Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

creekster · 04-11-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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.

Without passing judgment on whether or not SIEQ needs to apologize, let me just ask this: if you are willing to accept the judgment of the rest of the group in this thread as they point out what they perceive as SIEQ's failure to fairly discuss a matter why do you refuse to acknowledge the same group's consensus when it is directed at you?

RockyBalboa · 04-11-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

Without passing judgment on whether or not SIEQ needs to apologize, let me just ask this: if you are willing to accept the judgment of the rest of the group in this thread as they point out what they perceive as SIEQ's failure to fairly discuss a matter why do you refuse to acknowledge the same group's consensus when it is directed at you?

I definetly have sometimes in the past. Others will tell you that I've apologized a number of times for crossing the line of appropriate comments.

SEIQ should be more like me.

*edited*...the last comment above was purely TIC for those about to go postal.

Indy Coug · 04-11-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

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.

He doesn't need to apologize. It's over as far as I'm concerned.

jay santos · 04-11-2007, 09:28 PM

I read the Mauss article and the Oaks article and caught up on this thread.

I'm on record for having little compassion to the intellectual's plight in the church the way the group intellectual is self-defined by that group and the way their plight is described. But I appreciate the link and the opportunity to discuss.

I especially liked the part of the article that showed the background on alternate voices within the church and the movement to consolidatary and need for outside of the church alternate voices--the part Archaea reposted. I'm not sure I totally buy it, but I understand it. And I'm OK with it.

Nothing Mauss says about the need for the alternate voices and the benefit they provide the church is wrong. It's all in content and delivery. If an intellectual is writing critical, mean-spirited, attacking kind of stuff, then he puts himself in Oak's category of the wolves among sheep. If he's exploring a topic in an honest, fair way and Sunstone's the only outlet, then I'm fine with it, and I agree there is benefit to the church in that. What I'm afraid of something I (or Oaks) would label as the bad stuff, the intellectuals would think is A-OK. The church has a right to label those individuals as wolves so the sheep know who to avoid. And if word came down from on high that someone needs to back off or shut up or be in trouble with the church, then that intellectual then becomes a poster boy for victimization.

I find the list of 10 pretty manipulative. Mauss uses it to set up a situation where the intellectuals are already the poor innocent victims with the church as the bullies. I fail to see the empirical evidence of this. I feel the number of times intellectuals are disciplined or ostracized as being relatively low, and when it does happen, there seems to be some valid reasons. SIEQ has never been disciplined. My liberal, intellectual professor friend has never been disciplined, and is in fact moving up the ladder of church leadership. Michael Quinn = disciplined. Lavina Anderson = disciplined.

I've also made this point before, but I don't like the definition of intellectual in this instance. Intellectual as defined by the intellectuals is an extremely narrow group of history/liberal arts doctorates, but not just all said doctorates, you also have to have a non-mainstream bent, and an interest in controversial topics. That's an extremely small group and defining such a group and then going to the victimization card because not enough of you are GA's or stake presidents or whatever just doesn't sway my sympathies in your direction.

I'm definitely not an enemy to intellectuals, though. I'm all for discussion and learning. Just keep the whining down.

tooblue · 04-11-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm going to try to be nice about this, but where exactly do you get off?

Perhaps you'll stop issuing commands and start actually reading things. How amazing that would be!

If you want to have a clue about what Elder Oaks' and Mauss' have in mind--read what they've written. Oaks' talk is well known and easily accessed. I believe it was given in the April 1989 General Conference. It's titled "Alternate Voices" should you any trouble. Should I define "talk" for you or will this do?

But why do I suspect that you don't really want to know? Why would I think that you're just advancing your usual "shut up and do what I say" agenda?

I too was hoping for a definition but withheld my question due to this response.

