"Hold my root beer" - the Russell M. Nelson thread

[Sleeping in EQ]

I don't think he's cynical either; and there is value in dwelling on it a little. It's a personal pet peeve of mine that I've inherited from my father, maybe it should move to that thread .

I'm glad they are changing some focus, but the line "Church leaders don’t know where these practices began..." is disingenuous. However that appears to be the characterization of the author of the article and not a direct quote from Elder Ballard. I'm curious as to what prompted that specific phrasing.

It doesn't take too much searching to find some gems like this.











This quote is from 1975, dwelling on it a little might help us stop repeating the same mistakes. Continually setting the expectations so high and blaming the lack of results on faithlessness is counterproductive.

Indeed.

[tooblue]

The church announces that they are making a specific effort to reduce emphasis on numbers. So rather than celebrate that positive change, our primary response is being upset that they aren't sufficiently apologetic and forthright about past practices?

What a time to be alive.

Indeed, especially coming from individuals who appear ardently opposed to the very idea of social justice and reparations etc.

[BigPiney]

The church announces that they are making a specific effort to reduce emphasis on numbers. So rather than celebrate that positive change, our primary response is being upset that they aren't sufficiently apologetic and forthright about past practices?

What a time to be alive.

I think it is great. I just call bullshit on the "we don't know where this came from" line. They leave that out and you don't have everyone giving examples of where it came from.

[swampfrog]

The church announces that they are making a specific effort to reduce emphasis on numbers. So rather than celebrate that positive change, our primary response is being upset that they aren't sufficiently apologetic and forthright about past practices?

What a time to be alive.

As an engineer, I'm a root cause guy. Institutional learning is fascinating to me. This has happened before. It was believed to be fixed, but the institution went down the same path again. How is that prevented? I don't have any expectation or need for an apology. How I deal with my experience is on me. I understand the guilty pleasure of victimhood is not an answer.

However, this line in the original article is significant:

Such a culture can ultimately hurt the faith of the missionaries who may return home feeling guilty for their actions in this regard.

Some missionaries bought into it, some didn't. But potential guilt exists either way. Lasater came with fire and brimstone as the consequences of non-compliance. It's the type of guilt with long term and far reaching implications. What is that best path to mitigate the unnecessary guilt? What is the responsibility of the institution? What is the personal responsibility? These aren't simple cut and dry questions.

[Bo Diddley]

As an engineer, I'm a root cause guy. Institutional learning is fascinating to me. This has happened before. It was believed to be fixed, but the institution went down the same path again. How is that prevented? I don't have any expectation or need for an apology. How I deal with my experience is on me. I understand the guilty pleasure of victimhood is not an answer.

Maybe I missed my calling in life, because this is how I'm wired as well.

[Green Monstah]

The church announces that they are making a specific effort to reduce emphasis on numbers. So rather than celebrate that positive change, our primary response is being upset that they aren't sufficiently apologetic and forthright about past practices?

What a time to be alive.

I think everyone is happy with the decision. But as a sidenote, it's weird that Elder Ballard felt the need to be defensive and exculpate the church for a phenomenon it was fully aware of and codified in the 1986-2005 Missionary Discussions. Don't you think that's weird?

[tooblue]

As an engineer, I'm a root cause guy. Institutional learning is fascinating to me. This has happened before. It was believed to be fixed, but the institution went down the same path again. How is that prevented? I don't have any expectation or need for an apology. How I deal with my experience is on me. I understand the guilty pleasure of victimhood is not an answer.

However, this line in the original article is significant:



Some missionaries bought into it, some didn't. But potential guilt exists either way. Lasater came with fire and brimstone as the consequences of non-compliance. It's the type of guilt with long term and far reaching implications. What is that best path to mitigate the unnecessary guilt? What is the responsibility of the institution? What is the personal responsibility? These aren't simple cut and dry questions.

But what exactly is unnecessary guilt? It sure would be nice to quantify and eliminate it. But as you state "these aren't simple cut and dry questions."

There is no mechanism available to mitigate how any individual might react to any given situation. Guilt is a deeply personal emotional reaction, and it is perilous—as we read in other threads on this site, where there are links posted to research centred on the inefficacy of trigger warnings—to summarily state in can be done, and it's only a matter of learning from our past that will make that happen.

