New Order Mormon

(A New Hope)
It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:31 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:15 pm
Posts: 578
http://m.guardiannews.com/media/2012/ma ... -complaint

And the church filed a complaint that Jeff was "ambushed." (See link)

I remember reading a post somewhere about this ambush that was so great. Basically the author listed a bunch of ancient prophets and apostles who bravely testified of their belief and of gods word in the face of impending peril, like Samuel the lamanite on the city wall, abinidi in chains in the court of king Noah, Nephi shocking his brothers who dared mock him, etc and on and on, yet here a modern day apostle was ambushed in his own office by a single reporter from across the pond.

_________________
No success in the family can compensate for failure in the church. - Hagoth


Last edited by Wondering2myZelph on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:00 pm
Posts: 6875
Location: Ground Zero
troff wrote:
While the Mormon church as a whole is not a cult, although it may be cult-like, some wards and stakes certainly are.

And the missionary program pegs the cult meter. Try taking that goodcultbadcult survey from a missionary's perspective.

_________________
“Be excellent to each other." - Bill & Ted

Peck's Dilemma: We are all inside a box. The instructions for getting out of the box are written on the outside of the box.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:00 am
Posts: 2428
Location: Canada
Wow, I didn't realize it was an ambush. How exciting!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:14 am
Posts: 554
Location: Michigan
Past Intrigue wrote:
Wow, I didn't realize it was an ambush. How exciting!

Don't you know that confronting any church representative with uncomfortable facts is clearly anti-mormon, unfair, and a cheap shot?

_________________
I want the idea that questions can be feared because of the answers they might produce to baffle my kids.

-- Dale McGowan in Raising Freethinkers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:27 pm
Posts: 4516
Location: In your head... and maybe under your skin.
From Despair to Hope wrote:
Past Intrigue wrote:
Wow, I didn't realize it was an ambush. How exciting!

Don't you know that confronting any church representative with uncomfortable facts is clearly anti-mormon, unfair, and a cheap shot?



...And this little bear cried "boo-hoo, I'm not a dodo. He ambushed me. It's not fair!" and ran all the way home. The end.

_________________
- Hermey

Never sacrifice who you are because someone else has a problem with it.

People don't have a faith problem, the church has a truth problem, and all the "StayLDS" in the world isn't going to change that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:44 pm
Posts: 1093
Location: San Jose, CA
From Despair to Hope wrote:
Past Intrigue wrote:
Wow, I didn't realize it was an ambush. How exciting!

Don't you know that confronting any church representative with uncomfortable facts is clearly anti-mormon, unfair, and a cheap shot?


How were they able to ambush him in his own office at his own job and he was notified in advance about the interview? :roll:

_________________
Everything the apologists write/say is unofficial, the church doesn't stand behind it so you have to ask yourself why do we have to accept this if the leaders of the church aren't prepared to stand behind it, even when they are paying the salaries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:25 pm
Posts: 611
Wondering2myZelph wrote:
http://m.guardiannews.com/media/2012/mar/27/bbc-mormon-prs-complaint

And the church filed a complaint that Jeff was "ambushed." (See link)

I remember reading a post somewhere about this ambush that was so great. Basically the author listed a bunch of ancient prophets and apostles who bravely testified of their belief and of gods word in the face of impending peril, like Samuel the lamanite on the city wall, abinidi in chains in the court of king Noah, Nephi shocking his brothers who dared mock him, etc and on and on, yet here a modern day apostle was ambushed in his own office by a single reporter from across the pond.



Hilarious! And very true. Somehow I doubt that Elder Holland's encounter with the scary journalist will end up in any book of scripture the way Alma and Zeezrom's classic confrontation did. Guess they just don't make prophets and apostles like they used to.

_________________
Find the purest place in your heart and spend as much time there as you can...let it ever guide your actions, for you will find that when you act with kindness and compassion you will be right far more often than you are wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm
Posts: 1221
My impression was that Elder Holland was kind of irritated with the questions that were being asked. The Q15 don't really have time to do any interviews that aren't advertisements or promotions for the Church.

When it comes to criticism, I notice that TBMs can dish it out, but they can't take it. Many TBMs have no reservations about all kinds of name-calling and nastiness towards other groups like J-Dubs and Democrats, but they consider a direct and factually accurate question about the Book of Abraham to be "anti-Mormon."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:26 am
Posts: 640
Apparently the "ambush" accusation was that Sweeney had sent one list of 'friendly' questions to get the interview but then switched to negative questions.

Holland would have known that to ask for the cameras to be turned off or refuse a question would have made him look far worse and so answered the questions, but badly.

He was clearly badly briefed and I'm guessing their PR team didn't do their research.

The awkwardness of the responses is still uncomfortable to watch, but he was almost certainly caught off guard on topics he rarely thinks about or discusses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:52 pm
Posts: 1891
mackay11 wrote:
Apparently the "ambush" accusation was that Sweeney had sent one list of 'friendly' questions to get the interview but then switched to negative questions.

Holland would have known that to ask for the cameras to be turned off or refuse a question would have made him look far worse and so answered the questions, but badly.

He was clearly badly briefed and I'm guessing their PR team didn't do their research.

The awkwardness of the responses is still uncomfortable to watch, but he was almost certainly caught off guard on topics he rarely thinks about or discusses.


