To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[CV75]

Let's be clear. I don't think that our leaders are wrong about EVERYTHING. Off-hand, I can't think of more than 20 things that they should change (on second thought, make that 21 things).

And I think most of the things you think they are/were wrong about and/or should change have been given air time in your posts on this thread!

[ERayR]

The title of this thread is a bit abrasive to me.  It has conjured up images of someone whining that they are being picked on because nobody listens to them because of their lowly status in the Church.  May I present for your consideration the idea that in the Church that for the things that really matter there is no status.  The atonement and all it stands for is the same for everyone, whatever their "status". 

 

What really matters is if you accept that gift instead of whining over perceive wrongs.  Nobody can really take the atonement away from you but you can certainly change its importance in you life by dwelling on what you think is wrong with the Church and its leaders.

[ERayR]

Let's be clear. I don't think that our leaders are wrong about EVERYTHING. Off-hand, I can't think of more than 20 things that they should change (on second thought, make that 21 things).

 

Let's be clear. Regardless of what you think is wrong it is not in your purview to call them to repentance.

[USU78]

The title of this thread is a bit abrasive to me.  It has conjured up images of someone whining that they are being picked on because nobody listens to them because of their lowly status in the Church. 

 

Would you give odds that abrasion and those images were entirely accidental?

[ERayR]

Would you give odds that abrasion and those images were entirely accidental?

 

I try never to gamble.

[mormonnewb]

The title of this thread is a bit abrasive to me.  It has conjured up images of someone whining that they are being picked on because nobody listens to them because of their lowly status in the Church.  May I present for your consideration the idea that in the Church that for the things that really matter there is no status.  The atonement and all it stands for is the same for everyone, whatever their "status". 

 

What really matters is if you accept that gift instead of whining over perceive wrongs.  Nobody can really take the atonement away from you but you can certainly change its importance in you life by dwelling on what you think is wrong with the Church and its leaders.

 

Believe it or not, I agree with you 1,000% (except about the abrasive title part).  I believe that Christ is no respecter of persons and that HF views us all as His children.  And just as no (decent) parent has favorites, neither does HF.  I just wished more people agreed with us.

 

As for dwelling on what's wrong with the Church and its leaders, I suspect that's been going on long before I got here (and will continue long after I'm gone).  In fact, this thread was inspired by several concurrent threads in which people were complaining about everything from local bishops and stake presidents to yesterday's latest entry -- a complaint about the use of "Utahans" as opposed to God's "true spelling" -- Utahns.  So when it's time to drop our rocks, I suspect it's going to create quite a loud bang across the board.

[ERayR]

 

As for dwelling on what's wrong with the Church and its leaders, I suspect that's been going on long before I got here (and will continue long after I'm gone).  In fact, this thread was inspired by several concurrent threads in which people were complaining about everything from local bishops and stake presidents to yesterday's latest entry -- a complaint about the use of "Utahans" as opposed to God's "true spelling" -- Utahns.  So when it's time to drop our rocks, I suspect it's going to create quite a loud bang across the board.

 

Believe it or not, I agree with you.  People have been doing it since the restoration and before (hence much of Paul's writings).  The sad part is that most of those, that so indulge their egos, end up on the outside with hate in their hearts, spewing vitrol at the Church and its members.

[mormonnewb]

Would you give odds that abrasion and those images were entirely accidental?

 

I think it was a Mormon who first told me that you CHOOSE whether to be offended by something.  In your case, perhaps you find my comments abrasive because there is some truth in them.

 

At 6'4" tall, I'd NEVER be offended if someone called me "short."  I would laugh it off because I confident in my "tallness."  On the other hand, at 200-(plus some unspecified number of) pounds, I might take offense if someone called me "fat."  Because that might be somewhat closer to the truth, particularly now that Blue Bell has its Moo-llenium Crunch ice cream on sale at my local market.

 

Is it possible that perhaps I'm not the only one who needs to put down his spoon?

[ERayR]

I think it was a Mormon who first told me that you CHOOSE whether to be offended by something.  In your case, perhaps you find my comments abrasive because there is some truth in them.

 

 

Or as I pointed out above they sound like a whiny kid.

