smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 I have come across this video twice in the last year. It is a news item about Jarrett Maupin, a pastor in Phoenix, Arizona who had been publicly very critical of law enforcement re: use-of-force issues. So the Phoenix Police Department invited him to attend a training session that would perhaps enable him "to look at things from the other side." Here it is: So the pastor, previously so vocally and provocatively critical of law enforcement officers doing their jobs, ends up seeing things from their perspective. He sees how use-of-force issues can arise in an instant. He ends up being "shot" in one scenario, and in another he "shoots" an unarmed person who is advancing on him. He ends up saying this: "It's hard to make that call [when to use lethal force]. It shakes you up." And this: "I didn't understand how important compliance [to a law enforcement officer's instructions] was. But after going through this, yeah, my attitude has changed. This is all unfolding in 10-15 seconds. People need to comply with the orders of law enforcement officers. For their own sake." The reporter later states that the pastor plans "to go out into the community and say what he said at the very end [of the recorded portion of the report]: You have to comply with what police officers tell you. Let everything sort out at the end, but just do what they tell you right then and sort things out afterwards." I admire the pastor and his willingness to alter his perspective on (and, hopefully, his opposition to) law enforcement tactics. Given the opportunity to see things from the perspective of law enforcement officers, it looks like he moderated his criticisms quite a bit. I wonder if anything like this could be done regarding critics of the Church. Probably not. I think those who are making the most "noise," such as Sam Young, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin, etc., are A) too invested in a particular hostile narrative against the Church to approach such things with the requisite open-mindedness (that is, that some/many of their criticisms may be misguided, ignorant, flat-out wrong, etc.), and B) are too ego-driven and publicity-hungry to approach such an effort in good faith. So I think it would not be practical to invite critics to meaningfully and respectfully explore the perspective of those whom they so regularly and publicly insult and demean and slander: the General Authorities of the Church. Nevertheless, in the abstract - as a thought exercise - it sure would be interesting to see a Bill Reel or Sam Young or Gina Colvin be given a chance and obligation to present their preferred way of running the Church, and then have those suggestions and ideas critiqued and scrutinized. Or even see those ideas implemented. One of the great advantages that armchair quarterbacks have is safety. They can spout off on whatever they want precisely because they are in the armchair (and in the context of critics of the Church, also often hiding behind an online pseudonym). I am reminded here of one of my favorite quotes (attributed to Theodore Roosevelt): Quote It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Thanks, -Smac 1
Analytics Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 Sam Young and Bill Reel are both former bishops, aren't they? That being the case, they are like critics of law enforcement who are law enforcement veterans themselves. If a critic of law enforcement happens to have 15 years of experience walking the street behind a badge, I don't think asking him to take a half-day course would help him "look at things from the other side." I think he would already be intimately familiar with that side. 3
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, Analytics said: Sam Young and Bill Reel are both former bishops, aren't they? Yes. Just now, Analytics said: That being the case, they are like critics of law enforcement who are law enforcement veterans themselves. Okay. Not sure how that changes the calculus. Just now, Analytics said: If a critic of law enforcement happens to have 15 years of experience walking the street behind a badge, I don't think asking him to take a half-day course would help him "look at things from the other side." I was thinking more of the General Authority point-of-view. Just now, Analytics said: I think he would already be intimately familiar with that side. Well, no. A former bishop may have some useful insights on matters of church governance at the ward level. But a former bishop will not have any particular expertise in or experience with formulating church-wide policies (OD-2, 2015 policy changes, merging HPGs into EQPs, the ministering program, moving to a two-hour block, etc.). His experience will actually be quite finite on such things. For example, some bishops may see the shift to a two-hour block as a great thing, and some may be very worried about it. And both perspectives may have some validity. Thanks, -Smac 3
Robert F. Smith Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 23 minutes ago, Analytics said: Sam Young and Bill Reel are both former bishops, aren't they? That being the case, they are like critics of law enforcement who are law enforcement veterans themselves. If a critic of law enforcement happens to have 15 years of experience walking the street behind a badge, I don't think asking him to take a half-day course would help him "look at things from the other side." I think he would already be intimately familiar with that side. Being a trained and experienced law enforcement officer does not necessarily mean good judgment in all cases. Some guys are just plain mean and others are subject to panic and tunnel vision. Psychologists are supposed to weed them out during hiring and training, and their supervisors during early experience on the job. Not everyone is able to remain calm, cool, and collected. I have even seen experienced sergeants lose it in a variety of ways. Most cops are, however, very restrained. After all, they don't want to get sued, fired, or indicted. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 I agree with analytics that your analogy is quite flawed. I like the example of the pastor who was willing to see things from a new perspective. I think what Analytics is saying is that the "faithful perspective" is not new to Sam Young and Bill Reel, or many of us. We have vast experience living that POV so introducing us to a "faithful perspective" isn't really a new thing. Does that make sense. If Bill and Sam had never been faithful, and had never experienced leadership roles within the church, then you'd have a much better point. But they have. They know what it's like being "on the street" and having their decisions questioned/challenged. They've lived and experienced those things so when they critique they are coming at it from a POV of experience and knowledge. Admittedly, they don't know what it's like to be prophet or lead the entire church but the ward is essentially a microcosm. A bishop doesn't set church-wide policy, but he does set ward policy and is much more open to be criticized by people he knows. So what are you even suggesting as the thought experiment? You want critics to offer suggestions so you can critique them? That happens here every day. What would be interesting is if there were a way to take a person with a "faithful perspective" and help him see a new POV from the critics perspective. For the exercise to be useful, and for the analogy to have any semblance of relevance, a new perspective must be presented to the person. Again, I don't know what kind of simulation would allow for that kind of radical POV shift. Maybe you could imagine a couple of scenarios, but I think for a different POV to sink in it often needs to move out of the theoretical realm and into lived experience. For example... Imagine... Your son comes out as Gay. He now lives with his husband and has shared custody of his children with his former wife. Your grandchild is approaching baptism age and both his father and mother would like for him to be baptized, but he's not allowed as per policy. He's told that when he turns 18 and disavows his father's gay marriage, he can be baptized. But not to worry, there will not be any missed opportunities during those 10 years of non-baptism. or... You have a close friend from college who was married in the temple and has 5 children. Last year her husband had a revelation that he was supposed to practice plural marriage. Your friend tells you of the many ways he attempted to manipulate her into accepting plural marriage. He claimed it was revelation. He claimed that they would receive special blessings if they were faithful to this command from God, but conversely they would be destroyed if they didn't. He told her he had a vision that she would pass away of a sudden illness within the next couple of years and that by having a 2nd mother in the home the family would be prepared for her death and be able to survive. He introduces her to a woman God has chosen for him but your friend refuses to accept polygamy. Your friend then finds out her husband had already secretly had a spiritual marriage to the woman. You study Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and see many similarities. The entire concept of polygamy now appears deceitful and abusive to you as you've experienced it through her eyes. There are so many scenarios that could be imagined (and have been lived by others numerous times) that could alter a person's perspective when it moves from theoretical to lived experience. When a person is faced with the tangible and explicit injustice of certain policies, or the discrepancies in theology that destroys their trust in others, a person will really see from a different POV. 4
