BYU requires new hires to waive their right to clergy confidentiality

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Why can't you access it? I was able to, even over here in Europe. There were just a couple of questions, they then offered to sell me a membership if I wanted, or just download the one PDF. Can I help you get it?

Thank you for the offer, but I couldn't bring myself to join another list of some kind or another. I was able to google other articles by the same author on the same topic. They were from some 30+ years ago; maybe there has been additional research since then; I didn't look much further than that.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I wouldn't want to work for the church, either.

I'm pretty sure that the Church employs not just a few people who are the equivalent of Dilbert's "pointy-haired boss."

I think, as far as salaries are concerned, these may be factors that cause it. One would be the angle of not being seen to waste God's funds by paying too much. Another might be the angle of "It's a privilege to work for the church, so you shouldn't expect to be paid at a market rate." 

The problem with paying a less-than-market salary is that you may get a greater share of less-than-market employees. Thus the pointy-haired-bosses.

But I'm probably completely wrong. I only know a few church employees (now retired), so what do I know?

I'm a little disconcerted to hear you join in this generalized slagging off of church employees. I've always said that church employees (at least in Utah) are kind of a microcosm of the broader membership. There are zealots and atheists and everything in between. People work there for a lot of different reasons, but I met very few who had illusions that theirs was anything more than a job, let alone that it was a privilege to work for the church. My best friend in the world works there, and he went there because they recruited him at a higher pay rate than the tech company he'd been working for, plus they offered a pension. I don't think he made a poor choice financially. Were there incompetent, pointy-haired-boss types? Sure, as there are in most large corporations, but there were just as many wonderful, competent, good people. Dan McClellan, for example, doesn't strike me as a low-quality person. Scott Lloyd, with whom I rarely agree, is hardly the equivalent of a Wal-Mart employee. And my boss, who is managing editor of the Curriculum Department, is one of the finest people I know, competent, brilliant, and a genuinely good man. It pains me to hear people speak so poorly of people they don't know.

I don't take it personally. I worked there for two years. I had been working as a team lead at a software company, and the Church Office Building recruited me to come and work as an editor. It paid better than the startup I was working at and had better benefits, so I took the job. During those two years I commuted by bus from Orem, so I left the house at 5:45 am and usually got home around 6:30 pm. I was elders quorum president, had 4 small children, my wife was in the Relief Society presidency, and I was trying to finish my master's thesis. In short, I couldn't keep that up for long. Someone from a large software company in Provo asked a colleague of mine if he was interested in a tech writing job, and he said he wasn't, but I might be. So, I took the job and never looked back. I'm not embarrassed by my time there. It was a good experience and taught me to be a better editor and writer. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The statement is truthful.  Regardless of the cause of death "stopping breathing" is part of it.  In her remarks Sister Cordon seems to be focusing on the answer to her prayer rather than the manner of her grandson's death.  Give the woman a break.

She has chosen to share the story on multiple occasions. No one is forcing her. If she shares it she should be truthful. If it’s too personal to share that’s fine too. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She has chosen to share the story on multiple occasions. No one is forcing her. If she shares it she should be truthful. If it’s too personal to share that’s fine too. 

I've said my piece. If my daughter-in-law shook my grandson to death, I wouldn't be bringing it up in public and putting it in those terms. I find it disturbing and creepy, at the least. But that's just me. 

[ksfisher]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She has chosen to share the story on multiple occasions. No one is forcing her. If she shares it she should be truthful. If it’s too personal to share that’s fine too. 

How is she not being truthful?  She not talking about the manner of his death, but the answer that she received to her prayer.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, ksfisher said:

How is she not being truthful?  She not talking about the manner of his death, but the answer that she received to her prayer.

See the church’s standard here: ”We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng
 

The story as shared let’s us know that the child was called home. The actual story raises all types of red flags about unaddressed child abuse, what she as a grandparent was aware of and what was done to address it. Not to mention the fact of why God focused Her energy on comforting after the fact instead of promoting Sister Cordon to intervene. 
 

You may have the last word. /end derail. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The story as shared let’s us know that the child was called home.

Right

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The actual story raises all types of red flags about unaddressed child abuse, what she as a grandparent was aware of and what was done to address it.

She was sharing the answer to her prayer, not addressing abuse.  Perhaps she will in the future.  Perhaps she won't.  She seems to be sharing one lesson she learned from the experience.  She may never feel like sharing more.

 

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not to mention the fact of why God focused Her energy on comforting after the fact instead of promoting Sister Cordon to intervene. 

True, she does not address why God does not put an end to child abuse.

[katherine the great]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't call it snobbery, just a different "taste bud". Just out of curiosity, where does your college rank on @Calm's ranking list?

I didn’t even look. It isn’t as affordable as BYU so probably not as high. 

[Stargazer]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for the offer, but I couldn't bring myself to join another list of some kind or another. I was able to google other articles by the same author on the same topic. They were from some 30+ years ago; maybe there has been additional research since then; I didn't look much further than that.

Just to clarify, I already downloaded the article, and can provide it to you in whatever way you would like. The file is larger than the board software allows, so I can't put it up here.

Up to you.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Some of us have no idea what you guys are even NOT talking about; the thread has already been derailed by not talking about what you are talking about 

So what's the deal?

Sounds like a local news issue?

So BC's DIL shook a baby, kid stops breathing, probably thru some alleged spiritual occurrence, starts breathing again, story is told as faith promoting, right?

This is what has been told so far by NOT telling the story

No, the little boy died.

Her FPS is about how she was asked to serve an assignment at Primary Childrens after his death, didn’t think she’d be able to handle it, and felt that God helped her do so.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The statement is truthful.  Regardless of the cause of death "stopping breathing" is part of it.  In her remarks Sister Cordon seems to be focusing on the answer to her prayer rather than the manner of her grandson's death.  Give the woman a break.

Absolutely no breaks are to be given to leaders in the church.

[smac97]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I absolutely love the gospel.

Amen.  When I look at what it means to me, and what it has done to influence my outlook on life, my behaviors, my relationships, etc., I am both humbled and grateful.

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I absolutely love the church.

