To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[wenglund]

From my limited perspective, humble people, who truly get what the gospel is all about, and who are thus intent on conforming themselves to the will of God and becoming more like him, tend not to be bent on criticizing God's chosen leaders, let alone seek to find scriptural rationalization for such criticism.

 

And, even if they were bent on criticism and looking for scriptural rationalizations, humility may engender sensitivity towards such things as the Golden Rule, and scriptures that speak of motes and beams and "he that is without sin..."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Do you agree with EVERY doctrine/policy/program of the Church?

Do you intend to obey all of Father's commandments?

Eve posed that question and the rest is history. Of course she had a little help also in coming up with the question in the first place.

Edited July 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

From my limited perspective, humble people, who truly get what the gospel is all about, and who are thus intent on conforming themselves to the will of God and becoming more like him, tend not to be bent on criticizing God's chosen leaders, let alone seek to find scriptural rationalization for such criticism.

 

And, even if they were bent on criticism and looking for scriptural rationalizations, humility may engender sensitivity towards such things as the Golden Rule, and scriptures that speak of motes and beams and "he that is without sin..."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow.

 

Not sure he will figure out that not many agree with him here. 

[mormonnewb]

From my limited perspective, humble people, who truly get what the gospel is all about, and who are thus intent on conforming themselves to the will of God and becoming more like him, tend not to be bent on criticizing God's chosen leaders, let alone seek to find scriptural rationalization for such criticism.

 

And, even if they were bent on criticism and looking for scriptural rationalizations, humility may engender sensitivity towards such things as the Golden Rule, and scriptures that speak of motes and beams and "he that is without sin..."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Believe it or not, I couldn't agree with you more.  It would be far better to work to shore up my own weaknesses than to even take notice of another's.

 

My original question, however, still stands ... why is it perfectly okay to rip apart rank and file members, but it is a sin of the greatest order to even hint that the leaders may not be perfect?  Take a look around this board.  Just about every thread is filled with a swipe or dig about some rank and file member (e.g., Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, Spencer, the lady who bought up all of the t-shirts in Orem, anonymous bishops, etc.).  Yet, if someone were to write that Apostle So-and-So had bad breath, all double hockey sticks would break out as faithful members typed IN CAPS, "How dare you question the Lord's anointed's breath?  If Lord wanted him to have good breath, He would have added Tic Tacs to the endowment ceremony!"

 

But hey, let's make a deal.  I'll stop criticizing the 15, if you lay off the 15 MILLION.  Deal?

[JLHPROF]

Believe it or not, I couldn't agree with you more.  It would be far better to work to shore up my own weaknesses than to even take notice of another's.

 

My original question, however, still stands ... why is it perfectly okay to rip apart rank and file members, but it is a sin of the greatest order to even hint that the leaders may not be perfect?  Take a look around this board.  Just about every thread is filled with a swipe or dig about some rank and file member (e.g., Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, Spencer, the lady who bought up all of the t-shirts in Orem, anonymous bishops, etc.).  Yet, if someone were to write that Apostle So-and-So had bad breath, all double hockey sticks would break out as faithful members typed IN CAPS, "How dare you question the Lord's anointed's breath?  If Lord wanted him to have good breath, He would have added Tic Tacs to the endowment ceremony!"

 

But hey, let's make a deal.  I'll stop criticizing the 15, if you lay off the 15 MILLION.  Deal?

 

Nobody said the 15 were off limits for criticism.  The "15" are the people God chose to run the Church and while they may not be perfect it is not up to us to criticize the job they are doing.

I posted this story a while back but apparently it bears repeating:

 

One of my favorite stories is attributed to John Taylor.  It was no secret that he and Brigham Young did NOT get along.  In fact they didn't like each other very much at all.

One day they were having a typical disagreement and John Taylor said: "President Young, I sustain you in your office as prophet, seer, and revelator.   But I despise you as a human being." (John Taylor Papers vol 2 pg 522).

