To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[wenglund]

It's kind of like someone looking at a masterpiece painting and rather than focusing his attention on the 99% of the paining that is beautiful, well-preserved, vibrant and inspiring, he chooses instead to obsessively focus nearly all of his attention on the 1% of the painting that has degraded on the lower left corner. 

 

Yes...and to make matters worse, as you intimated in an earlier post, such ungrateful and imbalanced criticisms often come from presumptuous people with the spiritual and authoritative equivalence of barely able to draw stick figures and who have trouble crayoning within the lines. Your average first grader presumes to lecture da Vinci on what's wrong with the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 8, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Rather arrogant in the same sense as Pontifex Maximus over primus inter pares.

 

Arrogance is a motive. If that is the real motive than God is arrogant as He is the one who commanded it and we are told to be like Him.

 

Either that or the LDS faith is a fraud in which case who cares whether members criticize their leaders?

[thesometimesaint]

The Church teaches that no mortal in infallible, and the members don't believe it.

[The Nehor]

The Church teaches that no mortal in infallible, and the members don't believe it.

 

I believe it wholeheartedly. In fact I could give you a flaw for just about every modern prophet and prophet in scripture too. It isn't even that hard. It is just not my job to correct them. In fact I am under instructions not to correct them or point said errors out to others in any way that would demean or diminish their standing. In most cases this means saying nothing at all.

 

God said He could take care of correcting them on His own. I believe Him. If God wants my help as a professional critic of church leaders he would inspire my Bishop to give me that calling.

[Damien the Leper]

Arrogance is a motive. If that is the real motive than God is arrogant as He is the one who commanded it and we are told to be like Him.

 

Either that or the LDS faith is a fraud in which case who cares whether members criticize their leaders?

 

Far too simplistic.

[mormonnewb]

Yes...and to make matters worse, as you intimated in an earlier post, such ungrateful and imbalanced criticisms often come from presumptuous people with the spiritual and authoritative equivalence of barely able to draw stick figures and who have trouble crayoning within the lines. Your average first grader presumes to lecture da Vinci on what's wrong with the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I let that insult go the first time, but not TWICE.  The presumption that I don't know enough to criticize because I'm new to the Church is ridiculous and quite a bit arrogant.  I don't need to get my 20-year Mormon gold watch before I can READ and discern truth through scripture and the Holy Spirit.  Do you really think that the Mormons are the only ones who read and study the words of the Savior?  I am by no means a "scriptorian," but I am quite confident that I am as Bible literate as most Mormons.

 

Even more, the presumption that I must be a Mormon for some probationary period before I can discern, say, that the Church should have been on the side of civil rights is absurd.  It doesn't require an Anytime Minutes Plan with HF to know that you stand on the side of freedom and equality.  Our Jewish brothers and sisters have NO relationship with Christ (at least not one they acknowledge) and they got the memo.

 

Besides, NONE of you are members of OW, yet you criticize this organization's tactics and strategy CONSTANTLY.  Why don't you join, sit by quietly for a few decades and THEN presume to tell their appointed leaders how to run the "true protestors"?

 

My arguments are not bullet-proof.  Certainly, experienced Mormons like yourselves should be able to shoot LOGICAL holes in them.  But these attempts to diminish them by citing my tenure (or doubting my status as a Mormon altogether) are really low blows.  I would expect that "real Mormons" would know better.

Edited July 9, 2014 by mormonnewb

[The Nehor]

Far too simplistic.

 

Nope.

 

Of course it is possible that in following God's system people in the system can become arrogant. That is why we have D&C 121. Arguing that people believe God when He promises to take care of correction is not naive. It is faith.

 

To be fair the main reason I am convinced that God can correct the apostles is that He is vigorously correcting a relative nobody like me. I try to take my covenants seriously. Still working on it. I am a serial adulterer and murderer by Jesus's standards of figuring the Ten Commandments so I have a ways to go.

