"Live by the lamp of their own conceit"

[_harmony]

Harmony's point is that the brethren are too good to meet with anyone of her supposedly low stature. This is not true, and we are offering her an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

You missed harmony's point (how surprising). Allow me to clarify: the Brethren don't have a mechanism by which the rank and file members can access them, offer suggestions or criticisms, or generally connect with their leaders. And the reason there is no such mechanism (we've already seen how letters and phone calls are handled... see Rollo's comments if you don't remember) is because the Brethren don't want to allow the rank and file members to access them. The Brethren demand unquestioning loyalty and do not allow criticism at all. Suggestions, opinions, and criticisms are not only not allowed, they are grounds for church discipline.

Again you try to assign motives, etc. I don't know what it is about this message board, but we have an awful lot of mind readers around here.

It's called discernment when the Brethren do it.

[_harmony]

Did I miss your response to the succession question?

What succession question?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Men generally understand "polygamy". They don't always understand the rest of the whole women's marginalization and patronization thing. You just demonstrated that.

If, by not understanding it, you meant that I don't share your every opinion and endorse your every judgment, you're right.

Otherwise, you're wrong. Even quite spectacularly so.

You don't know me, harmony. When pronouncing judgments about me, don't forget that.

harmony's only reservations concern polygamy and closed financial books, or something like that.

Is that all you can say? The post reeks of passion, and that's all you can say?

Good grief.

Umm. That was kind of, you know, the point? Like, well, the contrast between your "passion" and my deliberate understatement was, like, deliberate?

Did you like, you know, umm, turn off your irony-alert button? (To coin a phrase.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Why you believe in the Church if you think Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet earlier than when he supposedly passed on priesthood keys and revealed more doctrines, etc.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the Brethren don't have a mechanism by which the rank and file members can access them, offer suggestions or criticisms, or generally connect with their leaders. And the reason there is no such mechanism (we've already seen how letters and phone calls are handled... see Rollo's comments if you don't remember) is because the Brethren don't want to allow the rank and file members to access them. The Brethren demand unquestioning loyalty and do not allow criticism at all. Suggestions, opinions, and criticisms are not only not allowed, they are grounds for church discipline.

The Brethren spend much of their lives out among the rank and file.

They come from the rank and file.

And they have parents and brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and wives and children and grandchildren and in-laws and home wards and home teachers and cousins and friends.

We're not talking, here, about a rigidly segregated clerical caste.

In my experience, too, they're always asking questions and seeking input.

[_harmony]

Why you believe in the Church if you think Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet earlier than when he supposedly passed on priesthood keys and revealed more doctrines, etc.

I think Joseph had God-given one task: the Book of Mormon. After that, it's a crapshoot.

I'm not convinced about the M. priesthood anyway, since there is no canonized revelation, so the keys transfer becomes a moot point (which, of course, brings up all sorts of questions, since according to the dates... and the lack of a revelation... the church was formed prior to the restoration of the M priesthood, which of course, means Joseph was getting ahead of himself, but that's another thread.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

In other words, your doctrinal views would be much more in line with, say, the Community of Christ or even one of the smaller schismatic sects (say, the Church of Christ, Temple Lot) than with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Right?

[_harmony]

The Brethren spend much of their lives out among the rank and file.

No, they don't spend their lives with the rank and file. They spend their lives on elite pedestals, constructed with their knowledge and consent by the rank and file's unwavering hero worship.

They come from the rank and file.

A few of them do. Most of them are related to prior general authorities, which makes them Mormon Royalty. So most of them have never been part of the rank and file.

And they have parents and brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and wives and children and grandchildren and in-laws and home wards and home teachers and cousins and friends.

All of whom are also Mormon Royalty, with the possible exception of home teachers and some of their ward families. And how often do they visit their home wards? And are all of their home wards in the same general area? And where would that general area be? Oh, yeah. SLCentral. Let me know when half of the Brethren's home wards are in El Paso Texas or Biloxi MS or Searsport ME. You know... out here in the hinterland usually known as Outer Zion (or the mission field, depending).

We're not talking, here, about a rigidly segregated clerical caste.

That is exactly what we're talking about: an elite, rigidily segregated clerical caste to which the rank and file members have no access. Letters are restricted, phone calls are restricted, and there is no mechanism by which the Brethren can access the thoughts and feelings of the members freely, even if they could get past the very real fear of retribution that members feel which such access would require.

What we need is a suggestion box that the Brethren value as important enough to read, ponder, and pray about the ideas offered at least once a week. What we have is a system that isolates the Brethren from the rank and file, creating among other things, an elite, rigidly segregated clerical caste (thanks for the descriptor.)

In my experience, too, they're always asking questions and seeking input.

In my experience, my area hasn't seen one in at least 10 years. And since we have Elder Oakes demanding that no criticism be voiced, and Pres Hinckley demanding unquestioning loyalty, i think my experience is at least as valid as your own.

[_harmony]

In other words, your doctrinal views would be much more in line with, say, the Community of Christ or even one of the smaller schismatic sects (say, the Church of Christ, Temple Lot) than with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Right?

I think my doctrinal views are completely in line with God.

[_harmony]

Men generally understand "polygamy". They don't always understand the rest of the whole women's marginalization and patronization thing. You just demonstrated that.

If, by not understanding it, you meant that I don't share your every opinion and endorse your every judgment, you're right.

There you go again, exaggerating. "every"? Good grief.

Otherwise, you're wrong. Even quite spectacularly so.

It's been known to happen, and I freely admit it. That doesn't mean this is one of those times, though.

You don't know me, harmony. When pronouncing judgments about me, don't forget that.

God willing, and the creek don't rise...

Umm. That was kind of, you know, the point? Like, well, the contrast between your "passion" and my deliberate understatement was, like, deliberate?

Did you like, you know, umm, turn off your irony-alert button? (To coin a phrase.)

Still no substance.

I wish Shades had a smiliey for *sigh*