To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[mormonnewb]

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in our Mormon culture.  While we generally attempt to be true to the 13th Article of Faith, we will make exceptions and levy harsh judgments and critiques against others.  Yet, for some reason, that criticism only goes so high up the food chain.  Rank and file members are fair game for any type of criticism.  And even the most "faithful" member will feel free to take, say, a bishop to task for some wrongful action.  A faithful member might even take a swipe at a stake president (although not likely his own).  But it won't get much higher then that, and to even acknowledge a minor fault of one of the Brethren seems to be a first class ticket to outer darkness.

 

Interestingly, this is the exact OPPOSITE of how criticism is levied in the rest of society.  Each night, talk show hosts deliver monologues in which they lampoon politicians, business leaders and celebrities.  In fact, the higher their position in society, the more about them is fair game to criticize.  This even extends to Protestant religious leaders.  When an evangelical preacher gets caught in an extramarital affair (about every other Thursday), he isn't spared from being the butt of jokes.  His ecclesiastic authority does not spare him from the general rule -- to whom much is given, much will be criticized.  In fact, even the libel and slander laws recognize this rule and therefore, they allow for lesser protection for "public figures."

 

Of course, much of what I like about the Church is that we are different from the world in many respects.  But in this respect, we also seem to be different from Christ.  My feeble reading of the NT does not indicate that Jesus was some "great respecter of persons."  In fact, I can't remember a single time when He withheld some rebuke or criticism due to the person's status in the religious or social order.  In fact, He seemed to level his harshest criticisms against those who were in leadership or otherwise, considered "most righteous."  It was in this context that He said:

 

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

 

Of course, being the Savior, He had that prerogative.  Perhaps, sinners like me should not assume that we can stand in his stead and make harsh judgments against those in leadership.  However, if that is the case, then how do we justify such harsh judgments against those of whom even less has been given and thus, less is required?  If it is not appropriate to question the mental faculties, goodwill or morality of one of the Brethren, then how can it be okay to make similar judgments against Dehlin, Kelly, the sister who thinks that Disney's Frozen is going to turn everyone gay, or each other for that matter?

 

So what am I missing in our scriptures and doctrine that makes the best amongst us exempt from criticism, but the least amongst us fair game to suffer the slings and arrows of Mormon Dialogue?

[stemelbow]

I can be too critical to even comment in this thread. but it sounds interesting. I guess I'll see where it goes. h

[CV75]

So what am I missing...?

You are missing the use of the word "seriously" as a preamble to any of your statements!

 

Just kidding -- I don't think you're missing anything from the scriptures.

[rodheadlee]

Back up and read some more of Luke.

 

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

  17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to ^abestow my fruits?

  18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

  19 And I will say to my soul, ^aSoul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, ^beat, drink, and be merry.

  20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy ^asoul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

  21 So is he that layeth up ^atreasure for ^bhimself, and is not rich toward God. 

 

 

You are confusing richness toward God with earthly treasure. How do you know Dehlin and Kelly have been given little? Do you know their visions, dreams and how much info they have received via the Holy Spirit? They choose to live their life in the public eye, something about sowing and reaping comes to mind. Or live by the sword die by the sword. Even so I would never judge a person, but I can judge their actions and words.

 

Our leaders were chosen by God, these CEOs, business leaders, celebrities, John Dehlin and Kate Kelly have put themselves where they are, for the most part. You want to criticize God's Choices? I have no problem with people criticizing man's choices. I have a problem with people criticizing God's choices. 

[JLHPROF]

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in our Mormon culture.  While we generally attempt to be true to the 13th Article of Faith, we will make exceptions and levy harsh judgments and critiques against others.  Yet, for some reason, that criticism only goes so high up the food chain.  Rank and file members are fair game for any type of criticism.  And even the most "faithful" member will feel free to take, say, a bishop to task for some wrongful action.  A faithful member might even take a swipe at a stake president (although not likely his own).  But it won't get much higher then that, and to even acknowledge a minor fault of one of the Brethren seems to be a first class ticket to outer darkness.

 

Interestingly, this is the exact OPPOSITE of how criticism is levied in the rest of society.  Each night, talk show hosts deliver monologues in which they lampoon politicians, business leaders and celebrities.  In fact, the higher their position in society, the more about them is fair game to criticize.  This even extends to Protestant religious leaders.  When an evangelical preacher gets caught in an extramarital affair (about every other Thursday), he isn't spared from being the butt of jokes.  His ecclesiastic authority does not spare him from the general rule -- to whom much is given, much will be criticized.  In fact, even the libel and slander laws recognize this rule and therefore, they allow for lesser protection for "public figures."

