Levels Of Accountability

[Stone holm]

There are, of course, differing views as to accountability. For example Joseph F. Smith and Talmadge famously disagreed as to the fate of Judas Iscariot and President Kimball when confronted with the question said, "I don't know, and you can quote me on that." But, I suspect that most Mormons would agree that the two-edged sword of the Gospel translates to the more you know, the more accountable you are. I have always, as a result, liked the notion that many Mormons, myself included, have that really to really screw up these days you have to be a Mormon, and actually not just any Mormon, but a very knowledgeable Mormon. I guess that is the corollary that you don't wind up in the Celestial Kingdom by accident, you have to work at it (although not sure what that says about little kids who get killed) and the corollary is that you don't wind up in Outer Darkness by accident. I personally prefer Joseph F. Smith's rather narrow admission to Outer Darkness.

So. If the foregoing is true, who in their right mind would want to be a General Authority? The accountability level at the Bishopric level is bad enough. So at what point does a member give up his or her right of free speech as a result of their calling? It has already been said that a teacher in the Church gives up his/her academic freedom when teaching Church classes, at what point does that rule apply to a member?

[thesometimesaint]

We can neither be saved nor damned in ignorance.

We don't give up our freedom of speech. We just have no right to claim to speak for the whole.

[Ahab]

There are, of course, differing views as to accountability. For example Joseph F. Smith and Talmadge famously disagreed as to the fate of Judas Iscariot and President Kimball when confronted with the question said, "I don't know, and you can quote me on that." But, I suspect that most Mormons would agree that the two-edged sword of the Gospel translates to the more you know, the more accountable you are. I have always, as a result, liked the notion that many Mormons, myself included, have that really to really screw up these days you have to be a Mormon, and actually not just any Mormon, but a very knowledgeable Mormon. I guess that is the corollary that you don't wind up in the Celestial Kingdom by accident, you have to work at it (although not sure what that says about little kids who get killed) and the corollary is that you don't wind up in Outer Darkness by accident. I personally prefer Joseph F. Smith's rather narrow admission to Outer Darkness.

So. If the foregoing is true, who in their right mind would want to be a General Authority? The accountability level at the Bishopric level is bad enough. So at what point does a member give up his or her right of free speech as a result of their calling? It has already been said that a teacher in the Church gives up his/her academic freedom when teaching Church classes, at what point does that rule apply to a member?

We're only ever responsible for ourselves, even when we're given the responsibility to teach other people. But we're only responsible for what we teach others, not whether or not others accept what we teach them. Nobody can make anybody believe anything. The best we can do is provide an opportunity for others to hear the truth.

Personally, I wouldn't volunteer to be a General Authority because I'd rather not spend so much time traveling. I'm a homebody and I prefer to spend as much time as I can at home.

[Stone holm]

We can neither be saved nor damned in ignorance.

We don't give up our freedom of speech. We just have no right to claim to speak for the whole.

I think possibly we do. I was reading last night about Pres. McKay and his reticence to speak out on some issues and his willingness to intervene to protect regular members who spoke out, but that he was less forgiving when people in leadership or teaching positions did. Like it was one think for a rank and file member to criticize Church leadership, but if a Professor at BYU or say a General Authority did, well that was a different matter. He actually tried to institute some censorship of GAs. While I understand he was trying to ride herd on the likes of Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown and Bruce R. McConkie, I think there is some general validity. I certainly feel much freer to express my personal opinions now than I did a decade and a half ago as a Bishop or even before that when merely counselor in a Bishopric or a Stake Executive Secretary. I recently resigned from a School committee in our community because I felt that it was improper to be on the committee and at the same time to speak out, I gave forewarning before I resigned and then orchestrated a public campaign for my position. But I wonder how others feel on this issue. What are the differences?

[Stone holm]

We're only ever responsible for ourselves, even when we're given the responsibility to teach other people. But we're only responsible for what we teach others, not whether or not others accept what we teach them. Nobody can make anybody believe anything. The best we can do is provide an opportunity for others to hear the truth.

Personally, I wouldn't volunteer to be a General Authority because I'd rather not spend so much time traveling. I'm a homebody and I prefer to spend as much time as I can at home.

I think the GA has a much, much greater responsibility. If I go on a rant, that is just the gospel according to Stone holm, if Boyd K. Packer goes on a rant -- well that is a horse of a very different color.