Really this is only uncomfortable because of the cogdis implications of a prophet, seer, and revelator being caught off guard in a way that would negatively impact the church. Really this is a wonderful faith promoting story in embryo, where he gets asked these difficult questions, sort of like BH Roberts and the Thanksgiving Psalm, if I have that story straight, and the Holy Spirit just puts the words in his mouth. In a sense you could almost see this as God pointing out the limits of a) restored authority, and b) the Holy Ghost, which will not always work like magic to get you out of a bad situation. If the church just lowered the pedestal on which these guys stand a little this wouldn't be so bad.

_________________
Chronicling my journey out of the Mormon mainstream
Latest post -- Epilogue
http://the-fork.blogspot.com/
My latest journey: prostate cancer survivor
http://rmdixon.livejournal.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 4081
He is dishonest in this interview when talking about the SMC, and comes off very bad. Was really disheartening for me, as I'd like to believe the folks in COB are good people, but misguided. But interviews like this make it hard to believe that. Unfortunately, this will be the last interview that the GA's do that isn't heavily controlled. Unfortunately the folks at COB will move towards less transparency, and everyone will lose.

It would be great to have members of the first presidency sit down and take tough questions in depth. And face them head on like Alma. Bring it on! But, what do they have to gain from this? Nothing. So it will never happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:05 pm
Posts: 350
mackay11 wrote:
Apparently the "ambush" accusation was that Sweeney had sent one list of 'friendly' questions to get the interview but then switched to negative questions.
Where did you read this?

_________________
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. - Bertrand Russell

NOM Spouse: PavilionSeeker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:52 pm
Posts: 1891
AndyD wrote:
It would be great to have members of the first presidency sit down and take tough questions in depth. And face them head on like Alma. Bring it on! But, what do they have to gain from this? Nothing. So it will never happen.


It's always interesting to me that we will send young missionaries out to stand on soapboxes in city parks, but apostles have to hide behind PR representatives who issue these legalistic things that mean one thing to one group and another thing to another group and ultimately leave the leaders totally unaccountable. If something wrong is said in a PR release the PR guy can just be thrown right under the bus, because they have no real authority.

Why is Otterson writing in the Washington Post and not Holland, Bednar, Uchtdorf, etc..

_________________
Chronicling my journey out of the Mormon mainstream
Latest post -- Epilogue
http://the-fork.blogspot.com/
My latest journey: prostate cancer survivor
http://rmdixon.livejournal.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 4081
ChristFollower wrote:
AndyD wrote:
It would be great to have members of the first presidency sit down and take tough questions in depth. And face them head on like Alma. Bring it on! But, what do they have to gain from this? Nothing. So it will never happen.


It's always interesting to me that we will send young missionaries out to stand on soapboxes in city parks, but apostles have to hide behind PR representatives who issue these legalistic things that mean one thing to one group and another thing to another group and ultimately leave the leaders totally unaccountable. If something wrong is said in a PR release the PR guy can just be thrown right under the bus, because they have no real authority.

Why is Otterson writing in the Washington Post and not Holland, Bednar, Uchtdorf, etc..


great point! The are afraid of being held to any statement. better to just be nebulous. missionaries have the balls to stand up and take criticism, but our modern prophets lack those cajones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:26 am
Posts: 640
dontknow wrote:
mackay11 wrote:
Apparently the "ambush" accusation was that Sweeney had sent one list of 'friendly' questions to get the interview but then switched to negative questions.
Where did you read this?


UK church grapevine. It became quite the topic of conversation for the corridors for a while. I've tried to see if I could find an online reference, but it appears that it might have been UK church chinese whispers.

Clearly an accusation by church PR of an ambush is daft, given he's in the office, so the ambush may refer to the change in questions.

The article quoted above says:

Quote:
The letter complained about an interview which Sweeney conducted with Mormon apostle Elder Jeffrey Holland, which the church claims was "an ambush" according to a BBC source.

Sweeney, who once had a very public spat with the Church of Scientology over two Panorama programmes he has made , disputes these claims, insisting that Elder Holland was fully briefed about who he was and what he wanted to talk about.


Given the reaction of Elder Holland, I'd be very surprised if the 'full brief' was about throat slitting and the committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:19 pm
Posts: 167
Location: Bay Area, CA
Not to derail, but what is the committee talked about in the interview? I've never heard of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:52 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 1800
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
tlynn wrote:
Not to derail, but what is the committee talked about in the interview? I've never heard of it.

Strengthening the Members Committee. Our own little KGB. If someone is getting too much publicity that throws the church in a bad light, this committee writes a letter to their Stake Presidency. If the person continues with their actions, the committee lets your local hierarchy know that it's time for the ol' Court of Love bit.

River

_________________
Kate Kelly is my granddaughters' hero. They don't know it yet. But I do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:05 pm
Posts: 350
River Morgan wrote:
tlynn wrote:
Not to derail, but what is the committee talked about in the interview? I've never heard of it.

Strengthening the Members Committee. Our own little KGB. If someone is getting too much publicity that throws the church in a bad light, this committee writes a letter to their Stake Presidency. If the person continues with their actions, the committee lets your local hierarchy know that it's time for the ol' Court of Love bit.

River
A little more info about it can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

_________________
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. - Bertrand Russell

NOM Spouse: PavilionSeeker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:19 pm
Posts: 167
Location: Bay Area, CA
Thank you both!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 68
Sheesh reading about that committee is creepy.

I'm going to venture and guess they are lurkers here on the boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: River Morgan and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!