- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There was a leak of 14 videos of church meetings involving the Q12 and various members of the 70 now on Reddit and YouTube. Most of the information leaked isn’t necessarily new to those of us who follow the bloggernacle, although a few will doubtless have repercussions (the Oregon senator’s comments certainly seem like they are going to make it hard for any Mormon to get elected in future). The videos are long, sometimes interesting, sometimes boring, and its obvious that the leaker is a terrible speller who wants to make the church look bad; the videos mostly date to 2008 and 2009 from what I’ve seen, so they aren’t that recent. IMO, they are more or less what I expected, which is not a compliment. Beyond the specifics of the videos, what I do find interesting is that they were leaked at all. Certainly there has been plenty of opportunity for these things to have been leaked before now. They aren’t recent. What it says to me is that there has been a seismic shift in the loyalty to the brethren in their recent retrenchment against gay people and women, and that these issues are creating an environment in which even those close to the power structure feel they have no ability to be heard or that the brethren aren’t listening, so the leaks will force the church to pay attention to the disconnect between the membership and their incredibly conservative views. They insist they are not out of touch, but these videos often reveal very clearly otherwise (although again, bear in mind, these are 7-8 years old now, and the world is a changing place). The worst criticism is when you just show something for what it is because that’s truth. It always comes out.
Also, just to add some context, these are meetings in which the Q12 are present, someone is invited to speak to them on a specific topic, and there are members of the 70 present also. What’s lacking is what the Q12 do when completely alone behind closed doors which may be where the real debate happens (or was in Greg Prince’s book on David O. McKay). The type of discussion, while it looks like they are only making superficial comments, could be because of the audience and setting.
Any comments or discussion from the rest of you? Do you think there will be repercussions to the church from these leaks, and if so what will they be? Please stay respectful.
I just watched most of the video where they consider the issues of young single adults. It was interesting given that the public face of the church always seems to be “everything is great!” In this meeting, they are gravely considering some very significant issues facing this population. I didn’t find anything particularly shocking…just interesting. It seems to me the Church would benefit from making such meetings more public and perhaps even soliciting public input (a kind of religious Town Meeting). After all, for most members, this is their Church and they want it to succeed and they want their families to continue to be a part of it. I watched a bit of the video where they discuss the recent election of Pres. Obama and the California proposition. The speaker is quite candid in saying that the vote on the legality of gay marriage would be challenged in the courts (which, as we all know, it eventually was). But obviously, this possibility was discussed early on. So what I’ve seen so far would be interesting to the rank and file member (maybe) but no “dirty laundry” no “high level secrets”. Just a bunch of individuals (mostly men) discussing issues in a calm and considered manner. Of course, many will disagree with the attitudes, opinions and biases prominently on display but I can’t imagine anyone being surprised by them.
Long term effects? No much I’d guess but we’ll see.
What Gerald said. Nothing of real significance that I saw, and certainly no shocking material. I agree, Hawk, that the existence of the tapes is more interesting than the tapes themselves.
Quote:
I agree, Hawk, that the existence of the tapes is more interesting than the tapes themselves.My husband and I discussed that today. To me that is the more intriguing part.
Gerald, I like the town hall idea.
I think the worst result of the tapes probably will be that the leaders become even more careful about what they say in any meetings with anyone else. That result is not worth the existence of the tapes, Imo – especially given the content of the tapes.
I wish this hadn’t happened. Seven/eight years old seems like a lifetime away. Even six months before the policy feels like eons from the six months after. So, yeah, why now? Quote:What it says to me is that there has been a seismic shift in the loyalty to the brethren in their recent retrenchment against gay people and women, and that these issues are creating an environment in which even those close to the power structure feel they have no ability to be heard or that the brethren aren’t listening, so the leaks will force the church to pay attention to the disconnect between the membership and their incredibly conservative views.
Or possibly the leaker is lashing out in anger over a personal issue. But, mostly, I think people are just fully waking up to what the policy means for the increasing number of gay people they’ve come to know and love. But I hate to see this. It crosses a line.As I think more about it, the worst thing probably will be average, orthodox members (including leaders) feeling fear of being spied on by other members who are disaffected or struggling. I think it could harden lines that the top leadership is trying to soften, albeit clumsily in some cases. I have no use for this sort of thing, given that the tapes really didn’t contain any real bombshells. It seems petty and vindictive to me, and the collateral damage could have a real impact on the lives of people who are struggling already.
Old Timer wrote:As I think more about it, the worst thing probably will be average, orthodox members (including leaders) feeling fear of being spied on by other members who are disaffected or struggling. I think it could harden lines that the top leadership is trying to soften, albeit clumsily in some cases.
I have no use for this sort of thing, given that the tapes really didn’t contain any real bombshells. It seems petty and vindictive to me, and the collateral damage could have a real impact on the lives of people who are struggling already.
And this comes after loads of people have had their Facebook posts copied and given to bishops. It’s been terrible times in this arena.
I don’t actually agree with a few things you said Ray. I wouldn’t say there are no bombshells here or that they are boring. They do reveal a few things that are a bit unsavory, even if many of us could have guessed at them, but it’s not quite the ho-hum nothing to see that you imply: 1) a number of the speakers invited to address them are a hair’s breadth away from being manipulative charlatans whose doom-saying would possibly even get a laugh out of the Fox Newsroom, that’s how ludicrous they come across in some cases, but nobody in the room bats an eye, and there is a very clear view that the brethren are full unabashed GOP-voting right-wing supporters. There’s no dissenting opinion politically and no note of caution. To me, that not only contradicts my own views and values, but I don’t appreciate the deprecating remarks thrown at their political opponents.
