- Mortimer on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “Jonathan Green, I think I pushed a button with my frustration toward the Brethren and, in doing so, changed the tone of the discussion. You came out swinging in defense of the Church. I didn’t intend to create an adversarial dynamic, but I can see how my sharpness contributed. You may feel justified in pushing back against me, but rogerdhansen didn’t deserve that level of dismissal. A BYU graduate, returned missionary, lifelong member who sacrificed for decades brings important perspective to LDS politics or Church issues. Even if inactive/less active, Saints don’t make one singular decision to become inactive. Those who cannot “leave it alone” are still calling to the Church, hoping for change, because they care enough to keep trying. The fact that we’re still here, reading, commenting, and engaging should tell you something. We care, and we have something to say. I hope there’s room on the Bloggernacle for people like Roger and I, even when the perspectives are uncomfortable. And you’re right, criticizing the Church’s priorities comes with consequences. First, it’s a quick way to get excommunicated with no questions asked. Second, it’s socially taboo. Third, the Church waves its humanitarian flag as though that ends the conversation. And fourth, there’s always the implicit, “Who do YOU think YOU ARE to question the great and powerful Oz?”, particularly when you’re a plebeian like Roger or me. (Sorry Rog, you might be LDS royalty, but most of us are rank and file.) But questioning the status quo shouldn’t be taboo. There ought to be some common consent in this Church, and ways for those in the cheap seats to communicate how decisions resonate. Perhaps the Bloggernacle is one of the few places left for that. As for the humanitarian argument, yes, the Church does good work. But spending approximately 10% of its operating resources on humanitarian efforts is eyebrow-raising, particularly given its giant nest egg (this is not news). I think we shouldn’t be so quick to pat ourselves on the back. There have been many conversations here and elsewhere about the defensibly of our humanitarian pride which I won’t rehash now. Surely we can have that conversation without dismissing people as disloyal or unworthy of an opinion.” Nov 9, 11:50
- on Breaking the Auto-Pilot: Brent Yorgason on Alternate Tunes for Familiar Hymns: “Please please please can we sing “I heard the voice of Jesus say” with the time KINGSFOLD.” Nov 9, 04:27
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “If you add up all of the time and resources that go into helping the poor on a ward level — and I mean adding up all the wards — it’s an enormous amount. This is where most of action happens–and it’s mostly a quiet sort of action that doesn’t draw a lot of attention to itself.” Nov 8, 19:41
- on Breaking the Auto-Pilot: Brent Yorgason on Alternate Tunes for Familiar Hymns: “I would love to see that too, Lisa!” Nov 7, 14:22
- on Breaking the Auto-Pilot: Brent Yorgason on Alternate Tunes for Familiar Hymns: “I’m not so much into the idea of using alternate tunes just for the sake of variety, but I’m very much into the idea of using different tunes for some hymns because they’re *better* than the ones we have. I’d also love to see a few of our commonly known tunes paired with different texts…. for example, some of the several more triumphant texts that are usually sung to the tune HYFRYDOL (In Humility Our Savior) or the less controversial texts that are usually paired with KINGSFOLD (If You Could Hie to Kolob(.” Nov 7, 11:14
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: ““You’re right, as a lapsed member, I’m not entitled to a say in Church priorities. But as an apparent active member, neither do you.” Right. Neither lapsed nor current members have a say in church priorities. This is simply the reality. But another reality is that both the church and every individual have to tend to their own needs. Sometimes, those needs converge. Sometimes, they differ. When needs differ, it is okay for an individual to have a priority that differs from the church’s priority. In such a case, I hope the individual will not condemn the church, and that the church will not condemn the individual. Aren’t the individual and the church both allowed to participate in the public square?” Nov 7, 08:27
- on Breaking the Auto-Pilot: Brent Yorgason on Alternate Tunes for Familiar Hymns: “The 1985 Hymn book provides for using alternate tunes but it’s been ignored for 40 years. The Meter appendix shows which hymns can be sung to the same tunes. It makes matching easy. I agree that it would liven our singing.” Nov 6, 23:05
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “All I’m doing is encouraging the Church to do more for the poor, they have the resources both financial and human. You’re right, as a lapsed member, I’m not entitled to a say in Church priorities. But as an apparent active member, neither do you. I would encourage you to at least consider how you (and your blog participants) might do more to help poor members and their neighbors in developing countries. I know I’m trying to.” Nov 6, 22:26
- on Breaking the Auto-Pilot: Brent Yorgason on Alternate Tunes for Familiar Hymns: “Shape notes were a style of notation used in the early United States to make it easier to learn music. They were taught through group lessons that were referred to as “singing schools”. A lot of the early American hymns are associated with them. I should probably edit that, though. Not every person learned the hymn tunes that way. I think it was more with the temples that the Church started singing schools and choirs, but they weren’t necessarily using shape notes. ” Nov 6, 21:06
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “Roger, I’ve been at this for 20 years now. With enough repetition, eventually I remember details. Your international service is laudable, but not every volunteer understands that every organization has to set priorities and work within a budget. I assume you do. An organization can focus on finding a cure for malaria, or for rabies, but not both. Or if it has the budget and capacity for both, it still has to choose those two things instead of an unlimited number of other things. If it doesn’t choose what to focus on, it’s wasting its resources and accomplishing far less than it could. It’s true of budgets, and (to get back to the point of Stephen’s post) it’s true of political activity. You think the Church should change its priorities, and of course you do, because you think everything the Church does is a pointless, meaningless waste of time. That also means that you can only offer cheap criticism: cheap, in the sense that it costs you nothing. You’re evading the work of balancing priorities, or working out compromises with people who prioritize the Church’s missions differently, or supporting people who serve different parts of the organizational mission, or staying informed about what the Church is doing today, or supporting the Church in any way, really. You are (and have always been) invited to take a seat at the table, but it comes with a price that you’re not willing to pay.” Nov 6, 20:15
