Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications

[RockyBalboa]

Apparently the "intellectuals" have to make sure you're being "serious" before they grace you with the privilege of their knowledge.

[Archaea]

One thing I noticed about alternate voicing is the loss of leadership. Oh darn.

It's like my wife pointed out to me about disfellowshipping. You mean you can't hold a calling and you can't pray or give talks. Wah, I want that calling.

[pelagius]

I just wanted to mention the following: I like Indy's comments. I think they are often insightful in both the sports category and the religion category. I think insightful intelligent conservative voices (I definitely think Indy fits in that group) are important in terms of the board vitality. Also, I like SIEQ posts as well. I think he is bright and often brings up very interesting topics.

If I could suggest one thing in general it would be that all of us try to give each other's arguments the most charitable reading possible (sorry if that sounded soap-boxish).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

One thing I noticed about alternate voicing is the loss of leadership. Oh darn.

It's like my wife pointed out to me about disfellowshipping. You mean you can't hold a calling and you can't pray or give talks. Wah, I want that calling.

This is part of the manipulation and the self-victimization, IMHO. Show me the evidence of sincere alternate voicers that are being kept down by the church leadership man.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This is part of the manipulation and the self-victimization, IMHO. Show me the evidence of sincere alternate voicers that are being kept down by the church leadership man.

Okay, Jay, I'll refer you to internal handbook memo from Salt Lake stating, "It has come to our attention that certain individuals reading Sunstone and participating in CougarGuard have shown a lack of faith and commitment. They should hold low level callings as their testimonies cannot be trusted."

How much are you in contact with leadership?

I, as everybody else does, have many friends who are leaders. They look for certain minimal qualifications, and if you are outspoken, don't appear to be one of the group, you will not be considered. It's not a victimization but a realization that you are not longer a company man.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I've never told people to shut up or to conform to my idea of things. I've challenged some people on their viewpoints, and given my rationale for doing so, but isn't that at least in part why you have a discussion forum?

Isn't it ironic that someone who treasures the value of an alternate voice seems so threatened by that?

I wasn't trying to hijack this thread, and if you had given me an answer to my very basic question, this thread would have likely gone off in a better direction. You only have yourself to blame for that.

Your rhetoric is often of the "shut up and conform" variety and you like to derail discussions into the nitpicking of definitions. You don't so much challenge people on their viewpoints as imperiously declare them invalid. You do little more than take pot shots and defend the status quo for its own sake.

I'm not threatened by you (your ego indulgence, though, is highly amusing). I do know your methods and the fact that you have tried to make me out as the bad guy even as you refuse to engage the issues. Though you deny it, you bully people and generally make a stink of things. This exchange with you, which started with your usual bait, is more of the same.

I could ask you why you feel the need to ask for definitions when reading the articles would give you the grist for discussion? How about giving your definition for a change instead of sitting back and acting smug, then playing the victim when you are called on it? The "come hither my darling" question that you inevitably ask is worn out, predictable, and unproductive.

If you would simply read the articles and then engage them you would have little criticism from me. But time after time you don't do that. And yet I'm the bad guy here...interesting.

[Archaea]

thanks for posting the thread; it's been a long time since I last read those talks.

It would be nice if one or two of the apostles could sponsor and meet with groups of persons loyal to the Church to give direction regarding intellectual matters so that we develop a loyal group for the Church.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

thanks for posting the thread; it's been a long time since I last read those talks.

It would be nice if one or two of the apostles could sponsor and meet with groups of persons loyal to the Church to give direction regarding intellectual matters so that we develop a loyal group for the Church.

Something like that could be very beneficial. For one thing, it could weaken the tendency of the 70s and 80s intellectuals and leaders to perpetually reconstruct the bitter dichotomies that were so prevalent during those years. Many (not all) of today's intellectuals in the Church are looking for ways to stay and to be happy while doing it. Elder Oaks understands and values intellectual matters, but he sometimes seems uncomfortable being thought of as the go-to guy in that regard. Consider the three-sentence letter he quietly sent to his old Dialogue colleague.

The Strengthening the Members Committee, which peruses academic publications looking for things to red line and to send to Stake Presidents for potential discipline has helped perpetuate the animosities. How shocking it would be if they green lined some point in somebody's article and let the author know that someone in leadership liked it? The only time intellectuals hear from leaders regarding their work is in negative situations. I'd like to see that change.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Something like that could be very beneficial. For one thing, it could weaken the tendency of the 70s and 80s intellectuals and leaders to perpetually reconstruct the bitter dichotomies that were so prevalent during those years. Many (not all) of today's intellectuals in the Church are looking for ways to stay and to be happy while doing it. Elder Oaks understands and values intellectual matters, but he sometimes seems uncomfortable being thought of as the go-to guy in that regard. Consider the three-sentence letter he quietly sent to his old Dialogue colleague.

The Strengthening the Members Committee, which peruses academic publications looking for things to red line and to send to Stake Presidents for potential discipline has helped perpetuate the animosities. How shocking it would be if they green lined some point in somebody's article and let the author know that someone in leadership liked it? The only time intellectuals here from leaders regarding their work is in negative situations. I'd like to see that change.

Wouldn't that be nice for a change.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

I think you have a point that the so-called "intellectuals" are not always innocent, but the LDS church hierarchy has a reputation for clamping down on perceived renegades. I think the church should be free to defend itself against perceived apostates and detractors, but the element of secrecy and surveillance is disquieting. Church records and archives are basically off-limits. The ominously named "Strengthening the Members Committee" evokes a Big-Brother image. This environment makes it easier to cast the church as bad-guy and scholar as good-guy.

IMO, the church would take a lot of the wind out of these intellectuals' sails if they opened their records and archives to independent researchers and allowed respectable scholars to find and publish what they may; and if they avoided tracking potential malcontents in anticipation of heretical opinions or publications.