- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think this is the latest from church public relations: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30095720&nid=1016&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-2 There are some things with which I could argue in the response, but, overall, I thought it was a reasoned, measured statement – and I actually am glad it was sent to multiple Bloggernacle sites, since much of the harshest criticisms have been online. I read the statement slowly and carefully, and I like the way I think he very carefully kept the door open for future changes to what the position is right now with regard to ordination. He worded it in such a way as to not alienate the conservative members (who won’t read it the way I read it, I am sure), but he said:
Quote:his leaders
todayregard this as a doctrinal issue that cannot be compromisedI think the operative words are “today” and “compromised” – which says nothing about any time beyond today and any way that the leadership wouldn’t see as a compromise (i.e., revelation).
Quote:Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved.
In a world where Kathryn Skaggs is deemed appropriate for leaders to meet with but Kate Kelly is not, light has become darkness and darkness light. This exemplifies a lack of discernment.
Quote:We might wonder what the Savior’s reaction would have been had the many prominent women in his life taken such a course.
I agree with Ronan Head that dragging the savior into this is blasphemous (but typical unfortunately), and also makes it clear that Bro. Otterson lacks even rudimentary biblical scholarship. It’s also a prime example of Utah passive aggressiveness.
My take on it – I didn’t raise my hand to sustain Brother Otterson & Co. That’s All.
What mom3 said. Also, I can’t say citing Jesus is blasphemous when it simply is expressing a personal view of something like this. If it is, we all are guilty of blasphemy on a regular basis. We probably are, but not for things like this.
“the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things” When I hear someone use Jesus as a weapon to win an argument by misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) Jesus, well that’s what I call blasphemy. Do others do it? Yes, which is why I said it’s typical. Is it justified? Not in my opinion. Bro. Otterson thinks Jesus doesn’t like uppity women. Got it. That doesn’t mean he’s right. mom3 wrote:My take on it – I didn’t raise my hand to sustain Brother Otterson & Co.
That’s All.
And it’s not like we are paying his salary or anything.
Oh. Wait.
His salary doesn’t come from member donations. Unfortunately, I think he’s just made things worse. I don’t think this letter had the form or substance you’d expect of an accomplished professional. “How would Jesus feel?” left me dumbfounded. If it’s not “blasphemous,” it’s something equally unacceptable.
I haven’t kept up with comments on any other sites about the letter, but I truly hope that we’ll all move beyond this. I’m serious – not trying to be a suck-up – the church should hire hawkgrrrl or Old-Timer. Better yet,
both, and they could assemble the dream team. Quote:I’m serious – not trying to be a suck-up – the church should hire hawkgrrrl or Old-Timer. Better yet, both, and they could assemble the dream team.
TBNT! The church pays crap!
Someone who goes by “RMM” said something on a thread at Times & Seasons about the letter by Bro. Otterson that I found very insightful – and I want to expand just slightly on it: Quote:Br. Otterson signed the letter and put it on a variety of forums where moderated but fairly open discussion occurs regularly.
Putting the letter here and at BCC and M* and other blogs allows a variety of active and engaged and intelligent members to express their honest opinions about the place of women in the Church without fearing social reprisal within their immediate communities.
If the Church didn’t want the content of the letter to be discussed and debated, they’d put it under the name of the Church and over the signatures of the First Presidency and have it read over the pulpit in sacrament meeting.
My point is that I believe the Church leadership wants to get honest and open input about the letter, without fear of reprisal – and they understand that the best way to do that right now is to send the letter to the major Mormon blogs. I think they want to know better how people who participate in online forums will respond to the letter, and I think it’s an honest attempt at understanding – NOT any other negative motivation. I think they recognize, Bro. Otterson’s ideal advice notwithstanding, that many people can’t talk right now with local leaders about this, so they are giving those members an “formal” or “approved” way to express themselves in a way that the leadership can “hear”.