Isn't the statement a clear indication that there are concerted attempts to learn from the past, and should we not praise the efforts in place of lamenting how quickly and effectively it is being learned. What is really being asked is for a change in human nature to occur, and quite evidently and in fairness to all of the human individuals involved, that takes time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think everyone is happy with the decision. But as a sidenote, it's weird that whoever approved this press release felt the need to be defensive and exculpate the church for a phenomenon it was fully aware of and codified in the 1986-2005 Missionary Discussions. Don't you think that's weird?

Kind of weird, but aren't we talking about one line in the article? Could it be that this was an unrehearsed statement by Ballard and not some overt strategy by the church? Is it that big of a deal?

[Green Monstah]

Kind of weird, but aren't we talking about one line in the article? Could it be that this was an unrehearsed statement by Ballard and not some overt strategy by the church? Is it that big of a deal?

No, but it seems like there is often some sort of exculpatory statement when the church changes course. The people I respect most professionally take risks and own those risks--whether the outcome is good or bad. When the church goes out of its way to make it clear that its hands are clean when they're not (and they're most certainly not innocent in this instance), it erodes the church's credibility and reminds me of that asshole fingerpointer in the company. Everyone hates that guy.

[tooblue]

No, but it seems like there is often some sort of exculpatory statement when the church changes course. The people I respect most professionally take risks and own those risks--whether the outcome is good or bad. When the church goes out of its way to make it clear that its hands are clean when they're not (and they're most certainly not innocent in this instance), it erodes the church's credibility and reminds me of that asshole fingerpointer in the company. Everyone hates that guy.

Your statement overall is a leap, but can ask: isn't that exactly what you are asking for—someone to point a finger at ... are you not in fact a finger pointer here on this subject?

[creekster]

Kind of weird, but aren't we talking about one line in the article? Could it be that this was an unrehearsed statement by Ballard and not some overt strategy by the church? Is it that big of a deal?

It isnt that big of a deal, in my mind, but it does seem to interest people here and, tbh, it is hard for me to believe that the church, as an organization, was wholly unaware of the implementation of the specific policies in question. OTOH, I am not sure that this is the church being disingenuous as much as it is the leadership saying there is no basis to condemn anyone for this; it sort of happened and developed out of well-intended purposes, which are listed. The church prefers the focus be on the change and not the blame, which is obviously the more helpful and healthy way to look at this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It isnt that big of a deal, in my mind, but it does seem to interest people here and, tbh, it is hard for me to believe that the church, as an organization, was wholly unaware of the implementation of the specific policies in question. OTOH, I am not sure that this is the church being disingenuous as much as it is the leadership saying there is no basis to condemn anyone for this; it sort of happened and developed out of well-intended purposes, which are listed. The church prefers the focus be on the change and not the blame, which is obviously the more helpful and healthy way to look at this.

Yeah, that seems reasonable.

[creekster]

No, but it seems like there is often some sort of exculpatory statement when the church changes course. The people I respect most professionally take risks and own those risks--whether the outcome is good or bad. When the church goes out of its way to make it clear that its hands are clean when they're not (and they're most certainly not innocent in this instance), it erodes the church's credibility and reminds me of that asshole fingerpointer in the company. Everyone hates that guy.

But the church is in a tough spot here. If they ignore the genesis of the policies they will be condemned for tacitly coneding prior error. If they state that the church officially adopted these policies (if this is true, which i do not believe to be the case; I think they were implemented at a middle management level, if you will) then opponents will claim it is proof that the church erred and is not led by God. If they deny the adoption of these policies at all, they will not be able to move forward in a positive direction and they will be faced with a torrent of people who experienced it at some point, like what happened here but times 1000. So they admit the policies should not be implemented; they recognize the good intentions but also the negative consequences, and they chart a course forward. They acknowledge the fact that there is responsibility, but truthfully say they dont know how it all started. There is no benefit to be derived from any further exegesis of that point, so they dont do it.

[Green Monstah]

Your statement overall is a leap, but can ask: isn't that exactly what you are asking for—someone to point a finger at ... are you not in fact a finger pointer here on this subject?

I think you're equivocating. "Finger Pointer" in the context of my statement is someone who is clearly at fault, but deflects blame to others. "Finger Pointer" in your statement: "Anyone who identifies the person who is actually at fault."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Spoiler alert: This practice is going to continue to pop up from time to time in the future. Human nature.