Amen again.  A bunch of imperfect people nevertheless imbued with divinely-restored authority and truths.

Jana Riess, in one of her dependable-as-the-tides contemptuous takes on the Church, try to differentiate the "people" from "the church":

Quote

The genius of Mormonism has always been at the ward level for me, where people enact community on a daily basis. There’s nothing romantic about this, because it’s very hard work.

I agree that the ward is where the "rubber hits the road."

That said, good luck maintaining the "ward level" without the organization of the Church above it, including the very hard work of the General Authorities, Area Authorities, etc. (whom, as seen below, she seems to broadly hold in contempt).

Quote

At the little-c level, I have always felt that the church makes me a better person. It puts me into wards with people I didn’t choose and don’t necessarily have a lot in common with, and prods me to build a life in common with them anyway. There is a general sense of equality in the little-c church: Yes, we have a bishop, and the bishop is the recognized leader of the community. But the bishop is also one of us, sharing in our fellowship and our struggles. We don’t stand on ceremony. We just dig in to help where needed, because we all have decided that we love Jesus and we want to be around people who love him too.

Sounds good.  Not sure why this is "little-c level" stuff, though.

Here's where the contempt kicks in:

Quote

I don’t feel this way about the Big-C Church. It has consistently refused to admit fault when it’s done something wrong. It also won’t account for where its money is going. Both of those are basic, foundational spiritual disciplines we expect of every church member; why is the Big-C Church given a pass?

Well, a few things:

First, we don't seem to be into the "collective guilt" thing.  

Second, expectations of institutional "apologies" for past wrongs are quite subjective.

Third, whether the Church has "done something wrong" is often very much in dispute.

Fourth, the Church does "account for where its money is going."  

Fifth, there is no "accounting" at the ward level (the bishop, who oversees and administers the finances of the ward, does not report such things to the congregation).

Sixth, I am not sure Jana Riess is situated to sit in judgment on the Church, whether to give or withhold "a pass."

Quote

The reality of Latter-day Saint life for me has always been that the little-c church is the way we bless the world. The genius of Mormonism is the little-c church. We need the Big-C Church for administration — to provide the logistics of our service and make sure everyone is outfitted with a yellow Helping Hands shirt — but the institution is not the best part of us. The hierarchy more often seems to get in the way, which is the “tortured” part of the religion’s genius.

She vastly understates the benefits of "the Big-C Church" and what it does to pave the way for "the little-c church," the ward-level members, to pursue lives of discipleship:

• Church building?  Paid for before it's even built.  Because "the Big-C Church" has centralized the finances of the Church.  If ward members were, like congregants of many little Protestant churches all over, required to finance construction, most buildings would not happen, particularly outside the US (D. Michael Quinn's research demonstrates that the contributions from American Saints heavily subsidize members outside of the U.S.).  "The little-c church" simply doesn't have to worry about this stuff.
• Maintenance of facilities?  Also managed and paid for by "the Big-C Church."  Again, this is a very big burden taken from "the little-c church" and borne by "the Big-C Church."
• Insurance?  Also managed and paid for by "the Big-C Church."
• Paid ministry?  Nope.  Because "the Big-C Church" maintains the doctrines, which include lay leaders who serve without pay.
• Humanitarian resources?  Built and maintained and managed by "the Big-C Church."  Farms and storehouses.  Deseret Industries.  Humanitarian Square and Welfare Square.  Coordination with governments and NGOs to provide immediate assistance in emergencies.  JustServe.org.  Pre-positioned emergency supplies around the world.  And on and on and on.  Could "little-c church" wards, acting on their own, muster and maintain these resources?  Perhaps, but not nearly to the extent as exists under the management of "the Big-C Church."
• Financial management and protection?  "The little-c church," the wards, don't have to worry about this because it is managed by "the Big-C Church." 
• Asset management and protection?  Same as above.  The Church owns farms, commercial buildings, radio and TV stations, and a bunch of other assets.  And they are managed by "the Big-C Church."
• Missionary program?  Can "the little-c church" set up and fund missions around the world?  Select and train and supervise mission presidents?  Create language and instructional resources for missionaries?  Select and assign missionaries around the world?  Manage housing, transportation, and countless other logistical issues for the missionaries?  Or is this something that, of necessity, requires "the Big-C Church?" 
• Temples and Family History?  We sure need "the little-c church" to patronize the temples and do genealogy.  But could "the little-c church" build temples?  Maintain and manage them? Or are these responsibilities better managed by "the Big-C Church?"  Could "the little-c church" have the same sort of juggernaut influence in the world of family history, genealogical databases, etc.?  Or are the resources of and the management by "the Big-C Church" required. 

And on and on and on.  The members of the Church, the so-called "the little-c church," are vital.  The leadership and organization and management efforts of the general and area authorities, and the efforts of the "the Big-C Church" under their supervision, is also vital.

Jana's endless denigration of "the Big-C Church" mildly bugs me.  I am happy that she maintains activity in the Church (well, mostly), but also surprised.  Her published-to-the-world views on the Church are predominantly negative, cynical, and unkind.  I admire her ability to continue in fellowship with an organization she so regularly publicly holds in low regard.  I guess the "Big-C Church / little-c church" differentiation helps.

For me, I am grateful for both.  I think Jana's ongoing deprecations against the Church go against what Paul exhorted us to pursue in 1 Corinthians 12:

Quote

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

"The little-c church," the members, have their virtues and their weaknesses.  Same goes for "the Big-C Church."

Quote

Every once in a while, however, there’s a moment of grace when I glimpse my two churches coming together. On Saturday after the funeral, I spotted Elder Gerrit Gong matter-of-factly stacking chairs at the back of the stake center, just like any church member would do after a potluck or activity.

The sight of someone who, as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, overtly represents the Big-C Church pitching in to do what was needed for the little-c funeral was something I truly needed to witness. He wasn’t calling attention to himself or his service, just quietly helping.

More of that, please.

There is always "more of that."  The General Authorities are not a caste unto themselves.  They come out from among us, from "the little-c church."

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In my experience I would never work for the church, nor recommend others to do so.

Well, some of us need to.  Else the Church could not function.