Jeanne Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 This was real eye opening for me. Simply put, looking at both sides of anything stifles issues and misunderstandings. 2
Popular Post cinepro Posted December 12, 2018 Popular Post Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I admire the pastor and his willingness to alter his perspective on (and, hopefully, his opposition to) law enforcement tactics. Given the opportunity to see things from the perspective of law enforcement officers, it looks like he moderated his criticisms quite a bit. I wonder if anything like this could be done regarding critics of the Church. Probably not. I think those who are making the most "noise," such as Sam Young, Bill Reel, Gina Colvin, etc., are A) too invested in a particular hostile narrative against the Church to approach such things with the requisite open-mindedness (that is, that some/many of their criticisms may be misguided, ignorant, flat-out wrong, etc.), and B) are too ego-driven and publicity-hungry to approach such an effort in good faith. So I think it would not be practical to invite critics to meaningfully and respectfully explore the perspective of those whom they so regularly and publicly insult and demean and slander: the General Authorities of the Church. Nevertheless, in the abstract - as a thought exercise - it sure would be interesting to see a Bill Reel or Sam Young or Gina Colvin be given a chance and obligation to present their preferred way of running the Church, and then have those suggestions and ideas critiqued and scrutinized. Or even see those ideas implemented. Thanks, -Smac As others have pointed out, I think the two scenarios are so different in principle that it would never work. The biggest problem is that the Church is operating from the premise that it is God's Church, and that the leaders are inspired. Unless someone is willing to also adopt that premise, there will never be common ground. For example, a question that is often asked on the exmormon subreddit or the Mormon Stories Facebook page is "Do you think the Apostles really believe, or do they know it's a con?" If someone could even ask that question, then their paradigm on the Church is so shifted that they're never going to have an "aha" moment like the pastor in the video did. It would be like the pastor in the video resorting to questioning whether or not the police should even be out there chasing after bad guys. "Sure, when I chased the bad guy I had to make a tough decision, but maybe the police shouldn't be chasing these people and creating these situations in the first place!" If a critic of the police can't even agree that the police have a duty to confront people suspected of committing a crime and preventing crimes from happening, then there is no common ground on which to discuss issues like "police brutality." Another example are the exmormons who don't believe in the Church but complain about the Church's policy about not letting children of gay parents get baptized. Why are they complaining? If the Church is a fraud, then no one should join it, regardless of who their parents are. Sure, the Church might be doing it for the wrong reason, but it's great that they're preventing some kids from being baptized. This would presumably discourage them from becoming committed to a fraudulent church that sucks out 10% of their income and subjects them to abusive Bishop's interviews. But for some reason, these critics become outraged at the thought that some kids are being prevented from joining a false Church. I don't know how that makes any sense. If someone told me that Scientology was denying auditing courses to the children of psychologists, I would say "Great!", because I think that's a good thing. Edited December 12, 2018 by cinepro 6
longview Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 Several weeks ago I saw an actual police video (cam in the police car) of an officer freezing while attempting to get a suspect to cooperate with his commands. More than 20 seconds elapsed while the perp coolly retrieved a rifle from his car and then cold-bloodedly murder the officer. The officer had actually emptied his clip while warning the perp repeatedly (but was unable to strike the perp). The commentator said the officer continued to pull the trigger several times even after the clip was empty. So sad. The gun magazine columnist stated that when training at the gun range, not only should you practise shooting at the targets but you should get comfortable with quick reloads and resuming fire. Multiple clips if needed. The use of large capacity magazines could mean the difference between life and death.
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree with analytics that your analogy is quite flawed. I like the example of the pastor who was willing to see things from a new perspective. I think what Analytics is saying is that the "faithful perspective" is not new to Sam Young and Bill Reel, or many of us. We have vast experience living that POV so introducing us to a "faithful perspective" isn't really a new thing. Does that make sense. I'm not really speaking of a perspective borne of faith, but more about a perspective borne of experience and data. The pastor's perspective was altered because he was able to see and experience, to a very limited extent, what law enforcement officers see and experience. The thought experiment I had in mind was for critics to be exposed to the same sort of experiences and data and considerations that General Authorities face. Armchair quarterbacking and faultfinding and second-guessing, such as we see from people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin, are shortsighted and blinkered behaviors, not unlike the pastor's condemnatory rhetoric against law enforcement. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If Bill and Sam had never been faithful, and had never experienced leadership roles within the church, then you'd have a much better point. But they have. They know what it's like being "on the street" and having their decisions questioned/challenged. Again, no. A bishop's "leadership role" in the Church is ward-level. Most of the carping from people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin pertains to wide swaths of the Church, and even the Church as a whole. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: They've lived and experienced those things so when they critique they are coming at it from a POV of experience and knowledge. No, not really. Let me illustrate: In 2015 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve enacted some controversial policies relating to same-sex marriage. Bill Reel's prior experience has a bishop does very little in illuminating the experiences and perspectives and considerations utilized by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in enacting those policies. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Admittedly, they don't know what it's like to be prophet or lead the entire church but the ward is essentially a microcosm. Well, no. A "microcosm" is, after all, "a community, place, or situation regarded as encapsulating in miniature the characteristic qualities or features of something much larger. But nobody here can seriously suggest that the experiences of a bishop in, say, Provo are going to mirror the experiences of a bishop in San Francisco, or Bangkok, Thailand, or Harare, Zimbabwe. In contrast, the General Authorities of the Church have access to all sorts of perspectives and experience and data that a local bishop does not, not unlike how the pastor lacked the perspective and experience and data available to law enforcement officers. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: A bishop doesn't set church-wide policy, but he does set ward policy and is much more open to be criticized by people he knows. A bishop set's ward policy whithin the framework provided by the Church. A bishop's authority to "set ward policy" is actually quite finite. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So what are you even suggesting as the thought experiment? You want critics to offer suggestions so you can critique them? That happens here every day. The thought experiment pertains to critics being given an opportunity to implement their ideas, and to have those ideas scrutinized and critiqued. The 2015 policy changes are a good example. It would be interesting to see a sort of cross-examination of the critics. I don't think their ideas alternative to those policies would withstand much scrutiny. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: What would be interesting is if there were a way to take a person with a "faithful perspective" and help him see a new POV from the critics perspective. Hence my participation on this board. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: For the exercise to be useful, and for the analogy to have any semblance of relevance, a new perspective must be presented to the person. Again, I don't know what kind of simulation would allow for that kind of radical POV shift. Maybe you could imagine a couple of scenarios, but I think for a different POV to sink in it often needs to move out of the theoretical realm and into lived experience. For example... Imagine... Your son comes out as Gay. I've actually contemplated this theoretical. A number of times. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: He now lives with his husband and has shared custody of his children with his former wife. Your grandchild is approaching baptism age and both his father and mother would like for him to be baptized, but he's not allowed as per policy. He's told that when he turns 18 and disavows his father's gay marriage, he can be baptized. But not to worry, there will not be any missed opportunities during those 10 years of non-baptism. Yes, that is what would happen. And yes, there would be "missed opportunities during those 10 years of non-baptism." That can happen in many circumstances. A parent may prohibit the baptism of his child, which would lead to "missed opportunities." A child from a polygamous household may have baptism delayed, which would lead to "missed opportunities." A grandchild may grow up resenting the Church's teachings about same-sex marriage, which is not surprising, since a child would understandably be defensive of his parents' behavior, even if that behavior is incompatible with Restored Gospel. So the grandchild feels torn between a perceived conflict between his parents' same-sex marriage and discipleship, and therefore is never baptized. "Missed opportunities." My child leaves the Church, such that my grandchild grows up in an irreligious household and lacks interest in joining the Church. "Missed opportunities." The permutations here are essentially endless. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: There are so many scenarios that could be imagined (and have been lived by others numerous times) that could alter a person's perspective when it moves from theoretical to lived experience. I agree. Most of us, I think, are living with a very finite and blinkered set of experiences and data. And from a spiritual/doctrinal standpoint, most of us lack stewardship and authority to make decisions pertaining to the Church as a whole. For people in operating in such circumstances to nevertheless publicly demand that the Church bow to their personal preferences and expectations is . . . presumptuous. Misguided. Flawed. And yet we have Kate Kelly appointing herself to tell - to order - the Church what to do regarding female ordination to the priesthood. We have Sam Young presuming to dictate policy for the tens of thousands of bishops in the Church re: interviewing youth. And so on. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: When a person is faced with the tangible and explicit injustice of certain policies, With perceived injustice. Based on a blinkered and finite perspective and data. There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law." Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases." A legal scholar, Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law." I think the Brethren are looking at the 2015 policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way. In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it. But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change. At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy. By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families. 43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: or the discrepancies in theology that destroys their trust in others, a person will really see from a different POV. But not a noticeably improved and informed POV. Thanks, -Smac 3
CA Steve Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 I am pretty sure that if everyone could only spend some time in my shoes they would see what a brilliant person I am. 3
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: As others have pointed out, I think the two scenarios are so different in principle that it would never work. I agree. Hence I am proposing a thought exercise, not a practicable one. Quote The biggest problem is that the Church is operating from the premise that it is God's Church, and that the leaders are inspired. Unless someone is willing to also adopt that premise, there will never be common ground. I agree. Hence the incongruity we so regularly see in people like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer and Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin. These folks seem to reject the essential premise upon which the Church is built, and to instead treat the Church like some sort of political entity or construct, one in which the members are the constituency, and the leaders are elected by popular vote rather than by revelation. Quote For example, a question that is often asked on the exmormon subreddit or the Mormon Stories Facebook page is "Do you think the Apostles really believe, or do they know it's a con?" Gotta love the loaded question. The options given here are A) the Apostles are wrong/duped/deceived, or B) the Apostles are machiavellian liars. Heads we lose, tails we lose. Quite a choice. Quote If someone could even ask that question, then their paradigm on the Church is so shifted that they're never going to have an "aha" moment like the pastor in the video did. I agree. If their perspective is that the Church is false no matter what, then a paradigm shift does not seem possible. But I would like to think that some of the critics are not so utterly closed-minded. That they would be open to the possibility that the Church is what it claims to be. Again, the incongruity here is startling. People like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer and Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin appear to have adopted a perspective that does not include the truth claims of the Church being valid. And yet they seek to import that perspective into the Church? To impute it onto the General Authorities? And to demand that the General Authorities to abandon any devotion to those truth claims, and to instead act in accordance with their (the criticis') faithless perspective? And they also want to present these demands while retaining their membership and good standing in our community of faith? That's a rather strange set of expectations. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 12, 2018 by smac97 1
Calm Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) I don’t think it is possible to compare simply because of the differences between the experiences. In the case of the pastor, he was at ground level where implementation of policies are in force, without questioning. This would be like someone at EQP or RSP level. Next step up would be Bishop/shift commander or whoever it is who sends officers out. SP might be captains. None of who make policy for their full organization. General Authority would be more like legislative powers who are establishing the laws mixed with police chiefs I am guessing. In order for critics to experience a walk in their shoes moment, they would have to have access to worldwide data on needs, all the local laws that have to be taken into account, numbers of active members, etc, etc Interesting thought exercise but impossible to actually do and I am guessing most critics think they could do as good of a job if they could choose advisers to cover the stuff they don’t get like finances and legal stuff Do Boss for a Day work out very often in comparison to Undercover Boss? (Assuming premise of second show not having seen it) Edited December 13, 2018 by Calm 1
clarkgoble Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 Just to make a point, the fact that police jobs are hard really ultimately says nothing about the rules of engagement nor how police respond to police action. Life for soldiers in combat zones is often much harder and they have much more strict rules of engagement. So an outsider having difficulty the first day acting as a police officer says nothing about the rules of engagement nor larger structures that often incentivize the small percentage of police who abuse others. Most (but admittedly not all) of the high profile shootings people object to clearly have bad rules of engagement, poor training or worse. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not really speaking of a perspective borne of faith, but more about a perspective borne of experience and data. The pastor's perspective was altered because he was able to see and experience, to a very limited extent, what law enforcement officers see and experience. The thought experiment I had in mind was for critics to be exposed to the same sort of experiences and data and considerations that General Authorities face. Armchair quarterbacking and faultfinding and second-guessing, such as we see from people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin, are shortsighted and blinkered behaviors, not unlike the pastor's condemnatory rhetoric against law enforcement. OK. Great. I'm all for GA's sharing more information. I would certainly welcome that. Again, no. A bishop's "leadership role" in the Church is ward-level. Most of the carping from people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin pertains to wide swaths of the Church, and even the Church as a whole. I think I agreed in my original post that bishop and GA are different levels, but that doesn't mean that a local leader doesn't have similar experiences, hence my "microcosm" comment. Unless I'm mistaken, experiments rarely duplicate the environment perfectly. So it would be impossible for anyone to really see what it's like to be the prophet unless they were THE prophet. But they can have similar experiences within their sphere. No, not really. Let me illustrate: In 2015 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve enacted some controversial policies relating to same-sex marriage. Bill Reel's prior experience has a bishop does very little in illuminating the experiences and perspectives and considerations utilized