 

As for speaking evil of the Lord's anointed - last I checked everyone who received their endowments are anointed and we shouldn't be speaking evil of them either.

[mfbukowski]

Believe it or not, I couldn't agree with you more.  It would be far better to work to shore up my own weaknesses than to even take notice of another's.

 

My original question, however, still stands ... why is it perfectly okay to rip apart rank and file members, but it is a sin of the greatest order to even hint that the leaders may not be perfect?  Take a look around this board.  Just about every thread is filled with a swipe or dig about some rank and file member (e.g., Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, Spencer, the lady who bought up all of the t-shirts in Orem, anonymous bishops, etc.).  Yet, if someone were to write that Apostle So-and-So had bad breath, all double hockey sticks would break out as faithful members typed IN CAPS, "How dare you question the Lord's anointed's breath?  If Lord wanted him to have good breath, He would have added Tic Tacs to the endowment ceremony!"

 

But hey, let's make a deal.  I'll stop criticizing the 15, if you lay off the 15 MILLION.  Deal?

Hey I don't say anything about your mama.

It's about the same. Them's fighting words.

[Kenngo1969]

I actually agree with MormonNewb to an extent (Wait!  What's that?!  He's clutching his chest and moaning! Oh, for the love of all that is holy, what have I done?!! )  I don't think the personal attacks against Ordain Women and their like-minded fellow travelers are warranted, or that they're Christlike.  However, one of the very raisons d'etre of Ordain Women is to engage in publicity to draw attention to the organization's cause.  Once one enters the public arena, one should be thick-skinned enough to realize that reactions to the publicity one is seeking are likely to be varied.  Such publicity is at least as likely to draw opposition from those who disagree with an organization's views, motives, and methods as it is to draw support from those who agree with them.

 

Me?  Do I think we ought to engage in an ongoing discussion about the roles of women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as the conception (and possible mis-conception) of those roles?  Why not? After all, this is the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, and other Internet sites serve a similar purpose, not to mention face-to-face discussion and other forms of dialogue that take place in all sorts of venues, outside of cyberspace as well as in.  Do I think Kate Kelly and her like-minded fellow travelers should be vilified as people? No, of course not.  Such vilification clearly crosses a line.  But I also don't think that I am obligated to accept a person's own assessment of the justness of her cause, just because she's a woman or just because she's a fellow member of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I don't think I'm required to accept her paradigm for considering the issues involved, just because she (or anyone else) insists that it's the best one.  And I do think that Ordain Women and many of its supporters have engaged in various forms of special pleading, or at least have insisted that criticism of their methods and motives is off limits simply because they see their cause as eminently and self-evidently just and right.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

I actually agree with MormonNewb to an extent (Wait!  What's that?!  He's clutching his chest and moaning! Oh, for the love of all that is holy, what have I done?!! )  I don't think the personal attacks against Ordain Women and their like-minded fellow travelers are warranted, or that they're Christlike.  However, one of the very raisons d'etre of Ordain Women is to engage in publicity to draw attention to the organization's cause.  Once one enters the public arena, one should be thick-skinned enough to realize that reactions to the publicity one is seeking are likely to be varied.  Such publicity is at least as likely to draw opposition from those who disagree with an organization's views, motives, and methods as it is to draw support from those who agree with them.

 

Me?  Do I think we ought to engage in an ongoing discussion about the roles of women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as the conception (and possible mis-conception) of those roles?  Why not? After all, this is the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, and other Internet sites serve a similar purpose, not to mention face-to-face discussion and other forms of dialogue that take place in all sorts of venues, outside of cyberspace as well as in.  Do I think Kate Kelly and her like-minded fellow travelers should be vilified as people? No, of course not.  Such vilification clearly crosses a line.  But I also don't think that I am obligated to accept a person's own assessment of the justness of her cause, just because she's a woman or just because she's a fellow member of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I don't think I'm required to accept her paradigm for considering the issues involved, just because she (or anyone else) insists that it's the best one.  And I do think that Ordain Women and many of its supporters have engaged in various forms of special pleading, or at least have insisted that criticism of their methods and motives is off limits simply because they see their cause as eminently and self-evidently just and right.

