SEC Fine and the Meaning of Sustaining our Leaders

[Kevin Christensen]

Bluebell commented:

Quote

I think her "mormonspeak" definition of sustain illustrates a big bias.  She says if we sustain leaders, we must: 1) obey them, no matter what, and 2) remain silent about their faults and errors, even if they behave criminally. That’s how a person advances in the Church."  I'm a pretty normal active member of the church and her definition is not one that I'm familiar with. When was the last time that you sustained someone in church and thought to yourself "I've just promised to obey that person no matter what, to remain silent of faults and errors, even crimes, and by doing this I'll be able to advance in church"?

Yeah, I've never thought those things either.  I'm guessing the number of members who do think such things when they sustain someone would be practically zero.

Her definition has a bitter slant to it that says to me that she's venting, not instructing.

I've occasionally commented on what a super word "sustain" actually is, if we consider the dictionary definition, rather than uncritical wishful thinking:

Sustain

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

When we raise our hands in a sustaining vote, we are telling God that we will put up with whatever comes along, because we trust Him, not because we have absolute confidence and loyalty in the "arm of the flesh" that Jeremiah 17:5-12 famously puts in perspective.

Quote

5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.

7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.

8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

9 ¶ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

11 As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.

12 ¶ A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Smiley McGee]

20 hours ago, ttribe said:

Just picking a nit here regarding the opening post and the blog commentary - What was alleged in this matter was a violation of civil law, not criminal law. I sometimes testify on matters of fraud and, IMO, I think anyone would be hard pressed to make a fraud claim against the Church based on the available facts.

Agreed. Even if it was fraud, I don’t know that the SEC would seek criminal prosecution related to a 13F. Even in the post 2001 era of Sarbanes-Oxley where CEOs and CFOs can be held criminally liable for 10K/10Q filings, the 13F probably isn’t a big enough deal to warrant more than a fine.

IMO, the relevant matter is the church’s desire and efforts to prevent disclosure to members. I believe in prophetic fallibility and I believe where much is given much is required. If the church holds one hand out to receive 10% of a person’s income, its other hand should be offering a complete set of independently audited financial statements. Don’t care what is legally required.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Isn’t the opposite also true though, of those who don’t feel safe in the church Or otherwise are very angry/opposed to I t?

Wouldn’t they, by your reasoning, be incapable of not thinking about the Church critically?

It's certainly possible in some cases, but it's not a symmetrical thing 

The church narrative teaches that safety is within and danger without. You have to be a more nuanced thinker to question that enough to be critical of the church.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Bluebell commented:

I've occasionally commented on what a super word "sustain" actually is, if we consider the dictionary definition, rather than uncritical wishful thinking:

Sustain

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

When we raise our hands in a sustaining vote, we are telling God that we will put up with whatever comes along, because we trust Him, not because we have absolute confidence and loyalty in the "arm of the flesh" that Jeremiah 17:5-12 famously puts in perspective.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

I learned a good object lesson for this word from my anatomy days.  The sustentaculum (spelled wrong in the image) tali is a shelf-like anatomical feature on the calcaneus bone.  It's purpose is to sustain ("sustentaculum") the talus ("tali") bone.  Without it, the rest of the body would collapse.   The talus bone can't function or serve its purpose without the sustaining shelf (sustentaculum tali) of the calcaneus bone.

I agree with everything you said with one caveat - I don't view a sustaining vote as a promise or indicator that we will "put up with whatever comes along".   That too easily can lead to abusive or cult-like behavior.  To me it means that I am pledging my support to help my leaders fulfill their callings through performing my roles under their authority.  Without our sustaining role, our leaders can't function and the entire body (church) would collapse under the weight.  Sometimes sustaining someone also requires holding them accountable, encouraging and expecting change/improvement, and not putting up with whatever comes along.  For example, the sustaining role of a sponsor in addiction recovery (or of a parent for that matter) requires both support and accountability. 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

The church must still be operating under the influence of philosophies prevalent during the apostasy."

I agree with her in this.  

In a sense, so do I.  But she sure seemed to be getting close to imputing institutional apostasy, and/or apostasy of the general leadership.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

We have had a lot of cultural baggage being brought into the Church from converts (since in the establishment phase all were converts, there would be a massive impact in the foundation, imo) that then gets carried forward by their children and others even if always members.    Some is good, some is bad.

I agree.  And even lifelong members bring "cultural baggage" into the Church.

