Keep Sweet

[Palerider]

I was just watching a bit of a CES fireside this evening. Enough to hear the speaker extol the virtues of not being critical or negative regarding the church or it’s leadership. That’s when I stopped watching.

What was interesting to me was that I had just finished watching an old classic called, “How green was my Valley”. At one point in the movie the young men in a family had wanted to speak their minds during the family meal, regarding something they knew to be unjust and the family father had tried to suppress their efforts by virtue of his authority as head of the family, stating that it would be bad manners. The “bad manners” excuse was just a ploy to permanently silence discussion of the matter. One of the older sons spoke up and said, “If manners prevent our speaking the truth, then we will be without manners.” And he drove the discussion on as indeed it should have been.

That in turn reminded me of a “principle” taught to all women in the FLDS church called “Keep Sweet”. Another ploy to suppress women, or anyone for that matter, from being critical or negative when dealing with church leadership. I have often thought how very convenient that is for the leadership and how very much it resembles not speaking critically of the Lord’s anointed.

So I pose the question, if leadership seeks to insulate themselves from criticism and attempts to stifle those who will speak the truth, how can they ever hope to improve themselves or their organization?

That is unless one ascribes to the idea that the only one worthy to criticize them is the Lord………….

[Storm Rider]

I think it is vital for us to recognize when the king is not wearing any clothes. At times it needs to be rather public and blunt, but the vast majority of the time we need to communicate on a more personal level.  Alternatively, we see that he wears no clothes and we ignore him and do what we know is right and good.

[Ahab]

The point is to first recognize who is appointed and authorized and appointed to lead an organization, and then to choose whether or not you will do as they say as the leader. If you do not do as they say then you will end up in rebellion and tyranny as you seek to have others follow you as the leader.

So in a household, the head of the house should be followed as the head of the house leads the others.

And in the Church, which is another organization apart from each family household within the Church, the head of the Church should be followed because that person is the leader appointed to lead the Church.

[Gray]

The point is to first recognize who is appointed and authorized and appointed to lead an organization, and then to choose whether or not you will do as they say as the leader. If you do not do as they say then you will end up in rebellion and tyranny as you seek to have others follow you as the leader.

So in a household, the head of the house should be followed as the head of the house leads the others.

And in the Church, which is another organization apart from each family household within the Church, the head of the Church should be followed because that person is the leader appointed to lead the Church.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_opposition

[The Nehor]

That is unless one ascribes to the idea that the only one worthy to criticize them is the Lord………….

It is not a matter of worthiness; it is a matter of trusting The Lord to criticize as needed. If He needed my help criticizing He would ask.

"If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven." -Joseph Smith

[mercyngrace]

Palerider,

 

I think this dynamic exists in many places as your movie reference illustrates.

[BlueDreams]

Personally, I think this is a bit hyperbolic in comparison. The direct quote that Pres. Burton used was "becomes critical and harbors negative feelings, the spirit will withdraw." This, I'd agree with. In psych there's something called the four horsemen of the apocalypse. They're called this because in relationships, when these are present, there is a far higher likelihood for negative outcomes (ie. divorce) for couples/relationships when these are present regularly. One of these is criticism. This doesn't mean that couples should never mention anything that's hurts them to their partner and pretend everything is hunky-dory. Negative behaviors should be constructively discussed and pains from either side should not be ignored. But there is a difference between bringing up problems or issues that you have seeking for resolution and understanding between the two and to attack the other. 

 

I'm not saying the church relationship is exactly like that between couples. Just that there is a difference of having concerns and problems and addressing them or bringing up one's questions and becoming critical and harboring negativity. The context and word choice from Burton reminds me more of the problem I've seen when the critical voice becomes consistent and we give a solid home to our negativity. It doesn't actually get anything done, little changes outside of us (in fact half the time the problems seem to cement), and often the person is left in their own hurt with little means for consolation....which then leads them to continue to feel alienated and alone with their feelings, injustices, and pains. Whatever they are critical of, becomes the bad guy and become more of a caricature than its actual entirety. It can lead to any means of change and any reaching out by the other party is never really enough.          

 

What I don't read in it is "don't ever question, don't ever wonder, and don't ever bring up your concerns or pains" or better yet "don't feel hurt in the first place....something's wrong with you if you do." I will not say that there aren't those who can and have read it that way. But I don't think that's the point to Burton's words nor a really balanced outlook to the Gospel/scriptures/church as a whole.

