Tal Bachman's Stake President Responds

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I see nothing wrong with the SP publicly reaffirming his testimony since Bachman made that a public issue. The church (through people like Elder Ballard) has encouraged a more active defense of the faith and I don't see this as being inconsistent with that counsel.

I don't either. I do think it would have been more effective had it been brief, non-personal and directed to his stake. Across the podium would be the preferred venue, IMO.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

So are you telling me what the SP said when responding was his opinion or factual. I took it that you thought the SP was sharing something you believed to be factual and not actually his opinion. One of the two are not repeating accurately what happened.

You are dancing here Indy. In one case it is OK for a SP to repeat what was said, "facts no opinion), however in other cases they can hide behind the privacy thing. Of course your dance ends in "based on how the spirit directs them". You and I might understand that, but some might see that as a cop out. Back to the, you always have God's backing because after all it is he who is directing through the spirit when to talk and when not to and any "good" member would not question what God has said through the spirit.

So I say to you, in every instance so far where you have asked me to provide a link, God through the spirit has told me not to. Why, I don't know, but he has advised me not to.

Sorry, but I don't understand anything you just said.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Sorry, but I don't understand anything you just said.

I am sure you don't. Double standard and hypocricy go over your head.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I am sure you don't. Double standard and hypocricy go over your head.

Double speak and conflating issues don't make for intelligible responses.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Double speak and conflating issues don't make for intelligible responses.

Link?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

In logic, conflation is the error of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one. The result of conflating concepts may give rise to fallacies of ambiguity, including the fallacy of four terms in a categorical syllogism. For example, the word "bat" has at least two meanings: a flying animal, and a piece of sporting equipment (such as a baseball bat or a cricket bat). If these two meanings are not distinguished, the result may be the following categorical syllogism, which is clearly intended as a joke (pun):

All bats are animals.
Some wooden objects are bats.
Therefore, some wooden objects are animals.

Conflating words with different meanings can cause real confusion. For example, respect is used both in the sense of "recognise a right" and "have high regard for". We can recognise someone's right to the opinion that humanity is controlled by alien lizards in human form, without holding this idea in high regard. But conflation of these two different concepts leads to the notion that all ideological ideas, for example, should be treated with respect, rather than just the right to hold these ideas.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

However, I was discussing same issue.

First case, SP responds publicly to private conversation. You and I agree that is fine.


Second case. SP won't respond to private conversation, because it was private and therefor SP is bound not to publicly discuss it.


Indy's interpretation. Each case is consistent because the spirit is guiding each time. It is out of the individual's hands and is not based on human response. It is based on how God chooses to handle it.


BYU71's interpretation. SP's will respond based on how they best feel it will suit them. By the way, '71 believes everyone has the right to do that.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Indy's interpretation. Each case is consistent because the spirit is guiding each time. It is out of the individual's hands and is not based on human response. It is based on how God chooses to handle it.

That isn't my interpretation of each case. I'm stating in generalities about how to determine when or not to go public with an issue. I think the church should allow (and maybe they already do) ecclesiastical leaders the freedom to determine when each is appropriate.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think there should be a hard rule about all public or all private. I think good common sense and spiritual discernment should dictate when one or the other should apply.

I have no idea how you could find fault with that position.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That isn't my interpretation of each case. I'm stating in generalities about how to determine when or not to go public with an issue. I think the church should allow (and maybe they already do) ecclesiastical leaders the freedom to determine when each is appropriate.

Let's face it, Indy, the church likes to be able to say "we cannot comment on such proceedings" even when the ex'd has given full permission publicly to comment.

The church will never want to lose the ability to state that that is their policy.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let's face it, Indy, the church likes to be able to say "we cannot comment on such proceedings" even when the ex'd has given full permission publicly to comment.

Link?