But yes, the Church as an employer can create some unique problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Amen.  When I look at what it means to me, and what it has done to influence my outlook on life, my behaviors, my relationships, etc., I am both humbled and grateful.

Amen again.  A bunch of imperfect people nevertheless imbued with divinely-restored authority and truths.

Jana Riess, in one of her dependable-as-the-tides contemptuous takes on the Church, try to differentiate the "people" from "the church":

I agree that the ward is where the "rubber hits the road."

That said, good luck maintaining the "ward level" without the organization of the Church above it, including the very hard work of the General Authorities, Area Authorities, etc. (whom, as seen below, she seems to broadly hold in contempt).

Sounds good.  Not sure why this is "little-c level" stuff, though.

Here's where the contempt kicks in:

Well, a few things:

First, we don't seem to be into the "collective guilt" thing.  

Second, expectations of institutional "apologies" for past wrongs are quite subjective.

Third, whether the Church has "done something wrong" is often very much in dispute.

Fourth, the Church does "account for where its money is going."  

Fifth, there is no "accounting" at the ward level (the bishop, who oversees and administers the finances of the ward, does not report such things to the congregation).

Sixth, I am not sure Jana Riess is situated to sit in judgment on the Church, whether to give or withhold "a pass."

She vastly understates the benefits of "the Big-C Church" and what it does to pave the way for "the little-c church," the ward-level members, to pursue lives of discipleship:

• Church building?  Paid for before it's even built.  Because "the Big-C Church" has centralized the finances of the Church.  If ward members were, like congregants of many little Protestant churches all over, required to finance construction, most buildings would not happen, particularly outside the US (D. Michael Quinn's research demonstrates that the contributions from American Saints heavily subsidize members outside of the U.S.).  "The little-c church" simply doesn't have to worry about this stuff.
• Maintenance of facilities?  Also managed and paid for by "the Big-C Church."  Again, this is a very big burden taken from "the little-c church" and borne by "the Big-C Church."
• Insurance?  Also managed and paid for by "the Big-C Church."
• Paid ministry?  Nope.  Because "the Big-C Church" maintains the doctrines, which include lay leaders who serve without pay.
• Humanitarian resources?  Built and maintained and managed by "the Big-C Church."  Farms and storehouses.  Deseret Industries.  Humanitarian Square and Welfare Square.  Coordination with governments and NGOs to provide immediate assistance in emergencies.  JustServe.org.  Pre-positioned emergency supplies around the world.  And on and on and on.  Could "little-c church" wards, acting on their own, muster and maintain these resources?  Perhaps, but not nearly to the extent as exists under the management of "the Big-C Church."
• Financial management and protection?  "The little-c church," the wards, don't have to worry about this because it is managed by "the Big-C Church." 
• Asset management and protection?  Same as above.  The Church owns farms, commercial buildings, radio and TV stations, and a bunch of other assets.  And they are managed by "the Big-C Church."
• Missionary program?  Can "the little-c church" set up and fund missions around the world?  Select and train and supervise mission presidents?  Create language and instructional resources for missionaries?  Select and assign missionaries around the world?  Manage housing, transportation, and countless other logistical issues for the missionaries?  Or is this something that, of necessity, requires "the Big-C Church?" 
• Temples and Family History?  We sure need "the little-c church" to patronize the temples and do genealogy.  But could "the little-c church" build temples?  Maintain and manage them? Or are these responsibilities better managed by "the Big-C Church?"  Could "the little-c church" have the same sort of juggernaut influence in the world of family history, genealogical databases, etc.?  Or are the resources of and the management by "the Big-C Church" required. 

And on and on and on.  The members of the Church, the so-called "the little-c church," are vital.  The leadership and organization and management efforts of the general and area authorities, and the efforts of the "the Big-C Church" under their supervision, is also vital.

Jana's endless denigration of "the Big-C Church" mildly bugs me.  I am happy that she maintains activity in the Church (well, mostly), but also surprised.  Her published-to-the-world views on the Church are predominantly negative, cynical, and unkind.  I admire her ability to continue in fellowship with an organization she so regularly publicly holds in low regard.  I guess the "Big-C Church / little-c church" differentiation helps.

For me, I am grateful for both.  I think Jana's ongoing deprecations against the Church go against what Paul exhorted us to pursue in 1 Corinthians 12:

"The little-c church," the members, have their virtues and their weaknesses.  Same goes for "the Big-C Church."

There is always "more of that."  The General Authorities are not a caste unto themselves.  They come out from among us, from "the little-c church."

Well, some of us need to.  Else the Church could not function.

But yes, the Church as an employer can create some unique problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

So true, thanks for not taking me to task very much!

I think that the problems exist - at least what I have seen - tend to be on lower level jobs- gardeners on temple grounds, cafeteria workers, clerical employees, DI employees, etc.  Lower level management seems to be less gospel oriented than, I am sure, say, supervising managers in the legal department, etc.   DUH!

But of course that tendency just exists in humanity and demographics.  Folks on the bottom rung of the ladder of progression start out on the bottom rung jobs.  I mean it might be a nice fantasy to employ a newly retired missionary with no financial experience in a high level investment position, but of course that doesn't even make sense!

It's just unfixable in practical terms, it's not the way things work! 

You have to be climbing the ladder to be treated as if you are!  That's just life!

[Stargazer]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm a little disconcerted to hear you join in this generalized slagging off of church employees. I've always said that church employees (at least in Utah) are kind of a microcosm of the broader membership. There are zealots and atheists and everything in between. People work there for a lot of different reasons, but I met very few who had illusions that theirs was anything more than a job, let alone that it was a privilege to work for the church. My best friend in the world works there, and he went there because they recruited him at a higher pay rate than the tech company he'd been working for, plus they offered a pension. I don't think he made a poor choice financially. Were there incompetent, pointy-haired-boss types? Sure, as there are in most large corporations, but there were just as many wonderful, competent, good people. Dan McClellan, for example, doesn't strike me as a low-quality person. Scott Lloyd, with whom I rarely agree, is hardly the equivalent of a Wal-Mart employee. And my boss, who is managing editor of the Curriculum Department, is one of the finest people I know, competent, brilliant, and a genuinely good man. It pains me to hear people speak so poorly of people they don't know.