 

Ironically at the same time you were watching this, I was (among other things) listening to a woman testify of the truth of the Gospel when she was extremely angry in many ways toward it.....over the pulpit...in front of 300+ people. She also talked about how she'd talked to various leaders, was listened to, comforted, and helped as best they could (including a temple president, a strong female figure, and the leader of this particular congregation....and none of them were short conversations). Her anger and obvious hurt did not disrupt the spirit because of a number of things, IMO. 1.) She was consistently finding and seeking help, working with her leaders constructively. 2.) She knew that when some things had to change, it wasn't just the organization or people around her but herself as well. 3.) she remembered what she knew without a doubt, continued with that, trusting the Lord to help her with the rest. The words after were like a long narrative of how to work through the anger, finding a peace, and being used as an instrument of the Lord throughout the whole process, not by discrediting her anger, but relating it to their own pains and struggles that they've overcome. It was extremely moving, in more ways than I'll mention here. Anger, like any emotion, isn't always bad. Becoming it's roommate and friend is though. Criticism and persistent negativity, mentioned by Burton, are more of the language that one speaks when one becomes closely associated with anger. This type of anger does bleed out....all over the place....and can taint things that are truly good and of the Spirit, hindering our capacities to learn.

 

 

Likewise, your final question is built on a number of assumptions that I find fault with.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited March 3, 2014 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

I was just watching a bit of a CES fireside this evening. Enough to hear the speaker extol the virtues of not being critical or negative regarding the church or it’s leadership. That’s when I stopped watching.

What was interesting to me was that I had just finished watching an old classic called, “How green was my Valley”. At one point in the movie the young men in a family had wanted to speak their minds during the family meal, regarding something they knew to be unjust and the family father had tried to suppress their efforts by virtue of his authority as head of the family, stating that it would be bad manners. The “bad manners” excuse was just a ploy to permanently silence discussion of the matter. One of the older sons spoke up and said, “If manners prevent our speaking the truth, then we will be without manners.” And he drove the discussion on as indeed it should have been.

That in turn reminded me of a “principle” taught to all women in the FLDS church called “Keep Sweet”. Another ploy to suppress women, or anyone for that matter, from being critical or negative when dealing with church leadership. I have often thought how very convenient that is for the leadership and how very much it resembles not speaking critically of the Lord’s anointed.

So I pose the question, if leadership seeks to insulate themselves from criticism and attempts to stifle those who will speak the truth, how can they ever hope to improve themselves or their organization?

That is unless one ascribes to the idea that the only one worthy to criticize them is the Lord………….

 

While there is a time and place for everything. Criticizing the person is an Ad Hominem. Fair criticism of their ideas is fair game.

[Mystery Meat]

Personally, I think this is a bit hyperbolic in comparison. The direct quote that Pres. Burton used was "becomes critical and harbors negative feelings, the spirit will withdraw." This, I'd agree with. In psych there's something called the four horsemen of the apocalypse. They're called this because in relationships, when these are present, there is a far higher likelihood for negative outcomes (ie. divorce) for couples/relationships when these are present regularly. One of these is criticism. This doesn't mean that couples should never mention anything that's hurts them to their partner and pretend everything is hunky-dory. Negative behaviors should be constructively discussed and pains from either side should not be ignored. But there is a difference between bringing up problems or issues that you have seeking for resolution and understanding between the two and to attack the other. 

 

I'm not saying the church relationship is exactly like that between couples. Just that there is a difference of having concerns and problems and addressing them or bringing up one's questions and becoming critical and harboring negativity. The context and word choice from Burton reminds me more of the problem I've seen when the critical voice becomes consistent and we give a solid home to our negativity. It doesn't actually get anything done, little changes outside of us (in fact half the time the problems seem to cement), and often the person is left in their own hurt with little means for consolation....which then leads them to continue to feel alienated and alone with their feelings, injustices, and pains. Whatever they are critical of, becomes the bad guy and become more of a caricature than its actual entirety. It can lead to any means of change and any reaching out by the other party is never really enough.          

 

What I don't read in it is "don't ever question, don't ever wonder, and don't ever bring up your concerns or pains" or better yet "don't feel hurt in the first place....something's wrong with you if you do." I will not say that there aren't those who can and have read it that way. But I don't think that's the point to Burton's words nor a really balanced outlook to the Gospel/scriptures/church as a whole.