 

Of course, much of what I like about the Church is that we are different from the world in many respects.  But in this respect, we also seem to be different from Christ.  My feeble reading of the NT does not indicate that Jesus was some "great respecter of persons."  In fact, I can't remember a single time when He withheld some rebuke or criticism due to the person's status in the religious or social order.  In fact, He seemed to level his harshest criticisms against those who were in leadership or otherwise, considered "most righteous."  It was in this context that He said:

 

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

 

Of course, being the Savior, He had that prerogative.  Perhaps, sinners like me should not assume that we can stand in his stead and make harsh judgments against those in leadership.  However, if that is the case, then how do we justify such harsh judgments against those of whom even less has been given and thus, less is required?  If it is not appropriate to question the mental faculties, goodwill or morality of one of the Brethren, then how can it be okay to make similar judgments against Dehlin, Kelly, the sister who thinks that Disney's Frozen is going to turn everyone gay, or each other for that matter?

 

So what am I missing in our scriptures and doctrine that makes the best amongst us exempt from criticism, but the least amongst us fair game to suffer the slings and arrows of Mormon Dialogue?

 

 

Ok, you are mixing worldly personal criticism with gospel leadership criticism.  Let me reorder your post to show the difference:

 

 

Interestingly, this is the exact OPPOSITE of how criticism is levied in the rest of society.  Each night, talk show hosts deliver monologues in which they lampoon politicians, business leaders and celebrities.  In fact, the higher their position in society, the more about them is fair game to criticize.  This even extends to Protestant religious leaders.  When an evangelical preacher gets caught in an extramarital affair (about every other Thursday), he isn't spared from being the butt of jokes.  His ecclesiastic authority does not spare him from the general rule -- to whom much is given, much will be criticized.  In fact, even the libel and slander laws recognize this rule and therefore, they allow for lesser protection for "public figures."

 

Of course, much of what I like about the Church is that we are different from the world in many respects.  But in this respect, we also seem to be different from Christ.  My feeble reading of the NT does not indicate that Jesus was some "great respecter of persons."  In fact, I can't remember a single time when He withheld some rebuke or criticism due to the person's status in the religious or social order.  In fact, He seemed to level his harshest criticisms against those who were in leadership or otherwise, considered "most righteous."  It was in this context that He said:

 

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

 

This kind of criticism can and does happen.  It is applied to all men.  If a GA was caught in an affair nobody would think twice about criticizing him (see George P. Lee or Richard R. Lyman).  Politicians likewise are openly criticized for their sins and errors.  This is what Christ was referring to.

But here is the false comparison:

 

 

 

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in our Mormon culture.  While we generally attempt to be true to the 13th Article of Faith, we will make exceptions and levy harsh judgments and critiques against others.  Yet, for some reason, that criticism only goes so high up the food chain.  Rank and file members are fair game for any type of criticism.  And even the most "faithful" member will feel free to take, say, a bishop to task for some wrongful action.  A faithful member might even take a swipe at a stake president (although not likely his own).  But it won't get much higher then that, and to even acknowledge a minor fault of one of the Brethren seems to be a first class ticket to outer darkness.

 

Of course, being the Savior, He had that prerogative.  Perhaps, sinners like me should not assume that we can stand in his stead and make harsh judgments against those in leadership.  However, if that is the case, then how do we justify such harsh judgments against those of whom even less has been given and thus, less is required?  If it is not appropriate to question the mental faculties, goodwill or morality of one of the Brethren, then how can it be okay to make similar judgments against Dehlin, Kelly, the sister who thinks that Disney's Frozen is going to turn everyone gay, or each other for that matter?

 

So what am I missing in our scriptures and doctrine that makes the best amongst us exempt from criticism, but the least amongst us fair game to suffer the slings and arrows of Mormon Dialogue?

 

What you are subtly referring to here is not criticizing a leader for their sin and fault, but rather to criticizing them for the gospel policies and practices you disagree with.  This is where you get to questioning whether the Church is led by God.  That is a ticket to outer darkness -

"“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives” (Joseph Smith, Teachings, pp. 156–57).