 

Agree to an extent?  I'll take it!

[stemelbow]

The feeling I get from this topic and in past conversations on this topic is many a member thinks to criticize or even just question a statement by a GA is to criticize that person. But then these many a member tends to sharply criticize people not their thoughts or ideas, but the people they sharply disagree with.

That's a terrible place to be in, if you ask me.

We should be able to challenge ideas given to us by our leaders. We're not some mindless followers. We can challenge them. In a recent thread it was said to ask a question is appropriate and different than challenging an idea which is naughty and inappropriate. I just think that's the wrong type of attitude we need.

[wenglund]

Believe it or not, I couldn't agree with you more.  It would be far better to work to shore up my own weaknesses than to even take notice of another's.

 

My original question, however, still stands ... why is it perfectly okay to rip apart rank and file members, but it is a sin of the greatest order to even hint that the leaders may not be perfect?  

 

I wouldn't call it a "sin of the greatest order," but rather an inverted view of the gospel. God's earthly kingdom has been set up to perfect the saints, redeem the dead, proclaim the gospel, and care for those in need (note the direct of criticism and calls for repentance). In other words, the gospel and church is structured to benefit its members--the spiritual hospital and doctors are here to treat the patients.

 

This includes those who hath been converted strengthening their brethren (note the lower case "b")--patients assisting patients.

 

Whereas, you seem to be of the mind that the members have been set forth on earth to perfect, redeem, and proclaim pop culture to church leaders;

 

Instead of Christ heading his church and addressing presumed problems with his chosen leaders as he sees fit, you figure that this is the role of presumptuous, self-appointed members.  The patients are here to treat the hospital and doctors. The prideful inmates are here to rule the asylum.

 

In short, your grasp of the gospel is upside-down from my own. To each their own.

 

ake a look around this board.  Just about every thread is filled with a swipe or dig about some rank and file member (e.g., Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, Spencer, the lady who bought up all of the t-shirts in Orem, anonymous bishops, etc.).  Yet, if someone were to write that Apostle So-and-So had bad breath, all double hockey sticks would break out as faithful members typed IN CAPS, "How dare you question the Lord's anointed's breath?  If Lord wanted him to have good breath, He would have added Tic Tacs to the endowment ceremony!"

 

But hey, let's make a deal.  I'll stop criticizing the 15, if you lay off the 15 MILLION.  Deal?

 

Said another way, and mixing my metaphors, in terms of scaling the spiritual mountain, you agree to stop pulling down on the helping hands reaching from above, if I agree to stop giving a boost up from the side to my fellow climbers, as if that makes any sense.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 7, 2014 by wenglund

[CV75]

My original question, however, still stands ... why is it perfectly okay to rip apart rank and file members, but it is a sin of the greatest order to even hint that the leaders may not be perfect?

So do the dozens of responses!

[mormonnewb]

Instead of Christ heading his church and addressing presumed problems with his chosen leaders as he sees fit, you figure that this is the role of presumptuous, self-appointed members.  The patients are here to treat the hospital and doctors. The prideful inmates are here to rule the asylum.

 

In short, your grasp of the gospel is upside-down from my own. To each their own.

 

Said another way, and mixing my metaphors, in terms of scaling the spiritual mountain, you agree to stop pulling down on the helping hands reaching from above, if I agree to stop giving a boost up from the side to my fellow climbers, as if that makes any sense.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So that's what you call the name-calling and general character attacks -- giving fellow climbers a "boost"? Are you sure that I'm the one who has the gospel upside-down?

[CV75]

So that's what you call the name-calling and general character attacks -- giving fellow climbers a "boost"? Are you sure that I'm the one who has the gospel upside-down?

