- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I told my wife about these pictures last night. How it was a good thing that the church is opening up about what may have happened back in the day but also what it has in the church vault/archives. OTOH, the fact that this is the first known picture also implies that the church had used less than full disclosure in the past.
DW accused me of needing to see negative in everything – that there cannot be any positive without my ruining it by pointing out the negative.
In a way I agree with her. Any comparison of Pros vs. cons or cost benefit analysis would be seriously lacking without representation from the negative. My cup is half full and half empty not because I have a vendetta against the church but rather that is how I now see the world.
I found it ironic that in her defense of the church that she was quick to attack me personally and throw me under the bus.
We see this dynamic play out again and again in our families and ward communities.
Roy – I already know my wife would do the same if I mentioned anything like what you mentioned to your wife. I agree with a lot of what has been said about the leaders may not had “full knowledge” (see Hans Mattsson) and will cut them some slack, but I can’t at this moment give much slack to Elder Ballard stating in conference, “we will not, we cannot, lead you astray” which for TBM’s often equals “we can’t make mistakes.” I still am frustrated when I think of this statement. I don’t care for BRM, but I give him credit that he had the balls to say, “forget all I said on the subject” after the ban on blacks and the priesthood and temple was lifted.
Old-Timer wrote:How we view this says much more about us than about the Church.
I mean that completely. Our initial assumptions reflect us, not anyone else.
I don’t know about that. For example, in the Nauvoo plural marriage essay if someone doesn’t believe the story about an angel with a sword threatening to destroy JS if he didn’t marry more wives then I don’t think that says that much about them at all because it doesn’t take an especially skeptical person to doubt this, it’s simply not going to pass the smell test for the average person that hears this (including many long-time Church members). On the other hand, the fact that the Church would publish this and actually expect people to believe this says quite a lot about the Church such as that it looks like they don’t even want to consider the possibility that JS could have simply been acting on his own without any input from God in this case. In fact it almost looks like they basically threw God under the bus to avoid admitting JS could have been wrong in this case.
Thanks for proving my point, DA. 
Btw, my point wasn’t a negative one. It simply was observational.
I’ve been thinking about this all day. (I know this says more about me than the church.) It feels like I just looked behind the curtain & now know the magician’s secret.
What happened to the Urim & Thummim that we were told he used?
It will be interesting to hear what people say in church on Sunday. Maybe nothing.
Old-Timer wrote:How we view this says much more about us than about the Church.
I mean that completely. Our initial assumptions reflect us, not anyone else.
Ray — I have an issue with this. In my courses I encourage students to ask questions at the end of their discussion posts. I let them know that the statement that “the only silly question is the question you don’t ask” is a misnomer in online discussion. I give them a rule — if the question you ask can be posted at the end of ANY discussion question, then it’s not a good question. Questions like “what do you think?” or “does anyone else have an example of XYZ?”.
I feel that your statement above falls into that category when it comes to argumentation (discussion). It is a statement that can be placed at the end of any post. It means a person who questions the church at just about any level could be met with the statement “How we view this says much more about us than about the Church”. It deflects attention off the church, and forces self-examination, thus taking the heat off the Church. If we sequestered all discussion into that category, then no organization is accountable for anything,
I believe the question about their motives is appropriate has implications for the level of commitment we give to it. The Church makes large claims about its divine commission, about its special access to truth through a prophet, and its one true church concept. With that comes quite a bit of moral responsibility – — to be honest, to be forthright about truth claims and matters. And when it appears that such transparency is the result of circumstances (loss of membership, for example) rather than doing what is right for its own sake, then it puts a dent in the believability of the Church’s grandiose claims about itself.
So, the behavior of the Church says as much about the Church, as individuals’ analysis of the church says about the person…
I for one, have always had issues with the way the church tends to avoid accountability. Statements like “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” are a license to do whatever they want without any kind of accountability. And I think that when we disagree with, or level criticism against the church, and its met with the statement that its merely an expression of our own strengths, deficiencies, experiences, perspectives alone, then that is a short-sighted discussion.
I agree with what you said, SD – but it doesn’t invalidate my point. The Church authorizing this article doesn’t say ANYTHING objective about it. It is an action without explanation, and we, as humans do, supply the explanations. That is plural for a reason, and that reason is important. We can and ought to examine, analyze and comment about those actions, but we also need to remember, always, that we are the ones examining, analyzing and commenting – and that we are doing so from our own perspectives and biases and assumptions. We can’t excuse the Church, but we also can’t excuse ourselves.
I have no problem with differing explanations, as I think is obvious from my comments here over the last seven years. Nothing I said was meant to invalidate any explanation – but it is critical to recognize that our explanations are not objective and really do reflect the views and paradigms we bring to our reading.
How can people disagree about the motive behind the Church’s recent openness and move toward transparency in some things – in some cases radically? Their perspectives differ – so, naturally and incontrovertibly, their reactions illustrate much more about themselves than about the Church itself.