 

Of course leaders of high position are more able to be criticized in their sins and faults.  But this is different from criticizing the policies and practices of a Church led by God (but you knew that when you combined the two in this post).  And as for the criticism of the Kate Kelly or Dehlin's, it is less for their false doctrines and more for their insistance on overstepping their authority to teach their false doctrines.

Edited July 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

Even so I would never judge a person, but I can judge their actions and words.

I think that is the proper message from the scriptures, and generally what is encouraged to be done when dialog becomes debate on this board.

[stemelbow]

I've been told enough times lately that I am pretty much of the devil for thinking we ought to be able to challenge the position of the Church, at least enough to make sure the position works for us. I think people mistake disagreeing with the Church's position, or questioning it with criticizing certain leaders. That's not where I come from. It may be that the Church operates so closely with God that mistakes aren't made, but it seems like mistakes have been made. This just leads to the notion that we should be able to be questioning and not be told we are of the devil for doing so. Often times if we can resolve the questioning we are strong tied to the Church's position.

it should be a good thing. But as it is it is often treated as if questioning is of the devil. Not sure I can buy into that assumption.

[The Nehor]

Church leaders are different from other kinds of leaders. Other leaders need criticism to know how they are doing and (in most cases) so they can be removed.

 

God has NOT given us that power over his servants and reserves that power for himself. He doesn't trust us to do it and rightly so. Many who try to do so destroy not only their own faith but the faith of others. If they need correction God is more than capable of giving it without our help.

 

Here are the Lord's thoughts on those who discomfort his people, testify against his leaders, and offend his little ones (those weak in the faith or those who are vulnerable or doubting):

 

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

 

 17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

 

 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

 

19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

 

 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.

 

 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

 

 22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

 23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.

 

Apparently the Lord does not care about any supposed fundamental right we have to criticize. He just promises hellfire and curses upon the person doing it and their posterity.

 

Note that the people these verses refer to were people criticizing church leaders for what they were sure was a good cause; many of them thought they were correcting the course of the Church leadership. If one does not have faith in their Church leaders at least have faith in the promises of the Lord regarding those who do criticize.

[mormonnewb]

 

Back up and read some more of Luke.

 

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

  17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to ^abestow my fruits?

  18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

  19 And I will say to my soul, ^aSoul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, ^beat, drink, and be merry.

  20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy ^asoul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

  21 So is he that layeth up ^atreasure for ^bhimself, and is not rich toward God. 

 

 

You are confusing richness toward God with earthly treasure. How do you know Dehlin and Kelly have been given little? Do you know their visions, dreams and how much info they have received via the Holy Spirit? They choose to live their life in the public eye, something about sowing and reaping comes to mind. Or live by the sword die by the sword. Even so I would never judge a person, but I can judge their actions and words.

 

Our leaders were chosen by God, these CEOs, business leaders, celebrities, John Dehlin and Kate Kelly have put themselves where they are, for the most part. You want to criticize God's Choices? I have no problem with people criticizing man's choices. I have a problem with people criticizing God's choices. 

 

 

I think you might have backed up too far.  In Luke 12:48, the "much" that Christ is referring to is Godly wisdom.

 

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:47-48

 

Now, I am going to assume that you aren't suggesting that Dehlin, Kelly, et al. see God's will more clearly than the Brethren and therefore, they can be judged more harshly.

 

As for our leaders being immune from criticism because they were chosen by God for the position, I'm not so sure that the same argument can't be made for many of us.  I certainly feel that I was providentially led to my current profession (which probably explains why I have so many questions).  In fact, on any given Open Mic Sunday, I can expect to hear at least one testimony of someone who received inspiration from the Holy Spirit to make a call or pay a visit to someone who made an immense difference in their business/career.

 

That being so, are you suggesting that I should send a sharply worded rebuke to all of the people who criticize my work, explaining that they are, in fact, criticizing God because He is the one who put me in that position?  I kind of like the idea myself, but given that I receive at least one or two negative comments EVERY time I do "the Lord's work," I might have to make it a form letter.

[CV75]

As for our leaders being immune from criticism

Here's a good article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

 

2 quotes from it:

 

1.

"The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize."

 

2.