I wasn't slagging off church employees generally. If I remember correctly, I wrote "The problem with paying a less-than-market salary is that you may get a greater share of less-than-market employees." A "greater share of less-than-market employees" does not mean church employees as a group are "low quality employees". It means that if a below-market salary is offered, an organization may find it more difficult to hire star-quality employees. It doesn't mean that no stars will be attracted, but the chances are less. And it becomes easier to hire pointy-haired bosses.

As a government employee of one sort or another most of my life (a warning buzzer in and of itself) I ran into my share of incompetents who couldn't be fired because of civil service rules. Don't get me wrong, there were a good number of very competent people. But the ones who were not, and couldn't really fill the positions they occupied in the first place, were noticeable at times. This was at least partly due to below market pay scales. Government jobs (unless you're a politician,  in a high position with political implications, or in a very exceptional field) tend to pay below market salaries. For example, I was a computer programmer for the latter half of my life, and while we did have competent people in the state agencies I was in, there were a few who couldn't get jobs in private industry, because in the words of Ghostbuster Ray Stantz, "the private sector demands results" (<-- not always true, which is why some companies go bankrupt). We did occasionally hire stars or ones who became stars, but it didn't take long until we lost them to Microsoft or some other higher paying company. 

That actually happened with me. I started out as a programmer in a state government position right out of school (because I lived in the state capital), but after ten years, I couldn't advance because there were no promotion opportunities and my boss was a nice enough guy, but useless, having "retired on active duty."  Decided to go into the private sector, where my pay doubled, and then tripled over what the state had been paying me. After four years there was an economic downturn, and opportunities in the private sector for my expertise (mainframe programming) dried up. So I went back to the state, and the position I got (in a different state agency), though not as well paid as my previous gig, was a big improvement over what I had experienced before with the state. I was only going to stay there until the private sector heated back up, but because of the abundant opportunities for improvement, and a shift over from mainframe to "little computer" work, I was enjoying my job too much to care about extra money. So I stayed until I retired. 

I'm sure the church is different from government. 

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't take it personally. I worked there for two years. I had been working as a team lead at a software company, and the Church Office Building recruited me to come and work as an editor. It paid better than the startup I was working at and had better benefits, so I took the job. During those two years I commuted by bus from Orem, so I left the house at 5:45 am and usually got home around 6:30 pm. I was elders quorum president, had 4 small children, my wife was in the Relief Society presidency, and I was trying to finish my master's thesis. In short, I couldn't keep that up for long. Someone from a large software company in Provo asked a colleague of mine if he was interested in a tech writing job, and he said he wasn't, but I might be. So, I took the job and never looked back. I'm not embarrassed by my time there. It was a good experience and taught me to be a better editor and writer. 

My first government job was in the US Army, and though the pay for "hired killers" (for such I was) was not stellar, I believed in the mission, and regretted having to quit because my family was really too big by then to keep it up financially. The day I handed over my military ID card after 8 years of wearing the green was a very sad day indeed. 

[smac97]

21 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Category error. A person's being willing to conform themselves to a code of conduct or institutional requirements does not translate to an unwillingness to expand the boundaries of discovery in their academic field. I see no merit in the argument that "the kind of people who conform" are not "the kind of people who innovate": conformity and innovation are sphere-dependent, and those who pattern their lives after authority in one sphere are perfectly at liberty to innovate in another sphere. Thank heavens, or society would land in chaos. 

But then again, I'm something of an academic enfant terrible as I believe the modern conception of "academic freedom" - ie unbounded value-neutral inquiry - is frankly fraudulent. I must admit, it gives me a certain joy to start challenging my professor's assumptions right after they gleefully announce that they will challenge all of mine - as is par for the course in the department which I attend. Medice, cura te ipsum.

Thank you for the "frankly fraudulent" link.  It was an interesting read, and a reminder of the pretense and pretext that is so often a part of so-called "academic freedom."

Consider, for example, this column by Gordon Monson in the Tribune:

Quote

Gordon Monson: What in heaven or hell is going on at BYU? Can’t it just trust its profs?
Columnist fears the LDS Church-owned school could become less like Notre Dame and more like Bob Jones University.

By Gordon Monson | Aug. 30, 2022, 6:00 a.m. | Updated: 12:38 p.m.

In forcing people essentially to choose the right, something at BYU has gone wrong.

A freeze is settling in among a portion of an already-chilled faculty and staff at the Provo school, some of whom are not just nervous to use their big academic brains to full capacity in research, in the classroom, and to be themselves outside of it, but especially to speak out and voice their concerns over the heavy-handedness coming down from educational leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One person’s preserving of the faith is another’s strangling of it.

In the main, it is difficult for me to imagine a per se conflict between A) teaching, say, a course on "Evidence" at BYU's law school, and B) not working to subvert the religious teachings and practices of BYU's sponsor, the Church.

Much of the tension goes away when some of the more overwrought notions regarding "academic freedom" are brought into a more reasonable perspective.

Quote

Conformity is the thing at Brigham Young University, always has been. Conformity, but now more than ever control. It’s all cloaked in the phraseology of being true to the faith. But even many of the faithful academics prefer to be true to the truth. It’s what professional educators are trained to do. Is seeking truth a threat to the faith?

Meh.  

I have previously compared BYU to West Point.  Both are educational institutions with a patron/sponsor that has a very particularized and very specific outlook.  I think it would be patently unreasonable to expect West Point to hire and retain a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the United States and its military.  There are plenty of other schools that such folks can find work.  West Point, meanwhile, has particularized objectives that require a substantial measure of, as Gordon Monson puts it, "conformity."  An America-hating faculty member at West Point cannot mouth platitudes - as Gordon Monson does - about "seeking truth" as a means of excusing his dislike of and opposition to the raison d'etre of West Point and its sponsoring institution.

So it is, I think, with BYU.  I am not sure "conformity is the thing" at BYU, relative to academic inquiry.  I think the Nerd Herd over there has plenty of room to explore their respective areas of interest.  But if and when "academic freedom" starts being used as a pretext to justify the retention of a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the Church and its largest educational institution, well, that doesn't quite pass the smell test.

