"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_Daniel Peterson]

I agree with you, but you don't what to grant Harmony the right to judge or have an opinion. That is the point.

No. That isn't the point.

I don't deny her a right to judge, let alone to have an opinion. My concern is that her judgments of people she hasn't met and doesn't know seem strikingly personal and uncharitable.

[_Ray A]

I freely grant that Elder McConkie, whom I never met, could be somewhat imperious. (I do know his son, who would not disagree with that.)

I have read some of his son's recollections and have to say I was a bit disturbed. But what made Bruce Mc Conkie this way? A fanatical devotion to the gospel? I've recounted before the experience of Tom Ferguson, who after losing his belief in Book of Mormon historicity, said that he became a far more tolerant person towards others' beliefs and lifestyles. So I take it that this kind of tolerance is not a virtue of the true believer. Fanatics come in all shapes, sizes, and creeds, as noted by Hoffer, granted. But there seems to be larger doses of this in religion. The more a person believes, the less tolerant they are of others. Ferguson changed, and grew a tolerance he hadn't experienced before his loss of faith.


Do you think that was a good, or a bad thing?

[_Pokatator]

I agree with you, but you don't what to grant Harmony the right to judge or have an opinion. That is the point.

No. That isn't the point.

I don't deny her a right to judge, let alone to have an opinion. My concern is that her judgments of people she hasn't met and doesn't know seem strikingly personal and uncharitable.

You judge people here every time you get online and you haven't 'met' them or really "know" them. You judge them by what they write here online. That is fair. You are judging me right now and that is fair. I am interacting with you and you have a right to make judgments.

The twelve and Monson and company are in the public arena too. They speak, they give talks, go to conference and some put things into print. How can Harmony or anyone else not make judgments about them? No one picked them out of the blue because they never spoke or made a decision or put something into print. They are active players just as we are here.

You just put them on a pedestal or a throne or something and think that they are untouchable. They are not. Nor am I or you.

I didn't find Harmony's comments uncharitable or personal in nature. She was still talking issues and no one was personally mentioned. These people are big boys and they have their god on there side. You are just too quick to run to the rescue and fight their battles for them. Harmony had 6 points that addressed Ray's OP. You haven't addressed any of the 6 points, you have only addressed Harmony. So who is making it personal?

How about those 6 points?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You judge people here every time get online and you haven't 'met' them or really "know" them. You judge them by what they write here online. That is fair. You are judging me right now and that is fair. I am interacting with you and you have a right to make judgments.

I judge posts.

That's what message boards are about.

The twelve and Monson and company are in the public arena too. They speak, they give talks, go to conference and some put things into print. How can Harmony or anyone else not make judgments about them? No one picked them out of the blue because they never spoke or made a decision or put something into print. They are active players just as we are here.

And their public statements are fair game.

But pronouncing them all arrogant, dishonest, intolerant, self-centered, and unkind elitists goes considerably beyond what's on evidence in their speeches. It's personal judgment of their personal characters. And it's very difficult, if not impossible, to defend.

You just put them on a pedestal or a throne or something and thing that they are untouchable.

No I don't. But I think it grossly unfair, uncharitable, and unchristian to denounce them, as a group and in general, as dishonest, intolerant, self-absorbed, arrogant, and unkind, let alone as bigoted and Nazi-like.

I didn't find Harmony's comments uncharitable or personal in nature.

I wouldn't have expected you to.

She was still talking issues and no one was personally mentioned.

She specifically referenced the Brethren.

These people are big boys and they have their god on there side.

The moral counsel against uncharitable judging laid down by Jesus didn't grant an exemption for judging people whose social status you resent or whose religious beliefs you disdain.

I mention this only because, so far as I can tell, harmony retains (at least) some vestigial loyalty to Christianity or Christ.

You are just too quick to run to the rescue and fight their battles for them.

Somehow I don't feel bad about defending people who've been unfairly maligned. I hope to do it fairly frequently, in all sorts of contexts. I would even do it for you.

Harmony had 6 points that addressed Ray's OP. You haven't addressed any of the 6 points, you have only addressed Harmony. So who is making it personal?

I addressed a specific post by harmony.

That's of the essence of a message board.

How about those 6 points?

When and if I feel inclined to address them, I will. I don't feel any obligation to address every issue raised by every poster, here or anywhere else. Nor, I've noticed, do you.

[_Pokatator]

Dan wrote:

When and if I feel inclined to address them, I will. I don't feel any obligation to address every issue raised by every poster, here or anywhere else. Nor, I've noticed, do you.

Harmony, stated her opinion and yes it was blunt and yes I see it pretty much the same way. But the important part to me is she gave 6 points for correcting her concerns. If she had not provided suggestions for a solution then I think your followup would have been fine.

I do hope you feel inclined sometime in the future to address the 6 points that I thought was the point of the OP.

[_harmony]

No.

But I do find it fascinating that "our leaders," from the First Presidency and the Twelve on down, evidently feel the need to walk all over you. I've never heard of anybody else being treated that way by them so continuously and, it would seem, deliberately.

So now you're telling me that my perception is invalid? Or that my opinions and world view are somehow inaccurate representations of my own reality?

Our leaders are public people, and they have refused to hear any voice of criticism. That smacks of a huge hubris.

And you know this . . . how, exactly?

From their talks. From their own words.