That is just as true about me as it is about DA – to use this discussion as the prime example. I am more prone to try to credit the Church for making an important effort – and to see progressive and sincere intentions; DA is more prone to be cynical and believe nothing would be happening without extreme pressure on the leaders. I see change; he sees the same old same old when it comes to intent and motivation.
Thus, the same action causes multiple reactions – and those reactions say more about us than about the Church. The ACTIONS say something about the Church; our REACTIONS say something about us.
There has been talk for years about a common rock being used as a seer stone. I have asked people their opinions about it in the past, and universally, I was told that there was no truth to the story. Some of the members I asked consider themselves fairly significant amateur church historians. Right now, I am torn between a certain feeling of schadenfreude, a shallow desire to sit on the sidelines with popcorn, and a real concern for individual members as they work through this.
Inoculation could be the theme for next 5 year plan for the church.
Old-Timer wrote:Thus, the same action causes multiple reactions – and those reactions say more about us than about the Church. The ACTIONS say something about the Church; our REACTIONS say something about us.
I find this a neutral, soft-landing kind of comment. I may use it in situations where I need to be diplomatic (something I’m learning how to do given some massive recent failures in that regard in my community service/proxy for church service). Diplomatic, without having to confront any real issues…I have an arsenal of such things I’ve been developing as I observe various public figures. Some I like, some I don’t.
SilentDawning wrote:
In my courses I encourage students to ask questions at the end of their discussion posts. I let them know that the statement that “the only silly question is the question you don’t ask” is a misnomer in online discussion. I give them a rule — if the question you ask can be posted at the end of ANY discussion question, then it’s not a good question. Questions like “what do you think?” or “does anyone else have an example of XYZ?”.
SD, I wish I could take a class from you some day.
Roadrunner wrote:
SD, I wish I could take a class from you some day.I’d love to have you…it’s what I am — I teach, therefore, I am
Roy wrote:I told my wife about these pictures last night. How it was a good thing that the church is opening up about what may have happened back in the day but also what it has in the church vault/archives.
OTOH, the fact that this is the first known picture also implies that the church had used less than full disclosure in the past.
DW accused me of needing to see negative in everything – that there cannot be any positive without my ruining it by pointing out the negative.
In a way I agree with her. Any comparison of Pros vs. cons or cost benefit analysis would be seriously lacking without representation from the negative. My cup is half full and half empty not because I have a vendetta against the church but rather that is how I now see the world.
I found it ironic that in her defense of the church that she was quick to attack me personally and throw me under the bus.
We see this dynamic play out again and again in our families and ward communities.
My post above was actually in response to Ray’s comment about our reactions being reflections of us.
The fact that I see some element of negative in everything good is part of who I am and how I see things and is not necessarily reflective on the church. My reaction could only be indirectly and loosely tied back to the church as my past experiences with the church mix with everything else that makes up my unique self and colors my worldview.
The fact that my wife saw fit to personally attack me for pointing out a potential negative says a lot about her. It might say that she was feeling attacked and defended her faith as an extension of herself. Her reaction could only be indirectly and loosely tied back to the church as her past experiences with the church mix with everything else that makes up her unique self and colors her worldview.
SilentDawning wrote:So, the behavior of the Church says as much about the Church, as individuals’ analysis of the church says about the person…I for one, have always had issues with the way the church tends to avoid accountability.
There is an interesting academic argument that business organizations are amoral. They exist to return profit/benefits to the shareholder/stakeholders. They do not have ulterior motives. They do not in and of themselves make decisions. They are as tools wielded by the hand of men. Although it is a little unconventional, the same argument can be made for the church as an amoral organization.
There are some areas where I have no problem with and would not advocate for full transparency, but, generally, I believe in transparency. If we complain about more transparency, we have to be willing to accept less transparency – and not compalin about it. we can’t anyone to competing standards – or, at least, we shouldn’t do so. We would complain bitterly if others did that to us.
Roy wrote:
The fact that my wife saw fit to personally attack me for pointing out a potential negative says a lot about her. It might say that she was feeling attacked and defended her faith as an extension of herself. Her reaction could only be indirectly and loosely tied back to the church as her past experiences with the church mix with everything else that makes up her unique self and colors her worldview.I agree. Let’s say she had been “burned” by church experiences in the past. She may then have seen the whole thing differently. If you were buying a house, she may be with you entirely — about seeing the pros and cons. But when people have invested so much in faith, they do not want to see the cons.
Quote:SilentDawning wrote:So, the behavior of the Church says as much about the Church, as individuals’ analysis of the church says about the person…I for one, have always had issues with the way the church tends to avoid accountability.
There is an interesting academic argument that business organizations are amoral.