by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in enacting those policies. For that specific example you're right. BUT, a bishop creates and enforces many policies at the ward level. Some are popular, some aren't. Some people get quite upset if they don't think a policy is fair. For example, a bishop may have a ward policy that requires all youth to meet at the church for youth activities instead of dividing up into multiple locations on any given night. There are reasons for that policy but that doesn't mean everyone will like it. Is the local policy exactly the same thing or similar in scope? No. Is it similar. Yes. So bishops do have experience making and enforcing policies and dealing with the aftermath, just like the GA's. Well, no. A "microcosm" is, after all, "a community, place, or situation regarded as encapsulating in miniature the characteristic qualities or features of something much larger. But nobody here can seriously suggest that the experiences of a bishop in, say, Provo are going to mirror the experiences of a bishop in San Francisco, or Bangkok, Thailand, or Harare, Zimbabwe. But that's not what I said. I said the experience of a bishop making, enforcing, and dealing with the criticisms in his ward is a microcosm of GA's making, enforcing, and dealing with criticisms for the general church. In contrast, the General Authorities of the Church have access to all sorts of perspectives and experience and data that a local bishop does not, not unlike how the pastor lacked the perspective and experience and data available to law enforcement officers. Presumably GA's have access to more data and info which is required for them making decisions on a larger scale, than a bishop would have when working with that same scale. But in the realm of the ward the bishop has access to more data and info than other ward members as he attempts to make and enforce policies at the ward level. I'm not sure why you are arguing against this. No one is saying a former bishop knows everything the prophet knows. That's not the point. The point is the familiarity and experience the bishop has in doing similar things at the local level. It gives him perspective, experience, and understanding of the process A bishop set's ward policy whithin the framework provided by the Church. A bishop's authority to "set ward policy" is actually quite finite. Of course it's limited. You don't seem to be grasping this at all. No one is saying otherwise, however, a bishop has quite a bit of flexibility in how he administrates within the ward. There are many choices, policies that are left to the bishop. If I wasn't so surprised by your lack of understanding about ward management I might take the time to make a large list of variations in administration that are left to a bishop's discretion, but I don't think it would be helpful, so I won't. The thought experiment pertains to critics being given an opportunity to implement their ideas, and to have those ideas scrutinized and critiqued. So if you talk the prophet into implementing some of the critics policies we can see how they work and then criticize what doesn't work. I'm game. The 2015 policy changes are a good example. It would be interesting to see a sort of cross-examination of the critics. I don't think their ideas alternative to those policies would withstand much scrutiny. Hence my participation on this board. I've actually contemplated this theoretical. A number of times. Yes, that is what would happen. And yes, there would be "missed opportunities during those 10 years of non-baptism." That can happen in many circumstances. A parent may prohibit the baptism of his child, which would lead to "missed opportunities." A child from a polygamous household may have baptism delayed, which would lead to "missed opportunities." A grandchild may grow up resenting the Church's teachings about same-sex marriage, which is not surprising, since a child would understandably be defensive of his parents' behavior, even if that behavior is incompatible with Restored Gospel. So the grandchild feels torn between a perceived conflict between his parents' same-sex marriage and discipleship, and therefore is never baptized. "Missed opportunities." My child leaves the Church, such that my grandchild grows up in an irreligious household and lacks interest in joining the Church. "Missed opportunities." And if you were in that actual situation wanting your grandchild to be baptized and the church refused to allow it, causing your grandchild's missed opportunities, it may feel different than just looking at it theoretically. The permutations here are essentially endless. I agree. Most of us, I think, are living with a very finite and blinkered set of experiences and data. And from a spiritual/doctrinal standpoint, most of us lack stewardship and authority to make decisions pertaining to the Church as a whole. For people in operating in such circumstances to nevertheless publicly demand that the Church bow to their personal preferences and expectations is . . . presumptuous. Misguided. Flawed. And yet we have Kate Kelly appointing herself to tell - to order - the Church what to do regarding female ordination to the priesthood. We have Sam Young presuming to dictate policy for the tens of thousands of bishops in the Church re: interviewing youth. And so on. With perceived injustice. Based on a blinkered and finite perspective and data. There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law." Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases." A legal scholar, Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law." Interesting. I think the Brethren are looking at the 2015 policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way. In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it. But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change. At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy. By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families. I would agree in the sense that I think most hurt comes from the perceived callousness of leaders in addressing this issue. Most hurt comes from the injustice of the policy, not necessarily from the number of people it actually impacts. Imagine if the church refused to allow redheads who live with a single parent, to be baptized. It would impact a relatively few people, but the injustice of the policy would cause people to lose trust in those creating and enforcing the policy. But not a noticeably improved and informed POV. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Again, no. A bishop's "leadership role" in the Church is ward-level. Most of the carping from people like Sam Young and Bill Reel and Gina Colvin pertains to wide swaths of the Church, and even the Church as a whole. I think I agreed in my original post that bishop and GA are different levels, but that doesn't mean that a local leader doesn't have similar experiences, hence my "microcosm" comment. Unless I'm mistaken, experiments rarely duplicate the environment perfectly. So it would be impossible for anyone to really see what it's like to be the prophet unless they were THE prophet. But they can have similar experiences within their sphere. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have access to all sorts of "experience" and data that local leaders and members do not. And then there's the hole stewarship/authority issue. So "similar experiences within their sphere" would seem to be very superficial. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: No, not really. Let me illustrate: In 2015 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve enacted some controversial policies relating to same-sex marriage. Bill Reel's prior experience has a bishop does very little in illuminating the experiences and perspectives and considerations utilized by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in enacting those policies. For that specific example you're right. BUT, a bishop creates and enforces many policies at the ward level. Some are popular, some aren't. Not sure what you mean here. I'm having difficulty thinking of any substantive policies that I have seen implemented by a bishop. The Church sets policies for the block of meetings, the curricula and materials, the scheduling, the callings, the administration of the Sacrament, and so on. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Some people get quite upset if they don't think a policy is fair. For example, a bishop may have a ward policy that requires all youth to meet at the church for youth activities instead of dividing up into multiple locations on any given night. There are reasons for that policy but that doesn't mean everyone will like it. Is the local policy exactly the same thing or similar in scope? No. Is it similar. Yes. So bishops do have experience making and enforcing policies and dealing with the aftermath, just like the GA's. Almost nothing like the GAs, actually. The subject popularity of a ward-level policy seems to not do much to enhance the ability of a bishop to grasp and appreciate the perspective of the General Authorities. And again, there's the stewardship/authority issue. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Well, no. A "microcosm" is, after all, "a community, place, or situation regarded as encapsulating in miniature the characteristic qualities or features of something much larger. But nobody here can seriously suggest that the experiences of a bishop in, say, Provo are going to mirror the experiences of a bishop in San Francisco, or Bangkok, Thailand, or Harare, Zimbabwe. But that's not what I said. I said the experience of a bishop making, enforcing, and dealing with the criticisms in his ward is a microcosm of GA's making, enforcing, and dealing with criticisms for the general church. As you like. I think a bishop implementing basic and fairly trivial ward-level policies are not going to be able to meaningfully appreciate the perspective of the General Authorities. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: In contrast, the General Authorities of the Church have access to all sorts of perspectives and experience and data that a local bishop does not, not unlike how the pastor lacked the perspective and experience and data available to law enforcement officers. Presumably GA's have access to more data and info which is required for them making decisions on a larger scale, than a bishop would have when working with that same scale. But in the realm of the ward the bishop has access to more data and info than other ward members as he attempts to make and enforce policies at the ward level. I'm not sure why you are arguing against this. No one is saying a former bishop knows everything the prophet knows. That's not the point. The point is the familiarity and experience the bishop has in doing similar things at the local level. It gives him perspective, experience, and understanding of the process It gives him perspective, experience, and understanding of the process at the ward level. That's all. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: A bishop set's ward policy whithin the framework provided by the Church. A bishop's authority to "set ward policy" is actually quite finite. Of course it's limited. You don't seem to be grasping this at all. No one is saying otherwise, however, a bishop has quite a bit of flexibility in how he administrates within the ward. There are many choices, policies that are left to the bishop. No, not really. A bishop administers the programs of the Church. There are very few "policies" left to be formulated by a bishop. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If I wasn't so surprised by your lack of understanding about ward management I might take the time to make a large list of variations in administration that are left to a bishop's discretion, but I don't think it would be helpful, so I won't. I have some fairly extensive experience with ward-leven administration. I think the list of "variations" would be just that: variations. On policies and procedures that bishops are expected to follow, not formulate. And most of these "variations" are minor. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The thought experiment pertains to critics being given an opportunity to implement their ideas, and to have those ideas scrutinized and critiqued. So if you talk the prophet into implementing some of the critics policies we can see how they work and then criticize what doesn't work. I'm game. Again: I am proposing a thought experiment. That is, "devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things." 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The 2015 policy changes are a good example. It would be interesting to see a sort of cross-examination of the critics. I don't think their ideas alternative to those policies would withstand much scrutiny. Hence my participation on this board. I've actually contemplated this theoretical. A number of times. Yes, that is what would happen. And yes, there would be "missed opportunities during those 10 years of non-baptism." That can happen in many circumstances. A parent may prohibit the baptism of his child, which would lead to "missed opportunities." A child from a polygamous household may have baptism delayed, which would lead to "missed opportunities." A grandchild may grow up resenting the Church's teachings about same-sex marriage, which is not surprising, since a child would understandably be defensive of his parents' behavior, even if that behavior is incompatible with Restored Gospel. So the grandchild feels torn between a perceived conflict between his parents' same-sex marriage and discipleship, and therefore is never baptized. "Missed opportunities." My child leaves the Church, such that my grandchild grows up in an irreligious household and lacks interest in joining the Church. "Missed opportunities." And if you were in that actual situation wanting your grandchild to be baptized and the church refused to allow it, causing your grandchild's missed opportunities, it may feel different than just looking at it theoretically. Probably so. But then, my perspective would be informed more on emotion and sentiment and special pleading, rather than doctrine and sound policy and the will of God. Which is why I have given this matter some consideration as a theoretical. I want to do what is right by God, not what is right by my personal and subjective preferences. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: With perceived injustice. Based on a blinkered and finite perspective and data. There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law." Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases." A legal scholar, Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law." Interesting. Indeed. Your above statement trades on me feeling "indignant" at my grandchild not being baptized. But that something might be difficult or painful for me individually doesn't have much value in my overall assessment. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think the Brethren are looking at the 2015 policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way. In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it. But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change. At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy. By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families. I would agree in the sense that I think most hurt comes from the perceived callousness of leaders in addressing this issue. No, I think most of the "hurt" arises from the public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy. This rhetoric, in turn, fosters resentments and anger, and notions of "perceived callousness of leaders in addressing this issue." 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Most hurt comes from the injustice of the policy, not necessarily from the number of people it actually impacts. Again, I disagree. The "hurt" is coming from reactionary rhetoric to to the policy, and very little from the policy itself. By way of evidence, I direct your attention to the nearly 100-year old and nearly-identical policy pertaining to children from polygamous families. This policy has been in place, IIRC, since the 1920s, and has been working just fine. Virtually no talk about the "injustice" of this policy. Now why is that? Why are there such radically disparate reactions to these two nearly identical policies? Outrage and hysterics as to the 2015 policy about gay families, and profound silence and indifference to the 1920s-era policy about polygamous families? My assessment is that only one of these groups is politically popular. Only one of these groups has the ear of the public consciousness. Only one of these groups has factions which seek to bully and punish anyone who dares to not kowtow and embrace and adulate their lifestyle. Only one of these groups has self-appointed advocates that have been throwing a collective and protracted hissy fit for several years now. Hint: It's not the polygamists. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Imagine if the church refused to allow redheads who live with a single parent, to be baptized. A totally arbitrary and doctrinally unfounded restriction on baptism would indeed be problematic. But the 2015 policy changes are not arbitrary, and are profoundly doctrinal. And revelatory. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 I agree that many are naive about “use of force” situations expecting cops to be able to dispassionately view a situation and adjust based on a situation’s threat in the middle of an encounter. I have some fighting training and you learn early that if you are not acting in instinct and almost without thought contingencies for the fight you are probably going to lose. I also learned that people that think concealed carry guns are a good self-defense precaution are also usually naive about how effective they will be. That being said this does not excuse legitimate police abuse. One concern I admit I have is that most police do not get enough ongoing training in how to fight, shoot, and react. It takes a lot of practice to get combat movements down to a reactionary level and it has to be maintained. I do not think this is comparable to Church critics. Generally those decisions are not made in an adrenaline filled environment needing split-second reaction time. The comparison seems tortured to me. 2
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I agree that many are naive about “use of force” situations expecting cops to be able to dispassionately view a situation and adjust based on a situation’s threat in the middle of an encounter. I have some fighting training and you learn early that if you are not acting in instinct and almost without thought contingencies for the fight you are probably going to lose. I also learned that people that think concealed carry guns are a good self-defense precaution are also usually naive about how effective they will be. That being said this does not excuse legitimate police abuse. One concern I admit I have is that most police do not get enough ongoing training in how to fight, shoot, and react. It takes a lot of practice to get combat movements down to a reactionary level and it has to be maintained. I do not think this is comparable to Church critics. Generally those decisions are not made in an adrenaline filled environment needing split-second reaction time. The comparison seems tortured to me. I agree that a direct comparison is not apt. I was thinking more broadly about the pastor's shift in thinking once he was given an opportunity to see and experience the perspective of law enforcement. As an attorney, I have had many experiences where I have to substantially shift my thinking on a disputed issue based on new information, based on learning more about the other side's perspective, based on the objective evaluation of a judge or mediator, etc. These experiences have actually been quite illuminating and helpful. Thanks, -Smac 2