Elder George Albert Smith said this about criticism: “Aren’t we rather prone to see the limitations and the weaknesses of our neighbors? Yet that is contrary to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a class of people who find fault and criticize always in a destructive way. There is a difference in criticism. If we can criticize constructively under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord, we may change beneficially and properly some of the things that are being done. But if we have the spirit of faultfinding, of pointing out the weaknesses and failings of others in a destructive manner, that never comes as the result of the companionship of the Spirit of our Heavenly Father and is always harmful.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1934, p. 50.)

[mormonnewb]

Ok, you are mixing worldly personal criticism with gospel leadership criticism.  Let me reorder your post to show the difference:

 

 

This kind of criticism can and does happen.  It is applied to all men.  If a GA was caught in an affair nobody would think twice about criticizing him (see George P. Lee or Richard R. Lyman).  Politicians likewise are openly criticized for their sins and errors.  This is what Christ was referring to.

But here is the false comparison:

 

 

What you are subtly referring to here is not criticizing a leader for their sin and fault, but rather to criticizing them for the gospel policies and practices you disagree with.  This is where you get to questioning whether the Church is led by God.  That is a ticket to outer darkness -

"“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives” (Joseph Smith, Teachings, pp. 156–57).

 

Of course leaders of high position are more able to be criticized in their sins and faults.  But this is different from criticizing the policies and practices of a Church led by God (but you knew that when you combined the two in this post).  And as for the criticism of the Kate Kelly or Dehlin's, it is less for their false doctrines and more for their insistance on overstepping their authority to teach their false doctrines.

 

Outside of this Church, religious leaders are criticized for their theology as much as for their personal foibles.  Take, for instance, that preacher who predicted that the world would end on a specific date a few years back.  The Internet had a blast ridiculing that "man of God."  I was even invited to a few End of the World parties.

 

So, hypothetically, if one of our Church leaders were to say, predict a parade of horribles that will occur if, say, blacks and white intermarry, and such prediction does not come to pass, could that leader's teachings be criticized (or at least, "de-emphasized" as "not pertinent to salvation")?  And if, say, 100 years later, Church leaders predict another parade of horribles that will occur if, say, two Barbara Streisand fans intermarry, do we have to wait until that prediction proves false before de-emphasizing it as being not pertinent to salvation?

 

DERAIL ALERT: I am not trying to turn this thread into yet another SSM debate.  My point is simply that, do current members have to wait until a leader is long dead before we can say, "I think the Big Guy had a little something extra in his postum this morning!"  And if so, when did that become the case?  As I understand it, when BY started preaching his Adam-God theory, that is precisely how some of the other apostles reacted.  Orson Pratt is reported to have said flat out that he didn't believe it and that he could prove it through the scriptures.  In my view, this is the Mormon equivalent of saying, "Brigham, please!"

 

And apparently, people weren't just saying this behind BY's back.  Here is what BY himself said a few years before his death:

 

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God...."

 

So what has changed in our doctrine since then that makes vocal and public disagreement with Church leaders the sin next to porn?  And is our current position that all "faithful" saints must we all sit by quietly and wait until such leader has left the earthly realm before we can correct our course?  Because if so, we are bound to always be a generation or so behind the times.  On second thought, I think I just answered my own question

[mormonnewb]

Here's a good article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

 

2 quotes from it:

 

1.

"The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize."

 

2.

Elder George Albert Smith said this about criticism: “Aren’t we rather prone to see the limitations and the weaknesses of our neighbors? Yet that is contrary to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a class of people who find fault and criticize always in a destructive way. There is a difference in criticism. If we can criticize constructively under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord, we may change beneficially and properly some of the things that are being done. But if we have the spirit of faultfinding, of pointing out the weaknesses and failings of others in a destructive manner, that never comes as the result of the companionship of the Spirit of our Heavenly Father and is always harmful.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1934, p. 50.)

 

Elder Smith was right.  There is a type of criticism that is never helpful and only leads to spiritual ruin ... and possibly, one's own sitcom on Fox.  But once again, in any event, it just leads to ruin.  It also leads to silencing those who are not steeped in "Mormon speak."

 

One of the things that I found most remarkable was the idea put forth by Church leaders that they would not even address issues if they were not raised in the proper "tone."  I bet that President Obama wishes he could dismiss his critics that way.  "Well, I would do something about this economy, but I don't like the tone of your request, American people!"  And yes, I know that the government is not the Church.  In fact, perhaps it's just me, but I expect MORE from our church leaders than from our governmental leaders.  And if it isn't acceptable for Obama to be so thin-skinned, then I don't see how "God's chosen leaders" should expect to be treated with kid gloves.  In fact, scripture tells us that they won't be treated so delicately.