They exist to return profit/benefits to the shareholder/stakeholders. They do not have ulterior motives. They do not in and of themselves make decisions. They are as tools wielded by the hand of men. Although it is a little unconventional, the same argument can be made for the church as an amoral organization. [/quote]
I don’t see the church as an amoral organization overall. Nor do I think that business organizations are necessarily amoral, even thought they pursue profit. There are moral, and amoral business organizations. But I do agree that organizations are the expression of men’s/women’s choices — at least at first. But then, policies, procedures, the type of leaders the organization attracts, and its systems take over to create culture that is self-sustaining and often hard to change. This is fundamental theory regarding the antecedents of culture in organizations from the management literature.
I have been wanting to form my own non-profit lately. 100% of everything the organization brings in will go directly back to the community after organization costs (insurance, business registration, expenses associated with fundraising) and small rewards for volunteers who serve. No one is paid. One of the values of the organization will be deep appreciation for, and co-missioning with, volunteers. In a way, the organization will be the antithesis of the things that I feel have been fundamentally wrong in three organizations I have been part of in the last five years — the church, a 501 C(6) and a 501 c(3). Perhaps I am being idealistic, but I truly WANT to create something that overcomes the shortcomings I have seen in our own church and other organizations. I think this will be therapeutic for me, and it may even help me see the church differently if it turns out to be harder than I think it will be. I may develop empathy for the way the church operates, or the experience may create an even wider divide between myself and the church.
But there will be as little organizational egocentrism as possible — there will be a definite balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the organization. That is in the mission statement. No paid staff, and the organization will only have barely enough to meet the most basic of expenses at any given time, with the funds going straight into projects that benefit the local community. This, I hope, will be a quiet example of an organization that is not amoral.
It will be to this organization that my charitable giving will go — for projects near and dear to my heart after myself, the VP and Treasurer agree on the mission statement.
Old-Timer wrote:Thanks for proving my point, DA…Btw, my point wasn’t a negative one. It simply was observational.
Old-Timer wrote:…
The Church authorizing this article doesn’t say ANYTHING objective about it. It is an action without explanation, and we, as humans do, supply the explanations.That is plural for a reason, and that reason is important. We can and ought to examine, analyze and comment about those actions, but we also need to remember, always, that we are the ones examining, analyzing and commenting – and that we are doing so from our own perspectives and biases and assumptions. We can’t excuse the Church, but we also can’t excuse ourselves… it is critical to recognize that our explanations are not objective and really do reflect the views and paradigms we bring to our reading.How can people disagree about the motive behind the Church’s recent openness and move toward transparency in some things – in some cases radically? Their perspectives differ – so, naturally and incontrovertibly, their reactions illustrate much more about themselves than about the Church itself…That is just as true about me as it is about DA – to use this discussion as the prime example. I am more prone to try to credit the Church for making an important effort – and to see progressive and sincere intentions; DA is more prone to be cynical and believe nothing would be happening without extreme pressure on the leaders. I see change; he sees the same old same old when it comes to intent and motivation… Thus, the same action causes multiple reactions – and those reactions say more about us than about the Church.I read this idea as more or less that some people are just hyper-critical cynics that refuse to give the Church credit for doing anything right and are only looking for what is wrong with it but we supposedly have no idea exactly what the Church is trying to do and why so one explanation is just as good as another. I still don’t buy it. Even if that is true in some cases I still think what the Church said, how they said it, and possibly even more importantly what they didn’t say (that they easily could have if they wanted to be as open and honest as possible), all easily objectively say every bit as much if not more about the Church than what the way people react to what they said or didn’t say objectively says about them.
Perhaps a better example is the essay about the racial priesthood ban. It’s not mind-reading to think the fact that they didn’t address the remaining problems of God supposedly cursing people based on who their ancestors were and comments about some people being dark and “loathsome” whereas others were “white and delightsome” in the LDS scriptures as well as the official statement from the First Presidency in 1949 that basically said this was a god-given doctrine is conspicuous by their absence. The objective fact is that they didn’t say anything about these points and the obvious question here is, “Why not?” Instead the essay makes it sound like this policy was supposedly the product of theories based mostly on speculation (not purported revelations) and influenced by the fact that racism was fairly commonplace back then.
A much simpler plausible explanation based on the available evidence than most of what we hear in the essay is that the racial priesthood ban lasted as long as it did mostly because of the idea that previous leaders and accepted scriptures speak directly for God and it turned out that some of the statements of previous leaders and selected scriptures were racist period end of discussion. But of course it doesn’t surprise me that the essay didn’t clearly say anything of the sort and I’m not going to apologize for guessing that the likely reason why is simply that it looks like they don’t want to undermine trust in past and present leaders and scriptures because heavy trust in revelation is still a major part of what Mormonism is all about. Now maybe baby steps are all the Church can manage at this point because of the beliefs and fears of some leaders that too many rank-and-file members can’t handle the truth but regardless of the reason this is why it looks like it is more about attempted inoculation and apologetics than trying to be as honest and transparent as they could be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.