 

Ironically at the same time you were watching this, I was (among other things) listening to a woman testify of the truth of the Gospel when she was extremely angry in many ways toward it.....over the pulpit...in front of 300+ people. She also talked about how she'd talked to various leaders, was listened to, comforted, and helped as best they could (including a temple president, a strong female figure, and the leader of this particular congregation....and none of them were short conversations). Her anger and obvious hurt did not disrupt the spirit because of a number of things, IMO. 1.) She was consistently finding and seeking help, working with her leaders constructively. 2.) She knew that when some things had to change, it wasn't just the organization or people around her but herself as well. 3.) she remembered what she knew without a doubt, continued with that, trusting the Lord to help her with the rest. The words after were like a long narrative of how to work through the anger, finding a peace, and being used as an instrument of the Lord throughout the whole process, not by discrediting her anger, but relating it to their own pains and struggles that they've overcome. It was extremely moving, in more ways than I'll mention here. Anger, like any emotion, isn't always bad. Becoming it's roommate and friend is though. Criticism and persistent negativity, mentioned by Burton, are more of the language that one speaks when one becomes closely associated with anger. This type of anger does bleed out....all over the place....and can taint things that are truly good and of the Spirit, hindering our capacities to learn.

 

 

Likewise, your final question is built on a number of assumptions that I find fault with.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

You win the thread. We should probably just close it down from here.

[Calm]

You win the thread. We should probably just close it down from here.

I had the same reaction. Sometimes we need to be able to give much more than one rep point.

[Ahab]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_opposition

So in this case the organization, through its many leaders, has established an acceptable method for discussing what the leaders may or may not do, but still in the final analysis it will be the leaders who will decide what is or is not acceptable.

[bluebell]

I had the same reaction. Sometimes we need to be able to give much more than one rep point.

 

And it is always amazing how much having the actual quotation of something, in context, helps with these kinds of discussions.  People's perceptions of what is being said are not always accurate.

[Palerider]

Personally, I think this is a bit hyperbolic in comparison. The direct quote that Pres. Burton used was "becomes critical and harbors negative feelings, the spirit will withdraw." This, I'd agree with. In psych there's something called the four horsemen of the apocalypse. They're called this because in relationships, when these are present, there is a far higher likelihood for negative outcomes (ie. divorce) for couples/relationships when these are present regularly. One of these is criticism. This doesn't mean that couples should never mention anything that's hurts them to their partner and pretend everything is hunky-dory. Negative behaviors should be constructively discussed and pains from either side should not be ignored. But there is a difference between bringing up problems or issues that you have seeking for resolution and understanding between the two and to attack the other. 

 

I'm not saying the church relationship is exactly like that between couples. Just that there is a difference of having concerns and problems and addressing them or bringing up one's questions and becoming critical and harboring negativity. The context and word choice from Burton reminds me more of the problem I've seen when the critical voice becomes consistent and we give a solid home to our negativity. It doesn't actually get anything done, little changes outside of us (in fact half the time the problems seem to cement), and often the person is left in their own hurt with little means for consolation....which then leads them to continue to feel alienated and alone with their feelings, injustices, and pains. Whatever they are critical of, becomes the bad guy and become more of a caricature than its actual entirety. It can lead to any means of change and any reaching out by the other party is never really enough.          

 

What I don't read in it is "don't ever question, don't ever wonder, and don't ever bring up your concerns or pains" or better yet "don't feel hurt in the first place....something's wrong with you if you do." I will not say that there aren't those who can and have read it that way. But I don't think that's the point to Burton's words nor a really balanced outlook to the Gospel/scriptures/church as a whole.

 

Ironically at the same time you were watching this, I was (among other things) listening to a woman testify of the truth of the Gospel when she was extremely angry in many ways toward it.....over the pulpit...in front of 300+ people. She also talked about how she'd talked to various leaders, was listened to, comforted, and helped as best they could (including a temple president, a strong female figure, and the leader of this particular congregation....and none of them were short conversations). Her anger and obvious hurt did not disrupt the spirit because of a number of things, IMO. 1.) She was consistently finding and seeking help, working with her leaders constructively. 2.) She knew that when some things had to change, it wasn't just the organization or people around her but herself as well. 3.) she remembered what she knew without a doubt, continued with that, trusting the Lord to help her with the rest. The words after were like a long narrative of how to work through the anger, finding a peace, and being used as an instrument of the Lord throughout the whole process, not by discrediting her anger, but relating it to their own pains and struggles that they've overcome. It was extremely moving, in more ways than I'll mention here. Anger, like any emotion, isn't always bad. Becoming it's roommate and friend is though. Criticism and persistent negativity, mentioned by Burton, are more of the language that one speaks when one becomes closely associated with anger. This type of anger does bleed out....all over the place....and can taint things that are truly good and of the Spirit, hindering our capacities to learn.