Quote

The school’s version of faithfulness blows three freeway exits past that of its already high-demand church. An example: Unlike “regular” Latter-day Saints, BYU employees of any stripe are being shown a spiritual hammer, not a trusting handshake. New hires must sign an agreement allowing the school to pry into “confidential” information shared with an ecclesiastical leader like a lay bishop.

In the “regular” church, such information is supposed to remain private, as a means of helping believers work out whatever is troubling them, from the spiritual to the temporal. It’s to provide space for confession and counsel.

At BYU, it can cancel employment.

Yes, it can "cancel employment."  That may be why "BYU employees" are reasonable distinguished from "'regular' Latter-day Saints."  The latter folks are not employed by the Church.

I'm not saying that I agree with the policy change.  I'm still trying to sort this out.  But Gordon Monson's rhetoric here doesn't really work for me.

Same goes for his comments about "supposed to remain private."  As an attorney, I previously worked for a good-sized law firm.  Part of the arrangement is that I had to maintain obligations associated with the attorney-client relationship.  That is, the information given to me from the client must be held in strict confidence from everyone else.

However, were the managing partners at my firm included in "everyone else?"  Of course not.  If I obtained confidential information from my client, could I reasonably withhold it from my supervisors?  From the owners of the firm?  Nope.  Why?  Because my access to the information is derived from my association with the firm.  Confidentiality certainly applies as to "everyone else," but not to the firm.

So perhaps bishops are situated somewhat like this.  A bishop's access to "confidential" information about BYU employees is derived from the bishop's association with the Church.  Could it be said, then, that the obligation for a bishop to maintain confidentiality applies to "everyone else," but not the Church (including, I suppose, its associated educational institutions)?

Quote

As reported by The Salt Lake Tribune’s Peggy Fletcher Stack, work candidates at BYU must sign the aforementioned agreement authorizing something called the Ecclesiastical Clearance Office at church headquarters to discuss and determine their worthiness to work at the university. Candidates must agree that their bishops can disclose “matters that priesthood leaders would otherwise keep confidential … to the extent the confidential matters relate to the standards of employment.”

Again, BYU is pretty unique in terms of its mission and objectives.  Yes, it employs people in exchange for money.  But it also requires, as a condition of employment, a certain measure of religious devotion and alignment with the Church's mission/objectives.  It is an unusual place that straddles two otherwise differentiated worlds: a religious community on the one hand, and an employer on the other.

Quote

It’s been set policy at BYU that school officials mail annual inquiries to professors’ bishops, asking about said professors’ fit and form for employment at the school. It’s left to those bishops to protect members of their flock by shielding them from inquiry, by handling those matters privately, or, conversely, by outing them. This crapshoot is commonly known at BYU and elsewhere as “bishop roulette.” Now, it has gotten worse, what with the required signed agreement.

I'm not sure getting rid of "bishop roulette" is worse.  Bishops have had divided loyalties and obligations in the past: either A) maintain confidentiality as to confessions from BYU employees, or B) collaborate with the individual in evading a substantial condition of employment at BYU (a condition that the Church wants to keep in place).  

Now they don't.  Confidentiality is, to some extent, waived so that BYU can gain the information it needs to ascertain compliance with the terms of employment.

I am hoping that BYU allows for some sort of "grace period" during which an individual is working on getting a TR, particularly if the absence of a TR is due to addictive behaviors (long-term pornography use being one of the more likely problems).

Quote

In some cases, employees are being forced either to leave or lie — to keep their faith troubles to themselves or to wholly abandon the good parts of teaching at BYU.

Well, Gordon, there's also Door #3: Don't lie.  Don't leave.  Just maintain adherence to the conditions of your employment.  

Again, consider the hypothetical West Point faculty member.  If he became disillusioned, came to resent the United States and wanted to work against it, what should he do?

Door #1: He could "lie," and thereby maintain employment - through deceit - at West Point.  

Similarly, a BYU employee could maintain his employment at BYU through deceit (relative to having and being worthy of a TR).  This pretty much disposes of the high-falootin' caricature drawn by Monson of faculty members at BYU who behave this way while also claiming to just be "seeking truth."  (Candidly, I suspect that BYU and the Brethren have encountered too many instances of BYU employees falling into this category.)

Door #2: He could "leave," and thereby demonstrate some real integrity and commitment to "truth."  There are honorable people in the world who dislike the United States and its military.  There is nothing honorable about working at West Point under false/fraudulent pretenses.

Similarly, if employment at BYU is conditioned on having and being worthy of a TR, and there is some aspect of your life that is incompatible with these conditions, and if you don't want to change yourself to align with those conditions, then you are no longer keeping your side of the employer/employee bargain you struck with BYU.  Basic honesty would require you to leave.

"Faith troubles," and Gordon puts it, seems to cover a gamut.  Also, I'm reasonably confident that BYU is not eager to have a witch hunt.  Identifying, hiring and maintaining high-quality faculty is a tough job, particularly given BYU's rarefied conditions of employment.  So I hope that BYU is going to allow faculty members some breathing room to work out such "troubles."  At the same time, however, the individual employee really needs to take a "fish or cut bait" approach.  Either maintain the agreed-upon conditions of your employment, or else have enough honesty and integrity to avoid taking the Door #1 approach.

Door #3: The West Point faculty guy could choose to reconsider his antipathy toward the United States and its military.  He could voluntarily align himself with the mission and objectives of West Point, and commit to further those objectives.

Similarly, a BYU employee could . . . choose to maintain - or return to - the agreed-upon conditions of employment that pertain to BYU.

Quote

Think about what that must be like, professionals living under a constant threat that if they even temporarily stumble in matters of faith or behavior or both, they could be shunned or fired. Not for committing a crime or breaking a law, rather for seeking advice and help from an ecclesiastical leader who can report them for any moral indiscretion or faith crisis.

Not really buying into this narrative.  It's melodramatic and speculative.

As for the "shunned" comment, gimme a break.