[ksfisher]

We're only ever responsible for ourselves,

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

[Ahab]

I think possibly we do. I was reading last night about Pres. McKay and his reticence to speak out on some issues and his willingness to intervene to protect regular members who spoke out, but that he was less forgiving when people in leadership or teaching positions did. Like it was one think for a rank and file member to criticize Church leadership, but if a Professor at BYU or say a General Authority did, well that was a different matter. He actually tried to institute some censorship of GAs. While I understand he was trying to ride herd on the likes of Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown and Bruce R. McConkie, I think there is some general validity. I certainly feel much freer to express my personal opinions now than I did a decade and a half ago as a Bishop or even before that when merely counselor in a Bishopric or a Stake Executive Secretary. I recently resigned from a School committee in our community because I felt that it was improper to be on the committee and at the same time to speak out, I gave forewarning before I resigned and then orchestrated a public campaign for my position. But I wonder how others feel on this issue. What are the differences?

I can understand someone's concern for not wanting to say something that is not right, just because of not wanting to be the source of some bad information, but if others just blindly accept what that person says is the truth, and it is not true, then their trust was misplaced and they were the ones who put it in "the arm of flesh".

All of us are supposed to learn from God, rather than just trusting what other people tell us. He is the only one who always tells the truth without ever making an error in judgment... at least until others become as perfect as he is.

[Ahab]

I think the GA has a much, much greater responsibility. If I go on a rant, that is just the gospel according to Stone holm, if Boyd K. Packer goes on a rant -- well that is a horse of a very different color.

Nope, same color. We're all sharing what we believe is the truth. It's just that Boyd knows more truth than some others do.

[Ahab]

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

And the true answer is No, he wasn't his keeper, but he was still responsible for killing his brother.

[Duncan]

I know three people who expressed the desire to become a General Authority. One is totally inactive now and both others I hope to heck never get called. When I asked one of them why would you want that? they said that they like helping others come unto Christ, like yeah great but you can do that now!, today!, in whatever calling you already have, why wait 40 years for the remote possibility you'll get called? I don't know sometimes

Edited June 19, 2013 by Duncan

[Brian 2.0]

So at what point does a member give up his or her right of free speech as a result of their calling? It has already been said that a teacher in the Church gives up his/her academic freedom when teaching Church classes, at what point does that rule apply to a member?

I don't know if I would frame it in regards to giving up a right of free speech. I voluntary asked to be released as High Priest Group Leader when my doubts got to a degree where I didn't feel in line with a lot of the party-line basics. I was still doing most all the duties, but would just not testify about certain points. But I would never say that i was "giving up my right to free speech". When you voluntarily accept a calling, you accept some terms that come along with it.

If someone is ushered off the pulpit during Fast Sunday because he is declaring Thomos S. Monson a fallen prophet, I would not frame that in any way as an infringing upon the right of free speech.

[CV75]

If the foregoing is true, who in their right mind would want to be a General Authority? The accountability level at the Bishopric level is bad enough. So at what point does a member give up his or her right of free speech as a result of their calling? It has already been said that a teacher in the Church gives up his/her academic freedom when teaching Church classes, at what point does that rule apply to a member?

Would you please explain what it is in the foregoing that is being posited as true?

Also, what do you see as the connection between accountability, a calling or membership, and free speech?

[Stone holm]

Would you please explain what it is in the foregoing that is being posited as true?

Also, what do you see as the connection between accountability, a calling or membership, and free speech?

Well I posit it as true that it has been said that there is no academic freedom for a teacher in the Church. The rest I am inquiring about. My personal belief is that a person who has accepted a calling with authority, is more accountable to the Lord for what he or she says, they are less entitled to express their personal opinion on religious matters. This is especially true of a GA. The reason is that when a GA says something a huge number of members automatically take that as having the stamp of approval of the Lord. So, if they fire off their personal opinion after they have been sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator even if they put it in italics and preface it with all kinds of disclaimers it is going to have an impact. One of the factors taken into account in a disciplinary proceeding is what damage has been done to the image of the Church. The higher you are up the ladder the more likely that you do damage, hence accountability and words are action when they fall from the lips of someone with authority.

[The Nehor]

So. If the foregoing is true, who in their right mind would want to be a General Authority? The accountability level at the Bishopric level is bad enough. So at what point does a member give up his or her right of free speech as a result of their calling? It has already been said that a teacher in the Church gives up his/her academic freedom when teaching Church classes, at what point does that rule apply to a member?

