I did not in any way see it as pejorative, but as a means of classification. 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, "{t}he Lord denounced the Pharisees and their works in Matthew 23; Mark 7:1–23; and Luke 11:37–44."  I'm sure there was a lot of ignorance and misdirected zeal tied up in what they did.  And yet . . . 

Third, when a member of the Church comes to an LDS message board and publicly accuses the leaders of the Church - or the Church in its entirety - of being worse than the Pharisees, well, he should not be surprised when his flamebaiting remarks spark something.

Again, I don't get it.  You used the Pharisees as a descriptor to disparage the Church and its leaders.  Now they "were just people?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I did not seek to disparage anyone.  I used it to suggest the church has many rules more rules, likely, than others. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I shouldn't have invoked the name phariseee, for sure.  It was in bad taste, i'd say. 

Yeah.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course I defend people.  I did not in any way see it as pejorative, but as a means of classification. I did not seek to disparage anyone. 

So drawing comparisons between General Authorities and Pharisees was "in bad taste," but not "pejorative" or "disparag{ing}."

Quite an impressive example of hairsplitting.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I used it to suggest the church has many rules more rules, likely, than others. 

Right.  'Cuz publicly comparing LDS leaders to Pharisees on an LDS message board is an exercise in clinical, detached objectivity.  Not designed to offend or demean at all.

-Smac

[Gray]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm certainly glad I did not do anything like that.

I think intentions matter.  If it is not intended to be anti-Semitic, I'm not sure it should be construed as such.

In this thread, it was used as a profoundly denigrating slur.  That was the clear intent, so I took it as such.

Well no, it's not.  I never used the term.  In fact, I have strenuously objected to its use.

No, that wasn't the result.  I never used the term to denigrate anyone else.  I have instead objected to the use of the term.

I don't know Stem.  I took exception to his use of a profoundly offensive and denigrating slur.  I did not use the slur.  He did.

Well, I can't agree with that.  I didn't use the term.  I never applied it to anyone.  I objected to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Your objections don't ring true. Maybe take responsibility for your own words? Pharisee is not a synonym for Christ-killer, and suggesting that it is so is profoundly anti-Semitic, even if it's unintentional. Stem used the term to mean someone who is overly obsessed with minutia of religious rules. You used the term to mean something far worse.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Gray

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your objections don't ring true. Maybe take responsibility for your own words? Pharisee is not a synonym for Christ-killer, and suggesting that it is so is profoundly anti-Semitic, even if it's unintentional. Stem used the term to mean someone who is overly obsessed with minutia of religious rules. You used the term to mean something far worse.

Pretty much the only way I've heard the term used until this tempest in a teapot.  Makes you wonder how much of this objection is just a ploy to shout down an argument...bad faith, and all.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Call the cops.

Perfect response, virtual rep points coming your way!  

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Pretty much the only way I've heard the term used until this tempest in a teapot.  Makes you wonder how much of this objection is just a ploy to shout down an argument...bad faith, and all.

Indeed. "Offender for a word" is another phrase that comes to mind. But in trying to make Stem's comment to be much worse than it was, he ironically made a statement much more offensive than even his distorted caricature of what Stem said.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

In addition to the above, using the Pharisee as a descriptive label not relating to ethnicity has become a specific definition and it is not having to do with the behaviour of only a subset of Pharisees, those involved in the judgment and death of Christ.

There were a lot more Pharisees around than just that subset.  In general, Pharisees became known for their elevation of the Law and this became seen as overzealous or hypocritical based on Jesus' (and perhaps others) condemnation of those who challenged him, such that a common definition of the label is now:

2.  (lowercase) practicing or advocating strictobservance of external forms and ceremonies ofreligion or conduct without regard to the spirit;self-righteous; hypocritical.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pharisaical

 

It would be inappropriate to condemn someone for using the label German as if they were using the label Nazi, even though most original Nazis were German.  Still Nazis were only a very limited subset of Germans of a certain place and time.  In the same way the "Christkillers" were only a subset of the Pharisees, limited to a certain place and time (and likely involved many more than just Pharisees).

Descriptions of the Pharisees in the NT are exaggerated, especially in John. There may have been some Pharisees that Jesus had a quarrel with (probably more so any who were Roman collaborators), but they (Pharisees ) were not villains. And however some of Jesus' fellow Jews may have felt about him, it was Pilate who ordered his death. Pilate is whitewashed in scripture, but in history he was known for his brutality and vindictiveness. The historical Pilate wouldn't have had any compunction about executing Jesus, or any other Jewish trouble maker, at the drop of a hat.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your objections don't ring true.

Okay.  CFR where I compared someone else to the Pharisees.  Chapter and verse, please.  And good luck with it.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe take responsibility for your own words?

Happily.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Pharisee is not a synonym for Christ-killer,

I acknowledge that (though the pejorative value of the term relies on some overlap). 

