DiscussMormonism.com

lostindc wrote:I wonder though...I realize the Church is a Goliath, a bully, and members and non-members are watching Goliath take on the Davids, but is it possible, that the Davids would be more successful if they approached the events with a bit more integrity?

Well I approached it with as much integrity as a lamb going slaughter. I was naïve and had no idea what
I was in for. I had questions and they had no answers.

lostindc wrote:Do you believe it's possible, that due to the wacky behaviors (sometimes dishonest) of Norton, Reel, etc. that leaders and members are focusing on the messenger instead of the message? I am finding that members are dismissing the message in the case of Reel and focusing on the antics surrounding the affair. This wasn't nearly the case for Kate Kelly and similar personalities.

It is very possible you are very correct.

If I knew what was really going to happen beforehand and a Norton was available to me I may have used a Norton. If it was really a "Court of Love" I would doubt I would. Those people were not my friends. The Norton's and the Reel's of the world knew what was going to happen. How do you know what is going to happen without being in one as a David or a tool for Goliath?

Thanx Lost good questions.

Sanctorian wrote:Kate Kelly - war for women
John Dehlin - war for gays war for disaffection
Jeremy Runnells - war for transparency
Sam Young - war for kids
Bill Reel - war for disaffection war for disaffection part 900,000
Mike Norton - war for embarrassment [and destruction]

Agree with everything you state, except for the causes linked to these individuals.

I don’t think anyone is winning much of anything. Deck chairs are being moved on the Titanic. The fight against the LDS Church is largely pointless. Leaving is more effective than fighting.

I have a question wrote:
The Church is only a Goliath if you actively choose to give it Goliath status in your life.

That depends on your own relationships, too, and what status they give the church in their life and your relationship with them. So, no, you cannot always control the institution's impact on your life just by refusing to give it your personal power.

Kishkumen wrote:
That is the standard justification all right. Of course, on its face it makes little sense, presupposing as it does a kind of deeply seated cynicism in LDS leaders. Because they are mercenary representatives of a heartless corporation, it is OK to do whatever one deems necessary to harm that organization. The calculation is all about power. Those who are perceived as having it must be bad. Those fighting it must be good. It is a simple and attractive narrative that falls apart under real scrutiny.

The truth is a lot more complicated. Goliath believes in his god and believes he is protecting a lot of little guys. It is not all about the money because Goliath isn’t really making much. Goliath really feels like he is doing good, and that David has been misled and is harming a lot of people. Goliath tries to reason with David, but David is having none of it. What is Goliath to do? Does he allow David to harm the people he vowed to protect? He can’t.

Both Goliath and David can be wrong in their own ways, and perhaps a little right too. Whatever the outcome, things will be messy.

Yet there are steps, often nasty steps and sociopathic choices made when the Goliath spokesmen do the work. They are little things that are unconscionable in normal healthy relationships, yet commonplace in the procedures. I've been a measly, inconsequential woman waiting outside the the meeting with the stake president. "No, you cannot be present in the meeting, that's not how the church works." This, when I was a principle witness and participant in the conflicted process under their scrutiny. He was and is a pretty nice fella, yet he mistakenly accepted institutional power as righteousness.

He mistook institutional rules for righteousness, no? This is awful stuff. The Church too often comes before its members. But this is a function of how LDS theology and authority developed, not a matter of the heartlessness of individual leaders. I will grant you that it results in heartless actions. There are big problems.

Kishkumen wrote:He mistook institutional rules for righteousness, no? This is awful stuff. The Church too often comes before its members. But this is a function of how LDS theology and authority developed, not a matter of the heartlessness of individual leaders. I will grant you that it results in heartless actions. There are big problems.

Can you concieve of an entire adult life of being in the position required to make such decisions with such procedures? What's the difference between acting in a heartless manner because of obedience to rules and acting in a heartless manner for any other reason? The result on others is going to be the same, right? Maybe even worse, because they are modelling rule-based heartlessness. And I cannot imagine such "effective heartlessness" not having an impact on the character of the person, over time.

Really, I do see this as a system problem. Individuals might be wonderful, but the system's impact is more brutal than the sum of its parts. That's why I can come down hard on the system: I can look at a human being within it and treat them as a person. I know what I am fighting.

Kishkumen wrote:I don’t think anyone is winning much of anything. Deck chairs are being moved on the Titanic. The fight against the LDS Church is largely pointless. Leaving is more effective than fighting.

Leaving is a direct evidence one really has lost faith in it. FIghting it tooth and nail demonstrates the faith still intact, yet disaffected. That's how I grasp it a bit. I honestly see no point in continually arguing against it anymore, let alone paying much attention to it. There is much more to do in life that bawl for 20 years about losing 20 years in the church. That totals 40 years, yet people do not grasp that astonishing fact.

Philo Sofee wrote:Leaving is a direct evidence one really has lost faith in it. FIghting it tooth and nail demonstrates the faith still intact, yet disaffected. That's how I grasp it a bit. I honestly see no point in continually arguing against it anymore, let alone paying much attention to it. There is much more to do in life that bawl for 20 years about losing 20 years in the church. That totals 40 years, yet people do not grasp that astonishing fact.

Well okay then. But we still need your Facsimile videos to set the record straight. You OWE your fans that much.

Philo Sofee wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:I don’t think anyone is winning much of anything. Deck chairs are being moved on the Titanic. The fight against the LDS Church is largely pointless. Leaving is more effective than fighting.

Leaving is a direct evidence one really has lost faith in it. FIghting it tooth and nail demonstrates the faith still intact, yet disaffected. That's how I grasp it a bit. I honestly see no point in continually arguing against it anymore, let alone paying much attention to it. There is much more to do in life that bawl for 20 years about losing 20 years in the church. That totals 40 years, yet people do not grasp that astonishing fact.

It depends on what your fight is about. For example, if you are Sam Young it doesn't matter if you fight from within or from outside the church, if you fight for a year, 5 years or 20. And, just for the written record here, I don't give a damn crap who recorded what, how or with whose permission or no permission at all.

If someone hears about Bill Reel's excommunication or gets wind of Norton's involvement and that's what draws them to the excommunication video and they see Sam Young taking the mic outside the building, get curious about what Sam Young is about and that draws them over to the Protect Facebook page and/or the website itself, that's a pathway I fully support.

Look at the two updates that Shulem and I have both posted on the Sam Young excommunication thread. The needle is moving. The church is caving from within on the issue of Worthiness Interviews one Ward, one Stake at a time. Whether that is sanctioned by SLC or not, again, I don't give a damn.

The church's position regarding unrelated males making inquiry about the sexual lives/practices of unrelated minors is going to stop. And, if the church doesn't roll over on the current policy, the Protect movement is going to snowball all over it anyway and that's not because people have given up their fight or because the fight is "pointless".

Anyone with half a brain can see the connection between a Bill Reel excommunication incident, the use of social media and how it IS impacting the church. To discourage these people from publicizing their excommunications is basically a call to shut down on exposure when in the case of the Protect movement, exposure and the use of social media is exactly what is driving the success of the movement.

The LDS Church's policy on Worthiness Interviews is tantamount to child abuse. Leaving LDS minors twisting in the wind isn't un-Christian, it's inhumane.

I have no reason to believe that the November policy won't be next.