Something is definitely is upside-down if your read the responses to say that it is perfectly OK to rip apart any member with name-calling and general character attacks while it is mandatory to regard the Church leaders as perfect.

[mormonnewb]

Something is definitely is upside-down if your read the responses to say that it is perfectly OK to rip apart any member with name-calling and general character attacks while it is mandatory to regard the Church leaders as perfect.

 

I was addressing Wade's claim that he was "giving a boost up from the side to my fellow climbers."  I haven't seen much "boosting" for the "ark steadiers" but please feel free to show me the examples of such boosting on the board.

 

And while I imagine that we ALL recognize that we should not rip apart ANYONE (member or not), I think our "enforcement" is a little lax in regards to rank-and-file ripping in much the same way that the enforcement of the WOW is a little lax in regards to, say, eating meat "only in times of famine and excess of hunger."  After all, you can eat meat with every meal (and even for dessert) and you still get to see your daughter get married.  In fact, you can have someone waiting at the front door of the temple to hand you a corn dog immediately after her sealing.  However, if you have an Arnold Palmer (which is only HALF iced tea), then your spouse better have a great memory so that they can tell you all about the ceremony that you will NOT be attending.  As a result, members are much more stringent in avoiding iced tea than they are in avoiding meat.

 

The same thing can be witnessed on this board in regards to personal attacks.  A personal attack against one of the Brethren will not be tolerated.  Even a genuine disagreement on doctrine/practice will result in several shouts of "Ark steadier!", "Apostate!" or worse, "Democrat!"  On the other hand, a personal attack against a rank and file member (or even fellow poster) might get you several rep points.

 

Now, let's be clear.  I'm not claiming victim status here.  I am much more likely to offend than to be offended.  However, I'm new here.  I expect much more from you long-time Mormons.  Tsk.  Tsk.  Tsk.  

[ERayR]

Believe it or not, I couldn't agree with you more.  It would be far better to work to shore up my own weaknesses than to even take notice of another's.

 

My original question, however, still stands ... why is it perfectly okay to rip apart rank and file members, but it is a sin of the greatest order to even hint that the leaders may not be perfect?  Take a look around this board.  Just about every thread is filled with a swipe or dig about some rank and file member (e.g., Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, Spencer, the lady who bought up all of the t-shirts in Orem, anonymous bishops, etc.).  Yet, if someone were to write that Apostle So-and-So had bad breath, all double hockey sticks would break out as faithful members typed IN CAPS, "How dare you question the Lord's anointed's breath?  If Lord wanted him to have good breath, He would have added Tic Tacs to the endowment ceremony!"

 

But hey, let's make a deal.  I'll stop criticizing the 15, if you lay off the 15 MILLION.  Deal?

 

But it is not the 15 million but only that part that is publicly and vocally challenging the 15.

[ERayR]

So that's what you call the name-calling and general character attacks -- giving fellow climbers a "boost"? Are you sure that I'm the one who has the gospel upside-down?

 

Name calling?  I think that to draw attention to ones actions has been reduced to and interpreted as name calling. You know used as a shield.

[mormonnewb]

Name calling?  I think that to draw attention to ones actions has been reduced to and interpreted as name calling. You know used as a shield.

 

Do I really have to go through the threads to see how many times KK has been called "arrogant," "prideful," or "stubborn"?  Or how many times John Dehlin has been called "dishonest," "deceitful," and the like?

 

These are not simple statements of fact.  They are meant to characterize and stigmatize someone.  It's one thing to point out that, say, someone has repeated engaged in a certain action.  However, it's quite another to characterize that person as "stubborn," "bull-headed," "foolish," etc.

 

I really don't want to go back through the threads to find instances in which certain members have engaged in name calling (after all, many of them would probably implicate ME).  Besides, the criticism that I'm concerned about goes so far beyond just the words we use.  As Mormons, we are very good at using kind words to say unkind things.  Some church pronouncements on the Negro from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s, were extremely offensive, but NONE of them contained racial epithets.  Blacks were cursed to perpetual inferiority but in the kindest rhetoric.  We see the same thing in play with gays today.  No Church leader would EVER use the "f" word or some other slur to describe the people to whom he would deny various civil rights if given the chance.

