Mormon testifies against prop 8, refuses to stop, mic is cut.

[cowboy]

What is: "Ezra Taft Benson's first uttered prayer."

Sorry Hans, the correct answer was "Bishop Tex speaking to his councilors, Snipe and Freddie Cougar in PEC." Do you want to try for double jeopardy where the stakes are really high?

[SloanHater]

I never claimed it was a horrible injustice. I said it was interesting. The topic of dissent merits discussion.

Citing parallels between Church policy and public policy is a confusing approach. There have been plenty of instances wherein Church policy mirrored public policy and both policies have been wrong. Also, in the case of dissent, there are plenty of places to protest publicly without getting your microphone shut off, so I am not even sure Church "policy" mirrors public "policy." Actually, what do you even mean by that? To what public policy are you referring? You have used that term twice in this thread.

The same thing would have happened if he went to a City Council Meeting and testified of the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

I wouldn't consider a City Council anti-Mormon if they cut the mic in the middle of my 20 minute testimony on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. They simply have a policy in place to keep the meeting on schedule and on topic.

How absurd of the Church to have a similar policy!

Just for the record, our bishop politely interrupted someone last year as they began to 'testify' of Romney's candidacy and the need for members to support him. It's just too bad I didn't have my camcorder ready or we could be overgeneralizing how the Church is pro-Democrat.

[RobinFinderson]

Hey, if someone wants to dissent in testimony meeting I don't really care. I just don't think it's the right place to do it, but that's my opinion. As I see it, the goal of the meeting (and pretty much for church in general) is for people to sit around and affirm each others' beliefs. If someone isn't willing to do this, or at least sit quietly and play along, he/she should just avoid going. It's not the dissenters' church: the leadership doesn't really care about dissenters' opinions. When I"m at my in-laws house, I live by their rules. Same goes for when I'm in a chapel. I play by their rules. And their rules are "don't disrupt."

I thought this particular episode was selfish because the guy was reading his speech and had arranged a camera. Seems stunty to me, at the expense of people who wanted to be affirmed.

Actually, no one knows if the person arranged for the recording. Maybe someone knew what he was going to do and decided to record it independent of him. Everyone is just guessing on this point.

Next, in the New Testiment, doesn't Christ or Paul refer to the members of the church as the body of Christ? The church IS your house. It isn't your inlaws house. You are a member of the church just like President Monson is a member of the church. You both have different callings, and different authority over the course the church might take in the future, but neither of you 'owns' the church. This fellow was not at his inlaws home. He was in his own spiritual home following the promptings of the spirit, exactly as he had been taught to do for more than forty years.

[Solon]

Actually, no one knows if the person arranged for the recording. Maybe someone knew what he was going to do and decided to record it independent of him. Everyone is just guessing on this point.

Next, in the New Testiment, doesn't Christ or Paul refer to the members of the church as the body of Christ? The church IS your house. It isn't your inlaws house. You are a member of the church just like President Monson is a member of the church. You both have different callings, and different authority over the course the church might take in the future, but neither of you 'owns' the church. This fellow was not at his inlaws home. He was in his own spiritual home following the promptings of the spirit, exactly as he had been taught to do for more than forty years.

I used to feel this way. Not anymore. I feel no ownership or membership in the church (although I'm still technically a member). As a result, I feel neither responsibility nor tacit approval of LDS policies. Everybody wins this way: I keep my sanity. The church loses a dissenter.

As a friend of mine says, the LDS church wants your money, your time, and your silence. I'm unwilling to give all three.

[TripletDaddy]

I wouldn't consider a City Council anti-Mormon if they cut the mic in the middle of my 20 minute testimony on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. They simply have a policy in place to keep the meeting on schedule and on topic.

How absurd of the Church to have a similar policy!

Just for the record, our bishop politely interrupted someone last year as they began to 'testify' of Romney's candidacy and the need for members to support him. It's just too bad I didn't have my camcorder ready or we could be overgeneralizing how the Church is pro-Democrat.

lol. is that what you meant by "public policy?" Whether a city council member would allow you to speak for 20 minutes at a meeting instead of 10 minutes? That is an impressive mastery of civics you have there.

This lesson in Government brought to you by SloanHater.

Next week's "public policy" discussion: what sort of refreshments should be served at city council meetings?

[Moliere]

That is my observation. I think the majority in this thread are saying that F&T is for the sharing of mainstream thoughts that do not counter Church policy. They are not for the sharing of thoughts that counter what we are taught from the pulpit. So, after all is said and done, we all seem to be saying the same thing: the Church doesn't really have a forum for open dissent.

I disagree having been in sunday school and elder's quorum for quite a while. I've heard many a dissenting opinion during both meetings. I guess the only problem there is you only have 1/8 of the ward in either meeting since others are either teaching other classes or hanging out in the foyer.

Sacrament meeting is a different animal altogether. It's a worship service and thoughts and testimonies should be kept more to church doctrine. It's not a public forum for dissention although it is used routinely as such.

[SloanHater]

lol. is that what you meant by "public policy?" Whether a city council member would allow you to speak for 20 minutes at a meeting instead of 10 minutes? That is an impressive mastery of civics you have there.

This lesson in Government brought to you by SloanHater.

Next week's "public policy" discussion: what sort of refreshments should be served at city council meetings?

Classic Triplet misdirection. Ankle breaker stuff.

[TripletDaddy]

Classic Triplet misdirection. Ankle breaker stuff.

There is no misdirection here. You are totally misusing the term "public policy," so there is no way to respond. I am doing you a favor so you don't use it again in a setting that may cost your job or something important.

If your point was that a city council meeting would not allow someone to testify of the truthfulness of the BoM, or do so for only 10 minutes as opposed to 20 minutes, I would probably agree with you (only probably because I honestly don't know). But that isn't really relevant to the observation I was originally making.

[All-American]

Actually, no one knows if the person arranged for the recording. Maybe someone knew what he was going to do and decided to record it independent of him. Everyone is just guessing on this point.

Next, in the New Testiment, doesn't Christ or Paul refer to the members of the church as the body of Christ? The church IS your house. It isn't your inlaws house. You are a member of the church just like President Monson is a member of the church. You both have different callings, and different authority over the course the church might take in the future, but neither of you 'owns' the church. This fellow was not at his inlaws home. He was in his own spiritual home following the promptings of the spirit, exactly as he had been taught to do for more than forty years.

When the hand punches the balls, the entire body hurts with it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I disagree having been in sunday school and elder's quorum for quite a while. I've heard many a dissenting opinion during both meetings. I guess the only problem there is you only have 1/8 of the ward in either meeting since others are either teaching other classes or hanging out in the foyer.

Sacrament meeting is a different animal altogether. It's a worship service and thoughts and testimonies should be kept more to church doctrine. It's not a public forum for dissention although it is used routinely as such.

I have seen a handful of people in the past year express disagreement with the church stance on prop 8 in SS and priesthood meetings. It wasn't that big of a deal. It would have been a pretty big deal had they done so as part of a testimony.

[scottie]

It would have been a pretty big deal had they done so as part of a testimony.

I wonder if some members in California read this from their scriptures in F&T meeting:

D&C 134:4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;