To get attention.

If a child is disruptive in class, what does a good teacher do?

Remove him or her from the situation and withdraw attention from the student because public attention is their aim.

"Amy, sit in the isolation desk facing the back wall. Class, do not talk to the disruptive child about this incident. Now who wants to come up and show us how to do this math problem?"

Giving Amy extra attention and showing other children how to get attention for being disruptive is a poor strategy.

The mormon so-called leadership would be smart to withhold attention from disruptive attendees. Lead them out of the setting and send them on their way, quickly, quietly, and without causing a public stir.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2019 05:07PM by Cheryl.

Sometimes it's just the right thing to do.

But of course it wasn't my ox being gored.

Sheer frustration with the cult can do that.

Perhaps because the church asked for a vote in support or opposition. Perhaps because the protestors think the church is a destructive organization.

Society isn't a schoolroom under the control of a benign potentate. There is no rule that one must defer to established authority: in fact, sometimes challenging such authority is a moral duty.

Maybe the church should stop teaching moral duty.

That would be a timely message in today's United States.

encourages them to seek more attention for their cause, be it good or bad.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------
>
> Society isn't a schoolroom under the control of a
> benign potentate. There is no rule that one must
> defer to established authority: in fact,
> sometimes challenging such authority is a moral
> duty.

There is no rule that one must show up for a General Conference of any church, or even be a member of one.

Try standing up and yelling in a courtroom or legislative chamber if you really want to prove your right to challenge established authority.

xxMoo0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no rule that one must show up for a
> General Conference of any church, or even be a
> member of one.

So what?


-----------------
> Try standing up and yelling in a courtroom or
> legislative chamber if you really want to prove
> your right to challenge established authority.

Well, that's irrelevant. I do find it intriguing, though, how you conflate the church with a legitimately elected government.


----------------
Look, democracy and constitutional government aren't for everyone. Those in whom the impulse to obey is so strong can find may places around the world in which unquestioning deference to authority is applauded even more than in the contemporary United States.

Perhaps you should give that some thought.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> > Try standing up and yelling in a courtroom or
> > legislative chamber if you really want to prove
> > your right to challenge established authority.
>
> Well, that's irrelevant. I do find it intriguing,
> though, how you conflate the church with a
> legitimately elected government.

You said there is no rule that one must defer to established authority. I don't recognize the legitimacy of the so-called elected government.

I think personally it is a bad place to publicize a cause, however worthy.

I tend to find a lot of people shut down when confronted with evidence of things they don't agree with, or find frightening.

"The mormon so-called leadership would be smart to withhold attention from disruptive attendees. Lead them out of the setting and send them on their way, quickly, quietly, and without causing a public stir."

Of course they would. But keeping predators and criminals under wraps will do them no favors.

One thing the church is always consistent with is short term solutions. They never take the long view. Kind of funny when they always try to sell you on the idea that those very solutions are all god's ideas. They sure worship a incompetent god.

I think their tactic is to isolate and excise troublemakers. (Typical of many organizations). Sometimes this is counterproductive, since not everyone makes trouble for the sake of it. Sometimes they have a worthy cause, and as you say, in the long run, dealing with embedded problems is a priority.

Here, they're dealing with the women creating a scene, when they should be dealing with the abuse issue. They only need to look at the RC church to see how even the biggest religions can mishandle such an issue. In the long run, many people, especially women and those with children, are losing their trust in TSCC. That's far more serious for them in the long term.

"They only need to look at the RC church to see how even the biggest religions can mishandle such an issue."

The Vatican is an exemplar of how to mismanage a scandal - but I think it is partially a reflection of conservative elements in the RCC that don't want the scandal handled in any way that they might find "inconvenient".

The Vatican are masters of PR in comparison.

Abuse is smaller scale in the LDS but that's just on the basis of membership numbers and reach.

Of course the cause is worthy.

My only point is that if a protester wants attention, giving it to them only encourages them and others to seek attention in the same way.

Is that good or bad. The mormon leaders wouldn't like it but if they feed it, they'll get more of it.

Seems the church will spite itself just to maintain control. It won't avoid giving attention to the issue, despite that like you said, the issue will die quickly if it's not fed. Leads me to think the highest priority motive is sending a clear message to other members to never consider dissenting in such a passionate, overt way. Retention is the biggest priority, based on how the GA's are handling this. It's a sign the stakes are high. If numbers weren't declining and the church wasn't compelled to distance themselves from its roots, I wonder if the church would've taken a quieter, less threatened approach.