HappyJackWagon Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have access to all sorts of "experience" and data that local leaders and members do not. And then there's the hole stewarship/authority issue. So "similar experiences within their sphere" would seem to be very superficial. Not sure what you mean here. I'm having difficulty thinking of any substantive policies that I have seen implemented by a bishop. The Church sets policies for the block of meetings, the curricula and materials, the scheduling, the callings, the administration of the Sacrament, and so on. Almost nothing like the GAs, actually. The subject popularity of a ward-level policy seems to not do much to enhance the ability of a bishop to grasp and appreciate the perspective of the General Authorities. And again, there's the stewardship/authority issue. As you like. I think a bishop implementing basic and fairly trivial ward-level policies are not going to be able to meaningfully appreciate the perspective of the General Authorities. It gives him perspective, experience, and understanding of the process at the ward level. That's all. No, not really. A bishop administers the programs of the Church. There are very few "policies" left to be formulated by a bishop. I have some fairly extensive experience with ward-leven administration. I think the list of "variations" would be just that: variations. On policies and procedures that bishops are expected to follow, not formulate. And most of these "variations" are minor. Again: I am proposing a thought experiment. That is, "devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things." Probably so. But then, my perspective would be informed more on emotion and sentiment and special pleading, rather than doctrine and sound policy and the will of God. Which is why I have given this matter some consideration as a theoretical. I want to do what is right by God, not what is right by my personal and subjective preferences. Indeed. Your above statement trades on me feeling "indignant" at my grandchild not being baptized. But that something might be difficult or painful for me individually doesn't have much value in my overall assessment. No, I think most of the "hurt" arises from the public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy. This rhetoric, in turn, fosters resentments and anger, and notions of "perceived callousness of leaders in addressing this issue." Again, I disagree. The "hurt" is coming from reactionary rhetoric to to the policy, and very little from the policy itself. By way of evidence, I direct your attention to the nearly 100-year old and nearly-identical policy pertaining to children from polygamous families. This policy has been in place, IIRC, since the 1920s, and has been working just fine. Virtually no talk about the "injustice" of this policy. Now why is that? Why are there such radically disparate reactions to these two nearly identical policies? Outrage and hysterics as to the 2015 policy about gay families, and profound silence and indifference to the 1920s-era policy about polygamous families? My assessment is that only one of these groups is politically popular. Only one of these groups has the ear of the public consciousness. Only one of these groups has factions which seek to bully and punish anyone who dares to not kowtow and embrace and adulate their lifestyle. Only one of these groups has self-appointed advocates that have been throwing a collective and protracted hissy fit for several years now. Hint: It's not the polygamists. A totally arbitrary and doctrinally unfounded restriction on baptism would indeed be problematic. But the 2015 policy changes are not arbitrary, and are profoundly doctrinal. And revelatory. Thanks, -Smac I've made my point. You're not getting it which is probably because I'm not explaining it well. No matter. I'm content to leave it there. Nope. Restricting a child from baptism because of the sins of his parents is anti-doctrinal/scriptural. Quote Matthew 18 1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the agreatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little achildren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. So we'll just have to disagree about what is profoundly doctrinal about this "policy". ETA- from a different bible translation. Quote Matthew 18:6 6"If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Edited December 12, 2018 by HappyJackWagon 2
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I've made my point. You're not getting it which is probably because I'm not explaining it well. No matter. I'm content to leave it there. Nope. Restricting a child from baptism because of the sins of his parents is anti-doctrinal/scriptural. I disagree. There are all sorts of circumstances under which baptism can be delayed, including circumstances beyond the child's control. The parent can withhold consent. The child is growing up in a polygamous household. The child is growing up in a country where baptism might be risky. My son recently completed a Church Service Mission. He spent most of his mission manning the "Chat with a Missionary" feature on the Church's websites. He has had several instances where he has received text chats from people in countries where the Church is not allowed to proselytize, so the CSMs are instructed to not refer people from those countries to the missionaries, to not arrange for sending them a Book of Mormon or a Bible, etc. Basically, the CSMs do not proselytize them in any way that puts them on a path toward baptism. There are a number of reasons for this. The Church does not have a presence in some of these countries, such that baptism wouldn't really make sense (since the person could not participate in Church meetings, hold callings, etc.). In some of these countries, the Church is not allowed to proselytize, and so the Church obeys the laws of the land. In some of these countries, joining the Church is risky (such as in the 16 Muslim-majority countries where leaving Islam is a criminal offense). My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe. Polygamy is technically legal there (around 10% of women in Zimbabwe are in polygamous marriages). That creates some substantial impediments to missionary work for people in such circumstances. A person convicted of and imprisoned for a serious crime may not be baptized and confirmed until they complete their terms of imprisonment. Persons convicted of a felony or "crimes of immoral character" cannot be baptized until after they complete their parole or probation resulting from conviction (though exceptions from the First Presidency are allowed). And so on. Baptism is a serious commitment, and the Church treats is seriously. It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms. This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one. There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or, in rare instances, denied). The Lord will sort out such things in the end. See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom."). Moreover, the 2015 policy changes were implemented by revelation. It's rather difficult to characterize these changes as "anti-doctrinal/scriptural" given that fact (unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject). Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory. So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy (which nobody seems to be bothered about) and its posture towards same-sex marriage (which you describe as a "tangible and explicit injustice") makes a lot of sense. This is all the more evident given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the flatter as "a parallel with polygamy." Thanks, -Smac Edited December 12, 2018 by smac97