[why me]

I think it was a Mormon who first told me that you CHOOSE whether to be offended by something.  In your case, perhaps you find my comments abrasive because there is some truth in them.

 

Or people find your comments offensive because they just may be offensive. Let me put it this way. I have catholic friends. Now if I were to be negative about the pope and said not very nice things about him, they may find it offensive. Or if I am hyper critical of the catholic church, its priests and its patriarchal system and I do it evey day with them, they may find it offensive and just may choose not to be around me. Now if I claimed to be catholic and did this, I would get the same reaction along with the thinking about why I am still a catholic if I am so critical of it. It is just human nature fo feel offended by the negativity.

 

So, I wouldn't say that your posts have some truth and this is why some find them offensive. But I can say that many find your posts somewhat offensive because you continually criticize something that others love.

Edited July 10, 2014 by why me

[teddyaware]

Or people find your comments offensive because they just may be offensive. Let me put it this way. I have catholic friends. Now if I were to be negative about the pope and said not very nice things about him, they may find it offensive. Or if I am hyper critical of the catholic church, its priests and its patriarchal system and I do so evey day with them, they may find it offensive and just may choose not to be around me. Now if I claimed to be catholic and did this, I would get the same reaction along with the thinking about why I am still a catholic if I am so critical of it. It is just human nature fo feel offended by the negativity.

 

So, I wouldn't say that your posts have some truth and this is why some find them offensive. But I can say that many find your posts somewhat offensive because you continually criticize something that others love.

Here's an important point to ponder: If an internal Church critic of this sort were to have the opportunity to have 15 one hour long visits with each of the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, and if all the pertinent facts pertaining to the critic's points of view and behavior were fully disclosed, transparently laid out in the open for all 15 to see, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind but that all 15 of these leaders would counsel the critic by saying that this kind of approach to the gospel is at best useless and at worst very harmful. If persisted in it will lead to nothing but bitterness, unhappiness, stifled spiritual power and to likely eventual total disaffection.

With minor variations in style and approach, I'm certain each of these prophets, seers and revelators would all basically counsel our critic with the same words: Concentrate your focus on your own Church responsibilities and stewardships because this is where you'll find your greatest chances for spiritual growth, peace and happiness. Cease and desist from all attempts to stir up controversy, outrage, contention and dissatisfaction of the members against the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on account of their supposed "poor choices" and "spiritual blindness." The Lord's Church is going to eventually triumph over all opposition and adversity, and it will do so without any supposed "help" from overwrought ark steadiers who mistakenly believe the Church cannot succeed without their persistent calls to verbal battle.

Edited July 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

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.

 

It is....but your sounding board should be for the most part God and not in the court of public opinion. Many of the prophets challenged God to seek information and were blessed for it. Job's friends spouted the "church cultural line" and were rebuked for it. If you are talking about publicly challenging the validity of the ideas in the revelations then I don't think I am blurring the line at all. Challenging revelation publicly is probably at least as dangerous as publicly challenging priesthood leadership.

[mormonnewb]

Or people find your comments offensive because they just may be offensive. Let me put it this way. I have catholic friends. Now if I were to be negative about the pope and said not very nice things about him, they may find it offensive. Or if I am hyper critical of the catholic church, its priests and its patriarchal system and I do it evey day with them, they may find it offensive and just may choose not to be around me. Now if I claimed to be catholic and did this, I would get the same reaction along with the thinking about why I am still a catholic if I am so critical of it. It is just human nature fo feel offended by the negativity.

So, I wouldn't say that your posts have some truth and this is why some find them offensive. But I can say that many find your posts somewhat offensive because you continually criticize something that others love.

If I came on this board everyday and claimed that Mormons have horns, would you really be offended? Or would you simply say, "There goes that newb guy again! I guess I'll skip this post"? So what is it about my posts that keeps you responding to me? Why don't you just write me off as an Internet troll?

I am not AT ALL bothered by Internet trolls. I recently had one come to my YouTube channel and call me a "smart-mouthed n-----." My only objection was that he gave my mouth too much credit. How could I possibly let some ignoramus make me feel worse about something I TRULY love -- ME?

However, I am NOT an Internet troll. I have NEVER made a personal attack about, say, one of the Brethren's age or physical characteristics. Nor do I make false claims about the Church or its members. I'm not claiming that inappropriate things happen in the temple or that we still practice polygamy.

