Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Some ward members flunked the test.

November 29th, 2013 by Bookslinger

Comments (10)
Filed under: Deseret Review,There are monkey-boys in the facility | Tags: ,
November 29th, 2013 16:07:06
10 comments

h_nu
November 29, 2013

I’m sorry Bookslinger, but you’ve climbed up onto your Rameumpton again.

This Bishop has violated the Church’s Handbook of Instruction, deceived his flock, and has made a mockery of sacrament meeting.

He should be removed and defrocked…
Wearing masks is strictly forbidden.
He deceived, played, pretended to be someone he isn’t.
He has opened up faithful members of his ward to ridicule and scorn.
People who live in glass boxes (such as Bookslinger himself) are now throwing stones.
Judgmental Mormons Indeed.!

[Ed. - edited to remove material that can be interpreted as personally aimed at Books.]


Vader
November 29, 2013

This bothers me.

I don’t know how well I would respond to the test. Perhaps I would have tried to talk to the stranger and see what was going on, but, given my shyness, I might have shrunk away from the encounter and hoped a more outgoing member of the ward would talk to the man.

But I would hate to be any of the ward members who “failed” at the next interview with the bishop. My fault? Sure, I suppose. But the bishop would have compromised his ability to think the best of me and judge me fairly, in what strikes me as an unfair test.

It doesn’t sit well with me.


Bookslinger
November 29, 2013

Hmmmm. I see your point.


Bruce Charlton
November 30, 2013

I find this kind of stunt disgusting.

It is wrong to lie. To lie in a ‘good cause’ is an especially dangerous thing – to lie in the supposedly-good-cause of showing-up other people? Well…

In so many ways, this stunt is subversive of real Christian charity. Not least by its choice of test case.

Where I live, it would be foolish and counter-productive at best, more likely dangerous, to engage with the street people who self-identify as ‘homeless’.

The implicit notion (and look at who propagates this notion) that city-centre/ tourist-spot professional-beggars are the most deserving, or the most unfortunate of people, and that their treatment is the test of sincerity of charity… I don’t know whether to be aghast at the naiveté or repulsed at the wickedness of this idea.

To equate the ‘homeless’ person encountered in a modern city with the kind of poor people Jesus encountered in his travels is either silly or just plain dishonest (and dishonest in a *bad* cause).


Adam G.
November 30, 2013

Methinks the Bishop is something of an ass, especially with the publicity afterwards.

But, Hnu, your personalizing your disagreement with Bookslinger was inappropriate.


h_nu
November 30, 2013

Sorry Adam G,
I hadn’t realized I had personalized my disagreement with Book. If I have offended you Book, I apologize.


Adam G.
November 30, 2013

Fair enough.


Bookslinger
November 30, 2013

Hnu, actually…. Thank you for your first comment. I needed that pointed out to me. It was a proper rebuke. More later.


MC
December 1, 2013

Anyone who thinks it’s inappropriate to be wary of homeless-looking people who mutter to themselves AFTER the Elizabeth Smart deal…

We should certainly pity the mentally ill and do our best to help them. But the idea that they and we would be best served by making ostentatious monetary offerings and ignoring their obvious mental illness or aberrant behavior is just emotive silliness not in line with the steel-eyed realism of our pioneer forebears. WWBYD?

Leave a Reply