The Sins of the Conference, Pt. 2

When Elder Ramirez was initially contacted per Elder Miller's stipulation he cheerfully agreed to have a meeting in the Washington area with himself and three of us present. He then attempted to go back on that agreement, insisting that we could have only one representative present. When we expressed a desire to proceed with the meeting as originally planned and cited reasons for our desire, Elder Ramirez refused to listen, “Please understand that this is our firm position and that we will not deviate from it.” (1)

C) Elder Ramirez wronged us by defaulting on a good-faith agreement.

D) Elder Ramirez wronged us by trying to compel us to accept conditions we had legitimate reasons for finding unacceptable.

The nonnegotiable attitude expressed above was justified by an appeal to Matt 18, “Under the guidelines of Matthew 18, it is clear that any step required to bring reconciliation between two parties should be done in person…we must insist on the need to have a one on one meeting.” (2) This is a faulty interpretation of Matt 18. The text states that the injured party should speak one on one with the offending party. In this situation the conference is not in either role. Since the conference is neither the injured party nor the offending party the stipulation of the text for a one on one meeting is not applicable.

E) Elder Ramirez wronged us (and God) by twisting scripture to his personal convenience.

(1) Email to Sister L dated Sept. 15, 2008, 8:48pm
(2) Ibid