Most often, I simply ask questions. I'm often surprised by the pushback because I would imagine that every long-time member would have already asked (and answered) these questions. Or you would have come across an ADULT investigator who might find some practice strange or confusing.

Other times, I'll take issue with an official church position, usually as it relates to some social issue -- gay rights, civil rights, gender equality. Once again, given our history on these issues, I'm amazed that what I'm saying is controversial.

All of that being said, there is hope on the horizon. I've pretty much had all of my questions answered at this point and will soon take my leave of you. So, take heart, your long message board nightmare is almost over.

Edited July 10, 2014 by mormonnewb

[why me]

All of that being said, there is hope on the horizon. I've pretty much had all of my questions answered at this point and will soon take my leave of you. So, take heart, your long message board nightmare is almost over.

I see no nightmare at all. But I was commenting about why people may find things offensive and why they may react the way they do. Of course, i haven't read all your posts, but it doesn't seem that posters who have attempted to answer your concerns have achieved much progress with you. And if you continue to be critical, people may lose patience in their posts. That was my point. Sometimes it is good to throw people a bone. This board is mainly filled with average people who are here because they like being here...spending their valued free time in conversation about the church. This board can be very faith promoting for some people but people may not react well to an active member who seems to constantly criticize the church in their posts. This is just common sense. At the end of the day, what is important is your own ward. How are the people doing? Is it a healthy ward made up of human beings who are attempting to do the right thing? Do you see any racism in the ward or sexism among the members? Is the bishop a decent person who makes mistakes but who is also a person who believes in god? Is the ward a healthy community of people who show godlike love for each other? For better or for worse,  a ward can be a small micro insight into the church.

[stemelbow]

It is....but your sounding board should be for the most part God and not in the court of public opinion. Many of the prophets challenged God to seek information and were blessed for it. Job's friends spouted the "church cultural line" and were rebuked for it. If you are talking about publicly challenging the validity of the ideas in the revelations then I don't think I am blurring the line at all. Challenging revelation publicly is probably at least as dangerous as publicly challenging priesthood leadership.

Unless it's already been appealed to God and God in turn wants you to challenge and tell others. If that be the case, if members get so upset that you dare challenge assumptions, then perhaps it's God's desire that this challenger get's ex'd. In so doing perhaps it will sew seeds of change down the line. Perhaps that's what has happened in the past. And yet we sit here think it's evil to challenge, half the time, cheering on or at least supporting of the Church taking people down. Cute stuff in a way, I guess, but perhaps not exactly the way God would like to see things.

Edited July 10, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

Here's an important point to ponder: If an internal Church critic of this sort were to have the opportunity to have 15 one hour long visits with each of the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, and if all the pertinent facts pertaining to the critic's points of view and behavior were fully disclosed, transparently laid out in the open for all 15 to see, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind but that all 15 of these leaders would counsel the critic by saying that this kind of approach to the gospel is at best useless and at worst very harmful. If persisted in it will lead to nothing but bitterness, unhappiness, stifled spiritual power and to likely eventual total disaffection.

With minor variations in style and approach, I'm certain each of these prophets, seers and revelators would all basically counsel our critic with the same words: Concentrate your focus on your own Church responsibilities and stewardships because this is where you'll find your greatest chances for spiritual growth, peace and happiness. Cease and desist from all attempts to stir up controversy, outrage, contention and dissatisfaction of the members against the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on account of their supposed "poor choices" and "spiritual blindness." The Lord's Church is going to eventually triumph over all opposition and adversity, and it will do so without any supposed "help" from overwrought ark steadiers who mistakenly believe the Church cannot succeed without their persistent calls to verbal battle.

And with all that, perhaps it is God's will that people challenge the assumptions that are given us in hopes for future change. Change works extremely slow in the Church, it seems, but it comes. And it has often come long after "internal critics" have challenged established "truths".

[Storm Rider]

And with all that, perhaps it is God's will that people challenge the assumptions that are given us in hopes for future change. Change works extremely slow in the Church, it seems, but it comes. And it has often come long after "internal critics" have challenged established "truths".

