"What did you expect would happen when you made that choice?"

[Suzie]

Question to moderators:

 

My last post was meant to be posted in the thread "Letter from the Office of the First Presidency", I posted my reply here instead by mistake. Can it be moved? Thanks.

[bytor2112]

As the approaching storm looms ever near......maybe, President Brigham Young's rallying cry should be re-instituted:

 

“The Kingdom of God or nothing.”- Brigham Young

[Just_A_Guy]

How asking if they prayed about it equals demanding the Prophet to pray about and then come back and report?. You know, I have the impression (generally speaking) that a lot of members think we should just take an answer and don't ask follow-up questions or that asking them is somehow inappropriate because the First Presidency made a statement.

 

Definitely, I see things very differently and I am very okay with it. As someone who studies and researches history, I am inquisitive by nature. Having said that, regardless of what the Church stated (that it is okay to ask questions), in reality when those questions are asked, members either assume you lack faith, you are perceived as being plainly rebellious or that you think you know more than the Prophet. Really? Asking follow up questions in order to get a better understanding of the issue equals all of that? I really don't understand this mindset.

 

I agree with Backroads.  Even though Kelly went on record pretty early saying she'd never settle for anything less than ordination, OW was theoretically on the "safe side" of the line as long as they stuck to their official aims ("just ask!  That's all we want!") and left some plausible deniability regarding Kelly's personal comments at FMH, TribTalk, MormonStories, and elsewhere.  (I mean, I thought it was bunk, and I didn't think very highly of it; but I could understand why OW's antics up through the last general conference might not be seen as discipline-worthy). 

 

IMHO, the game-changer wasn't the marches on Temple Square.  It wasn't even that Kelly continued to address the issue publicly after Elder Oaks' talk in the last priesthood session.  The game-changer was those six discussions that OW began producing.  They represent a formal change not only in objective, but in tone ("Patriarchy Bingo" as a discussion activity?  Really?).

 

 

I am very cool if others are satisfied with the statements and don't care to ask follow up questions (for whatever reason) and I would hope others feel as cool when others do ask instead of assuming they lack faith or that the answer should be "enough".

 

With all due respect, Suzie (and you should know, that's quite a lot!)--what makes you think we aren't asking questions?

 

Kelly and many of her supporters seem to teach that the process of public questioning--which is eerily similar to naked politicking--is somehow more legitimate than private questioning involving prayer, scripture study, conversations with local leadership, occasional discreet letters to general authorities, and revelation. 

 

For a hundred and eighty four years (excepting only, perhaps, that relatively anarchic first half-decade in the Kirtland period), the Church has uniformly taught the latter method as the most efficacious way to obtain further light and knowledge--not only from the Church, but from God Himself.  Now OW bursts onto the scene telling us that everything we know about how to commune with God and obtain divine truth is invalid--or at least, inferior to a process that looks an awful lot like secularist electioneering.  We're supposed to subjugate our revelation and our life experience, to theirs; and treat the LDS leadership--whom many of us have never, ever regretted following--with even more skepticism and suspicion than we treat demonstrably corrupt politicians, entertainers, and/or academics. 

 

Et tu is, of course, a logical fallacy--except when one side tries to unilaterally claim the moral high ground, which OW has been trying to do lately.  And the simple fact, Suzie, is that OW holds at least as much contempt for orthodox Mormons, as orthodox Mormons hold for it. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree with Backroads.  Even though Kelly went on record pretty early saying she'd never settle for anything less than ordination, OW was theoretically on the "safe side" of the line as long as they stuck to their official aims ("just ask!  That's all we want!") and left some plausible deniability regarding Kelly's personal comments at FMH, TribTalk, MormonStories, and elsewhere.  (I mean, I thought it was bunk, and I didn't think very highly of it; but I could understand why OW's antics up through the last general conference might not be seen as discipline-worthy). 

 

IMHO, the game-changer wasn't the marches on Temple Square.  It wasn't even that Kelly continued to address the issue publicly after Elder Oaks' talk in the last priesthood session.  The game-changer was those six discussions that OW began producing.  They represent a formal change not only in objective, but in tone ("Patriarchy Bingo" as a discussion activity?  Really?).

 

 

With all due respect, Suzie (and you should know, that's quite a lot!)--what makes you think we aren't asking questions?

 

Kelly and many of her supporters seem to teach that the process of public questioning--which is eerily similar to naked politicking--is somehow more legitimate than private questioning involving prayer, scripture study, conversations with local leadership, occasional discreet letters to general authorities, and revelation. 

 

OW may see the orthodoxy's response to its preferred approach as defensiveness and a bunker mentality; but frankly--most of the orthodoxy sees OW's response to their preferred approach as condescending, if not outright contemptuous. 

 

I'll add my thoughts to this. I agree with the second half. I don't agree with the "safe-side" part of OW's prior efforts. The moment they put up a website and recruited they were on dangerous grounds.

 

Asking questions is fine. Subtly turning your questions into preaching under the guise of "we're just asking" is not. Publicly asking questions as a political movement is not.

 

I'll use Zeezrom as an example. He asked questions. That was his method. In response Amulek called him a child of hell and a liar, because he knew that the agenda behind the questions was crafty evil.

 

Using questions to push an agenda may be a subtle work around in an, "I'm not apostatizing" way, but leading people away from gospel truths is leading people away, whatever the method be. If question asking is the method it is not justification against apostasy.