To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[ELF1024]

God also told us not to condemn one another.  "Judge not lest ye be judged."  Motes and beams.  Etcetera.  Etcetera.

 

As for the rank and file condemning an apostle for coming out in support of OW, I'm going to have to call BS (bull shucks) on that one.  Well, I'm new here, so I'll downgrade to "Are you sure?"  For example, when ETB and MEP were running around making their rather "sophisticated" sociological and anthropological statements on race, were rank and file members standing up in Sunday School and calling them "careless idiots"?  Or when McConkie jumped the tabernacle and began expounding non-correlated views of Mormon Doctrine, did rank and file members call him a "careless idiot"?

 

As I understand it, McConkie continued to be one of the most popular apostles, even after 1978.  People seemed to love his "straight talk," even if it did sometimes deviate from the Church's official doctrine.  In that vein, let's suppose that President Uchtdorf were to say that he supported ordaining women, but given that his Brethren hadn't received a similar revelation, it would have to wait until they were all agreed.  Do you think that this announcement would lead to the men of the Church to calling him a "careless idiot"? (I think we all know it's going to take a lot more than some doctrinal disagreement to get the WOMEN of the Church mad at him).  I'm new here, but I just don't see it.

 

I do recall my parents refering to the McConkie "Mormon Doctrine" as "McConkie Doctrine"... that may not be calling him a careless idiot, but it did seem to seperate it from the rest of the church... (this was in the late 1980s)

Edited July 3, 2014 by ELF1024

[The Nehor]

As for the rank and file condemning an apostle for coming out in support of OW, I'm going to have to call BS (bull shucks) on that one.  Well, I'm new here, so I'll downgrade to "Are you sure?"  For example, when ETB and MEP were running around making their rather "sophisticated" sociological and anthropological statements on race, were rank and file members standing up in Sunday School and calling them "careless idiots"?  Or when McConkie jumped the tabernacle and began expounding non-correlated views of Mormon Doctrine, did rank and file members call him a "careless idiot"?

 

As I understand it, McConkie continued to be one of the most popular apostles, even after 1978.  People seemed to love his "straight talk," even if it did sometimes deviate from the Church's official doctrine.  In that vein, let's suppose that President Uchtdorf were to say that he supported ordaining women, but given that his Brethren hadn't received a similar revelation, it would have to wait until they were all agreed.  Do you think that this announcement would lead to the men of the Church to calling him a "careless idiot"? (I think we all know it's going to take a lot more than some doctrinal disagreement to get the WOMEN of the Church mad at him).  I'm new here, but I just don't see it.

 

I didn't say the rank and file would condemn him. The other apostles WOULD and they would be quite harsh. As for Uchtdorf making such a announcement I expect he would be censured and probably expelled for making such a declaration. I would not publicly call him a careless idiot to avoid heaping disdain on his office because I have been commanded not to. I would definitely think it.

 

As for McConkie he did get in trouble with the Prophet and his Quorum leader several times for what he published and said. They took care of it. The system works.

[ELF1024]

Perhaps we simply need to take responsibility for our decisions rather than suggest Satan convinced us. His arguments, even what you describe come from him, seem pretty weak. Its not like they are actual facts that seem to be driving people away.

 

I wasn't saying that I was blameless... I just acknowledged that perhaps I was listening and makeing choices while under the influence. My actions were still my own, and I have paid the price for those actions. Acknowledging that I may have been under the influence of another doesn't absolve me of my own stupidty or responsiblity, it just acknowledges that I may have been more of an idiot than I first thought.

[Ahab]

Do not have scriptures with me.

Dude! Seriously?

Oh well nevermind I suppose not everyone wants to spend money to buy a phone or pocket device and put scripture software on it.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps we simply need to take responsibility for our decisions rather than suggest Satan convinced us. His arguments, even what you describe come from him, seem pretty weak. Its not like they are actual facts that seem to be driving people away.

 

We definitely should take responsibility for our decisions since WE made them. When dark thoughts start cropping up I am quite happy to tell Satan to shut up though.

 

Most of his arguments are pretty weak. For some reason they seem to work anyways. I can't say I'm happy with what that says about us but what can you do?

[ERayR]

God also told us not to condemn one another.  "Judge not lest ye be judged."  Motes and beams.  Etcetera.  Etcetera.

 

 

Do you sometimes mistake criticism of your ideas as personal criticism?  Judge not is referring to persons not ideas or actions.  ??????Each of us must make judgements about which ideas and actions to let into our lives on a daily basis.  The motes and beams thing is to caution us about blind judgement, not about judging.  Whatever judgement we mete out will be how will we be judged. 