Melvin Chatterson stands to shout, "Joseph Smith was a prdophile!"

Church security rushes to him, forcing him to come to the rostrum. When there, the young man delivers a flawless recounting of every point of imperfection that research has uncovered in a hundred years.

He stops speaking only when he is completely finished.

Turning around, he sees that the entire leadership of the faith is asleep, many snoring.

He looks out into the vast hall. Nearly all seem to be awaiting new dirt about something. Anything.

Embarrassed, he walks down and then exits without uttering a word.

A light fixture falls from the ceiling, wakes the organist and the Closing Hymn is begun.

This is not your grandfather's church. This is 2049.

It seems to me you could interchange that for why would someone yell out in any church (pick a denomination,) meeting.

It just isn't done in normal, civilized society.

I have seen people get up on Fast and Testimony Sundays though and tell off a bishop and then storm out of the building, and oddball stuff like that.

Since they aren't the norm or approved, they are typically escorted out of the sanctuary once the initial shock wears off, and the priesthood leaders try to get control over the congregation again.

You never see someone not objecting to someone getting called to an office or calling though. No one has ever objected to my knowledge. They always raise their hands to sustain whoever gets called. There is zero tolerance for any criticism or objection of the decisions by the local lay leaders, period in an open meeting.

There is no room for critical discussion or thoughtful banter either.

Is the woman in question a repeat trespasser and has she personally been issued a no trespass order because of past incidents? It seems really unusual to me to criminally charge a first time offender. I'm thinking there is more to this story.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is the woman in question a repeat trespasser and
> has she personally been issued a no trespass order
> because of past incidents? It seems really
> unusual to me to criminally charge a first time
> offender. I'm thinking there is more to this
> story.

I'm thinking this as well.

We all know that GC isn't open to just anybody, you have to be a "bag of chips" to get tickets. The church limits (or used to) each ward or stake to a certain number and then the leaders are "charged" to only distribute them to worthy/deserving members.

I am just curious as to why the woman wasn't charged right there on a disorder charge after being escorted out of the building. She disrupted the meeting and she should have been charged at the very moment that she was in church custody.

Just speculating, but I think the church didn't press this incident until they were able to get the local DA to agree to go after NNN for his parking lot trespassing charges.

In my last years as a Mormon it took great restraint to keep from yelling out in every meeting, "This is such bull shit!"

LOVE IT!

They haven't been hearing the truth and figure it's about high time!

No one yells out to say they don't want to be heard.

In this case, the person yelling wanted to broadcast information in hope people would listen and check out the facts.

Do demonstrations and outspoken protests always work? Not always, but they are often part of making change happen. We'll see what happens in this case. I wish this woman well.

I'm sympathetic to this cause (as long as it doesn't degenerate into "all men are evil")... but I do not believe these protest methods are effective. Those it is aimed at will close their ears, deny and file under "anti-Mormon". This is their Pavlovian conditioning. There is no way that this behavior can be defended in any context, yet the church refuses to act.

I think a picket outside, along with press coveeage would be better, but Pavlov's dogs would shut that out too. I do think that there are some genuine TBMs who can't square this with the organization, and will be asking questions. I understand it is not always possible to *prevent* predatory behavior, but it is possible to take drastic action when it is detected and proven. So why haven't they?

I agree totally with Cheryl. Which is a first and I’m pretty psyched about that.

Well said, Cheryl.

Cheryl, I hope you know that over the years, 99.9% of the time, you and I have been on the same team.

On the point of disruptive students, I have to disagree. Starting in third or fourth grade, I began making comments like, "We already talked about that, last Thursday. Don't you remember?"

I would not know until well into adulthood that my parents had been called in for a meeting to allow me to skip a grade. I was a behavior problem because I had ZERO tolerance for repetition. I wasn't trying to get attention. I was trying to get the teacher back on track, instead of looping back to territory that we had already covered.

My parents refused the grade-skipping. My mother didn't want me to get the idea that I was "better" than others. So I remained bored with education until university.

I still don't have much patience with repetition, but I probably should. In my encroaching senility, I forget stuff.

There's often nothing wrong with wanting attention.

Too bad someone didn't acknowledge your attempts to solve this problem.

"Seeking attention" is not necessarily a bad thing and it's usually not an end in itself.