As for the "fired" comment, again, I suspect BYU allows its employees some breathing room to work out such "temporary stumble{s} in matters of faith or behavior or both."

The Trib's advocacy-style journalism as regarding the Church doesn't impress.

Quote

There’s a discrepancy here between what the religion teaches the rank and file and what BYU insists on from its own.

There's also a discrepancy between what the United States teaches the rank and file of its citizenry (including the right to speak against the United States, criticize its military, etc.) and what West Point insists on from its own.

Quote

Latter-day Saints are, uh, human. They fall short. And since the faith sees itself as a Christian pursuit, the atonement of Jesus Christ is the main pillar that holds up the church’s primary belief system. And that atonement provides a way for imperfect people to better themselves, to ride the wagon, to fall off the wagon, to climb aboard the wagon again, and keep on rolling in the direction of eternal progression.

Sure.

But a big part of that is . . . honesty.  There can be transgressions that are so serious that they require corrective action.  A bishop who confesses to his stake president to a single one-night stand on a business trip, or to abusing his spouse or children, can certainly avail himself of the Atonement, that "main pillar that holds up the Church's primary belief system."

Meanwhile, however, he cannot continue to serve as a bishop.  Fortunately, there is no absolute nexus between serving as a bishop and "rolling {on} in the direction of eternal progression."  Plenty of people never serve as bishops.

So it is with employment at BYU.  It is not a condition for exaltation.  So losing employment there due to (likely quite serious) misconduct is not the end of the world.  Kneel in humility, pray for forgiveness, make recompense, and meanwhile go get a job somewhere else.

Quote

It provides help to those believers by way of bishops and other leaders to whom members can go to help clear their consciences and boost them when they slump a bit, or a lot.

To believers, to people trying to believe, that’s the whole reason and goal for the church, to help folks improve their lives, to better follow Christ, to lift people, to love them, to be a force for good in this earthly existence straight into the Great Beyond.

That’s the supposed reason and goal for the church overall, but apparently not for the school the church owns. There, forgiveness comes harder. Penalties are more problematic, disrupting not just spiritual progress but terrestrial employment.

Again, meh.  I'm just not buying this.

Consider an employee of the FBI, or NSA, or CIA, or any other job that requires a high-level security clearance.  You know this going in.  If you thereafter choose to behave in ways that cost you that security clearance, whose fault is that?  

Quote

Defenders of BYU’s zealous positions, like Clark Gilbert, the church’s commissioner of education, as quoted recently in the Church News, say it is the school’s role to be “different” than other universities. To groom disciples of Christ. “No matter what we do … that’s why the church invests in {BYU}.”

He added that “there are tremendous pressures on BYU” to change, in so many words, to become like other schools.

Yes, BYU wants to remain unique and different, and yes, there is tremendous pressure on it to change.

Gordon doesn't seem to believe this.  Or if he does, he's not giving it much thought.

Quote

My point isn’t for BYU to alter its course as a religious institution. No. It’s for BYU to become as Christlike as possible, to not devour its own, to allow for personal growth and academic freedom, to seek truth in all its forms, and to not intrude on confidential visits between employees and their ecclesiastical leaders.

Again, meh.

Taking steps to curtail deceitful retention of employment at BYU is not reasonably characterized as BYU "devour{ing} its own."

Quote

I had a recent conversation with a veteran BYU professor, a man of integrity and honesty who loves the school and has no dull blade to grind, just a sound sense of what’s honorable and dishonorable, what’s helpful and harmful.

“At BYU now, there’s a level of mistrust,” said the longtime educator, who unsurprisingly asked not to be named for fear of reprisal. “There are faculty who are angry, frustrated and discouraged at what they’re witnessing.

“Maybe some leaders don’t care if disgruntled folks leave. But many of the supposedly disgruntled folks are good ol’ Mormon boys and girls who just want to be trusted instead of suspected, not made to feel sometimes as though they are leading students down to hell.”

Assuming no hyperbole (and that's a big assumption), these are fair points.

Quote

Other faculty members — who also desired that their names not appear for the same reason — shared their wish for church educational leaders to sit in their offices as they try to help students who are in a faith crisis, barely hanging onto the church and, in some cases, life, and how they are trying to do everything they can to give them hope.

Um, what?  What does this have to do with the subject at hand?  Is Gordon intimating that BYU faculty members imperil their employment by "try{ing} to help students" in these ways?

This seems . . . fishy.

Quote

Another concerned professor said that the school’s emphasis on employees’ actions and attitudes has taken some of the joy out of worship. “Going to church,” the staffer said, “can feel like punching a time clock.”

I spent nearly 12 years in leadership positions that involved lots of meetings.  Lots.  High Council.  HPGL assistant.  Bishopric.

The frequency of these meetings, and their duration, and the amount of time wasted (leading to higher durations), did sometimes have a grating effect.  But in the end, there is still a "mind over matter" thing going on.  It's a choice.

Quote

These are not rabble-rousers attempting to turn BYU upside down. They are people who care about the church, the school and especially the students.

Okay.

I wonder if Gordon is willing to grant the same benefit of the doubt to the administrators at BYU, and the General Authorities, who are involved in managing how BYU operates.

Given his closing salvo, I suspect . . . not:

Quote

BYU is a private university, I get it. It wants to project and protect its principles. It wants obedience. It can do what it wants, and it will. But the school’s stances are inquisitions that don’t need to happen. The Latter-day Saint Way On Steroids doesn’t need to be a thing.

As BYU tightens the screws, it makes you wonder what the school will look like in 10 or 20 years. Does it want to be more like Notre Dame or like Bob Jones University?

Faculty and staff – and students, too – deserve to be treated with honor, encouragement and support. Instead they’re being subjected to minacity, saber-rattling, metaphorical muskets and invasions of their private lives.

What kind of religious school does that? Not a truly Christian one.

Yeesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So true, thanks for not taking me to task very much!

Did I "take you to task?"  How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Just to clarify, I already downloaded the article, and can provide it to you in whatever way you would like. The file is larger than the board software allows, so I can't put it up here.

Up to you.

