- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
lotsofgray accused President Nelson of making the Church name usage announcement as a “smoke screen” to deflect attention from the Chicago temple area development. Like DevilsAdvocate’s accusation of Pres. Nelson being ashamed of the Church, that accusation is patently ridiculous. More importantly, we can’t have a thread where people get to make wild accusations about leadership motives. I have no problem with discussing issues like the temple area development, but they need to occur in separate posts and threads for two reasons: 1) We need to try to honor the intent of people who write posts and keep the focus on the topic they address; 2) Lurkers need to be able to find our archived discussions by searching for words or phrases that deal with the topic in which they are interested. Threadjacks destroy that ability.
I deleted the original comment from lotsofgray, the responses to it, and the comment with the link. I wrote an Admin Note about what I did. I also sent lotsofgray a PM explaining why I did that and telling him the topic is fine to address in a separate post.
Totally concur. Ironically the comments remind me of conservative talk show points against Barack Obama. Smoke screens, distractions, etc.
I actually think RMN shoots from the hip. I am aware that he is still lucid like a 70 year old. But he isn’t a PR guy.
Like it or not, GBH spoiled us. His roll outs and direction changes were better timed and more clarified. Even if it was a comment on a TV interview. I believe he even gently tried to turn tides in those interviews and off hand comments from the pulpit.
I think RMN has revelation related ADHD. Any idea that crosses him now becomes revelation. Off he goes enthusiastically making it (whatever it is) the new way.
I think more than anything we are going to become a people of whiplash.
I agree as well. I think RMN is a bit like Peter and a bit like JS. I think Joseph thought that every thought he had was from God, and I can see that in RMN. And it is of course important that we keep the integrity of the mission of the board. There are plenty of places where one could make such accusations and be totally accepted, this isn’t one of them. I think the larger issue is trust. People arrive at these conclusions because they’ve lost trust in the church leaders. In many people’s minds the leaders have earnedthat level of trust and suspicions over their motives. Is there a way to have this discussion here? Support people that have lost a great deal of trust in leaders of the church or have a discussion about church life post losing trust in leaders. I agree completely, Nibbler. Part of my PM was about addressing issues in separate posts, and I told him it would be fine for him to do so with that topic. In a distinct post, we can say exactly what you just said. We just can’t do it as a threadjack that derails any existing post with an existing, intended purpose.
If someone wants to write a post about trust and how lack of trust leads to distorted conspiracy theories, go for it. I think it could be a great discusssion.
I vote Nibbler start it. It’s probably best left to someone else. Over the last 6 months or so I’ve been concerned about my tone so I’ve tried to remain relatively quiet. My local experience with the church has’t been the best of late. I don’t know whether it’s young bucks looking for gold stars from the community or what but lately the orthodox voice has been overpowering. Take for instance this name change thing:
“I participate on many online communities and people misunderstand. It’s okay for other people to call us Mormon because they don’t know better but we know better. We should follow the prophet and never refer to ourselves as Mormon.”
🙄 And now that’s become another thing people can do to earn a gold star, make sure we don’t call ourselves Mormon. We had a whole lesson on it.
If it were just that, big whoop, but it’s been lots of things over the last several months and it’s gotten to where this past week I felt the need to set the boundary to not participate in ministering. The expectations that are being placed on people aren’t healthy with where I’m currently at… and setting that boundary has earned me an appointment with the bishop next Sunday to discuss whether or not he will “allow” me to opt out of ministering.
🙄 🙄 That’s where things are at right now with me. We strangle the middle way and enforce the suits, ties, and short hair in my area. I know I don’t have to accept other people’s interpretation of things but it’s a constant battle to engage the church on my terms. Other people make it real difficult. If leaders insist on all or nothing I may have to give them nothing. I don’t see much of a point in having to fight an entire community just to feel like I’m tolerated, let alone accepted. At some point you just accept – this community does not want me, they want a guy in a suit, tie, and with short hair. That’s fine, those types don’t appear to be in short supply.
Allow you to opt-out of ministering? 😮 If that wasn’t so blind and antithetical to the whole idea of ministering, it would be hilarious.
I don’t know. It’s still kinda funny. I will start it tomorrow. Too tired tonight. Quote:If someone wants to write a post about trust and how lack of trust leads to distorted conspiracy theories, go for it. I think it could be a great discusssion.
I think that idea for a post discussion is a good one. But maybe that’s what they WANT me to think?Sorry I am late to this party. I concur that the administrative action was appropriate. I did see the post from “lotsofGray” and I ignored it because it seemed like a bizarre tangent. Thanks for taking action Curt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.