 

With regards to KK, our Mormonese will allow us to say that we "love" our dear sister but that "she is under the influence of the adversary" or "has been deceived by worldly philosophies."  Yet, what we are really saying is that she is either "possessed" or "stupid."  Dressing up these swipes in flowery language makes them no less stinging.  Now, I know that certain members have been very conscientious to avoid attributing bad motives to those they disagree with and simply critiquing their actions (calmoriah comes most readily to mind).  May the rest of us follow suit.

[JLHPROF]

Do I really have to go through the threads to see how many times KK has been called "arrogant," "prideful," or "stubborn"?  Or how many times John Dehlin has been called "dishonest," "deceitful," and the like?

 

These are not simple statements of fact.  They are meant to characterize and stigmatize someone.  It's one thing to point out that, say, someone has repeated engaged in a certain action.  However, it's quite another to characterize that person as "stubborn," "bull-headed," "foolish," etc.

 

I really don't want to go back through the threads to find instances in which certain members have engaged in name calling (after all, many of them would probably implicate ME).  Besides, the criticism that I'm concerned about goes so far beyond just the words we use.  As Mormons, we are very good at using kind words to say unkind things.  Some church pronouncements on the Negro from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s, were extremely offensive, but NONE of them contained racial epithets.  Blacks were cursed to perpetual inferiority but in the kindest rhetoric.  We see the same thing in play with gays today.  No Church leader would EVER use the "f" word or some other slur to describe the people to whom he would deny various civil rights if given the chance.

 

With regards to KK, our Mormonese will allow us to say that we "love" our dear sister but that "she is under the influence of the adversary" or "has been deceived by worldly philosophies."  Yet, what we are really saying is that she is either "possessed" or "stupid."  Dressing up these swipes in flowery language makes them no less stinging.  Now, I know that certain members have been very conscientious to avoid attributing bad motives to those they disagree with and simply critiquing their actions (calmoriah comes most readily to mind).  May the rest of us follow suit.

 

While I appreciate your Christian kindness towards people, I still don't understand why you continue to be so supportive of those who are not supportive of God's prophets and apostles.  Would you have stood with those who fought the prophet Joseph from within the Church?  Would you have stood with the pharisees and the sanhedrin as they tried to bring down Christ and the Apostles?  I don't think you would, so why here?

 

Name calling does happen unfortunately, but we also can't support those who take a line against God's representatives after being asked not to.

While I think a little more kindness is warranted, the actions taken against KK and JD are completely in keeping with God's instructions to his Church.  I don't completely understand why so many continue to claim they were wronged in some way, even if you agree with their causes.

Edited July 7, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Raingirl]

[quote name="mormonnewb" post="1209398868" timestamp="

With regards to KK, our Mormonese will allow us to say that we "love" our dear sister but that "she is under the influence of the adversary" or "has been deceived by worldly philosophies."  Yet, what we are really saying is that she is either "possessed" or "stupid."  Dressing up these swipes in flowery language makes them no less stinging.  Now, I know that certain members have been very conscientious to avoid attributing bad motives to those they disagree with and simply critiquing their actions (calmoriah comes most readily to mind).  May the rest of us follow suit.

[ERayR]

Do I really have to go through the threads to see how many times KK has been called "arrogant," "prideful," or "stubborn"?  Or how many times John Dehlin has been called "dishonest," "deceitful," and the like?

 

These are not simple statements of fact.  They are meant to characterize and stigmatize someone.  It's one thing to point out that, say, someone has repeated engaged in a certain action.  However, it's quite another to characterize that person as "stubborn," "bull-headed," "foolish," etc.