Thank you, that is very thoughtful of you. I'll pass for now. I understand that there is often more correlation between behavior and dismissal than an article alone, and I suppose folks are not too interested in teasing apart a 30+ year old incident. 200 year-old incidents, yes!

 

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Did I "take you to task?"  How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

I was being sensitive.  😇

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Scott Lloyd, with whom I rarely agree, is hardly the equivalent of a Wal-Mart employee. And my boss, who is managing editor of the Curriculum Department, is one of the finest people I know, competent, brilliant, and a genuinely good man. It pains me to hear people speak so poorly of people they don't know.

Distortions at best, as usual.

I was speaking of a manager of cafeteria workers who literally worked for Walmart before working for the church.

"People they don't know".  My gosh John.   I had better stop now.

 

[Stargazer]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Distortions at best, as usual.

I was speaking of a manager of cafeteria workers who literally worked for Walmart before working for the church.

"People they don't know".  My gosh John.   I had better stop now.

 

I think the Walmart thing was a response to what I wrote, not you. I hit him in a sensitive place, and it just spilled over onto me. Mea culpa.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

“On the evening of June 27, 1844 Joseph Smith suddenly stopped breathing. He died shortly thereafter throwing the church into a succession crisis which eventually led to them leaving the state”

-A perfectly normal and accurate history book of Illinois. 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why not?

My opinion is that it makes it too difficult to distance oneself from the offensive human foibles that anyone is going to encounter in the work place and are too easy to get attached as baggage to feelings about the Church and even the gospel in general, especially when work leaders act as if they are spiritual leaders as well.  In church, if one has issues with someone, you are going to see them once or twice a week and even a bishop who has some authority over you (can pull a temple recommend for instance or cause you to not be able to hold a calling) gets released eventually.  At work, it more likely could be be a daily encounter and a permanent relationship.

I think while many would be fine working for the Church, others would not.  People need to be aware that it is not like working for spiritual giants all the time (I knew a couple of students at BYU who wanted to work for the Church because it would be like having an extended missionary experience, always spiritual).  If you are sensitive about criticisms of the Church because it frustrates you to see poor behaviour within church context, probably not a good idea to work for them.  If you are pretty laid back and find it easy to forgive the moments of pettiness and such that almost all of us succumb to at times, probably would be fine.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Calm

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for the "frankly fraudulent" link.  It was an interesting read, and a reminder of the pretense and pretext that is so often a part of so-called "academic freedom."

Consider, for example, this column by Gordon Monson in the Tribune:

In the main, it is difficult for me to imagine a per se conflict between A) teaching, say, a course on "Evidence" at BYU's law school, and B) not working to subvert the religious teachings and practices of BYU's sponsor, the Church.

Much of the tension goes away when some of the more overwrought notions regarding "academic freedom" are brought into a more reasonable perspective.

Meh.  

I have previously compared BYU to West Point.  Both are educational institutions with a patron/sponsor that has a very particularized and very specific outlook.  I think it would be patently unreasonable to expect West Point to hire and retain a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the United States and its military.  There are plenty of other schools that such folks can find work.  West Point, meanwhile, has particularized objectives that require a substantial measure of, as Gordon Monson puts it, "conformity."  An America-hating faculty member at West Point cannot mouth platitudes - as Gordon Monson does - about "seeking truth" as a means of excusing his dislike of and opposition to the raison d'etre of West Point and its sponsoring institution.

So it is, I think, with BYU.  I am not sure "conformity is the thing" at BYU, relative to academic inquiry.  I think the Nerd Herd over there has plenty of room to explore their respective areas of interest.  But if and when "academic freedom" starts being used as a pretext to justify the retention of a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the Church and its largest educational institution, well, that doesn't quite pass the smell test.

Yes, it can "cancel employment."  That may be why "BYU employees" are reasonable distinguished from "'regular' Latter-day Saints."  The latter folks are not employed by the Church.

I'm not saying that I agree with the policy change.  I'm still trying to sort this out.  But Gordon Monson's rhetoric here doesn't really work for me.

Same goes for his comments about "supposed to remain private."  As an attorney, I previously worked for a good-sized law firm.  Part of the arrangement is that I had to maintain obligations associated with the attorney-client relationship.  That is, the information given to me from the client must be held in strict confidence from everyone else.

However, were the managing partners at my firm included in "everyone else?"  Of course not.  If I obtained confidential information from my client, could I reasonably withhold it from my supervisors?  From the owners of the firm?  Nope.  Why?  Because my access to the information is derived from my association with the firm.  Confidentiality certainly applies as to "everyone else," but not to the firm.

So perhaps bishops are situated somewhat like this.  A bishop's access to "confidential" information about BYU employees is derived from the bishop's association with the Church.  Could it be said, then, that the obligation for a bishop to maintain confidentiality applies to "everyone else," but not the Church (including, I suppose, its associated educational institutions)?

Again, BYU is pretty unique in terms of its mission and objectives.  Yes, it employs people in exchange for money.  But it also requires, as a condition of employment, a certain measure of religious devotion and alignment with the Church's mission/objectives.  It is an unusual place that straddles two otherwise differentiated worlds: a religious community on the one hand, and an employer on the other.

I'm not sure getting rid of "bishop roulette" is worse.  Bishops have had divided loyalties and obligations in the past: either A) maintain confidentiality as to confessions from BYU employees, or B) collaborate with the individual in evading a substantial condition of employment at BYU (a condition that the Church wants to keep in place).  

Now they don't.  Confidentiality is, to some extent, waived so that BYU can gain the information it needs to ascertain compliance with the terms of employment.

I am hoping that BYU allows for some sort of "grace period" during which an individual is working on getting a TR, particularly if the absence of a TR is due to addictive behaviors (long-term pornography use being one of the more likely problems).

Well, Gordon, there's also Door #3: Don't lie.  Don't leave.  Just maintain adherence to the conditions of your employment.  

Again, consider the hypothetical West Point faculty member.  If he became disillusioned, came to resent the United States and wanted to work against it, what should he do?

Door #1: He could "lie," and thereby maintain employment - through deceit - at West Point.  

