Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Indy Coug · 04-11-2007, 06:56 PM

So your personal definition of "alternate voices" is accurately represented by Elder Oaks' talk?

Archaea · 04-11-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So your personal definition of "alternate voices" is accurately represented by Elder Oaks' talk?

Indy, why don't you add something other than just set us up for an attack?

Elder Oaks and the view of Professor Mauss are valuable to me. It seems like a reasonable standard. Apparently you find some of us ridiculous for trying a different path.

Indy Coug · 04-11-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Indy, why don't you add something other than just set us up for an attack?

Elder Oaks and the view of Professor Mauss are valuable to me. It seems like a reasonable standard. Apparently you find some of us ridiculous for trying a different path.

Who's attacked who in this thread? I asked a simple question. I made no derisive comments about the quote included in the intial post (in fact, I basically agree with it). I made no derisive comments about you or SEIQ in this thread.

Even after being smacked around by SEIQ in this thread several times, I've tried to respond with level-headedness.

I just wanted to understand what an "alternate voice" was, because the term in and of itself is extremely vague. The eventual linkage of Elder Oaks talk was appreciated and I at least have a better understanding now of what an "alternate voice" is than I did an hour ago.

I don't intend to take any more of this thread's space. I got the answer I was looking for and will watch from the rafters from this point forward.

Archaea · 04-11-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Who's attacked who in this thread? I asked a simple question. I made no derisive comments about the quote included in the intial post (in fact, I basically agree with it). I made no derisive comments about you or SEIQ in this thread.

Even after being smacked around by SEIQ in this thread several times, I've tried to respond with level-headedness.

I just wanted to understand what an "alternate voice" was, because the term in and of itself is extremely vague. The eventual linkage of Elder Oaks talk was appreciated and I at least have a better understanding now of what an "alternate voice" is than I did an hour ago.

Accepted. I just smelled a set up, because you asked whether SIEQ's point of view was exactly that of Oaks, and you appeared to ignore the advice of Mauss. You are quite clever in your debating technique, so my post anticipated a smack down by you. The talk and Mauss's appear to give level-headed advice for those who may march to the beat of a slightly different drummer. I appreciate the willingness of Oaks to at least acknowledge alternate voices which is different than the approach I imagine an Elder Packer or McConkie would take.

UtahDan · 04-11-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Accepted. I just smelled a set up, because you asked whether SIEQ's point of view was exactly that of Oaks, and you appeared to ignore the advice of Mauss. You are quite clever in your debating technique, so my post anticipated a smack down by you. The talk and Mauss's appear to give level-headed advice for those who may march to the beat of a slightly different drummer. I appreciate the willingness of Oaks to at least acknowledge alternate voices which is different than the approach I imagine an Elder Packer or McConkie would take.

In fairness to Indy, SEIQ did jump on him. In fairness to SEIQ, Indy has worked hard to develop the kind of persona that justifiably elicits that sort of response.

Archaea · 04-11-2007, 08:22 PM

An interesting part of the Mauss talk:

"To begin with, an historical perspective seems helpful. We have always had “alternate voices” in the Church. I am not referring to apostates (nor was Elder Oaks, I believe) but to certain loyal and thoughtful saints of independent mind who would occasionally question conventional doctrine or policy–and do so publicly. Before about 1940, such public discussions frequently took place in official Church magazines and even among the general authorities themselves. For evidence of this contention, one has only to consult early issues of the Improvement Era, Contributor, and Juvenile Instructor, or to review the careers of figures like B.H. Roberts. Even the LDS Institute program once provided a forum for discussion and sometimes honest disagreement among the devout and intellectually cultivated scholars so often found in the ranks of the Institute faculty in those early days. In many ways, the Church was like one big family during its first century or so. This was especially true of the general authorities, who constituted a rather small circle of relatives and boyhood friends. Their families shared impeccable pioneer credentials and intimate knowledge of each other. When Orson Pratt disagreed publicly with Brigham Young about doctrine, they had been through too much together for Brother Brigham, even as president, to question basic loyalty and commitment of Brother Orson. When B.H. Roberts and the young Joseph Fielding Smith disagreed publicly about evolution, neither risked suspicions of heresy, apostasy, or disloyalty to the Brethren. When Heber J. Grant as president of the Church disagreed publicly with Apostle Reed Smoot over the League of Nations, it probably never occurred to President Grant to question Elder Smoot’s loyalty after their shared travail in 1903. Even when J. Golden Kimball regularly embarrassed some of his colleagues, they knew, after all, that he was “Hber’s boy.” His rock-solid Mormon heritage was more important than his idiosyncrasies in assessing his reliability.
It is a different church today for reasons that are quite understandable. As in any organization, rapid growth and complexity have brought increasing reliance on centralization and standardization (now called “correlation”). Some of the general authorities might still be related to each other, but not nearly so many and certainly not so closely. Recruitment to their ranks comes increasingly from outside the founding families and even from outside North America. Some of the recruits to general authority rank have come up through the Church civil service bureaucracy (especially the Church Education System, C.E.S.) where they have had opportunities to demonstrate their loyalty, but not by questioning “the Brethren,” to be sure."