 

"... to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

 

Or, in the immortal words of Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!"

 

That point aside, I still fail to see where even CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of Church policies is allowed in our discourse (at least, outside of the Internet).  And yes, I know, we are all free to impotently criticize Church policies and doctrine.  So long as we don't voice our criticisms in public or try to persuade others to our way of thinking, we are free to have all of the non-effectual thoughts we desire.  However, how do we express a criticism/suggestion that might actually influence how we build Zion TOGETHER?

Edited July 3, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

 

Church leaders are different from other kinds of leaders. Other leaders need criticism to know how they are doing and (in most cases) so they can be removed.

 

God has NOT given us that power over his servants and reserves that power for himself. He doesn't trust us to do it and rightly so. Many who try to do so destroy not only their own faith but the faith of others. If they need correction God is more than capable of giving it without our help.

 

Here are the Lord's thoughts on those who discomfort his people, testify against his leaders, and offend his little ones (those weak in the faith or those who are vulnerable or doubting):

 

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

 

 17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

 

 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

 

19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

 

 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.

 

 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

 

 22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

 23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.

 

Apparently the Lord does not care about any supposed fundamental right we have to criticize. He just promises hellfire and curses upon the person doing it and their posterity.

 

Note that the people these verses refer to were people criticizing church leaders for what they were sure was a good cause; many of them thought they were correcting the course of the Church leadership. If one does not have faith in their Church leaders at least have faith in the promises of the Lord regarding those who do criticize.

 

 

I'm not familiar with that scripture (no surprise there).  Is it from the D&C?

[The Nehor]

I'm not familiar with that scripture (no surprise there).  Is it from the D&C?

I believe D&C 121. Do not have scriptures with me.

[why me]

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in our Mormon culture.  While we generally attempt to be true to the 13th Article of Faith, we will make exceptions and levy harsh judgments and critiques against others.  Yet, for some reason, that criticism only goes so high up the food chain.  Rank and file members are fair game for any type of criticism.  And even the most "faithful" member will feel free to take, say, a bishop to task for some wrongful action.  A faithful member might even take a swipe at a stake president (although not likely his own).  But it won't get much higher then that, and to even acknowledge a minor fault of one of the Brethren seems to be a first class ticket to outer darkness.

 

I think that lds leaders are often criticized by exmembers and critics of the lds church. I see this quite often. I suppose that when active members do it on the web, it never seems good since there is so much criticism anyway by others. Sometimes it is always best to accentuate the positive sides to the leaders and the church. However, no one is exempt from criticism. Back in the day, Ezra Taft Benson was often criticized for his politics by active lds. And Bruce R. McConkie was criticized by the leadership for his mormon doctrine book. I suppose that it is all in the tone. If an active members is sounding like an exmember, then I think that is a problem. Or if an active member is just super critical of the lds church, then I would think that that would be a problem.

 

Rank and file members are only fair game on the internet. Not in real life.

[mormonnewb]

Church leaders are different from other kinds of leaders. Other leaders need criticism to know how they are doing and (in most cases) so they can be removed.

 

God has NOT given us that power over his servants and reserves that power for himself. He doesn't trust us to do it and rightly so. Many who try to do so destroy not only their own faith but the faith of others. If they need correction God is more than capable of giving it without our help.

 

Here are the Lord's thoughts on those who discomfort his people, testify against his leaders, and offend his little ones (those weak in the faith or those who are vulnerable or doubting):

 

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

 

 17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

 

 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

 

19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

 

 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.

 

 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

 

 22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

 23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.

 

Apparently the Lord does not care about any supposed fundamental right we have to criticize. He just promises hellfire and curses upon the person doing it and their posterity.

 

Note that the people these verses refer to were people criticizing church leaders for what they were sure was a good cause; many of them thought they were correcting the course of the Church leadership. If one does not have faith in their Church leaders at least have faith in the promises of the Lord regarding those who do criticize.

