KUER hour-long interview with LDS church spokeperson

I really appreciate a lot of things Ally said. I would like to see space in the church and at church to discuss and ask questions openly the way she describes, but the reality is many members feel threatened easily and may react badly – making the one asking feel shut down.

I agree that things would have gone much better for KK if she had simply asked for consideration instead of using more determined language. I appreciate Ally’s position that it was primarily the tone that can lead to trouble.

I almost laughed at that statement the lds spokewoman made when she said: ” “Isn’t that the beauty in all this” because it reminded me of the Nicene creed that describes God as a being without body, parts, or passion; big enough to dwell in your heart but fill the whole world. Nicest describtion of ‘Nothing” I have ever heard. If you make it vaque, but poetic, it makes it more beautiful but not more understandable. As far as her saying we can ask questions in RS and SS in regards to OW, LGBT, polgyamy, and church history; not without it bringing judgment down on you. I taught GD and investigators class for 4 years each. I would ask questions like, “How would you treat gay couples that visited the church or if polygamy were reinstated, etc. I got reprimanded and finally realeased from my callings for that. When I brought up difficult questions in RS or SS I was asked by the teacher, “Why did you even ever join this church.”

As far as local leaders not being influenced by church headquarters or leaders accept for a few innocent guidlines; that is bull. I remember when I was the PR person in my ward in Iowa years ago. I was supposed to bring information from ward members who had accomplished good things in the community so the stake could put them into local newspapers to show what good things Mormons are doing in the community. I told them how I had started a parents and friends group to show and love and support for gay people in our community. The stake PR person told me that he would have to get an OK from Salt Lake to allow them to put my community service in the newspaper. After a week I was told that Salt Lake would not approve my request at this time. So, if my small article of community service had to be approved, I am sure bigger fish than mine do too. By the way, other churches in the Quad-cities supported me 100% accept the lds church did not. Individuals in the lds church wrote me privately that they supported me and were sorry my news report was not accepted by church headquarters.

Btw, Meridian Magazine just posted this about Kate and John: http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14497 Here are my thoughts on that article:

I listened to a radio cast recently with John and Kate and John said that even though he does not believe in Section 132 of the D& C or the authenticity of the BofM or Book of Abraham, and a few other things I cannot recall now, I have never heard him say that he doesn’t believe in God, the historical Jesus and rejects all doctrine of the church. John mentions that members in the Catholic church can disagree with the Pope on abortion or birth control and still be members in good standing and he sees himself in the same way in the lds church. It is my understanding that Br. Oaks or some other GA has said that you should never criticise church leaders, even if they are wrong. Is that correct? That sounds so wrong if that is true. Jesus taught if you have something against someone, to do it privately with the person first. If a bishop or leader like Joseph Smith was doing something wrong (like I believe JS did with polygamy and lying to Emma) then I can understand why William Law went to the press finally after JS propositioned his wife. But, I am glad there is discussion about all this going on. The main thing is to try and understand each other and speak with respect.

Those Meriden comments were awful.

Perhaps the worse display I’ve ever witnessed from church members.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Wow Cwlad you were correct about the comments after the Meridian Article. Sorry Uchtdorf, your talk about having doubts and still welcomed fell on deaf ears and loud,bullying voices.

Yeah. We just want to sin.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That was a pretty tedious hour.

Wow (not a good wow, btw). I found myself vocally disagreeing as I listened to a this on the commute home last evening. It’s a stark reminder of how I got to the point I am in the first place.

I agree that both John Dehlin and Kate Kelly pushed the envelope in the church’s eyes and it probably had to take some kind of action for the sake of the organization and the “99 members”. But how did it get to that point? People who question quietly are often ignored or brushed off. It’s no wonder why the “agitation” increases.

I pretty much agree with what bridget_night said. The church is authoritarian and it discourages communication that offers differing viewpoints (at least along the Corridor where I live).

Earlier this year, I was in one of those stake training sessions and someone asked what to do if members asked difficult questions. None of the stake leadership had an answer. Stuff like “ask the bishop” came up – yeah, right, the bishop has the answer. The bishops I’ve known are so busy helping people with problems, when do they have time to read about tough issues?

Anyway, bottom line, I was very saddened by the dialog between the two. Makes me realize how siloed those of us who have doubts still are.

The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party’s attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down. . . . A metaphor for refuting the tone argument: If you tread on someone’s toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don’t tell them to “ask nicely”.

I agree that the content should be the principle focus in any discussion, and in a perfect world tone would make no difference because people would know to not take offense. In the real world, as we deal with human emotions, tone and approach does become a factor in our success in persuading people to listen. In the church we know what historically has caused problems, and what type of approach has brought better results. I can’t help but say if the approach was different it may have cracked open the door a little more instead of prompting a push to close it.

I see a choice: We can assert ideals, or we can try to be more effective in this moment.