- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have to say I was expecting more out of Anderson despite his orthodoxy. Another prophet adoration talk. Two of the three apostles have focused on it this morning and the third also talked about it. I may have to find something else to do should this continue. I expected the focus on the Prophet, since this is the first session with a new President. It happens every time. It is what it is. I liked the other talks, and some were excellent.
Also, we don’t celebrate an extended Easter season. Today isn’t Easter Sunday. If we get more of the same tomorrow, I will be disappointed. Today? Meh. I get it.
I liked most of talks, except for the one talking about how great a guy Nelson is and Anderen’s talk. Even though we’re not supposed to blindly follow the prophet, Andersen’s talk seemed more like a gentler version of Ezra Taft Benson’s 14 Fundamentals For Following The Prophet, in my opinion. Joni wrote:
I am furious that the first talk out of the gate is one about following your leaders even if they are imperfect. Furious. Because I know that this is the only response that we will get to the Joseph Bishop scandal, the Rob Porter scandal, the many many failings of the church hierarchy to protect the vulnerable is “oh well, sometimes leaders are imperfect but they represent Christ so you have to follow them anyway.”It literally makes me sick. Who was Joseph Bishop representing when he asked a sister missionary to expose her breasts to him? Is that what Jesus Christ suffered and died for?
This isn’t just wrong, It is EVIL.
I have been digging into the details on the Bishop scandal and it seems to be the church is lying left and right and showing they have generally disbelieved victims and more worried about the church’s reputation than evildoers in its ranks. It just got a lot harder to go do church. Much harder.
LookingHard wrote:
I have been digging into the details on the Bishop scandal and it seems to be the church is lying left and right and showing they have generally disbelieved victims and more worried about the church’s reputation than evildoers in its ranks. It just got a lot harder to go do church. Much harder.
It’s not ethical, especially for the “One and Only True Church upon the Face of the Earth”. But the Church has ALWAYS placed its reputation as the top priority. With any high ranking position, I know one of the interview questions asked is “Is there anything in your past or relating to your conduct which could reflect poorly on the good name of the Church?” (not sure on the exact wording). A lack of trust in Church leaders really damages the membership’s faith. I remember my wife saying to me how saddened she was there were protesters inside general conference. I’m pretty sure she didn’t understand what they said, or is aware of the Joseph Bishop story. Towards the end of conference, the Joseph Bishop incident was indirectly mentioned, which addressed the concerns of the members aware of the situation, while not drawing attention to it from the rest. I thought that was very tactful of them.
One of the difficulties the Church faces, is that Church opposition can and often does lie to further their ends of disrupting the Church. Not to sound Machiavellian, but that puts an open and honest policy standard at a clear disadvantage. Remember, Christ was the most perfect and honest among us, and he ended up murdered within 3 years of his ministry. The Church is trying very hard to avoid crucifixion.
I think there are two ways to address the Bishop incident: First, have an optionally anonymous complaint submission form for members only on the LDS website, which can be tied to anyone in a position of authority. Any allegations of abuse should be invested by an official employee of the Church, with the findings brought before the next tier of leadership. Second, rework confessions. The Catholics do a phenomenal job at this. The priests in Catholic confessions don’t dole out punishments. The patron and priest sit in separate booths, with a physical mesh barrier between them. They can discuss any sins that they feel bad about, without repercussions. And anyone can visit the confessional booth without the associated negative stigma. I remember once visiting with a bishop for a temple recommend interview, and felt the need to discuss some of the unorthodox teachings of a bioethics class. My Girlfriend at the time was waiting outside for me, and felt AWFULLY concerned I was in there for so long. I think she assumed I had a porn problem.
My point is Catholic confessionals are productive and healthy. Mormon confessionals are not.
Disclaimer: I’m not one for pomp. I must be broken inside because everyone was going on and on about how special the solemn assembly was and I’m sitting there thinking, “Man, this is just a belabored sustaining. If everyone gets up to sustain at the end, then why not go right to the end and save some time?”
:angel: But that’s me. I’ll be impatient even when I have eternity staring me in the face.
However, I did find it interesting that they didn’t even bother asking for opposed votes until the rank and file MP holders were asked to stand. Everyone above that only sustained, they didn’t even ask people in that group if there were any opposed.
Formalities and pomp. Beyond my vision I guess.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.