But her comments, in context, did not seem to be about "baggage" carried by the lay members, but rather "baggage" - that is, "apostate" ideas/philosophies - which prophets and apostles have imported and characterized as doctrine.  Specifically, she is claiming that the male-only priesthood is a manifestation of apostasy, that this is "patriarchy," which she expressly attributes - using liturgical language from the temple, no less - to attribute such things to Satan.

I dunno.  I myself have had questions about the scriptural basis for limiting the priesthood to men (see, e.g., here), but characterizing it as satanic seems quite a bit beyond the pale. 

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Just look at the antiCatholicism bigotry that has persisted.  And then there is the stuff we create ourselves, given the human tendency to fill in gaps even when it’s not necessary, to create hedges and all, mission creep, etc.  There is no way to escape cultural or doctrinal heritage except by conscious challenging of all our beliefs, imo (and that may or may not help).  But then I think we should be doing this anyway on everything because the human factor is always there.

Agreed.  But Sis. Downing is not talking about any of that.  She's saying that the failure to ordain women to the priesthood is satanic.  She's somewhat obfuscatory about it, but it's there.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Not saying this means we should automatically dump any shared ideas, etc. because I assume a lot of truth and good stuff survived in other faiths.  Also mistakes could be made in understanding/interpreting current revelation, so I don’t see a reason to believe LDS unique ideas are sacrosanct from inspection/questioning.  Just thinking we should be taking out our beliefs and reexamining them on a regular basis to see what refinements God wants us to make in them.

I quite agree.  That is why I have been on this board since 2004.  But there is a fair distance between "taking out our beliefs and reexamining them on a regular basis" and publicly accusing the Church of perpetuating satanic practices.

I am grateful that the Restored Gospel has given us so much additional light and knowledge regarding the doctrine of Christ.  However, I don't think this has included much in the way of explanation for why the priesthood is limited to (worthy) men.  

• Chapter 13 of the Gospel Principles Manual: "Our Heavenly Father delegates His priesthood power to worthy male members of the Church. ... A worthy male member of the Church receives the priesthood 'by the laying on of hands...'"
• Section 3.4 of the Handbook: "Worthy male Church members receive priesthood authority through priesthood conferral and ordination to priesthood offices."
• Section 3.4.2: "Under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys, the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood are conferred on worthy male Church members (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:14–17)."

D&C 84 states:

Quote

6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;
...
18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.
...
29 And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.
30 And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons.
31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed—
32 And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord’s house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church.
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
...
41 But whoso breaketh this acovenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.
...
106 And if any man among you be strong in the Spirit, let him take with him him that is weak, that he may be edified in all meekness, that he may become strong also.
...
109 Therefore, let every man stand in his own office, and labor in his own calling; and let not the head say unto the feet it hath no need of the feet; for without the feet how shall the body be able to stand?

The Official Declaration - 2 specifically states that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

1 Timothy 3 comes to mind, as it specifically identifies a qualification of a bishop as being "the husband of one wife . . . that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity . . . for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"). Deacons are similarly designated in this chapter as presumptively male. See also Titus 1.

So these provide some guidance as to the "what," but not the "why."

It is a worthwhile question, to be sure.  But I'm not sure we have a revealed answer as to the "why."  I have some qualms with attributing this practice to Satan.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The reason you hire a doctor lawyer or accountant is because you don't have the expertise to do what they do.

Yes.

 

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

To check what they do, you would have to know all you yourself know and ALL they know also.

I don't want to study IRS code all day.   I know I am unusual in that.

What!?  The Internal Revenue Code is fascinating.  🤣

 

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I hire a CPA to do it for me.   

Good!  My profession appreciates you.

 

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But if HE screws up- am I responsible?

YEs actually you are. You sign the tax return.  Your CPA may have preparer penalties depending on how they screw up but you are still ultimately responsible.  

 

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, that's why there are things like malpractice lawsuits.

Yes you can attempt to recoup if you have a basis to do so.  In fact most malpractice suits against CPAs are for tax issues.

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I did not set my broken leg so that it is not as long as the other- that's all I know.   So I get sued for having a short leg?

 

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

It seems quite possible to me they were not informed of how each and every detail was going to be carried out.  Would a CEO of a large corporation be informed of how managers were to be chosen (common names only), how companies would be identified (located out of state with local area codes), or the specific instructions on SEC forms that would be given to employees?  