In any event, I have clarified my position already.  See here: "The Pharisees in question were characterized by being self-righeous and hypocritical (arising from their excessive devotion to the letter of the law rather than to its spirit), to the extent that they conspired to kill the Savior.  So if you are saying 'Yes, I am publicly accusing the General Authorities of being self-righteous and hypocritical, but not to the extreme extent of their conspiracy to kill Jesus,' I'll go along with that."

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

and suggesting that it is so is profoundly anti-Semitic, even if it's unintentional.

Any accusations of anti-Semitism through pejorative use of "Pharisee" are unfounded.  I don't believe Stem is an anti-Semite, nor do I believe he intended to disparage all Semitic peoples by using the term.

Meanwhile, I objected to the use of the term.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Stem used the term to mean someone who is overly obsessed with minutia of religious rules. You used the term to mean something far worse.

Again, you don't understand: I didn't use the term.  I objected to the use of the term.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Indeed. "Offender for a word" is another phrase that comes to mind. But in trying to make Stem's comment to be much worse than it was, he ironically made a statement much more offensive than even his distorted caricature of what Stem said.

The question this brings to mind is what is expected when the church makes people covenant to no evil speaking of the Lord's anointed?  I imagine that smac is trying to defend what he considers the reputations of the brethren and he feels his tactics on this thread are justified by this injunction.  I see this play out in many threads on this message board when criticism of the church and its leaders are brought up for debate. 

What do people think is required/expected of them when it comes to fulfilling this commitment?  When does a defense of the brethren get out of control and become an evil unto itself?  It might be useful to have an honest dialogue about this so people can discuss.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  CFR where I compared someone else to the Pharisees.  Chapter and verse, please.  And good luck with it.

I never said you compared someone to the Pharisees, so your CFR is invalid. I said you used the term, and defined it a certain way.

 

Quote

Happily.

I acknowledge that (though the pejorative value of the term relies on some overlap). 

In any event, I have clarified my position already.  See here: "The Pharisees in question were characterized by being self-righeous and hypocritical (arising from their excessive devotion to the letter of the law rather than to its spirit), to the extent that they conspired to kill the Savior.  So if you are saying 'Yes, I am publicly accusing the General Authorities of being self-righteous and hypocritical, but not to the extreme extent of their conspiracy to kill Jesus,' I'll go along with that."

Any accusations of anti-Semitism through pejorative use of "Pharisee" are unfounded.  I don't believe Stem is an anti-Semite, nor do I believe he intended to disparage all Semitic peoples by using the term.

Meanwhile, I objected to the use of the term.

I don't think you or Stem are anti-Semites - far from it. But you both stepped in it by using Pharisee as a pejorative. As they said at the end of GI Joe, knowing is half the battle.

 

Quote

Again, you don't understand: I didn't use the term.  I objected to the use of the term.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You did use the term, and defined it like this:

 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The accusation wasn't merely that the Brethren are "being Pharisaical," but that they were worse than the Pharisees.

A public accusation, by a member of the Church, on an LDS message board, that the leaders of the Church are worse than the people who conspired to murder Jesus Christ because they (the LDS leaders) have decided to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in every unit in the entire Church is a pretty serious thing.  It's about as "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"-esque as you can get.  You understand that, right?

You used the term Pharisees, and defined it to mean "people who conspired to murder Jesus." That's a profoundly anti-semitic thing to say - all in an attempt to distort someone else's words. Historically "Pharisees" have been used as a short-hand for "the Jews".

I don't think you're an anti-Semite at all. But you certainly said something anti-Semitic in an attempt to "get" Stem, even if it was accidentally. The best way to handle it isn't to double down. Less Moore, more Franken, is in order.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The question this brings to mind is what is expected when the church makes people covenant to no evil speaking of the Lord's anointed?  I imagine that smac is trying to defend what he considers the reputations of the brethren and he feels his tactics on this thread are justified by this injunction.  I see this play out in many threads on this message board when criticism of the church and its leaders are brought up for debate. 

What do people think is required/expected of them when it comes to fulfilling this commitment?  When does a defense of the brethren get out of control and become an evil unto itself?  It might be useful to have an honest dialogue about this so people can discuss.

I don't know if this behavior is necessarily a byproduct of that - it seems limited to a few distinct personalities on here.  But "no evil speaking" can serve as a handy excuse to attack people who you define as "evil speakers" if you enjoy that sort of thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What do people think is required/expected of them when it comes to fulfilling this commitment?  When does a defense of the brethren get out of control and become an evil unto itself?  It might be useful to have an honest dialogue about this so people can discuss.

If I see it happen, I'll let you know. I haven't yet.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I see it happen, I'll let you know. I haven't yet.

Do you see the weakness in this statement?

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I see it happen, I'll let you know. I haven't yet.

Ha!  You should get into politics.  

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The question this brings to mind is what is expected when the church makes people covenant to no evil speaking of the Lord's anointed?  I imagine that smac is trying to defend what he considers the reputations of the brethren and he feels his tactics on this thread are justified by this injunction.  I see this play out in many threads on this message board when criticism of the church and its leaders are brought up for debate. 