HappyJackWagon Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: I disagree. There are all sorts of circumstances under which baptism can be delayed, including circumstances beyond the child's control. The parent can withhold consent. The child is growing up in a polygamous household. The child is growing up in a country where baptism might be risky. My son recently completed a Church Service Mission. He spent most of his mission manning the "Chat with a Missionary" feature on the Church's websites. He has had several instances where he has received text chats from people in countries where the Church is not allowed to proselytize, so the CSMs are instructed to not refer people from those countries to the missionaries, to not arrange for sending them a Book of Mormon or a Bible, etc. Basically, the CSMs do not proselytize them in any way that puts them on a path toward baptism. There are a number of reasons for this. The Church does not have a presence in some of these countries, such that baptism wouldn't really make sense (since the person could not participate in Church meetings, hold callings, etc.). In some of these countries, the Church is not allowed to proselytize, and so the Church obeys the laws of the land. In some of these countries, joining the Church is risky (such as in the 16 Muslim-majority countries where leaving Islam is a criminal offense). My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe. Polygamy is technically legal there (around 10% of women in Zimbabwe are in polygamous marriages). That creates some substantial impediments to missionary work for people in such circumstances. A person convicted of and imprisoned for a serious crime may not be baptized and confirmed until they complete their terms of imprisonment. Persons convicted of a felony or "crimes of immoral character" cannot be baptized until after they complete their parole or probation resulting from conviction (though exceptions from the First Presidency are allowed). And so on. Baptism is a serious commitment, and the Church treats is seriously. It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms. This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one. There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or, in rare instances, denied). The Lord will sort out such things in the end. See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom."). Moreover, the 2015 policy changes were implemented by revelation. It's rather difficult to characterize these changes as "anti-doctrinal/scriptural" given that fact (unless, of course, one prescribes to the "Russell M. Nelson went rogue and/or lied" school of thought on this subject). Then-Elder Russell M. Nelson characterized the Church's 2015 policy changes in January 2016 as being revelatory. So the comparison between the Church's posture towards polygamy (which nobody seems to be bothered about) and its posture towards same-sex marriage (which you describe as a "tangible and explicit injustice") makes a lot of sense. This is all the more evidence given that Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the flatter as "a parallel with polygamy." Thanks, -Smac sigh... We're talking about the church, which represents the Lord, withholding baptism from children. We're not talking about parents, or governments making restrictions. We know people are imperfect and will treat people unjustly and infringe on their rights. We're talking about representatives of GOD infringing upon the child's ability to be baptized. The church refuses to baptize certain children. Call it Sins of parents Adam's transgressions, whatever. Same thing. It is precisely because of the parent's sin that the child is not baptized. This has been argued back and forth so many times I don't know why I even bother. You and the church are welcome to hold your opinion about how appropriate the discrimination is. No one can stop you. But neither can you stop the disgust and betrayal people feel because of that discrimination. This argument that "it's just like the policy for polygamist children" is pretty juvenile. While I admit there are some similarities, it's not exactly the same. A polygamous parent can teach his child to become a polygamist. A gay parent does not teach his child to become gay. Besides, you're arguing that everyone thinks it's ok to deny polygamist children baptism and I would dispute that. I suspect that most of us discovered that polygamist policy only after the church used it as a justification of the gay policy. IOW- we found out about a policy decades after it had been enacted. I admit that it's harder to be as up in arms about something that has been in place for decades with very few people even knowing about it. But IMO, denying a child baptism because of his parents is a sin of which the church will need to repent and answer to God. I don't believe for one second that Jesus would deny a child baptism based upon his parents sins. Edited December 12, 2018 by HappyJackWagon 2
cdowis Posted December 12, 2018 Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: I am pretty sure that if everyone could only spend some time in my shoes they would see what a brilliant person I am. What is so special about your shoes that makes you so brilliant? Reminds me of some of the criticisms about the church == e.g. the "change" in the name of the church. "They tried this years ago. It didn't work then and won't work now." 👀 Edited December 12, 2018 by cdowis
smac97 Posted December 12, 2018 Author Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: sigh... We're talking about the church, which represents the Lord, withholding baptism from children. Yes. And we're talking about the Church's policy about this issue, which per the President of the Quorum of the Twelve was obtained through revelation from the Lord. You can keep trying to frame this in emotionalistic terms, but it just won't work. There are many circumstances under which baptism is withheld. That is an unfortunate reality. Such things will be worked out in the end. But that's the way the Lord wants it, according to Pres. Nelson. Quote We're not talking about parents, or governments making restrictions. No, we're talking about the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve making restrictions based on revelation given through the Presiding High Priest. Quote We know people are imperfect and will treat people unjustly and infringe on their rights. We're talking about representatives of GOD infringing upon the child's ability to be baptized. The church refuses to baptize certain children. Again, you are resorting to an emotional argument, not a reasoned one. Quote Call it Sins of parents Adam's transgressions, whatever. Same thing. I call it a revelation to the Presiding High Priest. Quote It is precisely because of the parent's sin that the child is not baptized. Emotion. Not reason. That's all you are presenting here. Quote This has been argued back and forth so many times I don't know why I even bother. I've often wondered the same thing. The policy came from revelation to the Presiding High Priest. It was presented to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, all of whom sustained the decision. Trying to pit the Lord against His Apostles is not right. Quote You and the church are welcome to hold your opinion about how appropriate the discrimination is. No one can stop you. But neither can you stop the disgust and betrayal people feel because of that discrimination. More loaded terminology, presented to elicit an emotional response. Yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one. Quote This argument that "it's just like the policy for polygamist children" is pretty juvenile. Not so. It is relevant and probative. Elder Christofferson expressly characterized the Church's position on the flatter as "a parallel with polygamy." The similarities are obvious and significant. Quote While I admit there are some similarities, it's not exactly the same. They sure come close. Let's experiment: "If a couple with a child in the home enters into a form of marriage that is incompatible with membership in the Church, then the child's baptism will be delayed until such time as he reaches majority and disavows the problematic form of marriage at issue." Does that statement pertain to A) children of same-sex couples, or B) children of polygamous couples, or C) both? If the answer is "C" (which it obviously and and necessarily is), then "exactly the same" seems to pretty much fit the bill. Quote A polygamous parent can teach his child to become a polygamist. A gay parent does not teach his child to become gay. Nobody is talking about a child "becom[ing] gay." Quote Besides, you're arguing that everyone thinks it's ok to deny polygamist children baptism and I would dispute that. I've never said that "everyone thinks it's okay." I'm saying nobody cares. Nobody from the up-in-arms-about-the-2015-policy brigade gives two licks about the supposed "express injustice" that children of polygamous families have encountered for nearly a century. Now why is that? Why are there such radically disparate reactions to these two nearly identical policies? Outrage and hysterics as to the 2015 policy about gay families, and profound silence and indifference to the 1920s-era policy about polygamous families? Quote I suspect that most of us discovered that polygamist policy only after the church used it as a justification of the gay policy. And yet nobody talks about it. Nobody cares. Again, my assessment is that only one of these groups is politically popular. Only one of these groups has the ear of the public consciousness. Only one of these groups has factions which seek to bully and punish anyone who dares to not kowtow and embrace and adulate their lifestyle. Only one of these groups has self-appointed advocates that have been throwing a collective and protracted hissy fit for several years now. Quote IOW- we found out about a policy decades after it had been enacted. I admit that it's harder to be as up in arms about something that has been in place for decades with very few people even knowing about it. Yep. Nobody cares. Because it's not trendy to rail against the Church on behalf of polygamist children. Children of same-sex couples have their baptism delayed until they reach majority = "Tangible and express injustice" and "I don't believe for one second that Jesus would deny a child baptism based upon his parents sins." Children of polygamous couples have their baptism delayed until they reach majority = . . . Nothing. Crickets chirping. Ho hum. Truth be told, I think it's because my previous point holds true: I think most of the "hurt" arises from the public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy. This rhetoric, in turn, fosters resentments and anger, and notions of "perceived