No one is above criticism... not me, not you, not them. And yet you criticize me for criticizing them.

I criticize you for your routine, zestful, public, anonymous condemnations of people you don't know and haven't met -- including both me and the General Authorities -- on extraordinarily dubious grounds (that, for what it's worth, I personally know to be false).

Nothing personal, Daniel. And as soon as they open the books, I'll cease mentioning any reference to personal honesty. As soon as they accept criticism, I'll cease any reference to personal hubris. As soon as they live by the sweat of their brow, I'll cease reference to living by the sweat of others' brows. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Right. You're not to be judged. Only those you choose to target should be judged and condemned.

"With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

I'm perfectly willing to be judged. If I'm ever in charge of the church, I'll be perfectly willing to abide by the suggestions in my earlier post.

I know it suits your purposes to portray the Brethren as arrogant elitists, out of touch with the rank and file, etc. And yet I could easily multiply stories from among my rather ordinary and mainstream neighbors and friends and relatives and acquaintances, in various states and countries, of humble kindness and charity on the part of the senior Brethren -- who, incidentally, haven't always been senior Brethren, just as I haven't always been a member of your mythical arrogant elite inner circle. (Most of my life has been spent as an unknown member of the non-elite, and it mostly still is. Most of the Brethren have spent most of their lives as members of the rank-and-file of the Church.)

No one gets to the level of the Brethren without serving multiple decades in the church. None of the Brethren are plucked from the rank and file of the church, ever. They climb the ladder, the same as in any other multibillion dollar organization.

Honest? I've never experienced anything with any of them to suggest dishonesty.

The books aren't open. That alone brings their honesty into question, both as a group and personally.

Compassion? I've seen lots of it. And I mean lots of it.

Tell that to the people who had the fillings pulled out, in order to sell the gold and finance their temple... a temple that should have been completely paid for out of tithing money. And where was the tithing being spent? Oh. We don't know. We do know it wasn't being spent on that temple.

Tolerance? Yep. I've traveled with some of them. I've seen them interact with people in and out of the Church. I've seen them specifically interacting with people of quite different religious backgrounds, or of no religious background at all. I've seen nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest intolerance.

You don't happen to be gay, obviously.

Humility? That's been one of the most striking and notable things that I've picked up in my encounters with them, and observed in them.

Reference Elder Oakes' talk on criticism of the Brethren.

Are they perfect? Neither I nor they would claim so. Are they good men? Yes. They're very good men.

No one said they have to be perfect; no one said they aren't good men. What I said was... well, you know what I said. You just want to deflect my opinion by exaggerating what I said. Not gonna happen, though.

This thread isn't about me. Stick to the subject please.

Which is your ardent condemnation of people you haven't met, don't know, and don't really know much about.

And you can't see anything problematic in this?[/quote]

It's not personal, Daniel. I'm commenting on their leadership. And I'm risking disobedience to an Elder to do it.

[_ajax18]

Sure, not that anyone will ever hear it:

You mean not everyone will entirely agree with you and obey you.

Open the books and restore the trust that's been missing for almost 50 years. Even if they don't know it, the members have been and are being cheated.

I'm not sure how opening the books would remedy the members being cheated. Even if they hide their financial statements, it's still hard for them to hide how well church leaders live and how much money goes into the kitty in SLC every month.

Develop a mechanism by which rank and file members will be regularly accessed by leaders from the highest level. Get past their hero worship and actually listen to what the members say, even when what they say is not what you want to hear.

What would happen if we tried to please everyone all the time? Sounds like a recipe for anarchy to me. The only thing worse than unfair rules are capricious and unpredictable rules. It reminds me of public education system.

3. Live humbly, acknowledging that your roof and your daily bread comes from the labor of others.

I couldn't agree more.

4. Listen to those who have been hurt by the church. Get past their anger and actually hear the underlying pain.

It seems like this task essentially falls upon the full time missionaries under the status quo.

5. Address the dysfunctional aspects of Mormon culture. Nothing is exempt.

Those are some pretty debatable terms are they not. I'm afraid you'd have to be a lot more specific on this. You're going to have to raise your own army to enforce this one.

6. Treat all members alike.

I think they treat everyone equally bad.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So now you're telling me that my perception is invalid?

I think you're wrong. If you want to portray that as somehow victimizing you, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Or that my opinions and world view are somehow inaccurate representations of my own reality?

I'm entirely confident that your opinions and worldview represent your own reality -- whatever that may mean, exactly -- with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

[_GoodK]

As to the matter of GoodK and his stepfather and my alleged viciousness in that case, we've already discussed this for about 50-60 pages on five or six occasions. I'm content with what I've alread said about that, and I do not plead guilty. I realize that GoodK is angry, but I don't grant that his perspective on the matter is the final word on it.

Just dropping by to say that Daniel C. Peterson is guilty of pissing on my privacy, pitting my step-parent against me, and continuously reporting my posts to my step-father.

O.J didn't plead guilty either, {Moderator edit by harmony: personal attack}.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just dropping by to say that Daniel C. Peterson is guilty of pissing on my privacy, pitting my step-parent against me, and continuously [sic] reporting my posts to my step-father.

O.J didn't plead guilty either, {Moderator edit by harmony: personal attack}.

As I say, GoodK is angry (increasingly so, it rather oddly seems, and increasingly insulting). But I've said all that I feel like saying about the matter here -- and I've said it many times.