- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DA included a paragraph in his comment about the renewed focus on what to call the Church and us as members that suggested Pres. Nelson did it because he is ashamed of the Church and wants to start fresh with a new name. He compared it to a failing company whose leaders change its name to avoid association with the former name. I deleted the paragraph and added an Admin Note.
Personally, I think that is a stupid accusation (that Pres. Nelson is ashamed of the Church), but I deleted it mostly for two reasons: 1) It is a direct shot at Pres. Nelson personally, outside of a normal, acceptable vent through which we can help someone process an issue; 2) It was calculated and cynical from someone who rarely comments anymore and NEVER comments in support of our mission.
I don’t want to ban DA unless he starts being even more regular and aggressive with this sort of thing, but I also don’t want to enable stuff like this from him. He has been around long enough to know better.
I agree all around. And specifically, the idea that RMN is ashamed of the church is indeed ridiculous. If we were doing a name change such as the Community of Christ did, then maybe it might have some credence. It was an easy target conversation. He can vent like that a thousand other places. I also disagree with it. Is it PR, in my opinion yes. Might it be a pointed change to close ranks, I wouldn’t be surprised. But not embarrassment. Control maybe, but not embarrassment. Old Timer wrote:
DA included a paragraph in his comment about the renewed focus on what to call the Church and us as members that suggested Pres. Nelson did it because he is ashamed of the Church and wants to start fresh with a new name. He compared it to a failing company whose leaders change its name to avoid association with the former name.I agree with others in that I think the notion is ridiculous. IMO this is one of Nelson’s pet issues going back nearly 30 years and now he’s in a position to make it god’s will, not just his own.
On the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised if this was announced at this time to get other, more unfavorable stories about the church out of the headlines. Particularly the stories surrounding Sam Young. Now the headlines are all about news organizations lightly poking fun at the release instead of headlines that have LDS church and sexual abuse in the same sentence.
So more of a temporarily reboot of the news cycle than some long term attempt to disassociate from a past image. And even then that’s stretching. I think it’s far more likely that this has been bothering Nelson (just a little) for 30 years and it’s a simple case of him now having the floor.
Old Timer wrote:
I don’t want to ban DA unless he starts being even more regular and aggressive with this sort of thing, but I also don’t want to enable stuff like this from him. He has been around long enough to know better.
I don’t want to ban him either.
I agree with what has been said and also not banning DA. He’s doing it again in the Blizzard of Changes thread. This time he is insulting Pres. Nelson personally. He knows the rules about personal insults directed at the leadership, but he is doing it again. I feel like I have to edit it to remove some of the really egregious stuff, but I am leaving it alone for now so everyone can read his two comments. I am getting really tired of this. Any suggestions?
Thanks for the heads up…I’m going to go read through it and check it out and will share my opinion. My opinion is there just needed to be a nudge and reminder not to let it get out of hand. In and of themselves, the posts seem ok…but starting to lean towards something that could snowball and pile on to the prophet. I’m not one who thinks we can’t disagree or have opinions…but…some of DAs comments were a bit disrespectful. Not enough to ban him or anything…just maybe an Admin Note which I put in that thread.
Not a bad idea to have a reminder with conference coming up to watch our tone with what we like or don’t like.
But…I think DA’s ok…just a nudge to him. I PM’d him directly too in case he had questions.
Let’s see if that helps keep the comments on course.
I wasn’t trying to hint at banning him. I just am frustrated that he is back to breaking a rule about which he has been warned previously. I let go a little bit in my response to DA’s current post. I bit my tongue hard, but I did respond. I won’t do so again, because I’m not sure I can do it calmly and in line with our mission. He didn’t push any button; he slammed it with extreme force. I can’t even follow the logic of his Calvinistic conclusion, and I can see the connections in almost every comment from every participant over the course of the last ten years. Please keep an eye on it. I am serious about not commenting again.
I certainly get where you’re coming from. There are a couple threads I have stepped back from as well. I think DA has been pushing the envelope of late. It is one thing to argue for the sake of arguing, which I think he often does, it is another to take something out of context, twist it, and make it a personal attack.
I noticed the ellipses in DA’s comment and went back to my comment he excerpted. Honestly, what I saw made me sad, disappointed, and mad. DA intentionally deleted ONE sentence from my comment, and doing so made him able to twist my comment without it being obvious to everyone. It was deliberate. It was calculated. It was deceptive.
I wrote a lengthy Admin Note in response, then I moved the post and thread to the Parking Lot. I want you all to look at what I wrote and tell me if I over-reacted and if it needs to come from someone else. I wanted all of you to see my reaction in print, but I didn’t want everyone else to see it. My gut tells me I should not be the person who calls him on it. If someone else wants to do so, feel free to delete my comment first, add yours, then move it back to the discussion board.
Right now, I need to step back. I need more eyes on this. I am appalled at what he did, but I need to know if I reacted too strongly.
It took me a bit to find your original comment. I did compare them and he did leave out a sentence. He proof texted, just like religions and others do all the time.
Reading his posts, I surmise that someone in his life is pushing him to return to full activity because of all the new revelations that are coming forth.
For believers that is what all the changes are. I hear it a lot in my ward. People are nearly gushing over it. When really it’s just business restructuring.
You got the tail end of his frustration. Anyone would have if we had posted the same answer.
His moniker pretty much addresses his stance.
I don’t think it would hurt for you to post your original full comment so others can compare the two.
He wants a debate, even though he writes otherwise. Let’s not give it to him. Just lay out the comments and see what happens.
I find myself in a similar state with the Bill Reel excommunication conversation. I finally decided my view point wasn’t wanted. After far too many responses, I left it alone.
Good advice. I will quote the entire thing, mention he deleted the most important sentence intentionally, explain why it changed the apparent meaning, and see what happens. I will keep my emotions out of it. The changes have been made, and I moved it back to the General Discussion section. Everyone, please feel free to comment or wait to see how he responds.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.