Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with his telling her to sit down. I'm just saying that perhaps making the guy out to be an uptight, overbearing Mormon leader is not fair. Perhaps.Originally Posted by Rocker Ute
Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with his telling her to sit down. I'm just saying that perhaps making the guy out to be an uptight, overbearing Mormon leader is not fair. Perhaps.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
None of us were there, but this might be part of the reason for the policy to not let the children of gay marriage families get baptized. These kind of confrontations would be far more likely, as kids decide what they're hearing in church doesn't square with their positive experiences at home.
Until the church is ready to make big changes in policy and reconsider theological points held for a long time - like what happened with the priesthood ban, but much bigger in scope - then it's probably best to try to minimize the potential for confrontation. Basically, "pull in, until you're ready to reach out".
As I understand it, the Bishop of this ward was not around and, had he been in attendance, knowing the family, the nuances, etc., probably would have let it go.
I can get behind the idea that the girl's intent was noble. I can even get behind the idea that the mother's intent was as well - though she had been out of the church for some time. Obviously, none of us knows what that conversation was like and what the lead up was, what she/they hoped to accomplish etc.
What I can't get behind is that because of the possibility that John Dehlin at least had some involvement in orchestrating this, I think it changes it completely (that has been rumored - and if it was another group, same thing). If he didn't, he has at a minimum completely exploited her and her family as another arrow in his quiver to go after the church, which again I find personally despicable, but that's just me.
I have a buddy in the Bishopric in my ward and he said that it has at least sparked some positive conversations among our ward leadership. If that is the case across the broader church, then hopefully some good will come out of it.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I agree with you. I can also say that I am unaware of any official policy on what should be done in this type of situation so contrary to Maake's assumption that this is a symptom of pulling in before reaching out this was just the action of an individual and not some larger push from HQ to tamp down differing thought.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote