There was more that concerned the Group about the course of Elder Ramirez’s communications than just the attitude. If he was willing to make an agreement and then break it, despite being presented with excellent reasons and evidence for maintaining the original agreement, what was there to stop him from doing it again? Further, since he was clearly unwilling to accept any interpretation of facts (let alone scripture) other than his own, we would be at his mercy on decisions regarding satisfaction of whatever “process” the conference mandated.
To put it another way, suppose he said to do “A,” “B,” and “C.” If we completed “A” and “B” but he didn’t like the outcome, he could continue to claim that we hadn’t done them and refuse to let us proceed to “C” until we had repeated them to his satisfaction. He could also come back later and decree that “D” and “E” were also necessary, even though they weren’t in the original agreement. In this way he could drag out the “process” interminably.
Because of these concerns there were many in the Group who felt that it was important not to set the precedent of caving to the conference’s demands. Others in the Group were concerned that the protracted negotiations could be twisted by the conference into “evidence” that the Group was being unreasonable. It was finally decided to give the conference the benefit of the doubt and risk agreeing to their terms in order to move the process forward. Since Elder Ramirez had demonstrated no comprehension of the delicacies of meeting alone with a female it was decided to send Brother G, the third member of the spokesgroup, instead of Sister L.
(September 26, 2008, 8:18am): “We are concerned by your appeal to Matt. 18. Matthew 18:15 says “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone…” According to your previous e-mails, however, this meeting is not to reconcile anything, and I quote, “I have been very clear from the beginning that this meeting is not about the issues, or to determine who is right or wrong, but rather to both agree on a process and procedure to follow.” Since the process of Matt. 18 is specific to “telling faults” and this meeting is not to be about our concerns, Matt 18 really doesn’t apply to this particular meeting.
“We continue to have significant reservations about a one-on-one meeting, but in order to move this process forward we are willing to accept the conference’s request. We are appointing [Brother G] to be our representative...
“It is our understanding that this meeting is in preparation for a formal presentation to the Conference Executive Committee of our objections regarding the new structure functioning at the Takoma Park Church which is in violation of the Church Manual. It is our hope that this will be the only preparatory meeting which is necessary.”
Next: "Courtesy Vote"
Religious
Friday, October 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm curious about the organization of your posts. At the end of each epic there is a title of the next post. When I go to the next post there is no title. And often it seems there is something missing. ??
The "Next" statements aren't intended to be titles. Their purpose is simply to say, "The story's not over yet. Watch for the next chapter." If/when we come to the point where there is no more story to tell that final chapter will not have a "Next" statement. And while the preview words/phrases after each "Next" are intended to give some inkling of the content of the next chapter, they're just that - little hints. There's no deep, hidden meaning or intention in them, so don't lose any sleep if you don't happen to get where we were going with one of them.
In fact you are going anywhere at all.
Post a Comment