- rogerdhansen on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “Jack I appreciate your continued rosy descriptions of Church activities. But I would need evidence before I’m convinced. My observations over my 81 yrs of limited experience is that you are overstating individual Ward participation in humanitarian efforts. But I think we would both agree that Wards can do more. As could the Church as a whole. Jonathan, I urge all organizations to do more for the poor, whether it be the Church, Rotary, Musk, etc. Helping the poor is well rooted in the NT, in Christ’s teaching. It is also well rooted in the BoM, in King Benjamin’s oration. Church leaders aren’t perfect. Trying to nudge them a certain direction is worth a try. Even if you are an agnostic. Mortimer thx for the support.” Nov 9, 21:17
- on When the Church Takes a Political Position, Election Eve Edition: “Mortimer, thanks for your thoughts, which are definitely worth considering. But – I disagree. I think we should dismiss more opinions. It’s very easy to resolve theological problems by rejecting all the premises – like it’s easy to resolve conflicts between socially conservative Catholics and a liberal pope by telling them to just be Protestants. We get the LDS equivalent of that around here on a lot of topics. It’s easy to make historical or present tensions disappear by deciding that Joseph Smith was a fraud, the Book of Mormon is fake, the Church is false, and the apostles are senile, and all we need to do is accept Jesus as our personal savior or embrace atheism. If that’s all someone has to offer (and in a lot of cases, it is, no matter how they try to dress it up) then I’m not interested in what someone has to say, and I don’t see what value there is in spending any time on it. If someone wants to have a voice in what the Church does or teaches, then they also need to show how the Church is true. If someone thinks polygamy was a mistake, for example, then they need to show how to proceed in faith from there. If they think the Book of Mormon is fiction, then they need to present a theory that allows it to remain as scripture. If they disagree with a decision made by the apostles, then they need to recognize what end that decision serves and suggest a path that doesn’t undermine the apostles’ authority. And for decades, I’ve been watching people fail at this. Maybe it got presented in 2007 as “Here’s this one interesting way the Church could modify its stance on coffee,” but over time it turns into “Clearly the brethren are failing to seek divine guidance about coffee” and then “I now identify as a coffee-drinker rather than a Latter-day Saint.” By their own actions, these people falsified the claim that their original idea was compatible with Church teachings. (But to clarify, it’s not actually easy to get excommunicated for criticizing the Church. These days it takes determined effort over the course of many years.) As for humanitarian aid, I’m not opposed to doing more. But – Whether the Church is saving too much for the future or too little is not a simple question. It’s a complex problem without any simple precedents and massive consequences. Someone who knows more than me has been tasked with studying the problem and making a decision, and I don’t have any obvious grounds to criticize it. No matter what you choose, you still have to live within your budget. So to give more in humanitarian aid means spending less on other things. Build fewer temples? Tell that to people who have to drive 2.5 hours, rather than 4 hours to the second-nearest temple. Support fewer missionaries? Questionable strategy, if you ask me. 10% strikes me as a pretty reasonable amount for an organization that is not primarily focused on humanitarian aid. The point is that the decision should be agonizing, requiring one to prioritize among things that one loves and values, rather than an easy choice for the single thing one likes while the rest can dry up and blow away for all one cares about them.” Nov 9, 18:49
- 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