 

I really don't want to go back through the threads to find instances in which certain members have engaged in name calling (after all, many of them would probably implicate ME).  Besides, the criticism that I'm concerned about goes so far beyond just the words we use.  As Mormons, we are very good at using kind words to say unkind things.  Some church pronouncements on the Negro from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s, were extremely offensive, but NONE of them contained racial epithets.  Blacks were cursed to perpetual inferiority but in the kindest rhetoric.  We see the same thing in play with gays today.  No Church leader would EVER use the "f" word or some other slur to describe the people to whom he would deny various civil rights if given the chance.

 

With regards to KK, our Mormonese will allow us to say that we "love" our dear sister but that "she is under the influence of the adversary" or "has been deceived by worldly philosophies."  Yet, what we are really saying is that she is either "possessed" or "stupid."  Dressing up these swipes in flowery language makes them no less stinging.  Now, I know that certain members have been very conscientious to avoid attributing bad motives to those they disagree with and simply critiquing their actions (calmoriah comes most readily to mind).  May the rest of us follow suit.

 

Those things you have enumerated, called "arrogant," "prideful," or "stubborn", can be and often are used to describe behaviors.  A persons behaviors are very much up for discussion. 

 

I also think it ironic that you complain of others being judgmental and you heap such scorn on on others for supposed motives.  Something you really have no way of knowing other than judgmental supposition.

[mormonnewb]

While I appreciate your Christian kindness towards people, I still don't understand why you continue to be so supportive of those who are not supportive of God's prophets and apostles.  Would you have stood with those who fought the prophet Joseph from within the Church?  Would you have stood with the pharisees and the sanhedrin as they tried to bring down Christ and the Apostles?  I don't think you would, so why here?

 

Name calling does happen unfortunately, but we also can't support those who take a line against God's representatives after being asked not to.

While I think a little more kindness is warranted, the actions taken against KK and JD are completely in keeping with God's instructions to his Church.  I don't completely understand why so many continue to claim they were wronged in some way, even if you agree with their causes.

 

You and I see being "supportive of God's prophets and apostles" so much differently.  If I'm riding in a car with my bishop and I see a small child leap into the road, I'm going to shout out to the bishop, "Stop!  You're about to run over that small child!"  I don't consider this to be acting in opposition of his efforts to drive us to a home teaching assignment.  I fully support him in his mission and I'm simply trying to make sure that we get there in the safest manner possible.  Some would see this as "ark steadying" I suppose, but I see it as SUSTAINING my bishop (and just being a decent human being).

 

There are some of us who see, say, Kate Kelly as yelling, "Stop!  You're about to run over an entire generation of women who won't be able to reconcile a world where a woman is the leader of the free world but can't pass out bread and water in God's Church!"  Now, I understand that KK and others have not been sustained or appointed to be the royal shouter-outers, but in the example above, I haven't been ordained to the office of kid-spotter-in-the-road either.  I'm simply doing what I can to help out in the situation.

 

Now, the bishop could always decide that we must hit this kid as a lesson to others who would play in the Lord's street.  Or that God would stop the car if he wasn't meant to drive over this kid.  But MY bishop would do neither.  He would immediately heed my warning, stop as quickly as possible and ask to see what I see in the road ahead.  He may later decide that I've mistaken a shadow for a kid and then continue along his way, but he wouldn't just dismiss me outright because I didn't shout in the proper tone.  Or because I shouted out an imperative that "sounded more like a command than a request."

 

And given that, sadly, our tendency in the past has been to shrug our shoulders and say, "God will sort it all out later," I have a profound respect for those who are willing to face the slings and arrows of family, friends and perhaps, even God Almighty, to try to save just one of the lost sheep.

[CV75]

I was addressing Wade's claim that he was "giving a boost up from the side to my fellow climbers."  I haven't seen much "boosting" for the "ark steadiers" but please feel free to show me the examples of such boosting on the board.

