5 Comment(s)

1. Sunday morning, the day after.

   Rick Jepson: glad to finally meet you in person! You are taller than I had imagined.

   I’m distressed not to have attended your “Ensoulment” paper as anticipated. After we had spoken I discovered a schedule conflict with a discussion of Dutcher’s film “Falling”, but couldn’t find you in time to tell you. I chose the Dutcher thing, thinking I could make it up with you by accessing your paper and then picking up our dialogue where we left off. I did not see that option with Dutcher.

   Am looking forward to picking up where we left off on these pages, when you are ready.

   Eugene

   Comment # 1 by eugene kovalenko | Aug 12, 2007 | Reply

2. Hi Eugene,

   wonderful to meet you. You’re a very warm, caring person–and it beams from you.

   we lost a LOT of people to the Dutcher film. I even thought about ditching my own session because I wanted to see it.

   The good news is that the audio will be available in a few days and I’m hoping to have something in the magazine on it soon. (still have to run that by Dan, of course).

   Looks like a promising time to catch up on some old conversations over the next 2-3 weeks. Look forward to it.

   –Rick

   Comment # 2 by Rick Jepson | Aug 12, 2007 | Reply

3. I listened to the panel on The Mormons. I loved the documentary, and there was very good discussion from all the panelists. I did have a couple of observations.

   Regarding the Dallin Oaks clip that was discussed, the context is here:

   ” HW: You used an interesting phrase, “Not everything that’s true is useful.” Could you develop that as someone who’s a scholar and trying to encourage deep searching?

   “DHO: … I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]

   “I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.”

   The clip used in the documentary (”…it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true…”) cuts in mid-sentence, and removed from its context, gives a different impression. Since he was quoting his own previous controversial statement, and then attempting to give an explanation, it does seem a little unfair to show the controversial statement without the explanation.

   I actually came away from the film quite sympathetic to Margaret Toscano. However, I’m afraid that the comments by her husband tended to mitigate that impression a bit. For me, his remarks raised more questions than answers, and only highlighted in neon letters the fact that there is another side of the story that might help answer those questions.

   I had read somewhere, previous remarks by Whitney that her visual depiction of the disciplinary council was meant to represent Toscano’s feeling of alienation, and not to accurately show the actual setting of the council. In light of those comments, I was surprised by the statement that the disciplinary council was not held in the high council room, but was indeed held in a setting similar to what was shown. To me, that is a situation that cries out for an explanation. It is as if someone is telling me about a game the Cubs played in Soldier Field. There must be an explanation for why they would be playing there instead of at Wrigley Field, but it’s surprising enough that I would expect to hear the explanation. Why would the high council choose to give up their comfortable chairs and table and move to a less comfortable location? I can imagine several possibilities, but since the setting of the council is at issue, it seems to me that the reasons why that setting was chosen might be relevant. That Toscano gave no explanation does make me wonder what explanation the stake president might give.

   I was also surprised by the claim that the council did not follow procedure in drawing lots and in allowing Margaret to speak. The drawing of lots would have occurred before the meeting, so she would not have seen it. I do believe that she felt that the even-numbered high councilmen did not uphold their scriptural injunction to “stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.” But I am skeptical of the claim that they didn’t even go through the procedural motions. That she was not allowed to defend herself is also surprising. I would be much less surprised if she and the council disagreed on what issues were relevant, and that she was not permitted to discuss certain issues that she thought were important.

   I am still sympathetic to Margaret’s story, but her husband’s remarks only made me more frustrated at not being able to draw my own conclusions after hearing both sides of the story.

   Comment # 3 by Left Field | Aug 15, 2007 | Reply

4. Left Field,

   I did not appear int the documentary, so I must assume that what frustrated you were comments I must have made at the Sunstone Symposium itself. What were those comments and how did they prevent you from drawing your own conclusions?

   Comment # 4 by Paul Toscano | Aug 25, 2007 | Reply

5. Paul,

   Sorry if there was any confusion. I was referring to comments at the symposium. That was the subject of this post, and this is where I found the link to listen to it, so I thought this would be the appropriate place to post comments about the symposium. Also, my frustration was not in being unable to draw my own conclusions, but in having to draw conclusions based on only one side of the story. The others who were present at the disciplinary council are not at liberty to give their perspective. That is not your fault, and you are certainly not obligated to speak on their behalf.

   We all have our own perspective and spin on events, and it is expected that you will call ‘em as you see ‘em. However, for the reasons I discussed in my previous comment, my perception of your remarks at the symposium was that you were putting an extra strong backspin on events. No doubt the story would look very different with a topspin. I am actually inclined to agree with the backspin, but your comments raised enough questions about the events that I missed having another perspective to provide balance and fill in the gaps. I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon in some reviews of September Dawn. The movie is so strongly partisan that some reviewers seemed to leave the theater more kindly disposed to Mormons, knowing that there had to be another side of the story.

   The unusual setting and events of the council were clearly important to Margaret’s experience, but I don’t have the context to really understand what happened. If someone tells me that the presidential inauguration was held in Dubuque, and that they talked about having the president take the oath of office, but then didn’t do it, I’m going to have some questions. Why Dubuque? Why would they forgo the the constitutionally-required oath? Why did the high council move to a large room with hard wooden chairs? Why did they skip the scripturally-mandated drawing of lots? Could the drawing of lots perhaps have happened before the council opened? I came away feeling that there was more to the story that we hadn’t heard. Someone with another perspective might fill in those gaps, but perhaps a more impartial approach to the story might have left me with less of an impression that something important was being left out.

   Comment # 5 by Left Field | Aug 29, 2007 | Reply

Post a Comment