Similarly, a BYU employee could maintain his employment at BYU through deceit (relative to having and being worthy of a TR).  This pretty much disposes of the high-falootin' caricature drawn by Monson of faculty members at BYU who behave this way while also claiming to just be "seeking truth."  (Candidly, I suspect that BYU and the Brethren have encountered too many instances of BYU employees falling into this category.)

Door #2: He could "leave," and thereby demonstrate some real integrity and commitment to "truth."  There are honorable people in the world who dislike the United States and its military.  There is nothing honorable about working at West Point under false/fraudulent pretenses.

Similarly, if employment at BYU is conditioned on having and being worthy of a TR, and there is some aspect of your life that is incompatible with these conditions, and if you don't want to change yourself to align with those conditions, then you are no longer keeping your side of the employer/employee bargain you struck with BYU.  Basic honesty would require you to leave.

"Faith troubles," and Gordon puts it, seems to cover a gamut.  Also, I'm reasonably confident that BYU is not eager to have a witch hunt.  Identifying, hiring and maintaining high-quality faculty is a tough job, particularly given BYU's rarefied conditions of employment.  So I hope that BYU is going to allow faculty members some breathing room to work out such "troubles."  At the same time, however, the individual employee really needs to take a "fish or cut bait" approach.  Either maintain the agreed-upon conditions of your employment, or else have enough honesty and integrity to avoid taking the Door #1 approach.

Door #3: The West Point faculty guy could choose to reconsider his antipathy toward the United States and its military.  He could voluntarily align himself with the mission and objectives of West Point, and commit to further those objectives.

Similarly, a BYU employee could . . . choose to maintain - or return to - the agreed-upon conditions of employment that pertain to BYU.

Not really buying into this narrative.  It's melodramatic and speculative.

As for the "shunned" comment, gimme a break.

As for the "fired" comment, again, I suspect BYU allows its employees some breathing room to work out such "temporary stumble{s} in matters of faith or behavior or both."

The Trib's advocacy-style journalism as regarding the Church doesn't impress.

There's also a discrepancy between what the United States teaches the rank and file of its citizenry (including the right to speak against the United States, criticize its military, etc.) and what West Point insists on from its own.

Sure.

But a big part of that is . . . honesty.  There can be transgressions that are so serious that they require corrective action.  A bishop who confesses to his stake president to a single one-night stand on a business trip, or to abusing his spouse or children, can certainly avail himself of the Atonement, that "main pillar that holds up the Church's primary belief system."

Meanwhile, however, he cannot continue to serve as a bishop.  Fortunately, there is no absolute nexus between serving as a bishop and "rolling {on} in the direction of eternal progression."  Plenty of people never serve as bishops.

So it is with employment at BYU.  It is not a condition for exaltation.  So losing employment there due to (likely quite serious) misconduct is not the end of the world.  Kneel in humility, pray for forgiveness, make recompense, and meanwhile go get a job somewhere else.

Again, meh.  I'm just not buying this.

Consider an employee of the FBI, or NSA, or CIA, or any other job that requires a high-level security clearance.  You know this going in.  If you thereafter choose to behave in ways that cost you that security clearance, whose fault is that?  

Yes, BYU wants to remain unique and different, and yes, there is tremendous pressure on it to change.

Gordon doesn't seem to believe this.  Or if he does, he's not giving it much thought.

Again, meh.

Taking steps to curtail deceitful retention of employment at BYU is not reasonably characterized as BYU "devour{ing} its own."

Assuming no hyperbole (and that's a big assumption), these are fair points.

Um, what?  What does this have to do with the subject at hand?  Is Gordon intimating that BYU faculty members imperil their employment by "try{ing} to help students" in these ways?

This seems . . . fishy.

I spent nearly 12 years in leadership positions that involved lots of meetings.  Lots.  High Council.  HPGL assistant.  Bishopric.

The frequency of these meetings, and their duration, and the amount of time wasted (leading to higher durations), did sometimes have a grating effect.  But in the end, there is still a "mind over matter" thing going on.  It's a choice.

Okay.

I wonder if Gordon is willing to grant the same benefit of the doubt to the administrators at BYU, and the General Authorities, who are involved in managing how BYU operates.

Given his closing salvo, I suspect . . . not:

Yeesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

You ought to try to publish this. Gordon needs to be taken down a peg or two. Think the Trib would give it a go?

Nah, of course not.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“On the evening of June 27, 1844 Joseph Smith suddenly stopped breathing. He died shortly thereafter throwing the church into a succession crisis which eventually led to them leaving the state”

-A perfectly normal and accurate history book of Illinois. 

Are you comparing a history book to a grandmother's very very short story about her experience with God in the moments after her grandson suddenly stopped breathing and she didn't yet know why? 

Those don't seem all that comparable to me.   Seems weird to even try to suggest they are comparable.

***Also just wanted to add that I have not heard this "she lied!" issue in regards to that story from 2016. I've only heard it as it involves her "hear Him" message for this month, which is different from that story.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

a grandmother's

A world wide church leader using her grandsons death in a PR campaign for the church you mean right? 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

very very short story about her experience with God in the moments after her grandson suddenly stopped breathing and she didn't yet know why? 
 

Well she was at the hospital with him for several days before he died. And as for knowing why? Who knows what she did or did not know. Child abuse is very rarely a one time instance. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Those don't seem all that comparable to me.   Seems weird to even try to suggest they are comparable.

You seem not to like the narrative about Joseph that “factually” states things that happened. I wonder why that is. From my standpoint truth matters. It matters in history books (I’m not sure why you object to the blurb since you and others here think it’s factual) and it matters in a world wide church’s publications and efforts. If this was just a grandma telling a story that would be one thing. But this is a world wide church leader sweeping aside the brutal killing of a person to push an agenda. 
 

If the manner of death is immaterial to the telling of the story why not just tell the truth? Would telling the truth change the story? Does telling the truth about how Joseph was brutally murdered change that story?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

***Also just wanted to add that I have not heard this "she lied!" issue in regards to that story from 2016. I've only heard it as it involves her "hear Him" message for this month, which is different from that story.

You haven’t heard it, because while she has apparently been telling different versions of this story for years, the actual manner of death (homicide in this case) was not previously discovered. Because she is not being honest.