Stone holm Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I agree, yes and no. It depends on who is doing the judging.No, unless you have a really bad judge. The people who are accountable for people who get trampled are the people who do the trampling. If you believe there is a fire and you shout out "FIRE!" I for one would look for the fire before I started proceeding calmly toward an exit.... in other words someone who is authorized to be there...You're not responsible if people choose to do whatever you say. The people who choose to follow your counsel are responsible for how they respond to your counsel and if what you are couseling is not good then it would be good for them to not do as you say.Actually, if I falsely yell fire in a theatre that is considered an act and yes I can be held legally accountable for the panic which ensues before a competent judge, trust me on that one. While in theory everybody should get a testimony before they act, in reality there is more than one reason we are often referred to as sheep. When The Lord puts you in a calling He gives you blessings, but He also sets you up to potentially be cursed if you go off the rails. It's why the Gospel is referred to as a two edged sword, its just that we usually only talk about the happy blessing part.
ERayR Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Well. In the Church the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve set the standards hopefully under inspiration from the Lord. We place a fairly high value on order in the Church and the leadership tries very hard to herd all us pesky Mormon cats in the same direction. You do that by admonishing people to stick to the lesson manuals, prescribing grooming standards, being selective on what political issues you jump on, and only calling people you believe will stick within certain parameters to certain callings, etc. etc. Since the Church has grown huge, you develop some fairly complete bureaucratic standards to administer the various levels of leadership and you develop a major information feedback or reporting system with a series of councils involved. In addition you have certain groups reporting to a different chain of command so you have early warning if something is off the rails.Nice dodge your footwork is not bad.
ERayR Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Yes and no. If I yell fire in a theater, I am accountable for people who get trampled. If I stand at the pulpit as one vested with authority, and employ rhetoric that I should know will cause people to vote a certain way or take some other action, then yes I may be accountable for not only doing that but for the consequences if I was unwarranted in the rhetoric I used.Back to my question. Whose call is it to decide if it was unwarranted?
Stone holm Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Back to my question. Whose call is it to decide if it was unwarranted?Depends if it is the Prophet, God. If it was anybody else, the Prophet. In the hereafter, The Lord.
ERayR Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Depends if it is the Prophet, God. If it was anybody else, the Prophet. In the hereafter, The Lord.Oh. From reading this thread and a couple of others I could probably count a half dozen or so posters who seem to think they are setting the standards. I was just getting confused and needed some clarification.
Stone holm Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Oh. From reading this thread and a couple of others I could probably count a half dozen or so posters who seem to think they are setting the standards. I was just getting confused and needed some clarification.That doesn't mean that a GA cannot go off the rails, or that a GA has never gone off the rails. Nor should it be used as a way of squelching dissent on non-core teachings. Any Organization which insulates itself from criticism from within is eventually doomed. I have over and over heard otherwise intelligent and rational people say that the Church never takes into account public opinion which I say is complete an unadulterated hogwash. And it is much better to listen to and give respect to people offering constructive criticism from within, people who love the Church and what it stands for and have devoted hours and hours of their life to the Church, than to only react to the howling of those outside the Church who would love to see it fall.
ERayR Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 That doesn't mean that a GA cannot go off the rails, or that a GA has never gone off the rails. Nor should it be used as a way of squelching dissent on non-core teachings. Any Organization which insulates itself from criticism from within is eventually doomed. I have over and over heard otherwise intelligent and rational people say that the Church never takes into account public opinion which I say is complete an unadulterated hogwash. And it is much better to listen to and give respect to people offering constructive criticism from within, people who love the Church and what it stands for and have devoted hours and hours of their life to the Church, than to only react to the howling of those outside the Church who would love to see it fall.I agree in part but the checks for that come from the other 14 GA's.
Stone holm Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 I agree in part but the checks for that come from the other 14 GA's.Not necessarily, no I can't go with that.
Ahab Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Not necessarily, no I can't go with that.Meaning they all counsel together about what to do about the public opinion and what not. They work it all out together.
Ahab Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Yeah, no that is not an adequate check.Each of them is individually also asking God for guidance, too. I figured that was a given you would already understand.So, in summary, they consider public opinion, AND what members of the Church think, AND they ask God for guidance AND they counsel together about what they should do. Whatever you think they should do is already something they consider.
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Yeah, no that is not an adequate check.There is but one absolute check. Ask the Lord yourself, and then go with that answer.
ERayR Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Not necessarily, no I can't go with that.That is the way it works. Perhaps now they know you don't approve they will start calling you for approval.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) Each of them is individually also asking God for guidance, too. I figured that was a given you would already understand.So, in summary, they consider public opinion, AND what members of the Church think, AND they ask God for guidance AND they counsel together about what they should do. Whatever you think they should do is already something they consider.Perfect system, if you ask me. What does Stone holm want? Some sort of plenary ballot? Too much potential for corruption by the doctrines of men. Edited June 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 2
Stone holm Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Perfect system, if you ask me. What does Stone holm want? Some sort plenary ballot? Too much potential for corruption by the doctrines if men.No. The Church is not and should not be a democracy. All I am suggesting is that it needs to be open to internal constructive criticism. An Organization whose leadership insulates itself too much is destined to have some very rude awakenings.
ERayR Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 No. The Church is not and should not be a democracy. All I am suggesting is that it needs to be open to internal constructive criticism. An Organization whose leadership insulates itself too much is destined to have some very rude awakenings.Have no fear I can assure you the Brethren are not insulated against what is going on. 1
Stone holm Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 Have no fear I can assure you the Brethren are not insulated against what is going on.I wonder about that, what is the likelihood of a member offering constructive criticism to the First Presidency.
thesometimesaint Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 I wonder about that, what is the likelihood of a member offering constructive criticism to the First Presidency.You can offer all the constructive criticism you want. Whether they respond favorably to that constructive criticism is another question. Free advice is worth just about that much. But seriously if you have a valid concern we do have a process already in place for that concern to be addressed. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 I've said this before on similar-and-related subjects. When someone else comes up with a good idea and it ends up being widely implemented, we grumble and moan about "one-size-fits-all" solutions being "imposed" upon us by the Brethren from Salt Lake. When we come up with a good idea, we think it should be as widely implemented as possible, and any concerns about imposing outside ideas and "one-size-fits-all" solutions all the sudden fly out the window! Amazing how that happens! 2
DBMormon Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 You can offer all the constructive criticism you want. Whether they respond favorably to that constructive criticism is another question. Free advice is worth just about that much. But seriously if you have a valid concern we do have a process already in place for that concern to be addressed.Is that to speak to your file leader? That is in some cases ineffective and useless.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 I wonder about that, what is the likelihood of a member offering constructive criticism to the First Presidency.What's the likelihood that his concern affects anyone but himself or perhaps a comparatively-small group of Saints in his area? If that is so, why couldn't a Bishop or a Stake President address it? At most, his concern might merit the attention of his Area Presidency. If necessary, his Area Presidency can consult with the Twelve, who can then consult with the First Presidency. Jethro counseled Moses to get his brethren to help him. Is that not a viable principle even in our day? 2
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Is that to speak to your file leader? That is in some cases ineffective and useless.Then, if necessary, you go to the file leader's file leader, and so on, up the chain. Again, what's the likelihood that your concern affects anyone outside your immediate area? Again, there's always that tension between, "I think it's a good idea, so it should be implemented Church-wide," versus, "The Brethren don't know what's going on here. Why are we getting this 'one-size-fits-all' solution from Salt Lake?" (By the way, do you suppose there's the slightest chance that anyone thought you were "ineffective and useless" as their file leader? [Matthew 7] 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be cmeasured to you again.3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.We should probably avoid calling our leaders "ineffective and useless" even if we think we have good reason, along with all the facts necessary, to do so. Having been one yourself, I would think you would know better. Edited June 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969 2
DBMormon Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Then, if necessary, you go to the file leader's file leader, and so on, up the chain. Again, what's the likelihood that your concern affects anyone outside your immediate area? Again, there's always that tension between, "I think it's a good idea, so it should be implemented Church-wide," versus, "The Brethren don't know what's going on here. Why are we getting this 'one-size-fits-all' solution from Salt Lake?" (By the way, do you suppose there's the slightest chance that anyone thought you were "ineffective and useless" as their file leader?We should probably avoid calling our leaders "ineffective and useless" even if we think we have good reason, along with all the facts necessary, to do so. Having been one yourself, I would think you would know better. I said "at times". Unfortunate... yep but in some instances true.
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2013 Posted June 23, 2013 Is that to speak to your file leader? That is in some cases ineffective and useless.In the Church we start with our lowest level of authority, and work at it until our question(s) are answered. We don't have to agree with those answers. But it is an answer. Ultimately it is between us and God.
Stone holm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Am currently reading the book by Prince and Wright and am experiencing some rejection of it by my ultimate earthly authority who prefers the sanitized history provided by the institute and BYU religion courses where the GAs all immediately accept every inspiration the Prophet has. I worked a discussion of the building policies into my HP lesson today in connection with the fact that our Temples and chapels tend to be segregated away from the areas where there are real social issues, and that triggered some objection from a visitor from Boston. Am wondering if others are having similar resistance. Perhaps there is something to the effect that over sanitized history is having on the ability of members to face reality.
Recommended Posts