Well IMO this seems like a high profile issue. It entails trying to keep how many billions the church was accumulated from public view. So I would think the leaders would be very aware of what was going on with this as would a CEO of a large corporation.

22 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Is the head of the CPA firm responsible for what one of his accountants did for a client though?

The firm can be sued.  But in an LLC or LLP, like my firm is, my other partners are not responsible personally for my bad actions though I may be.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Is Ensign Peak owned by the Church or hired by the Church?

I believe the church owns it.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Were those who filed the forms hired by EPA or working for EPA?

Not sure.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

And legally speaking…even if you sue your accountant for screwing up your account with the government, doesn’t the government hold you accountable?  You don’t get out of paying fines by saying ‘my accountant blew it’, right?

Correct.  You as the taxpayer are ultimately responsible. You can sue your CPA if they messed up but if there are taxes, penalties and interest IRS is coming after you.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Bluebell commented:

I've occasionally commented on what a super word "sustain" actually is, if we consider the dictionary definition, rather than uncritical wishful thinking:

Sustain

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

When we raise our hands in a sustaining vote, we are telling God that we will put up with whatever comes along, because we trust Him, not because we have absolute confidence and loyalty in the "arm of the flesh" that Jeremiah 17:5-12 famously puts in perspective.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Good thoughts.

We should also attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel:

Quote

An all-powerful judge is not much different than a king. Therefore, Mosiah wisely sets up a system of checks and balances. He does this not with three branches of government but with a system of accountability by which judges can be tried for not performing according to the law which has been given. In this system, the lower judge may be judged of a higher judge and the higher judge may be judged by a group of lower judges.

An analogous system has been set up in latter-day church government. When a priesthood leader transgresses, he is judged by a higher authority. When a president of the high priesthood (member of the First Presidency) transgresses, he is judged by a group of lower authorities:

And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by the twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

…Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (DC 107:82-4)

See also here:

Quote

Suppose that Gordon B. Hinckley really started misbehaving, sinning left and right, and generally leading the church astray. Some might find this unlikely on theological grounds, after all President Woodruff said:

• The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

The implication seems to be that the Lord will “call home” any prophet who strays too far from the divine “programme.” Looking at the scriptures, however, suggests another possibility: Excommunicating the President of the Church.

According to D&C 107:82-84:

• And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the Church who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and solemnity before Him, according to truth and righteousness.

The procedure from this passage is a little cryptic. The “common council of the Church” referred to is the Presiding Bishopric (See D&C 107: 74-76). In his book Priesthood and Church Government, Elder John A Widstoe had this to say about the judicial authority of the Presiding Bishopric:

• Should occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary – from which there is no appeal.

A couple of interesting points about the procedure. First, the twelve high priests who sit in council with the Presiding Bishopric are not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although presumably despite their ordination as Apostles they could serve. (Although the First Presidency is made up of “high priests,” Apostles regularly serve as members.) Indeed, as far as I know, the only times that this judicial machinery has been used – to excommunicate various counselors of Joseph Smith – the twelve high priests were not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but rather the local high council. However, as Widstoe suggests, there is no reason that they need to be high councilors, and the Presiding Bishop seems to have the authority to select any twelve high priests, regardless of their current office. The second interesting point is that the First Presidency is afforded fewer procedural protections than are other members of the Church. There is no appeal from the Presiding Bishopric, furthermore it is not clear if the procedural requirements that apply to other church proceedings apply here. For example, would President Hinckley have a right to have his bishop speak on his behalf?

Interesting stuff.  More:

Quote

Finally, the procedure sets up the possibility of a “constitutional crisis” within the Church. Suppose that the President of the Church were called before the Presiding Bishopric and excommunicated. Simultaneously, the First Presidency took jurisdiction over the Presiding Bishopric and excommunicated them. There is not right of appeal from either tribunal, and hence no “legal” way to resolve the controversy. There is, however, a pragmatic solution to the issue. This situation would force the Quorum of the Twelve to take sides. If they deem Presiding Bishopric’s action to be legitimate, then the Twelve become the presiding quorum of the Church, with the authority to select and ordain a new President of the Church. If, however, they deem the action of the First Presidency to be legitimate, then they would simply continue to follow the authority of the First Presidency and refuse to ordain a new President of the Church. Because the Presiding Bishopric has no authority over the Twelve, there is nothing that it can do to gain say the Twelve’s decision. The really difficult scenario would be one in which the Twelve sided with the Presiding Bishopric against the First Presidency, which refused to accept their combined decision. The First Presidency has the authority to excommunicate any member of the Twelve, and its decision to do so in unreviewable. Suppose, however, that the Twelve had already ordained a new President of the Church. We would now have the situation of two rival claimants to the Presidency, both with the unreviewable authority to excommunicate the other. One suspects that such a conflict would have to be resolved by the membership of the Church itself in general conference, much the way that the competing claims of Rigdon and the Twelve were resolved in 1844.

As far as I know, there has only been one attempt to institute an action against the President of the Church himself before the Presiding Bishopric. As I understand it, in the 1950s there were plans to shut down Rick’s College in Idaho (or at least there were rumors of such plans). Some of the local leaders in Rexburg were so infuriated that they tried to instigate an court to try President McKay. If this story is true, nothing ever came of it. Ricks still exists (albeit under a new name), and as far as I know, President McKay was never excommunicated.

Just as well. Things could get messy.

I'm curious about this "constitutional crisis" bit, but I suspect A) it will never actually arise, or B) the Lord will take care of things.

In any event, nobody is "above the law," including Steven Seagal and the First Presidency.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Bluebell commented:

I've occasionally commented on what a super word "sustain" actually is, if we consider the dictionary definition, rather than uncritical wishful thinking:

Sustain

1.  To keep up; keep going; maintain. Aid, assist, comfort.
2.  to supply as with food or provisions:
3.  to hold up; support
4.  to bear; endure
5.  to suffer; experience: to sustain a broken leg.
6.  to allow; admit; favor
7.  to agree with; confirm.

When we raise our hands in a sustaining vote, we are telling God that we will put up with whatever comes along, because we trust Him, not because we have absolute confidence and loyalty in the "arm of the flesh" that Jeremiah 17:5-12 famously puts in perspective.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

So to the point of my friend's thoughts, that sustaining can include rebuke. If my husband is harsh with our child, do I sustain him the most by just putting up with it? 

[webbles]

22 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I haven't seen that here, have you?

In some responses to my posts, I have felt that.  People can feel vitriol from a person even if it wasn't intended.

[Hamilton Porter]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's certainly possible in some cases, but it's not a symmetrical thing 

The church narrative teaches that safety is within and danger without. You have to be a more nuanced thinker to question that enough to be critical of the church.

Are you a better critical thinker when you're angry or nasty? Because Kate Kelly said the people who've said the most nasty things are exmos.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Are you a better critical thinker when you're angry or nasty? Because Kate Kelly said the people who've said the most nasty things are exmos.

I'd say it's a wash, having been on the receiving end of death threats, some sent to my wife (which was not helpful for her PTSD). Neither side has a monopoly on nastiness. 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 3/31/2023 at 3:03 AM, Meadowchik said:

So to the point of my friend's thoughts, that sustaining can include rebuke. If my husband is harsh with our child, do I sustain him the most by just putting up with it? 

Your children are your joint stewardship.   Husbands do not have an inherent right to be unquestioned dictators.  Quite the contrary:

Quote

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our bsins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

This passage, I note, could not be confused with the notion of machismo.

Quote

22 And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless before him, that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received.

23 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive.

24 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.

My willingness to "sustain" other members of the Church, is due to my own convictions about the reality of God, the identity of Jesus, my belief in the atonement, my faith in the restoration and the authenticity and truth of the Book of Mormon as foundational.   Even the worst behavior I know about by any member of the Church has nothing whatsoever to do with those foundational realities.  Most of the time, as a general principle, I can look at the situation of myself in relation to the institutional church like this:

Quote

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

That is not the social relationship as one parent with another in relation to a child.  And there is also the issue of exceptional circumstances versus general principles.  We ought not establish our general standards of behavior and responsibility based on exceptional circumstances.  Nor should we let our general principles blind us to exceptional circumstances.  (Nephi and Laban is a story of exceptional circumstances, not establishing as a general principle that we should behead any government authorities that annoy us.)   It is not exceptional that a spouse should have say in how their own child is raised.   Rather, that is a general principle.

Think of Oliver Cowdery being told in D&C 6:18-19

Quote

18 Therefore be diligent; stand by my servant Joseph, faithfully, in whatsoever difficult circumstances he may be for the word’s sake.