You would certainly know better than me, but isn't The Lord referring to the Church's enemies (as opposed to dissenting members)? JS receives this revelation after spending months in jail on trumped up charges. His words seem to be aimed at his "false accusers" -- those who "discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them." I don't think that The Lord is referring to one of the early saints who, say, had a problem with tithing on the gross. I THINK he is referring to JS' jailers, the angry mobs that drove the saints from Kirtland, the angry mob that would later kill him, and even the Governor of Illinois. In fact, last year in Sunday school, the instructor used just these verses to demonstrate how this prophecy came to pass in the lives of those involved in the martyrdom.

Are you saying that they also apply to EVERYONE who disagrees with ANY aspect of Church doctrine/policy?

[The Nehor]

You would certainly know better than me, but isn't The Lord referring to the Church's enemies (as opposed to dissenting members)? JS receives this revelation after spending months in jail on trumped up charges. His words seem to be aimed at his "false accusers" -- those who "discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them." I don't think that The Lord is referring to one of the early saints who, say, had a problem with tithing on the gross. I THINK he is referring to JS' jailers, the angry mobs that drove the saints from Kirtland, the angry mob that would later kill him, and even the Governor of Illinois. In fact, last year in Sunday school, the instructor used just these verses to demonstrate how this prophecy came to pass in the lives of those involved in the martyrdom.

Are you saying that they also apply to EVERYONE who disagrees with ANY aspect of Church doctrine/policy?

Partly, but many of those who caused the problem were members who preached dissent. They riled up people both inside and outside of the Church to anger. We are unlikely to be driven from a state but stirring up ire and anger against the saints is still dangerous and I doubt God will quibble over how far those you support will go.

This scripture does not make a meaningful distinction between members and non-members so I believe it applies to all. Scary? Yep.

[stemelbow]

Partly, but many of those who caused the problem were members who preached dissent. They riled up people both inside and outside of the Church to anger. We are unlikely to be driven from a state but stirring up ire and anger against the saints is still dangerous and I doubt God will quibble over how far those you support will go.

This scripture does not make a meaningful distinction between members and non-members so I believe it applies to all. Scary? Yep.

What's the danger?

[CV75]

That point aside, I still fail to see where even CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of Church policies is allowed in our discourse (at least, outside of the Internet).  And yes, I know, we are all free to impotently criticize Church policies and doctrine.  So long as we don't voice our criticisms in public or try to persuade others to our way of thinking, we are free to have all of the non-effectual thoughts we desire.  However, how do we express a criticism/suggestion that might actually influence how we build Zion TOGETHER?

I think a key to this is the principle that criticism is not constructive when it grieves the Spirit. So when we are inspired by God to express a criticism that might influence how we build Zion together, it is done through good-faith participation in the council process. This is also how inspired good-faith criticism is manifest.

 

With regards to good-faith discussion or debate on the Internet, to each their own, but I think whoever makes the best case on doctrinal principle can raise the most valid criticism.

[The Nehor]

What's the danger?

Possibly endangering the saints but the most real danger in my ever so humble opinion is weakening the faith of the "little ones" of the flock of God. Then in it is millstone time. Another side effect is weakening missionary work.

In addition to the damage they do to themselves of course.

[ELF1024]

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in our Mormon culture.  While we generally attempt to be true to the 13th Article of Faith, we will make exceptions and levy harsh judgments and critiques against others.  Yet, for some reason, that criticism only goes so high up the food chain.  Rank and file members are fair game for any type of criticism.  And even the most "faithful" member will feel free to take, say, a bishop to task for some wrongful action.  A faithful member might even take a swipe at a stake president (although not likely his own).  But it won't get much higher then that, and to even acknowledge a minor fault of one of the Brethren seems to be a first class ticket to outer darkness.

 

...

 

So what am I missing in our scriptures and doctrine that makes the best amongst us exempt from criticism, but the least amongst us fair game to suffer the slings and arrows of Mormon Dialogue?

 

It's far easier to be critical of those you personally know?

 

There are a couple of local leaders that I have known over the years that I tend to use as bad examples. Mostly because, I knew them well enough and had enough interaction with them to judge them to be pinheads.

 

I'm less likely to be critical of someone I don't know, and who isn't in the paper everyday.

 

Also in many ways, I don't see that what the 12 are doing is all that relevant to my everyday life. IMHO very little actually changes in the Church... and that's a good thing from my prospective...

 

Now, our Political leaders I tend to be harshly critical of and have been known to verbally flay alive on more occasions than not... but then I believe they have more impact on our lives on a regular basis... and I definately obsess more about politics than I do about the 12.