Archaea · 04-11-2007, 09:41 PM

Jay:

I believe you misinterpret Dr. Mauss in number 10. Enduring not due to suppression but enduring because a full and free, academic type discussion will not be had in a modern, corporate structure of a Church. Intellectuals are not persecuted per se, but rather the full expression of ideas will not be allowed, and in fact, our theology is purposefully dumbed down due to its developing an international character.

jay santos · 04-11-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Jay:

I believe you misinterpret Dr. Mauss in number 10. Enduring not due to suppression but enduring because a full and free, academic type discussion will not be had in a modern, corporate structure of a Church. Intellectuals are not persecuted per se, but rather the full expression of ideas will not be allowed, and in fact, our theology is purposefully dumbed down due to its developing an international character.

That's fair. But I'm not saying this about his #10. His language is replete with the victimization language. If I'm easily manipulated I come away after one reading thinking the Mormon church is full of a bunch of bullies that attack poor little innocent intellectuals, yet the basis is not established anywhere. Very sly. I'm also using prior experience reading apologies of church intellectuals long before I came to this board, SIEQ's prior posts on Mauss and other commentary SIEQ has made outside this thread to form my opinion.

Sleeping in EQ · 04-11-2007, 10:05 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.

It just seemed like Indy was going with his usual MO. If he really wants to discuss this, I'm more than happy to do so.

tooblue · 04-11-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

It just seemed like Indy was going with his usual MO. If he really wants to discuss this, I'm more than happy to do so.

I am interested in the definition because, believe it or not, in certain circles I am considered an alternate voice.

And certainly in others I'm an ignorant fool

SteelBlue · 04-11-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

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

I have to agree here.

04-11-2007, 09:41 PM	#26
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Jay: I believe you misinterpret Dr. Mauss in number 10. Enduring not due to suppression but enduring because a full and free, academic type discussion will not be had in a modern, corporate structure of a Church. Intellectuals are not persecuted per se, but rather the full expression of ideas will not be allowed, and in fact, our theology is purposefully dumbed down due to its developing an international character. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

04-11-2007, 09:28 PM	#24
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	I read the Mauss article and the Oaks article and caught up on this thread. I'm on record for having little compassion to the intellectual's plight in the church the way the group intellectual is self-defined by that group and the way their plight is described. But I appreciate the link and the opportunity to discuss. I especially liked the part of the article that showed the background on alternate voices within the church and the movement to consolidatary and need for outside of the church alternate voices--the part Archaea reposted. I'm not sure I totally buy it, but I understand it. And I'm OK with it. Nothing Mauss says about the need for the alternate voices and the benefit they provide the church is wrong. It's all in content and delivery. If an intellectual is writing critical, mean-spirited, attacking kind of stuff, then he puts himself in Oak's category of the wolves among sheep. If he's exploring a topic in an honest, fair way and Sunstone's the only outlet, then I'm fine with it, and I agree there is benefit to the church in that. What I'm afraid of something I (or Oaks) would label as the bad stuff, the intellectuals would think is A-OK. The church has a right to label those individuals as wolves so the sheep know who to avoid. And if word came down from on high that someone needs to back off or shut up or be in trouble with the church, then that intellectual then becomes a poster boy for victimization. I find the list of 10 pretty manipulative. Mauss uses it to set up a situation where the intellectuals are already the poor innocent victims with the church as the bullies. I fail to see the empirical evidence of this. I feel the number of times intellectuals are disciplined or ostracized as being relatively low, and when it does happen, there seems to be some valid reasons. SIEQ has never been disciplined. My liberal, intellectual professor friend has never been disciplined, and is in fact moving up the ladder of church leadership. Michael Quinn = disciplined. Lavina Anderson = disciplined. I've also made this point before, but I don't like the definition of intellectual in this instance. Intellectual as defined by the intellectuals is an extremely narrow group of history/liberal arts doctorates, but not just all said doctorates, you also have to have a non-mainstream bent, and an interest in controversial topics. That's an extremely small group and defining such a group and then going to the victimization card because not enough of you are GA's or stake presidents or whatever just doesn't sway my sympathies in your direction. I'm definitely not an enemy to intellectuals, though. I'm all for discussion and learning. Just keep the whining down.