[mormonnewb]

Psalms 105: 15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm

 

 

 

Once again, it seems that this is a warning against OUTSIDERS doing violence to God's anointed.

 

12 When they were but few in number,

    few indeed, and strangers in it,

13 they wandered from nation to nation,

    from one kingdom to another.

14 He allowed no one to oppress them;

    for their sake he rebuked kings:

15 “Do not touch my anointed ones;

    do my prophets no harm.”

 

I know you don't see a distinction here, but HF very often applies different standards to those who are inside and those who are outside of His covenant relationship.  And here, He is speaking about those OUTSIDE of the covenant and basically saying, "Don't you dare touch my child!"

 

Also, if I may be so persnickety (been dying for a chance to use that word all week), these words are not being said as part of an ongoing promise or covenant.  It is part of a historical recap.

 

5 Remember the wonders he has done,

    his miracles, and the judgments he pronounced,

 

HF is simply saying, "You can trust me because of all of these things that I did for your ancestors."  He then goes on to list them.  But He is not promising to do them again.  In fact, that seems pretty clear from the fact that "kings" of Illinois were able to do our Prophet harm.

[The Nehor]

Dude! Seriously?

Oh well nevermind I suppose not everyone wants to spend money to buy a phone or pocket device and put scripture software on it.

 

I have a phone and a tablet with scriptures on them. I was tapping out a quick response though at work and didn't have time to access either.

[ERayR]

 

Once again, it seems that this is a warning against OUTSIDERS doing violence to God's anointed.

 

12 When they were but few in number,

    few indeed, and strangers in it,

13 they wandered from nation to nation,

    from one kingdom to another.

14 He allowed no one to oppress them;

    for their sake he rebuked kings:

15 “Do not touch my anointed ones;

    do my prophets no harm.”

 

I know you don't see a distinction here, but HF very often applies different standards to those who are inside and those who are outside of His covenant relationship.  And here, He is speaking about those OUTSIDE of the covenant and basically saying, "Don't you dare touch my child!"

 

Also, if I may be so persnickety (been dying for a chance to use that word all week), these words are not being said as part of an ongoing promise or covenant.  It is part of a historical recap.

 

5 Remember the wonders he has done,

    his miracles, and the judgments he pronounced,

 

HF is simply saying, "You can trust me because of all of these things that I did for your ancestors."  He then goes on to list them.  But He is not promising to do them again.  In fact, that seems pretty clear from the fact that "kings" of Illinois were able to do our Prophet harm.

 

 

What about when David sneaked into the cave and cut off the hem of Saul's garment then sneaked out of the camp.  David had been anointed as the next king and Saul was trying to kill David yet God told David "touch not mine anointed".  No he is not speaking to outsiders.  The scriptures are for God's people, not outsiders.

[The Nehor]

Once again, it seems that this is a warning against OUTSIDERS doing violence to God's anointed.

 

Most arguments about scriptural lessons being intended for non-believers paint God as an idiot. Are we supposed to believe God put them in expecting them to read said lessons? No, the scriptures are for the Saints. Almost every warning in them is for them.

[ELF1024]

 

I know you don't see a distinction here, but HF very often applies different standards to those who are inside and those who are outside of His covenant relationship.

 

 

Seems he usually holds those who more light and knowledge, those inside his covenant relationship, to a higher standard... So what is good for the outside goose, is absolutely required for the inside gander.

[mormonnewb]

I do recall my parents refering to the McConkie "Mormon Doctrine" as "McConkie Doctrine"... that may not be calling him a careless idiot, but it did seem to seperate it from the rest of the church... (this was in the late 1980s)

 

My kind of folks!  I assume they didn't say it at F&T meeting, right?

 

By the way, I'm not advocating that members start roasting leaders at every turn.  "Do you want to know how cheap our Stake President is?  He's so cheap ..."  That would make us Southern Baptists with bland church music.  I just think that we could extend our natural inclination to speak well of the Prophets to those who are in greater need of grace and understanding.  And I'm surprised that it isn't encouraged more from our leaders.

 

Years ago, I was asked to give a talk for a large healthcare company.  Upon learning a little about me, the CEO arranged a talk with me beforehand to make sure that I didn't say anything TOO outrageous.  After I assured him that I would keep it clean, he said, "We have a lot of people in our company who work at low wages at jobs that many people would consider menial.  You can make WHATEVER jokes you want to make about me and the other upper level managers, but our lower-level employees are OFF-LIMITS.  Got it?"  I did and have since taken that as my standard marching orders.  If I'm going to make fun of anyone (other than me), I make fun of the LEADERS.

