The Correlation Committee strikes again

[Northwestcoug]

So, I finally got around to actually reading the article with which this picture appeared. Turns out they couldn't just use another picture of Jesus. The crazy thing? The first paragraphs of the article are about this painting and the author viewing it with his family in Denmark. Amazing that they would alter an artwork about which the author is gushing.

So I looked at the article. Turns out the author, David L. Frischknecht, was or is the managing director of the curriculum department. I think it's likely that a member of the curriculum department would look at the finished copy of the article he wrote for a magazine from his department. If he did, did he give his approval to the picture? Because that would be supremely lame.

If he didn't see it beforehand, he must have seen it after printing. I doubt someone in the curriculum department would make enough fuss to ask for a correction (you know, their job involves nourishing members' tender faith). But I hope it would be personally embarrassing to him if he didn't see the edited picture beforehand.

[ERCougar]

FIFY

Hmm...so people leave the church because they won't help others?

[Jacob]

If people treated your religion posts the same way you treat theirs (your gross misuse of "confirmation bias" comes immediately to mind...), this board would get lame pretty quickly.

I'm interested to know how you think I misused confirmation bias. for 1 thing that post was intended to be humorous.
but also interested in what you found so objectionable about my post here which agreed with the post I replied to.

[Indy Coug]

Members leave the church because they don't care enough about members in need and are concerned about the wrong spiritual things. Is that about right?
Specific examples?

OK, here's an example. There is a recent convert in our ward. She is a single mother of humble means with a young daughter to care for. The active members in our ward are mostly well-to-do and are two parent homes.

She started becoming less active because she saw herself as hopelessly "inferior" to the members in church because of her struggles in life and mistakenly believing that everyone else at church were perfect and didn't have the problems she did.

She and my wife were assigned to be VT companions. As she starting visiting other members, both active and otherwise, she began to see that they shared many of the same struggles she has. Once she saw she had more in common with members of the ward, it made attending church a more comfortable experience.

She attends Gospel Principles, which is a smaller class, which allows a lot of good discussion and sharing of personal experiences and struggles. But most importantly, by attending church she is learning about how the Atonement is the great equalizer when we fall short of where we want to be.

So a combination of serving others and others serving her has helped strengthen her so now being in the church is a help instead of a hindrance. This came about by focusing on the core princples of love, service, faith, forgiveness and repentence, not by obsessing about her faults, the faults of others or the faults of the institution to which they all belong.

[The Rambam]

Wow. Based on this response, you are the crazy one. What a bunch of hyperbolic drivel.

I could formulate a point by point response to your post but I'm going to save a lot of time and just say that you are batting 0.000 with everything you've said here.

You won't because you can't. The Church screwed up. It is a big deal. You are in knee-jerk reaction mode, defending even this stupidity. If you didn't just hit the same note all the time, you would have greater credibility. (That can probably be said for me too, but it doesn't make it less true for you. And this time, my note is dead-on.)

[The Rambam]

OK, here's an example. There is a recent convert in our ward. She is a single mother of humble means with a young daughter to care for. The active members in our ward are mostly well-to-do and are two parent homes.

She started becoming less active because she saw herself as hopelessly "inferior" to the members in church because of her struggles in life and mistakenly believing that everyone else at church were perfect and didn't have the problems she did.

She and my wife were assigned to be VT companions. As she starting visiting other members, both active and otherwise, she began to see that they shared many of the same struggles she has. Once she saw she had more in common with members of the ward, it made attending church a more comfortable experience.

She attends Gospel Principles, which is a smaller class, which allows a lot of good discussion and sharing of personal experiences and struggles. But most importantly, by attending church she is learning about how the Atonement is the great equalizer when we fall short of where we want to be.

So a combination of serving others and others serving her has helped strengthen her so now being in the church is a help instead of a hindrance. This came about by focusing on the core princples of love, service, faith, forgiveness and repentence, not by obsessing about her faults, the faults of others or the faults of the institution to which they all belong.

One would expect the person who wrote the story above to agree that when the Church did things that distracted from love, service, faith, forgiveness and repentance they should apologize and go back to doing things that didn't distract from love, service, faith, forgiveness and repentance.

Instead, you advise the Church to pridefully pretend the distraction didn't happen, and advise the members to ignore the distraction. And you blame those who are distracted for being distracted--as if the distraction is their fault.