 

Would you say that has always been the case among the people of God or is that just a latter-day process?

[stemelbow]

Would you say that has always been the case among the people of God or is that just a latter-day process?

Beats me. I think it's happened in our latter days, so it's likely to happen again. as it is someday we may indeed see ordination of women and we can look back at the current difficulties and confusions with a bit of "oh well, we simply didn't have enough light and knowledge. We didn't realize that Kate actually had a point because we, or they, as it may turn out, were so ingrained with the assumptions of society we actually thought it was okay to treat women that way."

Oh life.

[thesometimesaint]

Beats me. I think it's happened in our latter days, so it's likely to happen again. as it is someday we may indeed see ordination of women and we can look back at the current difficulties and confusions with a bit of "oh well, we simply didn't have enough light and knowledge. We didn't realize that Kate actually had a point because we, or they, as it may turn out, were so ingrained with the assumptions of society we actually thought it was okay to treat women that way."

Oh life.

 

Quite often it isn't what we say it. It is how we say it.

[stemelbow]

Quite often it isn't what we say it. It is how we say it.

Creating and maintaining the PC atmosphere in the Church. There are things you do say and things you don't. There are times to say some things and times you don't. This is more of the Church trying to control the narrative a bit. In church instructors are given poor quality material to teach the lesson and it's very wrong in the culture of the Church to correct or challenge the controlled narrative. I heard it said recently how the church materials simply can't be used for serious historical analysis. It's simply too bad to be of use. Tell everyone in Gospel Doctrine that and that some particular issue or teaching coming from the manual is wrong and you'll be branded an apostate, because that's the way the Church likes to frame it for us. Kinda tough to sit amongst the saints because of all of this.

[USU78]

 

 

"Creating and maintaining the PC atmosphere in the Church."  In whose opinion and to what end?

 

"There are things you do say and things you don't. There are times to say some things and times you don't. "  Because one would rather be kind and uplifting that unkind and argumentative.

 

"This is more of the Church trying to control the narrative a bit." Or, perhaps, condense the narrative due to time constraints because there's a lot more to do than simply give lessons with academic rigor?

 

"In church instructors are given poor quality material to teach the lesson and it's very wrong in the culture of the Church to correct or challenge the controlled narrative."  Or, perhaps, condense the materials due to time constraints because there's a lot more to do than simply give lessons with academic rigor?

 

"I heard it said recently how the church materials simply can't be used for serious historical analysis. It's simply too bad to be of use."  By whom?  Someone being a sophomoric nimrod with a faith-killing agenda, or a thoughtful person who's explored the why of how these materials are generated?

 

"Tell everyone in Gospel Doctrine that and that some particular issue or teaching coming from the manual is wrong and you'll be branded an apostate, because that's the way the Church likes to frame it for us."  Rarely have I seen something that's out-and-out wrong in a lesson manual.  Cursory?  Of course and necessarily so.  Focused on the faith lesson of an experience without getting bogged down in the details?  Of course.  Why is this a bad thing?

 

"Kinda tough to sit amongst the saints because of all of this." Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing anything but arrogant superiority in what you're saying here.  Please disabuse me of this picture of a bitter hypercritic who despises rather than loves his neighbor.

Edited July 10, 2014 by USU78

[ERayR]

Creating and maintaining the PC atmosphere in the Church. There are things you do say and things you don't. There are times to say some things and times you don't. This is more of the Church trying to control the narrative a bit. In church instructors are given poor quality material to teach the lesson and it's very wrong in the culture of the Church to correct or challenge the controlled narrative. I heard it said recently how the church materials simply can't be used for serious historical analysis. It's simply too bad to be of use. Tell everyone in Gospel Doctrine that and that some particular issue or teaching coming from the manual is wrong and you'll be branded an apostate, because that's the way the Church likes to frame it for us. Kinda tough to sit amongst the saints because of all of this.

 

I must be awful lucky because in my ward the Gospel Doctrine lessons are pretty much all uplifting and spiritual.

 

It sometimes gets tough to sit, with the saints, through a spiritual and uplifting lesson when you are constantly in a critical, fault finding frame of mind.