 

Why is criticism so important to people? It is defended as some kind of vital right when it is one of the most useless activities humanity has thought up.

[Damien the Leper]

Nope.

 

Of course it is possible that in following God's system people in the system can become arrogant. That is why we have D&C 121. Arguing that people believe God when He promises to take care of correction is not naive. It is faith.

 

To be fair the main reason I am convinced that God can correct the apostles is that He is vigorously correcting a relative nobody like me. I try to take my covenants seriously. Still working on it. I am a serial adulterer and murderer by Jesus's standards of figuring the Ten Commandments so I have a ways to go.

 

Why is criticism so important to people? It is defended as some kind of vital right when it is one of the most useless activities humanity has thought up.

 

 

Then the criticism works both ways. It is equally useless and not conducive from the top down. 

[wenglund]

I let that insult go the first time, but not TWICE.  The presumption that I don't know enough to criticize because I'm new to the Church is ridiculous and quite a bit arrogant.  I don't need to get my 20-year Mormon gold watch before I can READ and discern truth through scripture and the Holy Spirit.  Do you really think that the Mormons are the only ones who read and study the words of the Savior?  I am by no means a "scriptorian," but I am quite confident that I am as Bible literate as most Mormons.

 

Even more, the presumption that I must be a Mormon for some probationary period before I can discern, say, that the Church should have been on the side of civil rights is absurd.  It doesn't require an Anytime Minutes Plan with HF to know that you stand on the side of freedom and equality.  Our Jewish brothers and sisters have NO relationship with Christ (at least not one they acknowledge) and they got the memo.

 

Besides, NONE of you are members of OW, yet you criticize this organization's tactics and strategy CONSTANTLY.  Why don't you join, sit by quietly for a few decades and THEN presume to tell their appointed leaders how to run the "true protestors"?

 

My arguments are not bullet-proof.  Certainly, experienced Mormons like yourselves should be able to shoot LOGICAL holes in them.  But these attempts to diminish them by citing my tenure (or doubting my status as a Mormon altogether) are really low blows.  I would expect that "real Mormons" would know better.

 

It isn't a matter of putting in LDS time, but a matter of "getting it." It is about full, rather than lukewarm conversion. It is about trusting in God more so than self or pop culture. It is about humility rather than pride. It is about perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, proclaiming the gospel, caring for those in need, rather than presumptuously criticizing God's chosen leaders over seemingly manufactured issues. It is about gratitude for God's abundant blessing rather than complaining incessantly about certain presumed voids. Etc., Etc. This "getting it" can happen immediately, as it did with Alma the younger, or it may allude some people who have been members all their lives.

 

And, I don't have to spend any time as a member of OW to realize that in terms of the restored gospel, KK and her fellow adherents and cheer leaders don't "get it." All I have to do is observe their words and deeds to see in whom they put their trust and in whom they place their pride and what occupies their attention. Their's is a different gospel than mine.

 

Now, if I believed that KK was called of God rather than LDS church leaders, and that the OW mission was divine and/or paramount over the mission of the Church, then that would be a different story, and I would gladly leave the Church and join and remain a member of OW, and seek not to criticize her and her newfound gospel. But, I don't.  

 

So, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 9, 2014 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Does the Church claim that its leaders are infallible?  Or did not one of them recently at GC acknowledge that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine”?

 

 

No they are not infallible but there is a procedure for correcting those in error and it is not by dissidents publicly calling them out.

[The Nehor]

Then the criticism works both ways. It is equally useless and not conducive from the top down. 

 

Or would be if it were not as representatives of Jesus. Most of the top-down stuff is not criticism of course. It is counsel and much of it is divine counsel.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Why is criticism so important to people? It is defended as some kind of vital right when it is one of the most useless activities humanity has thought up.

