"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_Ray A]

I'm sorry. I apologise for being born.

Accepted.

In the true spirit of Christ. I knew I could rely on you, Dan.

[_Ray A]

But, of course, I also can't stop those who want to slander them.

And President Packer never slandered anybody. No, just "categories".

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, Ray, I'm unaware of President Packer slandering anybody. Perhaps we use different dictionaries.

Good night.

[_moksha]

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

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

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

6. Treat all members alike.

Harmony, these all sound worthwhile. I am not understanding why they must be prefaced with a slam against Church leaders. We all have our failings. What you suggest calls for bandaging - not the application of salt to a sore.


.

[_Ray A]

No, Ray, I'm unaware of President Packer slandering anybody. Perhaps we use different dictionaries.

Good night.

No, we don't. We use the same dictionaries. We just interpret human experience in different ways.

And I have bad news - I'm going to keep "saddening" you.

[_harmony]

harmony, sometimes you strike me as one of the most judgmental people I've ever encountered in my life. Quite seriously.

Why? Because I refuse to lie down and let our leaders walk all over me without ever saying anything? Because I see a spade and I call it a spade, and I don't pretty it up when it's covered with manure? Because I refuse to obey the Apostle Paul... and you?

Our leaders are public people, and they have refused to hear any voice of criticism. That smacks of a huge hubris. No one is above criticism... not me, not you, not them. And yet you criticize me for criticizing them.

Whatever.

I hope you're not like this with people you actually know, in your actual off-line interactions.

This thread isn't about me. It's about men who live by the lamp of their own conceit.

I've had at least some dealing with every member of the current Quorum of the Twelve and the current First Presidency, and with several past members of those quorums. In some cases, I've had a fair amount of contact with them.

You have just proven that you are not a member of the rank and file. We in the rank and file don't have personal relationships with our leaders, we don't know them in any sense of the word, we have no dealings with them, we have no contact with them... so you can't say what it's like to be a rank and file member: you aren't.

I'm a reasonably decent judge of character, I think,

I don't think so. I see you jumping to conclusions a lot. I see you cut our leaders slack they don't deserve, and jumping with both feet onto someone who sees problems and offers solutions. I wonder if you jump so quickly and so hard because of who I am... a nobody with no influence and no connections. If I was a Marriott, would you deal differently with me? Our leaders would. If I was Mormon Royalty, would you speak more respectfully and hear what I say? Our leaders would. But I am neither of those things, so you feel free to land on me with both feet, and essentially try to muzzle me.

...and I've found them -- and I emphatically include President Packer in this; I've spent time with him in his home and elsewhere (my first personal encounter with him being all the way back in early 1974, in Switzerland) -- to be, in every case, kind, modest, dedicated, hard-working, and sincere men. They don't deserve your casually self-righteous censure.

What makes you think I was casual or self-righteous? Or were you just pulling adjectives out of the air because they sound applicable?

Did you notice you didn't use the same adjectives I said I was looking for in our leaders? Honesty? You don't mention it. Compassion? You don't mention it. Empathy? You don't mention it. Tolerant? You don't mention it. Humble? You don't mention it. Perhaps I was right after all. I never said they weren't kind, modest, dedicated, hardworking or sincere. They aren't what I asked for though, and until they are, I see no reason to stop criticizing them.

You may well be a kind and charitable person off-line. I certainly hope so. But your zest for negatively judging people you don't know -- anonymously and publicly, no less -- is extraordinarily unseemly.

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

[_harmony]

Harmony, these all sound worthwhile. I am not understanding why they must be prefaced with a slam against Church leaders. We all have our failings. What you suggest calls for bandaging - not the application of salt to a sore.


.

When the leaders exhibit the qualities I asked for, I'll reassess my thoughts on the subject. Until then, when the spade is covered with manure, I'm going to comment on it.

[_Pokatator]

Anyway, I know President Packer, and I know the others, and I won't -- can't -- stand by silently while they're slandered.

But, of course, I also can't stop those who want to slander them.

I fail to see any slander here. Unless the notorious Mormon dictionary has two meanings like it has for most everything else. One meaning for the lowly member and another for the 2nd annoited elites in the church.

Harmony is entitled to her opinion same as you. You over reacted.

[_Mister Scratch]

harmony, sometimes you strike me as one of the most judgmental people I've ever encountered in my life. Quite seriously. I hope you're not like this with people you actually know, in your actual off-line interactions.

LOL! Wow! Look at this! The arrogance and hypocrisy of this are really mind-boggling. Are you kidding, Dan? The amount of harm you have doled out online---which has frequently spilled over into real life---is ten times anything Harmony--or any of us!---has done. You really have no business whatsoever trying to level a judgment like this.

One has to ask: What sort of punishment is suitable for a character like yourself?

I've had at least some dealing with every member of the current Quorum of the Twelve and the current First Presidency, and with several past members of those quorums. In some cases, I've had a fair amount of contact with them.

Of course you have. You have to get your Mopologetic marching orders from them.

I'm a reasonably decent judge of character, I think,

Well, obviously you think wrong.

and I've found them -- and I emphatically include President Packer in this; I've spent time with him in his home and elsewhere (my first personal encounter with him being all the way back in early 1974, in Switzerland) -- to be, in every case, kind, modest, dedicated, hard-working, and sincere men. They don't deserve your casually self-righteous censure.

How many authors lambasted in the FARMS Review deserved your "casually self-righteous censure"? What a rank hypocrite you are.

You may well be a kind and charitable person off-line. I certainly hope so. But your zest for negatively judging people you don't know -- anonymously and publicly, no less -- is extraordinarily unseemly.

Right-o. At least she doesn't do it bolstered by FARMS's multi-million dollar budget. At least she doesn't do it with a half-dozen or so of her malignant friends chortling on a "private" list serve. At least she doesn't email people's family members in order to "out" them.

Really, Dr. P.: you have absolutely no business whatsoever trying to cast judgment in this regard. Try showing a bit of contrition and humility first, and then maybe we can begin to take you seriously.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And I have bad news - I'm going to keep "saddening" you.

Only if I keep paying attention, which isn't guaranteed.