 

 

Likewise, your final question is built on a number of assumptions that I find fault with.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

I'm sorry to disappoint all of you in your glory dance but, who's President Burton? 

 

The individual I was listening to was a female and I came into the program part way through so I'm not sure what her name was.

 

My point never was to criticize someone on a personal level anyway. I think it's too bad that people don't get the diffference as often as they should between constructive criticism and ad hominen attacks.

 

I think when people see things that are foolish they should be given the opportunity to speak freely and if not then they should exercise that right without anyone's consent. It doesn't need to be done in a poor manner and it doesn't need to be done in anger, but sometimes it needs to be done.

 

The church seems to place so much emphasis on not being critical of the brethren that half the membership cowers in fear while the other half stands ready to defend the brethren at all costs, no matter how ridiculous their decisions are or the doctrine is that they proclaim.

[juliann]

 

That in turn reminded me of a “principle” taught to all women in the FLDS church called “Keep Sweet”. Another ploy to suppress women, or anyone for that matter, from being critical or negative when dealing with church leadership. I have often thought how very convenient that is for the leadership and how very much it resembles not speaking critically of the Lord’s anointed.

 

 

I know, let's compare church leaders to really creepy criminals!  Nazis are so overdone.

[3DOP]

Palerider,

 

I think this dynamic exists in many places as your movie reference illustrates.

 

Agreed times twenty. My own church.

[mfbukowski]

Personally, I think this is a bit hyperbolic in comparison. The direct quote that Pres. Burton used was "becomes critical and harbors negative feelings, the spirit will withdraw." This, I'd agree with. In psych there's something called the four horsemen of the apocalypse. They're called this because in relationships, when these are present, there is a far higher likelihood for negative outcomes (ie. divorce) for couples/relationships when these are present regularly. One of these is criticism. This doesn't mean that couples should never mention anything that's hurts them to their partner and pretend everything is hunky-dory. Negative behaviors should be constructively discussed and pains from either side should not be ignored. But there is a difference between bringing up problems or issues that you have seeking for resolution and understanding between the two and to attack the other. 

 

I'm not saying the church relationship is exactly like that between couples. Just that there is a difference of having concerns and problems and addressing them or bringing up one's questions and becoming critical and harboring negativity. The context and word choice from Burton reminds me more of the problem I've seen when the critical voice becomes consistent and we give a solid home to our negativity. It doesn't actually get anything done, little changes outside of us (in fact half the time the problems seem to cement), and often the person is left in their own hurt with little means for consolation....which then leads them to continue to feel alienated and alone with their feelings, injustices, and pains. Whatever they are critical of, becomes the bad guy and become more of a caricature than its actual entirety. It can lead to any means of change and any reaching out by the other party is never really enough.          

 

What I don't read in it is "don't ever question, don't ever wonder, and don't ever bring up your concerns or pains" or better yet "don't feel hurt in the first place....something's wrong with you if you do." I will not say that there aren't those who can and have read it that way. But I don't think that's the point to Burton's words nor a really balanced outlook to the Gospel/scriptures/church as a whole.

 

Ironically at the same time you were watching this, I was (among other things) listening to a woman testify of the truth of the Gospel when she was extremely angry in many ways toward it.....over the pulpit...in front of 300+ people. She also talked about how she'd talked to various leaders, was listened to, comforted, and helped as best they could (including a temple president, a strong female figure, and the leader of this particular congregation....and none of them were short conversations). Her anger and obvious hurt did not disrupt the spirit because of a number of things, IMO. 1.) She was consistently finding and seeking help, working with her leaders constructively. 2.) She knew that when some things had to change, it wasn't just the organization or people around her but herself as well. 3.) she remembered what she knew without a doubt, continued with that, trusting the Lord to help her with the rest. The words after were like a long narrative of how to work through the anger, finding a peace, and being used as an instrument of the Lord throughout the whole process, not by discrediting her anger, but relating it to their own pains and struggles that they've overcome. It was extremely moving, in more ways than I'll mention here. Anger, like any emotion, isn't always bad. Becoming it's roommate and friend is though. Criticism and persistent negativity, mentioned by Burton, are more of the language that one speaks when one becomes closely associated with anger. This type of anger does bleed out....all over the place....and can taint things that are truly good and of the Spirit, hindering our capacities to learn.