 

I think Jeff G.'s explanation of the 'culture of critical discourse' (CCD) is a pretty good attempt at an answer:

 

It is this principled distinction, this setting apart of certain individuals from their peers that is deeply hostile to CCD. Whereas intellectuals embrace criticism as a tool which is to be applied by everyone to everyone about everything, the priesthood, by contrast, is a tool which is specifically aimed at stifling criticism by certain people against certain people about certain things. It is the priesthood, then, and not prophecy which most scandalizes the intellectual, for it is at the very core of their culture to resist anything and everything which says that certain questions, answers and other speech acts belong exclusively to uniquely authorized individuals which have been set apart from their peers. It is the authority of priesthood, then, and not the supernaturalism of prophecy that intellectuals within the church will find themselves compelled to ignore, reinterpret or otherwise repress.

 

Some of the strategies by which reconciliation is ostensibly sought, the intellectual Trojan Horses which serve to mask rather than resolve the tensions between Mormonism and intellectualism include, but are not limited to:

1. Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.
2. Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”.
3. Overemphasizing the importance of church history.
4. Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets.

It will be noted that all of these things which are overemphasized or reinterpreted by the intellectuals are in and of themselves supported by church leaders.   This is exactly what makes them such effective Trojan Horses which provide shelter for intellectual values within the church.  The mistake of the Mormon intellectual will thus lie not in his values per se, but in the way he interprets and prioritizes them.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Besides, NONE of you are members of OW, yet you criticize this organization's tactics and strategy CONSTANTLY. Why don't you join, sit by quietly for a few decades and THEN presume to tell their appointed leaders how to run the "true protestors"?.

By commenting on this line I am not suggesting your other comments are wrong. I don't believe time is necessarily a necessity to know what could be an improvement with an organization, I have heard ridiculous criticisms from old, lifelong members and some insightful ones from new ones. Time and effort will tend to expose a member to more things bout the church so they may discover they were wrong though. I've know someone who was a lifelong member who said the church was wasting billions on a mall and doing nothing to get clean water to those who need it when there was in place already for a long time the Clean Water initiative among other things...that is more about educating oneself though then picking up nuances of behaviour and language which is what time and exposure is necessary for, thus the all immersion experience for those who want to pick up a language quicker and have a more authentic experience.

I would like to point out that there is a difference in criticism you are comparing. Those criticisizing OW are criitcizing them not for how they interact with each other within their own group (though I have seen maybe one poster do it and I told her she was wrong to do so ) but how they interacting with others outside themselves including ourselves since their efforts are attempts to change our minds as well as others. There are significant differences between someone who is an outsider criitcizing what goes on inside an organization he is not a member of that has little or no impact on himself or other nonmembers and someone who is a member of an organization criticizing what is going on within its 'walls' doing it and also someone criticizing someone else for criticizing them, defending against criticism by challenging the appropriateness of the person's standing as opposed to simply excluding them from the conversation as irrelevant no matter what was said or intended to say. Different rules of what is appropriate apply depending on context and intent, most important in my opinion is what the critic is trying to accomplish.

Edited July 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

No.  You are missing it.

 

The default position is that the leaders work from inspiration from Him Who runs the Church when in council, and what is said and/or done there is His will.

 

This includes the procedure from bottom at the Ward/Stake level up to the First Presidency.  Only when the final word is spoken and the last act accomplished in a disciplinary proceeding is the council complete.

 

It is the very rare exception [see, e.g., Avraham Gileadi or Helmut Huebener] does the council system break down and make errors:  in both the local leaders made errors which were later straightened out.

 

In no way was KK misjudged or did passions carry councilmen away to make faulty judgments, as far as I can see.

Well of course, as far as you can see. But we don't know many of the details. It's easy to side with one side without all the information as it suits our personal agendas. But that doesn't make it all right. Because mistakes are made it's fair to challenge in hopes mistakes don't perpetuate.

[stemelbow]

I would agree with you ... if you were comparing two earthly organizations.  But you're not: you're comparing an earthly organization with one, the roots of which are (if one has a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be) not of this world.