 

And while I imagine that we ALL recognize that we should not rip apart ANYONE (member or not), I think our "enforcement" is a little lax in regards to rank-and-file ripping in much the same way that the enforcement of the WOW is a little lax in regards to, say, eating meat "only in times of famine and excess of hunger."  After all, you can eat meat with every meal (and even for dessert) and you still get to see your daughter get married.  In fact, you can have someone waiting at the front door of the temple to hand you a corn dog immediately after her sealing.  However, if you have an Arnold Palmer (which is only HALF iced tea), then your spouse better have a great memory so that they can tell you all about the ceremony that you will NOT be attending.  As a result, members are much more stringent in avoiding iced tea than they are in avoiding meat.

 

The same thing can be witnessed on this board in regards to personal attacks.  A personal attack against one of the Brethren will not be tolerated.  Even a genuine disagreement on doctrine/practice will result in several shouts of "Ark steadier!", "Apostate!" or worse, "Democrat!"  On the other hand, a personal attack against a rank and file member (or even fellow poster) might get you several rep points.

 

Now, let's be clear.  I'm not claiming victim status here.  I am much more likely to offend than to be offended.  However, I'm new here.  I expect much more from you long-time Mormons.  Tsk.  Tsk.  Tsk.  

I’m really not interested in keeping score as to who boosts whom. I think that everybody sometimes gets boosted by like-minded people, and sometimes get boosted in the direction someone wants to boost them, no matter what kind of saint you assess the booster or the boosted to be.

 

But since your prime question “still stands” (amazingly enough, after 8 pages!), why don’t you seek further understanding of out how it isn’t mandatory to regard the Church leaders as perfect, and how personal attacks are poor form.

 

Being offensive, as subjective a charge as that is, has more to do, I think, with one’s deeply-rooted disposition, personality and intent than with how long he’s been a member of the Church, as do his expectations.

[JLHPROF]

You and I see being "supportive of God's prophets and apostles" so much differently.  If I'm riding in a car with my bishop and I see a small child leap into the road, I'm going to shout out to the bishop, "Stop!  You're about to run over that small child!"  I don't consider this to be acting in opposition of his efforts to drive us to a home teaching assignment.  I fully support him in his mission and I'm simply trying to make sure that we get there in the safest manner possible.  Some would see this as "ark steadying" I suppose, but I see it as SUSTAINING my bishop (and just being a decent human being).

 

There are some of us who see, say, Kate Kelly as yelling, "Stop!  You're about to run over an entire generation of women who won't be able to reconcile a world where a woman is the leader of the free world but can't pass out bread and water in God's Church!"  Now, I understand that KK and others have not been sustained or appointed to be the royal shouter-outers, but in the example above, I haven't been ordained to the office of kid-spotter-in-the-road either.  I'm simply doing what I can to help out in the situation.

 

Now, the bishop could always decide that we must hit this kid as a lesson to others who would play in the Lord's street.  Or that God would stop the car if he wasn't meant to drive over this kid.  But MY bishop would do neither.  He would immediately heed my warning, stop as quickly as possible and ask to see what I see in the road ahead.  He may later decide that I've mistaken a shadow for a kid and then continue along his way, but he wouldn't just dismiss me outright because I didn't shout in the proper tone.  Or because I shouted out an imperative that "sounded more like a command than a request."

 

And given that, sadly, our tendency in the past has been to shrug our shoulders and say, "God will sort it all out later," I have a profound respect for those who are willing to face the slings and arrows of family, friends and perhaps, even God Almighty, to try to save just one of the lost sheep.

 

You really don't get this do you?  Your view of what KK is doing is the problem.  She is not the savior/superhero/noble martyr here.  What she did is not shouting a cry of warning, but rather insisted on sitting on the shoulder whispering dissenting opinions in the ears of anyone who would listen.  She wasn't the conscience, she was discord whispering in the ear.