 

 

Likewise, your final question is built on a number of assumptions that I find fault with.

 

With luv,

BD 

Romans 7

 

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Edited March 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

I'm sorry to disappoint all of you in your glory dance but, who's President Burton? 

 

The individual I was listening to was a female and I came into the program part way through so I'm not sure what her name was.

 

The female you and I were listening to is President of the Relief Society (https://www.lds.org/church/leader/linda-k-burton?lang=eng).Thus she can be called President Burton. 

 

 

I think when people see things that are foolish they should be given the opportunity to speak freely and if not then they should exercise that right without anyone's consent. It doesn't need to be done in a poor manner and it doesn't need to be done in anger, but sometimes it needs to be done.

 

Though others have pointed out a personal attack, that was not in any of my points at all. I didn't think you were actually attacking her character, personally. But giving a general broad brush to the whole of LDS thought and teaching based heavily on one comment you heard in a CES fireside. One comment that I find does not match up with your conclusions. My points were specifically that I disagree with how you're interpreting what was said and why I think the point made by Pres Burton is an accurate one.

 

You're welcome to point out something foolish and I am welcome to point out why your point falls far short on what was actually said and meant by the comment and the context in which it was given (I watched the whole thing while eating/making breakfast). In your own words, I'm speaking freely about something I saw that was foolish. 

 

The church seems to place so much emphasis on not being critical of the brethren that half the membership cowers in fear while the other half stands ready to defend the brethren at all costs, no matter how ridiculous their decisions are or the doctrine is that they proclaim.

 

 

 And your perception of LDS here is an abject caricature and ironic, considering that you're quoting me....on a board of people who have often had no problem bringing up problems they've seen with what is said by leaders of the church as active members. I do not cower nor stand ready at the defense. I've mentioned my own concerns and issues here, with roommates, and in meetings as well....I'm not known for my timidity. So this makes no sense in the context of what you've brought up.

 

Like your initial points, this is exaggerated to such a degree that it becomes impossible to actually agree with them. Is there a seed of truth? Sure. There's people in the Church that are afraid to speak their mind and there's people who defend without really looking into what they're defending. Can that be broadly placed into extremes to cover every member in the church? No, not even close. If there is all of 2 people who do neither, your point is wrong. On this thread alone I've seen multiple people who wouldn't fit your description. I neither "cower" nor readily defend "at all costs." 

 

My problem isn't any ad hom's....it's your liberal use of false dilemmas, straw men, misrepresentation, excessive hyperbole, and little regard for accuracy in criticism that I find problematic.  You have assumed one way of reading into Pres. Burton's talk that was extremely liberal in interpretation and probably not what she actually meant. I have presented another that seems to apply better to the actual quote and context that she used. In short: your argument just ain't flying. There's about a hundred holes in it. I just picked at a few.

 

With luv,

BD

[mercyngrace]

So I pose the question, if leadership seeks to insulate themselves from criticism and attempts to stifle those who will speak the truth, how can they ever hope to improve themselves or their organization?

 

Well, this thread has not gone in the direction I expected. I took your questions as based on principle rather than specifically addressing Sister Burton so I'll continue to answer them as such. 

 

I firmly believe there is risk in insulating ourselves (or authority figures of any sort) from criticism. I think using position as a shield is a dangerous practice for both followers and leaders because it has the effect of consolidating all power in the hands of those whose words and deeds are above reproach. One of the most intriguing entreaties in the BOM comes from King Mosiah, who begs his people not to choose a king because of the potential harm it will bring to his own son - the heir to the throne. Power is so corrupting that even the truly converted, having stood in the presence of angels and tasted redeeming love, can fall to its seduction. This father's voice echos in my head when I am tempted to place someone on a pedestal, imploring 'Please. Don't do this to my son!'

