A great quote from Elder Richards

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

You say voices cannot be productive. I disagree.

I said nothing of the sort and I gave a specific concrete example of how they were.

I'm not going to line item response to your post because half of what you said indicated you failed to, deliberately or otherwise, understand what I was saying.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The angels of heaven are on my side? Sorry, you've just engaged in rhetorical nonsense.

Invoking the divine? More vacuous rhetoric.



You can only fault yourself for that interpretation. While we're on the subject, how many times do you attempt to use me as a caricature to espouse your own morally/intellectually superior positions?

I simply tried to explain my view on how we can constructively/effectively offer a differing opinion with leadership. For whatever reason, you've chosen to ignore the real substance of my post and go off on bizarre tangents and engage in ridiculous rhetoric.

I agree with Adam's characterization of your post, but you and Tex love to use the "I", implying the rest are idiots and moral reprobates, "defer to the divine". None of us here are necessarily morally superior to any other, but if we can caricature those who believe they that will bring them down to our level. "The angels of heaven" is a known manner of referring to the divine authority argument you invoked. If you don't like it, don't use the device.

Most of the articulation used your own words and then you repudiate their meaning, how is that poppycock?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree with Adam's characterization of your post, but you and Tex love to use the "I", implying the rest are idiots and moral reprobates, "defer to the divine". None of us here are necessarily morally superior to any other, but if we can caricature those who believe they that will bring them down to our level. "The angels of heaven" is a known manner of referring to the divine authority argument you invoked. If you don't like it, don't use the device.

Most of the articulation used your own words and then you repudiate their meaning, how is that poppycock?

Let's try this again, since you are so hung up on this "angels of heaven" nonsense.

I voice my differing opinions all the time. However, there comes a time in the discussion where the branch president decides what is to be done. He's made that decision in light of or despite of what I and others in the meeting offered as alternative viewpoints. Ultimately, it's his call and it's not my place to override him; I don't have the authority.

If I still disagree with him, what do I do? What avenues are available to me? I can't appoint myself bishop.

Am I morally justified in going against his decision just because I don't agree with it?

I certainly can bring up various topics again, and I have done precisely this before, but the decision still rests with him.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately it's not my call to make.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I voice my differing opinions all the time. However, there comes a time in the discussion where the branch president decides what is to be done. He's made that decision in light of or despite of what I and others in the meeting offered as alternative viewpoints. Ultimately, it's his call and it's not my place to override him; I don't have the authority.

I agree completely. Unless you're his file leader, you don't have the authority.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If I still disagree with him, what do I do? What avenues are available to me? I can't appoint myself bishop.

In all but the rarest instances, you do nothing else.

As Adam pointed out, I have never voiced my displeasure at anything the bishop might have done with any member of my ward. I would not seek to undermine his authority with other ward members. So I agree.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Am I morally justified in going against his decision just because I don't agree with it?

I certainly can bring up various topics again, and I have done precisely this before, but the decision still rests with him.

How could you go against his authority?

The only avenue the Church has created is an appeal to his file leader. Who is his file leader?

Should we invoke this right often? No, only rarely, but if done tactfully, it may result in rare circumstances to an injustice being averted.

Do you disagree?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The only avenue the Church has created is an appeal to his file leader. Who is his file leader?

Should we invoke this right often? No, only rarely, but if done tactfully, it may result in rare circumstances to an injustice being averted.

Do you disagree?

If there is something grossly out of line that the bishop is doing, then it might be appropriate for someone to voice their concerns to the high counselor or stake president (I'm not sure who is the appropriate contact here).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If there is something grossly out of line that the bishop is doing, then it might be appropriate for someone to voice their concerns to the high counselor or stake president (I'm not sure who is the appropriate contact here).

And once the concern is voiced, there is not much more than you can do.

And I am aware of only one instance, in a locale not in Vegas, where something went higher. The reason? It involved an indiscretion of a stake president, so a concern needed to be filed with his file leader. Whether it was fruitful or not, I do not know. But the person about whom the complaint was made, later ended up working together with the complainer, so ultimately all hard feelings, if any, were forgiven.

It's okay to voice concerns if you know of things of significant importance. The question is, what is of significant importance?

For you denial of temple recommends would be it.

For somebody working with African American converts, ignoring matters sensitive to them may be.

Having worked within the bureaucracy of the Church, if you wish to be successful, not just make a noise, it must be done delicately. A noisey production almost always fails. I've never seen a noisey matter get resolved to the complainer's satisfaction, but I have seen quiet matters resolved in a positive fashion.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You tried to make a point. Did you limit the scope of the type of role models these men should be?

What was your point?

Was war deiner Zweck oder dein Ziel?

We're kinda going down a tangent here. If you really want to talk about GAs as heroes or role models, start a new thread.

Originally Posted by Adam

Satan's oldest ploy--I am not my brother's keeper. It isn't my stewardship. Order is more important then standing up for truth and right. Keep the head down and keep on marching. I guess honestly it takes both kinds.

Garbage. Hello Uzzah.

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's okay to voice concerns if you know of things of significant importance. The question is, what is of significant importance?

...

For somebody working with African American converts, ignoring matters sensitive to them may be.

By this I know that the church is in good shape: when the inelegant handling of a choir number counts as a thing of "significant importance" to Archaea.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

By this I know that the church is good shape: when the inelegant handling of a choir number counts as a thing of "significant important" to Archaea.

That certainly wasn't Requiem's issue.

She wished to see what to do for a matter that may be insignificant to you, but not to them. She was worried about their souls, you may not be.

It was never an issue of choir music selection, but rather how the approach would appear to new converts coming from a different tradition, one with which you may be unfamiliar. I do not rate myself an expert on African American affairs, and am probably ill-informed about them. And they don't all resonate with me, because I'm not black. Yet, I intellectually acknowledge that they are important to blacks, and if black members are infused with this tradition, then I need to be sensitive to their sensitivities. One area of sensitivity that I have observed is music. In black subculture, music is of vital importance. So as they join the LDS fold and we become part of their communities so that there is no them and us, we need to be more sensitive to this issue. Is that a bad thing?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It was never an issue of choir music selection, but rather how the approach would appear to new converts coming from a different tradition, one with which you may be unfamiliar. I do not rate myself an expert on African American affairs, and am probably ill-informed about them. And they don't all resonate with me, because I'm not black. Yet, I intellectually acknowledge that they are important to blacks, and if black members are infused with this tradition, then I need to be sensitive to their sensitivities. One area of sensitivity that I have observed is music. In black subculture, music is of vital importance. So as they join the LDS fold and we become part of their communities so that there is no them and us, we need to be more sensitive to this issue. Is that a bad thing?

Oh, I'm all for sensitivity. I just don't think this kind of thing qualifies as the kind of issue one should escalate, quietly or otherwise. I don't think it pays dividends in the long run for anyone involved.

Originally Posted by Archaea

She was worried about their souls, you may not be.

I proudly return the title of "Most Hateful and Condescending Poster" back to you.

And to think, this guy has the gall to bellyache over a perceived "angels of heaven" defense.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

And to think, this guy has the gall to bellyache over a perceived "angels of heaven" defense.

An unnecessary slap, but you can handle it.