jay santos · 04-11-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

In fairness to Indy, SEIQ did jump on him. In fairness to SEIQ, Indy has worked hard to develop the kind of persona that justifiably elicits that sort of response.

I would have liked to see an honest attempt at some dialogue before SIEQ jumped on him.

Detroitdad · 04-11-2007, 08:33 PM

A really great link SIEQ. It reminds me of some antecdotes that I have heard from persons from minority groups that say "We have to be twice as good and work twice as hard as the next guy, because we start out under a cloud of suspicion." I read this as a call to arms and to rigor instead of easy criticism. Very compelling.

UtahDan · 04-11-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

I would have liked to see an honest attempt at some dialogue before SIEQ jumped on him.

Me too. It is just easy to see how the gun got jumped.

RockyBalboa · 04-11-2007, 09:00 PM

LOL...Indy asks an honest and legitimate question.

Yeah, it's just us "mullahs" that cause contention isn't it?

SEIQ...time to swallow your pride and apologize to Indy.

04-11-2007, 08:22 PM	#16
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	An interesting part of the Mauss talk: "To begin with, an historical perspective seems helpful. We have always had “alternate voices” in the Church. I am not referring to apostates (nor was Elder Oaks, I believe) but to certain loyal and thoughtful saints of independent mind who would occasionally question conventional doctrine or policy–and do so publicly. Before about 1940, such public discussions frequently took place in official Church magazines and even among the general authorities themselves. For evidence of this contention, one has only to consult early issues of the Improvement Era, Contributor, and Juvenile Instructor, or to review the careers of figures like B.H. Roberts. Even the LDS Institute program once provided a forum for discussion and sometimes honest disagreement among the devout and intellectually cultivated scholars so often found in the ranks of the Institute faculty in those early days. In many ways, the Church was like one big family during its first century or so. This was especially true of the general authorities, who constituted a rather small circle of relatives and boyhood friends. Their families shared impeccable pioneer credentials and intimate knowledge of each other. When Orson Pratt disagreed publicly with Brigham Young about doctrine, they had been through too much together for Brother Brigham, even as president, to question basic loyalty and commitment of Brother Orson. When B.H. Roberts and the young Joseph Fielding Smith disagreed publicly about evolution, neither risked suspicions of heresy, apostasy, or disloyalty to the Brethren. When Heber J. Grant as president of the Church disagreed publicly with Apostle Reed Smoot over the League of Nations, it probably never occurred to President Grant to question Elder Smoot’s loyalty after their shared travail in 1903. Even when J. Golden Kimball regularly embarrassed some of his colleagues, they knew, after all, that he was “Hber’s boy.” His rock-solid Mormon heritage was more important than his idiosyncrasies in assessing his reliability. It is a different church today for reasons that are quite understandable. As in any organization, rapid growth and complexity have brought increasing reliance on centralization and standardization (now called “correlation”). Some of the general authorities might still be related to each other, but not nearly so many and certainly not so closely. Recruitment to their ranks comes increasingly from outside the founding families and even from outside North America. Some of the recruits to general authority rank have come up through the Church civil service bureaucracy (especially the Church Education System, C.E.S.) where they have had opportunities to demonstrate their loyalty, but not by questioning “the Brethren,” to be sure." __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

04-11-2007, 09:00 PM	#20
RockyBalboa Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 7,297	LOL...Indy asks an honest and legitimate question. Yeah, it's just us "mullahs" that cause contention isn't it? SEIQ...time to swallow your pride and apologize to Indy. __________________ Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.

04-11-2007, 06:56 PM	#11
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	So your personal definition of "alternate voices" is accurately represented by Elder Oaks' talk?

04-11-2007, 08:33 PM	#18
Detroitdad Resident Jackass Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Roswell, New Mexico Posts: 1,846	A really great link SIEQ. It reminds me of some antecdotes that I have heard from persons from minority groups that say "We have to be twice as good and work twice as hard as the next guy, because we start out under a cloud of suspicion." I read this as a call to arms and to rigor instead of easy criticism. Very compelling.