If we are all going to be judged by "every idle word" perhaps they have an advantage reminding them continuously of how careful they must be. Of course if this is true my presence here....nay, this very post, may damn me.

I better not hit the post button.

Oh.....too late.

[tagriffy]

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

And the true answer is No, he wasn't his keeper, but he was still responsible for killing his brother.

Don't forget the implied accusation. "I'm not my brother's keeper," said Cain, "but you are. Whatever happened to Able, you could have prevented it."

[Stone holm]

Don't forget the implied accusation. "I'm not my brother's keeper," said Cain, "but you are. Whatever happened to Able, you could have prevented it."

Have always wondered a little about the whole Cain and Abel story other than the possibility that it was the first farmer vs rancher conflict. Why was Cain exempt from Capitol punishment?

[Brian 2.0]

One of the factors taken into account in a disciplinary proceeding is what damage has been done to the image of the Church. The higher you are up the ladder the more likely that you do damage, hence accountability and words are action when they fall from the lips of someone with authority.

Their current calling is often the impetus of whether or not to even have the disciplinary counsel. Two people can commit the exact same sin, but only one of them gets called into a disciplinary counsel because he is a bishop for example.

[Ahab]

Don't forget the implied accusation. "I'm not my brother's keeper," said Cain, "but you are. Whatever happened to Able, you could have prevented it."

Implications are like assumptions. You need to be careful not to imagine something that isn't there.

[CV75]

Well I posit it as true that it has been said that there is no academic freedom for a teacher in the Church. The rest I am inquiring about. My personal belief is that a person who has accepted a calling with authority, is more accountable to the Lord for what he or she says, they are less entitled to express their personal opinion on religious matters. This is especially true of a GA. The reason is that when a GA says something a huge number of members automatically take that as having the stamp of approval of the Lord. So, if they fire off their personal opinion after they have been sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator even if they put it in italics and preface it with all kinds of disclaimers it is going to have an impact. One of the factors taken into account in a disciplinary proceeding is what damage has been done to the image of the Church. The higher you are up the ladder the more likely that you do damage, hence accountability and words are action when they fall from the lips of someone with authority.

So, in answer to your question, "who in their right mind would want to be a General Authority?" I would say no one. I am confident that any GA would say that he never wanted to be one, never aspired to be one, etc. But I would have said that no matter the reason posited for not wanting to be a GA; there are many, many other reasons. But once they are set apart, they either live with or overcome whatever liabilities they might have feared in accepting the calling. I'm sure our sustaining them helps that, as they often express gratitude for our prayers, support, adherence to their teachings, and so forth.

[CV75]

Academic freedom and freedom of speech are as alive and well for any GA and ayone else; their challenge and prayer (and I've heard this mentioned by them as they speak in General Conference) is to study and speak and teach by the Spirit.

[tagriffy]

Have always wondered a little about the whole Cain and Abel story other than the possibility that it was the first farmer vs rancher conflict. Why was Cain exempt from Capitol punishment?

In the commentary I drew the original idea from, it is suggested that Cain was exempted from capital punishment becasue God was accepting culpability.

[tagriffy]

Implications are like assumptions. You need to be careful not to imagine something that isn't there.

True enough. But in this case, the implication I stated has further, more fruitful implications. If this implication really is there, then the Hebrews have been trying to deal with the problem of evil far longer than would be otherwise be assumed. That adds a new wrinkle to interpreting much of the rest of the Torah.

[ksfisher]

And the true answer is No, he wasn't his keeper, but he was still responsible for killing his brother.

I think that the Parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that we do have a responsibility for the well being of one another. Alma's explanation of baptism by the Waters of Mormon as well as Alma the Youngers talk witn his son Corianton in Alma 39 would seem to back this up. We're all in this together, we don't go through life alone.

[Stone holm]

In the commentary I drew the original idea from, it is suggested that Cain was exempted from capital punishment becasue God was accepting culpability.

Culpable because He had not yet prohibited murder, or because He preferred the offering of a rancher over a farmer, or something else?

[tagriffy]

Culpable because He had not yet prohibited murder, or because He preferred the offering of a rancher over a farmer, or something else?

Culpable because He did not prevent the murder.