callousness of leaders in addressing this issue." The 2015 issue is an issue because socially prominent people have decided to make it an issue. The nearly-identical-and-in-place-since-the-1920s policy is not an issue because socially prominent people have not decided to make it an issue. So you'll understand why I view the supposed moral urgency so often expressed on this issue with a bit of skepticism. It's sincere, but emotional. It's big, but largely manufactured by people who are already predisposed to dislike and rail against the Church, and who therefore think it's fine to weaponize the baptism of children. The rhetoric about the policy is way overblown. There is no "express injustice" in view. None. Frankly, it has been rather bizarre to see opponents of the Church, in essence, say "We despise the Mormon Church and its teachings! And how dare you not let some children get baptized into it until they are adults!" These folks have a rather incoherent message, to be sure. Quote But IMO, denying a child baptism because of his parents is a sin of which the church will need to repent and answer to God. I don't. I think it's a policy that makes a lot of sense. It's a difficult one, but an understandable and rational and appropriate one. The leaders of the Church have gone out of their way to explain it, and yet even now, years after the policy changes went into effect, we're still getting rguments that virtually ignore what the Brethren have said about the policy changes (including, significantly, their revelatory origins). Emotions, not argument. Anger and vitriol, not reason. I said this back in January, and I think it holds true today: Quote I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church. Perhaps they could stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks. And stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric. And stop with the efforts to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children. And stop putting the worst possible spin on the policy. And stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings. And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church. And stop working to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church. And perhaps they could give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits. And also give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families). I genuinely question the sincerity and good faith of some critics and opponents of the Church who resort to overheated and caustic rhetoric. I question this because these are the same folks who despise the Church and its teachings, and thefore would not seem to have a legitimate basis for complaining about people not joining it. I question these things because these critics apparently don't give two figs about the children from polygamous families who have faced a similar policy for years. I question these things because critics like to position themselves as being concerned about the welfare of children, and yet they then proceed to move heaven and earth to alienate those children from the LDS Church, and to publish declarations that the LDS Church hates their parents. Both the parents and their children are encountering this "overheated and caustic rhetoric," and are understandably perturbed thereby. So I attribute much of the emotional pain and aggravation these folks face to the critics and opponents who have been screaming about it, and using "overheated and caustic rhetoric" about it, and instilling and maintaining and inflaming fear and suspicion and anger in children. It sure would be nice if the critics and the opponents (and the members of the Church) just eased up and let the policy proceed. No need to make things worse by alienating children from a community of faith to which they have ties, or about which they may have an interest. Reconciling seemingly conflicting loyalties to a religious group on one hand and, on the other, to one's parents is hard enough without going online and being told over and over and over about how awful that religious group is, how much they hate your parents, how that religious group enjoys "giving the middle finger to the gay community" (as Brother Bear once put it) and so on. In other words, is there ever going to come a cime when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their own conduct? Not much has changed in the last 11 months. Quote I don't believe for one second that Jesus would deny a child baptism based upon his parents sins. Neither do I. But then, nobody has suggested that He would. Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one. I suspect it gets irritating to see me say the same thing over and over, but that's only because I am responding to the same flawed arguments over and over. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 13, 2018 by smac97 1
Ouagadougou Posted December 13, 2018 Posted December 13, 2018 6 hours ago, smac97 said: One of the great advantages that armchair quarterbacks have is safety. They can spout off on whatever they want precisely because they are in the armchair (and in the context of critics of the Church, also often hiding behind an online pseudonym). I am reminded here of one of my favorite quotes (attributed to Theodore Roosevelt): When you can't even criticize church leaders, who, at times, speak as men, isn't that very problematic, especially since you are restricting freedom of thought and expression? Leaders who can't accept certain criticism, IMO, are not the strongest of leaders, because they always have to be right/validated. Why do you think many use a pseudonym or don't express some of their ideas/beliefs publicly? IMO, it often happens because of the censorship and thought control in the church; the moment you don't publically align with the brethren or believe a certain principle, you can be called into the bishop's office for a face-to-face interview (not always the case but it happens). For example, if you publically call into question a particular church issue, doctrine, or leader (even if a valid concern), you can be reprimanded; and this doesn't sit well with a lot of members today when it relates to excommunications. "According to Knoll, the results showed that almost three in five church members — 57 percent — are bothered by the punitive church discipline. Approximately 26 percent are very troubled and 31 percent are somewhat troubled. Among millennials, 66 percent reported being troubled." https://kutv.com/news/local/survey-commitment-of-of-lds-church-members-chilled-by-high-profile-excommunications Moreover, you could argue that church leaders (apostles/prophets) can also "spout off on whatever they want precisely" because if they are wrong, they were just speaking as men, so they are just protected by their position in the church, IMO.
The Nehor Posted December 13, 2018 Posted December 13, 2018 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Nope. Restricting a child from baptism because of the sins of his parents is anti-doctrinal/scriptural. You sure about that? "A ******* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:" "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation." Those sure sound like even more severe restrictions..... 2
The Nehor Posted December 13, 2018 Posted December 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: When you can't even criticize church leaders, who, at times, speak as men, isn't that very problematic, especially since you are restricting freedom of thought and expression? Leaders who can't accept certain criticism, IMO, are not the strongest of leaders, because they always have to be right/validated. We are not restricting it. We are saying you cannot publicly fight against them and retain membership. In other words, it is a choice. Do you want to be a member of the church with all the rights, obligations, and covenants? Or would you rather publicly chastise church leaders? No one's rights are being violated. I also reject the idea that the leaders are worried about their self-image and not that they are worried about protecting the members from apostasy. 6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Why do you think many use a pseudonym or don't express some of their ideas/beliefs publicly? IMO, it often happens because of the censorship and thought control in the church; the moment you don't publically align with the brethren or believe a certain principle, you can be called into the bishop's office for a face-to-face interview (not always the case but it happens). For example, if you publically call into question a particular church issue, doctrine, or leader (even if a valid concern), you can be reprimanded; and this doesn't sit well with a lot of members today when it relates to excommunications. Thought control? Wow, we are much cooler then I thought. You could talk to your Bishop instead of making a public fuss....but that does not get you accolades and likes. Now who needs validation? 10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: "According to Knoll, the results showed that almost three in five church members — 57 percent — are bothered by the punitive church discipline. Approximately 26 percent are very troubled and 31 percent are somewhat troubled. Among millennials, 66 percent reported being troubled." https://kutv.com/news/local/survey-commitment-of-of-lds-church-members-chilled-by-high-profile-excommunications Oh, a self-selected survey. While the data could be of some use there are also kinds of problems with that kind of a survey. The results might be interesting or even indicative but they are very unlikely to be representative.
Recommended Posts