 

I think you can imagine how well my first (and last) stake conference address went over.

[mormonnewb]

I have a phone and a tablet with scriptures on them. I was tapping out a quick response though at work and didn't have time to access either.

 

For the record, you were right on the money with your guess on the D&C chapter, so I ain't at mad ya.

[ELF1024]

My kind of folks!  I assume they didn't say it at F&T meeting, right?

 

Not that I recall, but my father was a convert to the Church from Chicago, Il... he wasn't exactly a wilting violet...

Speaking of Southern Baptists, we were in Memphis, TN during the 80s.

[mormonnewb]

Most arguments about scriptural lessons being intended for non-believers paint God as an idiot. Are we supposed to believe God put them in expecting them to read said lessons? No, the scriptures are for the Saints. Almost every warning in them is for them.

 

But he is not warning anyone (in or out) about anything.  He is simply recapping how he protected his prophets in days of old from physical harm.  So I don't see how that provides a warning for LDS to not criticize current prophets.

[The Nehor]

But he is not warning anyone (in or out) about anything.  He is simply recapping how he protected his prophets in days of old from physical harm.  So I don't see how that provides a warning for LDS to not criticize current prophets.

 

Well, there is the implied warning that He may keep doing it.

[mormonnewb]

Well, there is the implied warning that He may keep doing it.

 

But He DIDN'T keep doing it as evidenced by the martyrdom of JS.  In fact, in that same chapter, He recaps what He did for Moses and Joseph (the one with the coat).  Are you saying that there is an implied promise here that He will part the Red Sea again or give a saint the power to interpret dreams?

 

I'm pretty sure that there are other versus warning against criticizing God's anointed, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

[The Nehor]

But He DIDN'T keep doing it as evidenced by the martyrdom of JS.  In fact, in that same chapter, He recaps what He did for Moses and Joseph (the one with the coat).  Are you saying that there is an implied promise here that He will part the Red Sea again or give a saint the power to interpret dreams?

 

I'm pretty sure that there are other versus warning against criticizing God's anointed, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

That is why I said "may". Prophets are often (but not always protected). Abinadi was poked to death with burning brands and Isaiah sawed in half but Daniel was saved and so were Alma and Amulek.

[Calm]

 However, if a Prophet (one to whom much Godly wisdom is given) fails to discern the will of God as to.... no faithful member would dare call that man a "careless idiot" ... and rightfully so.

 

Does saying he can go soak his head count (just implying careless idiocy)?

[omni]

I'm told the Brethren are human and even fallible. We know it's a common trait of fallible humans when given positions of power to be easily corrupted or at least make decisions that aren't in the best interest of the membership. I'm not claiming the church leadership is corrupt, but given their position and lack of criticism they receive from the membership of the church, why should we not expect it to happen?

[The Nehor]

I'm told the Brethren are human and even fallible. We know it's a common trait of fallible humans when given positions of power to be easily corrupted or at least make decisions that aren't in the best interest of the membership. I'm not claiming the church leadership is corrupt, but given their position and lack of criticism they receive from the membership of the church, why should we not expect it to happen?

Because God placed checks on them (each other) except for the Prophet and God placed a check on him.

[ERayR]

I'm told the Brethren are human and even fallible. We know it's a common trait of fallible humans when given positions of power to be easily corrupted or at least make decisions that aren't in the best interest of the membership. I'm not claiming the church leadership is corrupt, but given their position and lack of criticism they receive from the membership of the church, why should we not expect it to happen?

 

Then just what are you implying?

[mormonnewb]

Because God placed checks on them (each other) except for the Prophet and God placed a check on him.

So the Prophet is the one person on earth WITHOUT agency? The rest of us are free to obey or rebel, but the Prophet has no autonomy? Or are you saying that HF will "remove" (kill) the Prophet for disobeying? And if so, your evidence of this is what ... That no Prophet has been struck by lightning over the pulpit?

In my days, I've met many liars who have said, "If I'm lying, may God strike me dead." Not one of them died in my presence, but I wouldn't call that "proof" of their truthfulness.

[ERayR]

So the Prophet is the one person on earth WITHOUT agency? The rest of us are free to obey or rebel, but the Prophet has no autonomy? Or are you saying that HF will "remove" (kill) the Prophet for disobeying? And if so, your evidence of this is what ... That no Prophet has been struck by lightning over the pulpit?

In my days, I've met many liars who have said, "If I'm lying, may God strike me dead." Not one of them died in my presence, but I wouldn't call that "proof" of their truthfulness.

 

Did you really read that into what he said?

[mormonnewb]

Did you really read that into what he said?

YES! So what is this "check" on the Prophet?