That’s hilarious! Those are some of our staples as bloggers, aren’t they? Of course, if their goal is to avoid um, “contention”, we’ve probably proved that it’s a good idea.
I just learned yesterday that a women’s discussion group in my ward was cancelled at the request of stake leaders. To say the least, I’m offended (and perhaps worried enough to start commenting anonymously). But the question came up, how soon will this blog be suspended as well? No way, I said, who has the authority to do that? Easy enough – leader calls you in, asks you to stop, and then effectively creates a new organization acting against the church. Now, if this happened, I would follow my leaders, because I was taught to, and because I believe my HF would want me to. And I understand that different leaders would react in different ways. But I just don’t get the squashing of discussion. Shouldn’t we be strong enough to work these things out in our mind? Shouldn’t they trust us to get to the right conclusion. Shouldn’t we be able to flesh these things out with others? In the case of the women’s group, which simply discussed women’s roles, do they not trust us to come to the right conclusion? Do they not know that we need to be able to bond, to get familiar with each other, to talk about these things and understand them?
I just don’t get it.
Discussion groups have been discouraged for more than ten years, in large part because of the results of some such discusion groups. For instance, I remember around the time the counsel came down, a large number of people in Manti were excommunicated for performing temple ordinances and such in their homes. From what I recall, that all started as a study group. Church leaders are legitimately concerned about apostasy. There is no need to be concerned about public discussion, blogging or the like if one is not acting against the church or its doctrines. I don’t really see the need to be concerned, unless one’s opinions don’t square with church doctrines and teachings.
As the other cougarboard habitue besides you, Gordon, I have to say that I appreciate the rule. I go there to revel in sports. If I want a fistfight, I can provoke one here.
That’s hilarious! Those are some of our staples as bloggers, aren’t they? Of course, if their goal is to avoid um, “contention”, we’ve probably proved that it’s a good idea.
I just learned yesterday that a women’s discussion group in my ward was cancelled at the request of stake leaders. To say the least, I’m offended (and perhaps worried enough to start commenting anonymously). But the question came up, how soon will this blog be suspended as well? No way, I said, who has the authority to do that? Easy enough – leader calls you in, asks you to stop, and then effectively creates a new organization acting against the church. Now, if this happened, I would follow my leaders, because I was taught to, and because I believe my HF would want me to. And I understand that different leaders would react in different ways. But I just don’t get the squashing of discussion. Shouldn’t we be strong enough to work these things out in our mind? Shouldn’t they trust us to get to the right conclusion. Shouldn’t we be able to flesh these things out with others? In the case of the women’s group, which simply discussed women’s roles, do they not trust us to come to the right conclusion? Do they not know that we need to be able to bond, to get familiar with each other, to talk about these things and understand them?
I just don’t get it.
Discussion groups have been discouraged for more than ten years, in large part because of the results of some such discusion groups. For instance, I remember around the time the counsel came down, a large number of people in Manti were excommunicated for performing temple ordinances and such in their homes. From what I recall, that all started as a study group. Church leaders are legitimately concerned about apostasy. There is no need to be concerned about public discussion, blogging or the like if one is not acting against the church or its doctrines. I don’t really see the need to be concerned, unless one’s opinions don’t square with church doctrines and teachings.
As the other cougarboard habitue besides you, Gordon, I have to say that I appreciate the rule. I go there to revel in sports. If I want a fistfight, I can provoke one here.