Edited July 3, 2014 by ELF1024

[stemelbow]

Possibly endangering the saints but the most real danger in my ever so humble opinion is weakening the faith of the "little ones" of the flock of God. Then in it is millstone time. Another side effect is weakening missionary work.

In addition to the damage they do to themselves of course.

Be interesting to know that there is any validity to this fear. Each little one grows up and decides to remain faithful or not, to put it simply. I don't know any particular criticism is contributing to any one's eventual departure from the faith.

[The Nehor]

Be interesting to know that there is any validity to this fear. Each little one grows up and decides to remain faithful or not, to put it simply. I don't know any particular criticism is contributing to any one's eventual departure from the faith.

Little ones does not in this context refer only (or even mostly) to children.

And I disagree. Our actions have consequences. I have seen critics be the primary cause of people leaving the church. While they are accountable for leaving those who help people exit the faith are promised some rather stiff eternal penalties.

[ERayR]

I've noticed a strange phenomenon in our Mormon culture.  While we generally attempt to be true to the 13th Article of Faith, we will make exceptions and levy harsh judgments and critiques against others.  Yet, for some reason, that criticism only goes so high up the food chain.  Rank and file members are fair game for any type of criticism.  And even the most "faithful" member will feel free to take, say, a bishop to task for some wrongful action.  A faithful member might even take a swipe at a stake president (although not likely his own).  But it won't get much higher then that, and to even acknowledge a minor fault of one of the Brethren seems to be a first class ticket to outer darkness.

 

Interestingly, this is the exact OPPOSITE of how criticism is levied in the rest of society.  Each night, talk show hosts deliver monologues in which they lampoon politicians, business leaders and celebrities.  In fact, the higher their position in society, the more about them is fair game to criticize.  This even extends to Protestant religious leaders.  When an evangelical preacher gets caught in an extramarital affair (about every other Thursday), he isn't spared from being the butt of jokes.  His ecclesiastic authority does not spare him from the general rule -- to whom much is given, much will be criticized.  In fact, even the libel and slander laws recognize this rule and therefore, they allow for lesser protection for "public figures."

 

Of course, much of what I like about the Church is that we are different from the world in many respects.  But in this respect, we also seem to be different from Christ.  My feeble reading of the NT does not indicate that Jesus was some "great respecter of persons."  In fact, I can't remember a single time when He withheld some rebuke or criticism due to the person's status in the religious or social order.  In fact, He seemed to level his harshest criticisms against those who were in leadership or otherwise, considered "most righteous."  It was in this context that He said:

 

"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

 

Of course, being the Savior, He had that prerogative.  Perhaps, sinners like me should not assume that we can stand in his stead and make harsh judgments against those in leadership.  However, if that is the case, then how do we justify such harsh judgments against those of whom even less has been given and thus, less is required?  If it is not appropriate to question the mental faculties, goodwill or morality of one of the Brethren, then how can it be okay to make similar judgments against Dehlin, Kelly, the sister who thinks that Disney's Frozen is going to turn everyone gay, or each other for that matter?

 

So what am I missing in our scriptures and doctrine that makes the best amongst us exempt from criticism, but the least amongst us fair game to suffer the slings and arrows of Mormon Dialogue?

 

I try not to be critical of anyone as it is not up to me to run their lives.  I do tend to be a little more critical of ideas and while questioning them I try to respect the person.. My question to you is why did you leave the Baptist faith and come to the Mormon faith and now are trying to reform the Mormon Church into a copy of the Baptist Church? 

 

Here is something to think about:  The majority of believing Latter-day Saints are comfortable with the way the Church us run and are uncomfortable with activist disruption.

[stemelbow]

Little ones does not in this context refer only (or even mostly) to children.

And I disagree. Our actions have consequences. I have seen critics be the primary cause of people leaving the church. While they are accountable for leaving those who help people exit the faith are promised some rather stiff eternal penalties.

of course it can get complicated. While you'd put the blame on the critic, most often he who left would not put it on the critic but the information that he/she learned. Are we to take the reason you attribute to someone who has left, as if you have special insight? or shall we take them at their word? I think that's an important question to ask. All too often we want to define for others why they do things, like leave Mormonism, but that's the easy way to do it. Just ignore them and say we know better than they. In doing so we miss an important opportunity to learn and grow.

Too bad.