[Indy Coug]

You are in knee-jerk reaction mode, defending even this stupidity.

The knee-jerking is coming from you. You make a whole series of comments that completely misrepresent my attitude towards a large number of items.

As for my "defense", it comprises of

1. Saying they should have never used the picture to begin with if they felt compelled to change it (see page 1 of this thread)

2. Saying that the hand wringing as best represented in your hysterical diatribes is not commensurate with the offense

Neither of which says the church was right to do what it did.

[Sullyute]

If you didn't just hit the same note all the time, you would have greater credibility. (That can probably be said for me too, but it doesn't make it less true for you. And this time, my note is dead-on.)

I just hope that neither of you are hitting those notes on a "one hole finger flute"*

*copywrite protected by Rambam,(c) 2012

[The Rambam]

The knee-jerking is coming from you. You make a whole series of comments that completely misrepresent my attitude towards a large number of items.

As for my "defense", it comprises of

1. Saying they should have never used the picture to begin with if they felt compelled to change it (see page 1 of this thread)

2. Saying that the hand wringing as best represented in your hysterical diatribes is not commensurate with the offense

Neither of which says the church was right to do what it did.

You just can't quite bring your self to say it. Come on, it will feel good. Say it. They were wrong, they screwed up. I'll admit it next time I think they got it right.

And I continue to be amazed that you think it is incommensurate to ask for an apology. Can anything but pride be behind the amazing Mormon inability to just say sorry when it is warranted (like now)?

[Jacob]

You just can't quite bring your self to say it. Come on, it will feel good. Say it. They were wrong, they screwed up. I'll admit it next time I think they got it right.

It doesn't seem to matter what he says, you won't accept it.

[Blueintheface]

You just can't quite bring your self to say it. Come on, it will feel good. Say it. They were wrong, they screwed up. I'll admit it next time I think they got it right.

And I continue to be amazed that you think it is incommensurate to ask for an apology. Can anything but pride be behind the amazing Mormon inability to just say sorry when it is warranted (like now)?

That's the heart of it, isn't it; you want Indy to represent the church? I don't get why you can't accept the very deliberate answers he's given you. If you're waiting for an apology from the church, ask the church, not Indy.

[smokymountainrain]

You just can't quite bring your self to say it. Come on, it will feel good. Say it. They were wrong, they screwed up.

You may want to read Indy's #1 one more time.

[The Rambam]

If they are going to be uptight about wings, they should've just chosen a work of art that didn't require any modifications.

Well, I'm shrugging my shoulders. When I take a step back and look at the world around me and all of the issues that it faces, pruning off angel wings and sleeve lengthening is pretty damn meaningless.

The knee-jerking is coming from you [Rambam]. You make a whole series of comments that completely misrepresent my attitude towards a large number of items.

As for my "defense", it comprises of

1. Saying they should have never used the picture to begin with if they felt compelled to change it (see page 1 of this thread)

2. Saying that the hand wringing as best represented in your hysterical diatribes is not commensurate with the offense

Neither of which says the church was right to do what it did.

So the best we get from Indy is an If/Then statement repeated twice and a statement that emphasizing that he has not said the Church was right.

He cannot just say the Church was wrong.

Note that Indy has not said that covering the shoulders was wrong. He has only said that if they believed they should cover the shoulders, then they should have chosen a different painting [ignoring the fact that they couldn't have chosen a different painting because the article is about a spiritual experience a person had in front of the unaltered painting].

It is unclear if Indy is uncomfortable with the sexually dysfunctional obsession with shoulders, the alteration of the art without the artist's permission or the dishonesty of publishing an altered image without disclosing the alteration.

This is the most obtuse admittal of error I have seen in a long time. Hence, my call for a clear statement. Which I know I won't get. Pride prevents it.

[Indy Coug]

If the church was going to publish an article about a specific painting, then they shouldn't have changed the painting. If they couldn't bring themselves to show the painting as-is, they shouldn't have published the damn story.

However, in the grand scheme of things, big fucking deal.

[LA Ute]

If the church was going to publish an article about a specific painting, then they shouldn't have changed the painting. If they couldn't bring themselves to show the painting as-is, they shouldn't have published the damn story.

However, in the grand scheme of things, big fucking deal.

You've now earned Rambam's pity.