And there's nothing wrong with kiddies knowing they're talented or remarkably good at something as you were/are. Your mother seemed to be punishing you for your intellect when she should have been praising you.

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would not know until well into adulthood that my
> parents had been called in for a meeting to allow
> me to skip a grade. I was a behavior problem
> because I had ZERO tolerance for repetition. I
> wasn't trying to get attention. I was trying to
> get the teacher back on track, instead of looping
> back to territory that we had already covered.
>
> My parents refused the grade-skipping. My mother
> didn't want me to get the idea that I was "better"
> than others. So I remained bored with education
> until university.
>
> I still don't have much patience with repetition,
> but I probably should. In my encroaching senility,
> I forget stuff.

Have you taken a Logic course? Or any critical thinking course?

You need not have 'patience' when you have logical reasoning. Have you properly understood the Logical Deduction? You've had time, so what have you done with that time?

Actually, I haven't. I imagine that they had such courses when I was at university, but they weren't part of required course material. As far as I recall, I don't remember anybody I knew taking them as electives, either. I don't know what you mean by "the Logical Deduction." I know what those words mean to me, but I'm not sure what they mean to you.

Anytime that somebody suggests that there is only ONE right answer, I usually start looking for the EXIT sign.

Time? What do I do with Time? Now that I'm retired, I can do the stuff that I couldn't do for the 30 years that I was employed. Mostly, I stay afloat in the sea of books that I didn't have the time to read, before. I love Amazon. Not illegal, immoral, or fattening.

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not illegal,
> immoral, or fattening.

Well, yes. But don't worry. Once your shoulder is feeling better there'll be time for that as well!

The leaders exert an extraordinary amount of control in meetings. They give the rank and file members an impression of infallibility. They are able to place a wall between themselves, their church and the world and the church's detractors.

So when the wall is pierced and you see that they don't control the minds and hearts of everyone in the room, it wipes away the illusion of control.

It also goes against the whole "boat' metaphor the leaders like so much. A boat is a haven in a sea of danger. Someone "yelling out" in the middle of a meeting is water on the deck and a reminder that the boat is small and not as stable as it may seem.

wowza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The leaders exert an extraordinary amount of
> control in meetings. They give the rank and file
> members an impression of infallibility. They are
> able to place a wall between themselves, their
> church and the world and the church's detractors.

THEIR MEETINGS! So why do you give a fuck or presume to dictate how a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT group runs their meetings?

Do you show up at local Mason's meetings? How about board meetings for local corporations? Cuz corporations are notorious for 'rank and file' per the bylaws and statues. Funny how that works.

Cheryl, I agree with you. Just escort the person out of the meeting. People get ejected from private establishments every day -- nightclubs, theaters, etc. What makes a church meeting any different?

If it's a chronic problem, then establish a "no trespassing" order and call upon law enforcement as needed.

She had every right to speak out. Because we all know that if she were to challenge cult leaders, or anyone in the cult, she would have had no result to her efforts. The cult is not used to being challenged in their beliefs. We need to start challenging them and making them feel like the shit that they are.

nolongerangry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She had every right to speak out. Because we all
> know that if she were to challenge cult leaders,
> or anyone in the cult, she would have had no
> result to her efforts. The cult is not used to
> being challenged in their beliefs. We need to
> start challenging them and making them feel like
> the shit that they are.

Every right? According to you? The law states differently. Thankfully! Maybe you can research and educate yourself on the law?


'no result to her efforts'? Huh? Ever see the upteen blogs and vlogs of ex-Mo's? How about this site? How is it that so many have affected change and never threatened violence in SLC General Conference? We have cruises and retreats and gatherings and message boards and all the things.



> We need to start challenging them and making them feel like
> the shit that they are.

LOL! You think they 'feel like shit'?! Ha, ha, ha! You think that any low life like Crystal 'makes' anyone feel anything? You think you or anyone else can 'make' anyone, ever 'feel like shit'?

Take responsibility for your own experience and emotions! Stop blaming!

Be specific. What's your beef?

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be specific. What's your beef?

Clarify your query, Cheryl. This post was not addressed to you.

Or, were you referring to literal beef? As in, Deseret Ranches of Florida, Deseret Cattle and Citrus, Taylor Creek Management, East Central Florida Services, Agreserves, and Farmland Reserve?

Where's the beef? GA's answer that satisfactorily. Every time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2019 10:36PM by carameldreams.