 

I believe that lively debate, the likes of which occurred in the early church (NT and early restoration) is a good and useful mechanism for keeping leaders and followers in check. I believe questioning and acknowledging doubt are reasonable ways of navigating matters of faith. And I don't believe this diminishes the power of inspiration or revelation. Reasoning out solutions and being attentive to whether things "seem good to the Holy Ghost, and to us" (Acts 15) is inspiration without shutting down discussion or giving the air of certainty which seems a necessary component of unquestioned power and authority.

 

Obviously, "Keep sweet" is not the only we silence questions, dissent, and criticism. We also tend to label others as infidels or apostates. Just look at what happens when a respected politician switches parties or declares himself independent. He often loses all power and voice. Not to totally derail, but Lesley Hazleton makes a compelling argument that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but absolute certainty. 

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith.html

 

In considering all this, I'm convinced that a humble people, governed and led by Christlike leaders, would be one in which criticism, purposefully and charitably offered, were accepted. Where we engage fully in the messy work of acknowledging and hashing out troubling issues, doubts, and weaknesses. And where we do so together. This kind of introspection might lead to a true unity of spirit rather than projecting the appearance of unity through coerced or cultural conformity. 

 

But that's just my opinion, rooted in my own experience. ymmv.

 

 

eta: In a large church with a centralized government, I think this 'hashing out of things' has to be done locally. But I also believe that distance between local units and the centralized government has to allow for unresolved issues to continue to make their way up the 'chain of command', with thoughtful discussions and debate at each link. I believe our church has a mechanism for this. Having never personally been in a position to know, I can't testify that this mechanism is used as a means of two-way communication. Perhaps someone else can speak to that. 

Edited March 4, 2014 by mercyngrace

[wenglund]

Speaking of principles, in terms of priority and balanced perspective, since God is infinite in wisdom and understanding, and he is the head of his church, shouldn't insulating ourselves from him be of utmost concern, far more so than what little church leaders may be pragmatically insulated against the gripes of some discontented members or former members?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

Speaking of principles, in terms of priority and balanced perspective, since God is infinite in wisdom and understanding, and he is the head of his church, shouldn't insulating ourselves from him be of utmost concern, far more so than what little church leaders may be pragmatically insulated against the gripes of some discontented members or former members?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not sure I understand your question, Wade, but if you are asking whether our greatest concern ought to be where we stand with the Lord, then I say, "Absolutely!"

 

As to whether He needs to be insulated from criticism, well, the Bible is full of examples of people calling God out (and getting a humbling earful in return). I don't think this bothers God nearly so much as when we stop talking to Him altogether.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not sure I understand your question, Wade, but if you are asking whether our greatest concern ought to be where we stand with the Lord, then I say, "Absolutely!"

 

As to whether He needs to be insulated from criticism, well, the Bible is full of examples of people calling God out (and getting a humbling earful in return). I don't think this bothers God nearly so much as when we stop talking to Him altogether.

The harm that's done is not to God but to the one doing the calling out.

[cinepro]

If I were a religious leader, the second thing I would do is teach my followers not to criticize me or find fault.  So I'm not going to criticize President Burton for teaching the exact same thing I would.

[mercyngrace]

The harm that's done is not to God but to the one doing the calling out.

 

I dunno. One could argue that Job made out fairly well in the end....

[Ahab]

If I were a religious leader, the second thing I would do is teach my followers not to criticize me or find fault. So I'm not going to criticize President Burton for teaching the exact same thing I would.

It's more basic than that, I think. Not all members of an organization are equals, in most cases. Even in a house there is the head of the house, who usually acts in partnership with his wife, while their children are expected to follow their directions or get the hell out of their house. And in the Church there are leaders who are authorized to kick people out of the Church too. It's just the way it is, and the way it should be, and those who try to usurp authority from the ones who have it should not be tolerated. Heck, even this board has people in charge and everyone else who speaks up is expected to follow their rules.

[Scott Lloyd]

I dunno. One could argue that Job made out fairly well in the end....

Job did not do any "calling out" of God (if I understand your meaning of the term correctly).

 

His wife pushed and taunted him to do just that, to "curse God and die." But Job ignored her railing and, instead, testifed, "I know that my Redeemer liveth and that he shall stand in the last day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."

 

(That's the best I can quote it from memory; I didn't bother to look it up.)

Edited March 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd