Church Blaming the Members and Local Leaders – AGAIN

As is the case with a lot of what Waterman writes, there are GAPING inconsistencies and logical leaps in this. He is bound and determined to present the absolute worst case interpretation toward the Church, and he is willing to twist things to fit whatever he wants to claim. His conclusions are not the only reasonable conclusions, and, in fact, in this case, he has to equate the actions of one Area Seventy with the will of the entire, united, coordinated top leadership for his charge to have merit.

I think we all know that doesn’t hold water in many cases – that there is a leadership roulette at the Area Seventy level like there is at the most local level.

It is the main reason I have NO problem with him being excommunicated (along with his call to return to the glory days of polygamy and racial discrimination, which I find ultra-conservative, frightening and backward). He is actively fighting the Church leadership in every way he possible can. I also don’t want the church he envisions.

No, neither of them has to be lying. They both can be telling the truth. That’s my point.

The Bishop probably was telling the truth – but that doesn’t mean it was coordinated by SLC and Church HQ. It might have been, sure – but it absolutely didn’t have to be for both the official statement and the Bishop to be telling the truth. An Area Seventy’s action does not have to equate to coordination by Church HQ – and to claim otherwise as the only reasonable explanation (as Waterman does) can be seen as just as unreasonable and dishonest as that with which he is charging the Church (since it comes from someone who should understand that one voice from above doesn’t have to equate to the will and directive of the combined top leadership). The fact that Waterman should know better but doesn’t even try to acknowledge any possibility but the absolute worst situation relative to the Church is what bothers me most about this – just as it bothers me most, from BOTH sides, in the discussion about John and Kate.

In many cases, either extreme doesn’t have to be the one true explanation – and an extreme that demands someone must be lying in cases where there is a good chance nobody is lying is the epitome of what bothers me about these discussions.

No, neither of them has to be lying. They both can be telling the truth. That’s my point.

The Bishop probably was telling the truth – but that doesn’t mean it was coordinated by SLC and Church HQ. It might have been, sure – but it absolutely didn’t have to be for both the official statement and the Bishop to be telling the truth. An Area Seventy’s action does not have to equate to coordination by Church HQ….

In many cases, either extreme doesn’t have to be the one true explanation – and an extreme that demands someone must be lying in cases where there is a good chance nobody is lying is the epitome of what bothers me about these discussions.

I’m not following you. Fine, take out the word coordination. Let’s just focus on the word “directed.” Here are the quotes from the PR department.

If a General Authority told Waterman’s Bishop, and Kelly’s Bishop, that they were apostates and needed to stop their online activities…than how is the church NOT lying when they make these comments?

Waterman says a GA directed his and Kelly’s Bishop to pursue church discipline if they did not stop their online activity. The church says that SLC does not direct local leaders to discpline members.

Did a GA direct bishops to tell local members to stop online activities, or not?

How can it be both ways?

“Decisions [to discipline members] are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.”-Official Church News Press Release June 11th.

“There is no effort to tell local leaders to keep members from blogging or discussing questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue, and recognize that today it’s how we communicate and discuss ideas with one another.” -Jessica Moody, Church Spokeswoman quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune June 19th.

“While senior leaders do provide training, these decisions are made by local leaders and are not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.” LDS Church Public Affairs Office, quoted on KUTV Salt Lake City June 17th

Church leaders are not asking members not to blog, and they are not attacking the rights of honest explorers of faith to have these conversations in the so-called Bloggernacle.” Church Spokeswoman Ally Isom on KUER radio, June 16th

That makes no sense.

I’m not talking about waterman. I’m talking about church authoritues from Salt Lake City

Do they need to take responsibility? Will they ever be held accountable for their actions? Does the corporate church ever make mistakes? Will they never be held accountable for those mistakes? Will they ever admit they made a mistake? Will be active average member ever admit the church makes mistakes?

Probably not.

All we ever see is them throwing it back and blaming the local leaders and the members.

It’s never their fault

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

A few things:

1) Is there a quick history of the PR department I could read up on? I don’t understand the department’s authority very well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the OW group doesn’t feel satisfied talking with PR, they may see the group as having no clout so they keep pushing harder to gain an audience with an actual authority. Just a guess. I can also understand why the church would be reluctant to give them an audience, it probably would set a bad precedent in their eyes… especially now that things have escalated.

2) Personally I lean toward the side of the church when they say that these things are directed by local leaders. The most plausible explanation that I’ve come up with is that leaders have been reminded in recent training sessions to be wary of apostates and local leaders have been reminded to follow policy, especially where policy dictates that certain situations require a mandatory disciplinary council to be held.

It seems like all of this contention is rooted in the appearance of strict obedience to some policy. I try not to get too worked up about it because… can’t they just change the policy? It seems like they could take a lot of the wind out of people’s sails if they just changed the policy to what it is today with an addition: excepting in special circumstances where blah blah blah.

I’m sure it would ruffle feathers but at least we could be done with some of this “was it local” speculation and conspiracy. The policy was probably written in a day where an “apostate’s” voice only reached locally but we live in a day and age where an “apostate’s” voice reaches well beyond the borders of a ward or stake.

Still moving the decision a bit farther up the chain would only help with the problem of training local leadership to produce a more uniform application of the rules. I guess that would open up a whole new can of worms though.

That makes no sense.

Okay.

I’m not talking about waterman. I’m talking about church authorities from Salt Lake City.

When Waterman is the one making the charges, he and his own words can’t be ignored in the discussion of the charges. All I’m saying is that Waterman’s charges are hyperbolic and not supported in his own case – that he is making a claim about his own situation that doesn’t match reality, drawn from painting himself as an innocent martyr. Also, the people in question are NOT “church authorities from Salt Lake City”. Both cases are Area Authorities – and it takes an assumption, when there are other perfectly reasonable explanations, that each case was directed by the next level of leadership in SLC.

Finally, you know full well I think and have said often that church leaders at all levels can and do make mistakes, even really large ones – and you also know full well that an apostle has acknowledged that in General Conference and the Church itself has acknowledged that in some of the recent explanations published at lds.org. Whether or not lots of members (including leaders) will accept that is another question altogether, but it is NOT objectively obvious that any of these three high-profile cases are mistakes OR that there is “blame” being handed down from SLC regarding them. Framing it that way comes from a particular perspective – and, as I said, that perspective is not objectively obvious.

Years ago, our RS passed out a letter to all the sisters. It was from our area president, and it was on official church letterhead. He had given it to each stake president and told them to pass it on to each ward. It was to be given to all the sisters. The letter talked about the evils of birth control and how important it was for us to all have as many children as biologically possible.

I brought it home and passed it on to my DH. He promptly mailed it to church headquarters in SLC. A few weeks later, it was announced in church that the previous letter had not been authorized and was completely incorrect. Our stake president then very diplomately approached us and wanted to know WHO we were connected with in SLC. The answer .. No one. But HQ did let the local administrators know who sent the letter to SLC.

What I learned from the experience was that area presidencies take fliers just like any one else. And they can be wrong.

Sometimes, I think God looks down at us, sighs, and thinks, “Is that all I get to work with?” Our leadership is all too human sometimes. Let’s hope they pray fervently and often for guidance.