 

According to the Church to which she wants to belong:

• She is wrong doctrinally.  People may disagree, but she is simply wrong.
• Her actions were wrong in the way she approached achieving change.
• She refused to follow counsel from her "sustained leaders".
• She received numerous attempts to put her back in harmony.
• She was unwilling to accept anything less than what she thought should happen.
• In Mormonism EVERYONE has a head, and she wouldn't accept counsel from hers.

 

In the end the Church did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to KK.  KK excommunicated herself.  I have a hard time accepting your claim that she was the moral voice shouting to the deaf ears of our leaders.  I don't think what she was shouting (or doing) was particularly moral or helpful.  Even if her motivations were the most pure in existence, her actions were still excommunicable offences which she chose to do.

[mormonnewb]

You really don't get this do you?  Your view of what KK is doing is the problem.  She is not the savior/superhero/noble martyr here.  What she did is not shouting a cry of warning, but rather insisted on sitting on the shoulder whispering dissenting opinions in the ears of anyone who would listen.  She wasn't the conscience, she was discord whispering in the ear.

 

According to the Church to which she wants to belong:

• She is wrong doctrinally.  People may disagree, but she is simply wrong.
• Her actions were wrong in the way she approached achieving change.
• She refused to follow counsel from her "sustained leaders".
• She received numerous attempts to put her back in harmony.
• She was unwilling to accept anything less than what she thought should happen.
• In Mormonism EVERYONE has a head, and she wouldn't accept counsel from hers.

 

In the end the Church did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to KK.  KK excommunicated herself.  I have a hard time accepting your claim that she was the moral voice shouting to the deaf ears of our leaders.  I don't think what she was shouting (or doing) was particularly moral or helpful.  Even if her motivations were the most pure in existence, her actions were still excommunicable offences which she chose to do.

 

Today's "discord whisperer" is tomorrow's hero.  Helmuth Hubuner was excommunicated BY THIS CHURCH for this "crimes" of whispering discord in Nazi Germany.  Yet, amazingly, he is the most celebrated German saint of his age TODAY.

 

Dr. Lowry Nelson challenged the 1st Presidency directly on its stand regarding not just OB (Ordain Blacks), but also, the civil rights movement in general.  He urged the leaders to join with other churches in this greatest Christian movement in the history of the nation.  He was warned against following "worldly philosophies."  Sixty years later, this Church is branded as a "racist church" and I'm CONSTANTLY being asked to explain what the heck is wrong with me to join common cause with such bigots.

 

Do you GET that?  Brother Hubuner didn't hurt this Church.  He gave us one of the few bright spots in a fairly dismal tale of our LDS brothers and sisters in Nazi Germany.  Brother Nelson didn't hurt this Church.  He tried to help it.

 

Sister Kelly decided to do more than just be a footnote in Church history -- someone who was prophetic enough to see the future but had to resign herself to watching the Church once again miss the opportunity to be on the right side of history.  She took a stand and, in the process, put her standing in the Church (and perhaps, before God) on the line.  So if by "getting it," you mean that I must resolve to follow those who think that they get an ethical "pass" because they followed the Prophet, I really hope that I NEVER get it.

[JLHPROF]

 

Sister Kelly decided to do more than just be a footnote in Church history -- someone who was prophetic enough to see the future but had to resign herself to watching the Church once again miss the opportunity to be on the right side of history. 

 

This is the root of the problem.  We are still looking at the women and the priesthood issue as a simple matter of social progress.  If that were so then what side of history we end up on would matter.  Whether women hold the priesthood is NOT an issue of progress.  It is NOT something we are waiting for the Church to catch up on.  It is NOT a relic of the 1800s.  It IS a doctrine of the gospel (with the obvious order of priesthood where women are inducted as the exception).  This is NOT something we are waiting on God to reveal.

 

It is a doctrine of the Church that women are not ordained to be ecclesiastical leaders.  If you don't like the doctrine the Church doesn't have to care.  If it's God's Church then accept its doctrines.  If you can't accept its doctrines then why would you want to be a member.  You cannot shape the gospel to fit your beliefs.  You have to shape your beliefs.  KK refused.