[CV75]

Beats me. I think it's happened in our latter days, so it's likely to happen again. as it is someday we may indeed see ordination of women and we can look back at the current difficulties and confusions with a bit of "oh well, we simply didn't have enough light and knowledge. We didn't realize that Kate actually had a point because we, or they, as it may turn out, were so ingrained with the assumptions of society we actually thought it was okay to treat women that way."

Oh life.

I think that being retrospectively “right” is not about having more divine light and knowledge than the Lord’s anointed. It is only about a conclusion matching up with the eventual revelation for the Church ahead of time. This could happen by chance as much as by genius, and inspired by any number of motives and sources. One’s conclusion can be delivered in any number of ways, both edifying and destructive to the spirit in which we are to care for each other.

 

Being truly right is about receiving (or sustaining) the proper revelation within the proper scope and application at the proper time and through the proper keys.

 

For example, in the decades prior to 1978, correspondence, conversations, insights and opinions were solicited by the brethren. Not all of these discussions were pleasant, I think because all involved were operating by their own genius and the light of their own understanding—part of the necessary step of studying it out in the mind in preparation to receive legitimate revelation. But in good faith.

 

So it isn’t really a problem for the brethren to use their personal wherewithal to look into issues. It isn’t a problem for them to ask the experts in the “storehouse.” It isn’t a problem for an expert (or anyone) to come up with a position or a conclusion on what to do. The problem is in asserting that one is (or had been) “right” all along when the all the criteria for righteousness were not in fact met.

[stemelbow]

"Creating and maintaining the PC atmosphere in the Church."  In whose opinion and to what end?

 

"There are things you do say and things you don't. There are times to say some things and times you don't. "  Because one would rather be kind and uplifting that unkind and argumentative.

I'm all about kind and uplifting. It seems to me for people who express ideas that are counter to the norm the normal tend to try and paint the different as a sinner of the highest order instead of addressing the idea or concern.

 

"This is more of the Church trying to control the narrative a bit." Or, perhaps, condense the narrative due to time constraints because there's a lot more to do than simply give lessons with academic rigor?

I get the time constraints. I get the desire to simply rather than complicate. But I am in agreement with others who have called the materials deplorable. But there is I think a concerted effort to address the misinformation that gets tossed around.

 

"In church instructors are given poor quality material to teach the lesson and it's very wrong in the culture of the Church to correct or challenge the controlled narrative."  Or, perhaps, condense the materials due to time constraints because there's a lot more to do than simply give lessons with academic rigor?

If it were just about condensing I'd be all for it.

 

"I heard it said recently how the church materials simply can't be used for serious historical analysis. It's simply too bad to be of use."  By whom?  Someone being a sophomoric nimrod with a faith-killing agenda, or a thoughtful person who's explored the why of how these materials are generated?

I can't recall where I heard it or read it. But I'll just resort back to what I can reference. It was Terryl Givens who suggested the materials were deplorable.

 

"Tell everyone in Gospel Doctrine that and that some particular issue or teaching coming from the manual is wrong and you'll be branded an apostate, because that's the way the Church likes to frame it for us."  Rarely have I seen something that's out-and-out wrong in a lesson manual.  Cursory?  Of course and necessarily so.  Focused on the faith lesson of an experience without getting bogged down in the details?  Of course.  Why is this a bad thing?

It wouldn't be.

 

"Kinda tough to sit amongst the saints because of all of this." Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing anything but arrogant superiority in what you're saying here.  Please disabuse me of this picture of a bitter hypercritic who despises rather than loves his neighbor.

my difficulty rests in the attitude of my fellow saints and how they talk about and treat others, for the most part. So when you criticize me for sounding arrogant and superior I feel to criticize many whom I go to Church with for the same thing.

[stemelbow]

I must be awful lucky because in my ward the Gospel Doctrine lessons are pretty much all uplifting and spiritual.

Sounds lucky to me.

 

It sometimes gets tough to sit, with the saints, through a spiritual and uplifting lesson when you are constantly in a critical, fault finding frame of mind.

you're telling me. I don't doubt that much of the problem is within me. I try to fight it out of me, but it doesn't disappear. It might be that I'm destined to falling in the clutches of satan. But my feelings and thoughts stay with me, so I hope to figure out some resolved somehow. Just haven't been able to get over myself, I guess.