- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Please just speak plainly.
I thought I had.
Let’s let this drop between the two of us. I think we are talking past each other, and I don’t know how to speak more plainly than that last comment.
Thanks for that example, ameteurparent. It is exactly what I was trying to describe and matches experiences I have had. cwald wrote:“When Ally Isom repeatedly stated; ‘I am not able to speculate,’ or ‘I am not able to answer that question’ I would like to have asked her: ‘Why are you here answering questions you can’t answer? Why isn’t one of the apostles here who can? St. Paul faced Festus; he faced his accusers in Rome. Jesus remonstrated directly with the Pharisees and Sadducees. He did not send PR people. Why are the apostles not responsive? Why do top church leaders take the benefits of their offices and avoid the burdens?’
“When Ally Isom refused to take questions from listeners, I would like to have asked her: ‘What makes you and your leaders better than Jesus, who answered the questions of his critics directly?’
“Ally Isom is a token woman put forward by leaders to give them plausible deniability.
Yup, that is what PR people are for. Jesus & Paul were from a different time leading a very different organization. I imagine that the former British Petrolium CEO is wishing that he had done all his speaking through PR reps.
I honestly can’t imagine an apostle saying something that wouldn’t ruffle someone’s feathers. If he says that the directive was local he implies that SLC does not completely approve and is (maybe) disavowing the proceedings – If he says it was local but SLC is in support then it looks like the church is cracking down (speading fear to people like us and giving confidence to those that would like to see us silenced).
Having a PR person speak is probably a smart move.
It’s certainly much more disconcerting for one of the apostles to say they don’t know or can’t answer something. hawkgrrrl wrote:It’s certainly much more disconcerting for one of the apostles to say they don’t know or can’t answer something.
Excellent point. They could also fall into a trap similar to the race and the priesthood thing where 50 years from now apologists will be trying to explain why they said these things when further revelation revealed them to be incorrect. Recently in HPG (where the HPGL is Black) a guy said women will never receive the priesthood, and I quickly jumped in with “That’s what most people said about Blacks, too.” (Which drew a big smile from the HPGL.)
Quote:Michael Otterson, managing director of the church’s public affairs office, said: “There is no coordinated effort to tell local leaders to keep their members from blogging or discussing their questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue and recognize that today it’s just part of how the world works.”
I think this refers to blogging in general. There is more about this in the statement by Jessica Moody.
Quote:Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions
Waterman said his bishop received instruction from an Area Seventy, which is not Church headquarters.Quote:LDS Church spokeswoman Jessica Moody issued the following statement Thursday in response to submitted questions:
“First, 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. Our whole church was founded on the basis of sincere questions asked by a 14-year-old boy. Having questions and seeking answers is normal. Within those earnest questions may lie the seeds of faith…
“What causes concern for church leaders is when personal motivations drive those conversations beyond discussion, and a person or group begins recruiting others to insist on changes in church doctrines or structure. When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause or creating literature for members to share in their local congregations, the church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled.”
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58091577-78/church-questions-local-blogging.html.csp
Again, I think this refers to blogging in general, and states that it’s okay to discuss questions. It goes on to explain how one might go beyond discussing questions. Recruiting others into an organized doesn’t sound like Waterman, but he has other issues.cwald, I really don’t know how church headquarters might be involved, but I don’t think they are lying at this point. However, this might be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
Aaron Brown made the following comment on Facebook today, and it says a lot better what I was trying to say: Quote:Put aside your feelings about Kate Kelly and John Dehlin for a minute. Put aside your beliefs about the substantive and procedural aspects of their disciplinary councils as well.
Mormonism is a very hierarchical, authoritarian religion. LDS members and leaders tend to give enormous deference to their ecclesiastical superiors. Because of this:
1. It is easy to imagine senior LDS leaders instructing local leaders to initiate particular disciplinary councils, and even to render particular decisions in particular disciplinary councils.
2. It is easy to imagine senior LDS leaders instructing local leaders to initiate particular disciplinary councils without giving any instruction on actual outcomes in those disciplinary councils.
3. It is easy to imagine senior LDS leaders intentionally instructing local leaders to hold disciplinary councils under such-and-such conditions, without referencing specific cases. It is easy to imagine local leaders following suit, applying the general instructions given to particular cases.
4. It is easy to imagine a senior LDS leader responding to a question from a local leader about church discipline without necessarily intending any particular actions be taken, yet having the local leader — and also other leaders within earshot — take the answer as an effective instruction to pursue particular courses of action in particular cases.
5. It is easy to imagine local LDS leaders taking disciplinary action against an LDS churchmember without receiving any instruction whatsoever from senior LDS leadership, because said local leader convinced himself disciplinary action is what senior leadership would want, even though senior leadership didn’t actually say anything.
6. It is easy to imagine local LDS leadership (who are familiar with the standards of “apostasy” in the Handbook) bringing a disciplinary council against an LDS churchmember based solely on their public, vocal statements and activities that strike said leader as inappropriate, without giving more than the slightest consideration to what senior LDS leadership has said (or might say).
Because all of these scenarios are very easy to imagine, I usually find myself unpersuaded by claims that this or that piece of “evidence” proves anything about the decisional process one way or another. It is very unlikely we will ever be able to tell precisely what the decisional chain of events are in a particular case of disciplinary action. So I think people are spending too much time trying to read the tea-leaves on this question and generalize from it.
At the end of the day, whatever senior LDS leaders did or did not do — and did or did not intend — in particular cases, they are responsible for the disciplinary system as a whole. It is their baby. You don’t need to figure out the contours of every tree right now to eventually come to conclusions about the forest. But I think it’s still far too early to jump to conclusions about the forest.
The reason why the church HQ does not address the accusations given it may be simply, “We Are Doing a Great Work and Cannot Come Down”
amateurparent wrote: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.
I agree
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.