That doesn't negate the possibility of error. So it's fair to challenge and question. I can't understand why questioning and challenging is seen as something to be feared as if we're offending God Himself. Seems to close too many doors to me.

[stemelbow]

I have to disagree. The Church as an organization is top-down and nothing like a hospital. It is in most ways utterly foreign to modern sensibilities. It is an absolute monarchy with a king who reserves to Himself the right to criticize and displace members of his hierarchy.

 

Of course the apostles are not the most righteous 15 members of the Church. They are administrators called by God and answerable only to Him (and through Him to their leaders within their quorum or Presidency). We are told not to judge someone else's servant. Now, some members of the Church have been called to judge others. That is their job. Everyone else has been told not to judge or slander or seek to correct their leaders. This is commanded in the scriptures. It is part of the covenant we make when we join the Church. Criticizing Church leaders is a SIN!!! It is DAMNING!  It does not matter if you are right about it. It does not matter if you feel hurt by it. It does not matter if you feel this infringes on some personal freedom you feel you are due. It is not your concern unless you are placed in a position where God makes it your concern. It is definitely not illegal to criticize church leaders and it is even congenial to our modern sensibilities but it can send you to hell anyways.

You have blurred the line between criticizing people and challenging ideas. It's a rather engaging thing to actually discuss, question and challenge ideas. it may indicate we're actually invested in this stuff.

Edited July 9, 2014 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

You have blurred the line between criticizing people and challenging ideas. It's a rather engaging thing to actually discuss, question and challenge ideas. it may indicate we're actually invested in this stuff.

 

We can challenge ideas all we want.  But when we fight beyond the scope of our authority to get our ideas accepted we have crossed the line and are out of order.

[stemelbow]

We can challenge ideas all we want.  But when we fight beyond the scope of our authority to get our ideas accepted we have crossed the line and are out of order.

I can agree to that. At some point we have to accept that our questions and concerns are ours and that may mean either the Church isn't deciding on an issue, has decided and disagrees with you, or feels the decision was previously made.

[CV75]

citing my tenure (or doubting my status as a Mormon altogether) are really low blows.

I think this goes both ways; short tenure isn’t a pass to excuse one’s own offenses either, or to raise expectations that the “tenured” do better than he (for example, see post #139). Likewise, spiritual discernment, scriptural understanding and logic are quite independent of tenure in the Church alone.

[ERayR]

That doesn't negate the possibility of error.

 

That statement is a two edged sword.  You must seriously look at the possibility that you are in error both in substance and presentation.  If you want to negate the possibility of error your in the wrong creation.

[ERayR]

 

It seems to me that many of us members are ascribing infallibility to the prophets that they themselves do not claim.

 

 

It seems to me that many of us members are ascribing infallibility to themselves and rejecting prophetic inspirations concerning their favorite complaint.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe it wholeheartedly. In fact I could give you a flaw for just about every modern prophet and prophet in scripture too. It isn't even that hard. It is just not my job to correct them. In fact I am under instructions not to correct them or point said errors out to others in any way that would demean or diminish their standing. In most cases this means saying nothing at all.

 

God said He could take care of correcting them on His own. I believe Him. If God wants my help as a professional critic of church leaders he would inspire my Bishop to give me that calling.

 

There has been only one infallible person whom has ever lived on this planet, and we aren't him.

[The Nehor]

There has been only one infallible person whom has ever lived on this planet, and we aren't him.

So why did you quote my post? Because you agree with it?

[thesometimesaint]

So why did you quote my post? Because you agree with it?

 

If I am misinterpreting you please forgive me. I've long maintained that if the President of the Church told his wife that that was the best chicken dinner he'd ever had. It wouldn't be too long before members would be claiming chicken dinners were required by the WoW.

[stemelbow]

That statement is a two edged sword.  You must seriously look at the possibility that you are in error both in substance and presentation.  If you want to negate the possibility of error your in the wrong creation.

I agree.