2) the video with the Oregon senator is appalling in which he refers to members of his political staff as being “church broke” and asking what the church wants them to do. He also states that he cares more about doing the church’s bidding than he does about his constituents. Again, that’s the criticism that was leveled at Mitt Romney, that he would be the church’s pawn rather than upholding his office. Again, nobody in the meeting batted an eye or said “that’s not right.” He also revealed information to them that was confidential about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
3) not a whole lot of input from women in this sausage fest.
I actually disagree that the church leaders will be more careful about what they say in these meetings. They already didn’t say much in these. I suspect they would completely stand by what they did, what they said, and who the speakers were. And that, to me, indicates that they are far more out of touch than they insist they are. They see these meetings as evidence of being and staying in touch, and I see them as evidence to the contrary.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
2) the video with the Oregon senator is appalling in which he refers to members of his political staff as being “church broke” and asking what the church wants them to do. He also states that he cares more about doing the church’s bidding than he does about his constituents. Again, that’s the criticism that was leveled at Mitt Romney, that he would be the church’s pawn rather than upholding his office. Again, nobody in the meeting batted an eye or said “that’s not right.” He also revealed information to them that was confidential about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Can you imagine a Mormon running for congress outside of Utah, and his non-LDS opponent using this against him/her? I don’t think we’ll ever have another LDS presidential canadate in our lifetime with stuff like this.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I don’t actually agree with a few things you said Ray. I wouldn’t say there are no bombshells here or that they are boring. They do reveal a few things that are a bit unsavory, even if many of us could have guessed at them, but it’s not quite the ho-hum nothing to see that you imply:
1) a number of the speakers invited to address them are a hair’s breadth away from being manipulative charlatans whose doom-saying would possibly even get a laugh out of the Fox Newsroom, that’s how ludicrous they come across in some cases, but nobody in the room bats an eye, and there is a very clear view that the brethren are full unabashed GOP-voting right-wing supporters. There’s no dissenting opinion politically and no note of caution. To me, that not only contradicts my own views and values, but I don’t appreciate the deprecating remarks thrown at their political opponents.
2) the video with the Oregon senator is appalling in which he refers to members of his political staff as being “church broke” and asking what the church wants them to do. He also states that he cares more about doing the church’s bidding than he does about his constituents. Again, that’s the criticism that was leveled at Mitt Romney, that he would be the church’s pawn rather than upholding his office. Again, nobody in the meeting batted an eye or said “that’s not right.” He also revealed information to them that was confidential about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
3) not a whole lot of input from women in this sausage fest.
I actually disagree that the church leaders will be more careful about what they say in these meetings. They already didn’t say much in these. I suspect they would completely stand by what they did, what they said, and who the speakers were. And that, to me, indicates that they are far more out of touch than they insist they are. They see these meetings as evidence of being and staying in touch, and I see them as evidence to the contrary.
I agree with #1 and #2.On #1, It does paint them as being more (or trying to be) in the drivers seat than one might think of as an apostle.
On #2, if Mitt was in the race this year – this senator’s remarks would kill any chances he has. Over and over people said, “Does he have more allegiance to the church or to his elected office?” This Oregon senator seems to me to clearly state the church is solidly in front. Say goodbye to any future Mormon candidates.
On #3, I am genetically predisposed not to see this based on my gender
I have not watched much from these videos, but I have some free time tomorrow and plan to indulge. However, the ex senator is now an area authority who just happened to be our visiting authority recently (a term I am using relatively). He actually “brags” about the ability he had as a senator to get meetings for the church in foreign countries and specifically talks about some relating to temples and missionary approvals. He lost his reelection bid in 2008 and is now a lobbyist as well as controlling some interest in the family business. He is a politician through and through. That said, I generally liked him. In our conference he also talked about mental illness and the pain he and his wife felt when his son committed suicide. And he talked about “gospel hobbies” and how important it is to stick to Christ centered messages in our church meetings which he illustrated with a story about a meeting he took a friend to where the topic was preparedness – and his friend told him why people don’t think Mormons are Christians and never came to another meeting.
I watched part of one video. It reminded me too much of the old codgers down at the local Hardee’s. They used to meet there every morning. Each was in their 80’s. Set in their ways. Not interested in learning anything new but very interested in expressing their opinions and sharing their “wisdom.” Each was capable of kindness as an individual, but in a group, they were not a good dynamic. A very racist, misogynistic, and mouthy group. This video reminded me of the Hardee’s crowd — with political and financial power added.
This is the Church’s response. It said pretty much what I thought it would say – and pretty much what I thought it should say. Hawk, I didn’t say there wasn’t stuff that I don’t like, but there were no bombshells. Also, I think it’s important to remember that these are 14 videos, leaked, as you said, by someone who obviously has an axe to grind. If these are the worst that were available, I am not alarmed – especially since I know they meet regularly with Affirmation leades, for example, and other non-extreme right-wingers.
It’s easy to say, “Oh, the horror, that one guy was an extremist and a jerk,” (and he did come across that way, even though DJ’s input is important as a balance), but there is no indication he is representative of the majority of the people who meet with the leadership. I just don’t see any bombshells in the videos, and I know there were hundreds of other meetings that someone with the agenda of this leaker wouldn’t have released, since I think they were nowhere near as controversial.
On the Gordon Smith issue, yeah, too weird, cultish and creepy. On the other hand I just don’t see Harry Reid doing the same thing. Either Gordon Smith or Harry Reid are an outlier.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.