What do people think is required/expected of them when it comes to fulfilling this commitment?  When does a defense of the brethren get out of control and become an evil unto itself?  It might be useful to have an honest dialogue about this so people can discuss.

I would put this forward - broadly speaking, anyone who has been through the  temple is quite literally "the Lord's annointed." And maybe constructive criticism and "evil speaking" are two different things.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You are right...That's not a true statement of my premise at all.  not even close. 

And yet you applaud someone for accusing the Church of curtaling a member's "freedom of the press" because they object to him vilifying the Church on the Internet. Sure seems like a sense of entitlement to me.

Quote

Well whatever, Scott.  I enjoyed the point made. 

Meaning you enjoyed his allegation that the Church abridges one's "freedom of the press" because they object to him vilifying the Church on the Internet? Combine this with your remark that the Church behaved worse than the Pharisees, and you are batting a thousand with over-the-top hyperbole today.

Quote

It's a bit of a summation of things people have said they have been told.  Admittedly it was not a quotation per se, but a statement capturing the idea I remember hearing. 

So it was a paraphrase with your own subjective spin? Then you shouldn't have put it in quotation marks.

[Avatar4321]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:59 AM, Duncan said:

Somebody said once and I chuckle is that CH1 is answers to questions that nobody asks. Par example why on earth would a member go to a Bishop and ask about a vasectomy? unless the Bishop is doing it then why bother him with that or cremation-funerals aren't cheap and unless the Bishop is willing to fork over the dosh then if a member gets it done and how they pay for it is really none of his concern, IMO

this reminds me of an excellent sermon by President Packer on the need to be self sufficient. Perhaps ill look for it and post it later since it seems like it would be good for its own thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do you see the weakness in this statement?

Um, no.

It's as much as to say I haven't seen "defense of the Brethren" getting "out of control" or behavior on the part of the sitting General Authorities so egregious that defending them from unjust attack becomes "an evil unto itself."

So no, I don't agree it's a weak statement. I see it as the opposite.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would put this forward - broadly speaking, anyone who has been through the  temple is quite literally "the Lord's annointed." And maybe constructive criticism and "evil speaking" are two different things.

When I've seen the phrase "the Lord's anointed" it has been in the context of their having been anointed to lead and guide His church through the bestowal of divine authority and via revelation from Him.

You can spin it for your own purposes, of course, but I don't feel bound by it.

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When I've seen the phrase "the Lord's anointed" it has been in the context of their having been anointed to lead and guide His church through the bestowal of divine authority and via revelation from Him.

You can spin it for your own purposes, of course, but I don't feel bound by it.

 

Put it like this then - if evil speaking of the Lord's anointed (let's say we define that as the most senior church leadership) is wrong, is it okay to speak evil about everyone else? What about an emeritus 70? No longer the Lord's anointed, and fair game?

Edited November 17, 2017 by Gray

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, no.

It's as much as to say I haven't seen "defense of the Brethren" getting "out of control" or behavior on the part of the sitting General Authorities so egregious that defending them from unjust attack becomes "an evil unto itself."

So no, I don't agree it's a weak statement. I see it as the opposite.

 

Therein lies the weakness.  By implication, your dismissal of the statement has clearly indicated that the statement to which you were objecting has stimulated no self-reflection; only reaction.  Consequently, it appears you likely believe one or more of the following: 1) there is no circumstance under which such a thing could ever happen; 2) you don't believe any defender on this board, or anywhere else, could fall victim to such a mistake; and/or 3), you cannot or will not entertain the idea that even you could be subject to such an error.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would put this forward - broadly speaking, anyone who has been through the  temple is quite literally "the Lord's annointed." And maybe constructive criticism and "evil speaking" are two different things.

I always thought the phrase Lord’s Annointed was specifically referring to church leadership, maybe I misinterpreted that?  

Criticism vs. evil speaking can be quite subjective.  I think the culture doesn’t model very healthy discussions in this way.  Elder Oaks recent talk criticizing the notion of loyal opposition is a case and point example of intolerance for certain critiques.  The negative consequences of this perspective leads to clashes and shaming and blaming instead of honest disagreement and dispassionate dialogue.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Therein lies the weakness.  By implication, your dismissal of the statement has clearly indicated that the statement to which you were objecting has stimulated no self-reflection; only reaction.  Consequently, it appears you likely believe one or more of the following: 1) there is no circumstance under which such a thing could ever happen; 2) you don't believe any defender on this board, or anywhere else, could fall victim to such a mistake; and/or 3), you cannot or will not entertain the idea that even you could be subject to such an error.

Here again is an instance of erroneously that which is impossible and that which is unlikely.

So, no, I don't believe it is at all likely where the Church leaders as a body would get so far off the rails that defending them becomes an "evil unto itself."

I see it much more likely that wrongdoing would be on the part of those who incessantly attack the Brethren. I see that happening all the time. On this very board, even.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

Put it like this then - if evil speaking of the Lord's anointed (let's say we define that as the most senior church leadership) is wrong, is it okay to speak evil about everyone else? What about an emeritus 70? No longer the Lord's anointed, and fair game?

Non-sequitur.