19 Admonish him in his faults, and also receive admonition of him. Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and charity.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited April 5, 2023 by Kevin Christensen

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'd say it's a wash, having been on the receiving end of death threats, some sent to my wife (which was not helpful for her PTSD). Neither side has a monopoly on nastiness. 

I won't discount your person experience but for Kate Kelly it was never equal. As a public figure she gets a much larger sample.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
This format sucks

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I won't discount your person experience but for Kate Kelly it was never equal.

I wouldn't presume to discount her experience, either. 

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I won't discount your person experience but for Kate Kelly it was never equal. As a public figure she gets a much larger sample.

Large is not equal to random.

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Your children are your joint stewardship.   Husband's do not have an inherent right to be unquestioned dictators.  Quite the contrary:

This passage, I note, could not be confused with the notion of machismo.

My willingness to "sustain" other members of the Church, is due to my own convictions about the reality of God, the identity of Jesus, my belief in the atonement, my faith in the restoration and the authenticity and truth of the Book of Mormon as foundational.   Even the worst behavior I know about by any member of the Church has nothing whatsoever to do with those foundational realities.  Most of the time, as a general principle, I can look at the situation of myself in relation to the institutional church like this:

That is not the social relationship as one parent with another in relation to a child.  And there is also the issue of exceptional circumstances versus general principles.  We ought not establish our general standards of behavior and responsibility based on exceptional circumstances.  Nor should we let our general principles blind us to exceptional circumstances.  (Nephi and Laban is a story of exceptional circumstances, not establishing as a general principle that we should behead any government authorities that annoy us.)   It is not exceptional that a spouse should have say in how their own child is raised.   Rather, that is a general principle.

Think of Oliver Cowdery being told in D&C 6:18-19

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

The similarity with the child example is that of an arising need to speak up for the sake of others to someone who has authority over the person in need of advocacy. It's not meant as a perfect comparison, but to awaken sympathy for such situations in broader scenarios.

Anyway, going by your last quote you do agree that we may admonish others including the prophet in their faults (while also receiving their admonishment,) yes?

If yes, do you see a problem with the current church not incorporating that in it's functioning structure? 

 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Large is not equal to random.

It's not random, it's biased towards nicer messages from exmos since she is an exmo. It makes it more striking we still get the results we get.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
this format sucks

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

It's not random, it's biased towards nicer messages from exmos since she is an exmo. It makes it more striking we still get the results we get.

Hostile sexism in exmos versus benevolent sexism in the church is both sides of the same coin. 

Also notable that there is a stigma against anger in the church. Anger can arise out of clear critical thinking. Anger is also a stage of the natural grieving process.

Grief tends to come in waves, while the need to preserve belief in a noncritical environment is constant.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I won't discount your person experience but for Kate Kelly it was never equal. As a public figure she gets a much larger sample.

Yes, we have to understand the details of these experiences, and public figures reveal only so much.

For example, on my mission I had a gun thrust in my face and told I was going to be killed (because I was an American). Other times I had machine guns at my head, and I knew if I moved the wrong way, I'd be killed (just like anyone else). After I got home, I was beaten about the head after being asked what time it was. Fortunately it was very cold outside and I had a thick hood over a thick hat over a thick head... They ended up apologizing when the blows took no effect and I spoke calmly to them. I was the more critical thinker, and the least nasty also, in each of those cases.

Edited March 31, 2023 by CV75

[Hamilton Porter]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hostile sexism in exmos versus benevolent sexism in the church is both sides of the same coin. 

Which one's worse?

But at least you conceded this point.

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Also notable that there is a stigma against anger in the church. Anger can arise out of clear critical thinking. Anger is also a stage of the natural grieving process.

OK, I'll make sure to get angry at exmos with greater frequency and intensity.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Which one's worse?

But at least you conceded this point.

OK, I'll make sure to get angry at exmos with greater frequency and intensity.

Well this has been a pointless tangent. Have a nice weekend.

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well this has been a pointless tangent. Have a nice weekend.

I once got mugged by 5 guys on Houston street, Manhattan NY near midnight, 41 years ago, holding me down with a BIG knife at my throat.

They got their $27, and now I don't even remember it at all! 

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I once got mugged by 5 guys on Houston street, Manhattan NY near midnight, 41 years ago, holding me down with a BIG knife at my throat.

They got their $27, and now I don't even remember it at all! 

 

Sounds dramatic for the cost of three hamburgers at Burger King