More than anything else, I am glad the letter was released to the blogs and not just posted on lds.org. The same discussion could have followed online, but I think sending it to the blogs directly conveys respect for and acknowledgment of online discussions like these and sincere outreach to those who participate. This is a departure, and I appreciate the effort and what I believe it conveys – apart from any analysis of the words themselves.
Interesting take, Ray. So, do you think the leadership actually reads those blogs? Or does the PR department do it and aggregate the data? Both, DJ – and I know from personal experience (which I can’t describe) that they actually do try to understand what is being said and why. It’s not belief, in this case; it’s knowledge. In this day and age, they would be stupid not to do so – and they aren’t stupid.
I don’t think they’re stupid, either, Ray. But I also don’t look at anti sites and I rarely look at apologetic sites. I think it’s human nature to avoid looking at thing one may not agree with or find troubling. While the sites mentioned as those the release was given to are fairly mainstream, there is some fringe element, too. That’s all I was saying. Besides that, I also think they’re very busy guys and probably don’t spend anywhere near the time online that I do. ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY HAWKGRRRL, DISGUISED AS RAY. BLOCKQUOTES ARE FROM A POST RAY DID. Quote:1) His actual words say we might wonder how Jesus would have reacted to public, non-negotiable demands.
Which is a straw feminist argument. OW has only been public because all their requests for a private audience were met with silence.
Quote:2) Pretty much anyone who comments on religious topics and invokes Jesus as an example risks being guilty of misrepresenting Jesus. In fact, everyone
ISguilty of sacrilege in someone’s eyes every time they do so, since someone disagrees with the interpretation and characterization. Period. I fully agree with this, and I do consider it sacrilege no matter who does it.
Quote:I don’t think it’s fair or constructive to charge sacrilege over doctrinal interpretations or questions that aren’t firmly settled and obvious
Is it sacrilege if I say Jesus clubbed baby seals or peed sitting down? Because the Bible doesn’t rule those out either, but it’s pretty specious for us to hypothesize it.
Quote:4) Most importantly in this case, I think it is highly hypocritical for one group to charge a second group with being un-Christ-like for not meeting and talking with that first group (which many people have done) and for asking what Jesus would do in a similar situation (which also has been done) and not charge that first group with sacrilege, as well – since they also invoked Jesus in just as explicit a way that many people view as sacrilege.
I don’t see either example as sacrilege; I see each as sincere personal belief.Bro. Otterson didn’t state that OW said it was unChristlike, just that various unnamed bloggers did. But then he attacks OW (thinly veiled) as being unworthy to be disciples of Christ by comparing them to his own fictionalized version of Jesus’ female followers. He projects on them the qualities that he admires in women to fill in the gaps in the narrative. And beyond that, he is attempting to shut down his critics by claiming he knows the will of Jesus and they are unworthy according to his personal, fictional Jesus. At best it’s lacking in self-awareness and it’s very passive aggressive. Is it blasphemy? I think so, but that’s just my view. I didn’t say sacrilege, though, I said blasphemy, literally taking the name of Jesus in vain to win an argument and avoid engaging in the content of the discussion by marginalizing his critics.
A BYU professor I had did something similar once, and I think it is a Mormon tactic. The prof’s syllabus said “in class homework assignment” so the students were all using notes to do the work. The prof said these students were cheating. When someone objected that it’s what the syllabus said, the prof used his best Mormon condescending voice and said the students should “do what the true gospel of Jesus Christ would have them do.” It’s a device to avoid taking personal responsibility for your mistakes. It’s classic passive aggression, but with the twist of hiding behind the savior as if he approves of your actions but not your detractors. It’s the same exact thing that Otterson did here. It’s also used to deflect embarrassment from one in authority to those with no actual power under his authority by using their faith in Jesus as a weapon against them. I call that using the Lord’s name in vain. That’s my definition of blasphemy. Either Jesus is sacred or not; either we can use him to win internet arguments or not. I am also bugged when people assume Jesus behaved in ways he didn’t. But it’s not justified when anyone does it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.