To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[Kenngo1969]

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. ...

If anyone above Helmuth Hubener's bishop had known about his bishop's illegitimate excommunication of him, it never would have happened!  Thanks fer playin'!

Edited July 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

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.

Love it or leave it, huh?

If only life were that simple. I don't agree with everything that my government does, but I don't leave the country. I don't agree with everything my wife does, should I leave her too in search of the "true wife?" Or do I grow up and realize that the Church (like EVERYTHING else in creation) is imperfect?

At one point, leaders told us that it was doctrine that men should have more than one wife. Doctrine changed. They told us that blacks wouldn't have the priesthood (at least, not anytime soon). Doctrine changed.

Given the history of just the last 125 years, why are you so sure that HF is done revealing His will to us? This is perhaps the Church's ultimate saving grace -- that we have a mechanism for change. Yet, whenever anyone asks the prophets for CONTINUING revelation, we shout them down as "apostates."

It seems to me that the REAL Mormons are those of us who look forward to HF working through His prophets and not those who shout, "God has spoken. Move along!" We believe that He STILL speaks and that we only need to be willing to ask and hear His will.

[mormonnewb]

If anyone above Helmuth Hubener's bishop had known about his bishop's illegitimate excommunication of him, it never would have happened!  Thanks fer playin'!

CFR!

[USU78]

If anyone above Helmuth Hubener's bishop had known about his bishop's illegitimate excommunication of him, it never would have happened! Thanks fer playin'!

Wasn't even a bishop. Was a branch president

[USU78]

CFR!

Oh, for heaven's sake. Do some research. This is tiresome.that was not remotely controversial.

[Kenngo1969]

CFR!

Report me to the mods and have me banned from the thread for failing to answer your pedantic CFR.  I'm done with you and with the thread.  I've tried to be civil (you once all but called me a racist, remember?) but I'm done with you.  Don't bother trying to engage me in the future.  Thanks.

[stemelbow]

Wow. I'm surprised at how angry people have gotten towards Mormonewb. I shouldn't be because what he says for the most part resonates with me, and I've seen the general response from normal LDS folks. I maintain its fair to say the Church has implemented error in the past. And that we ought to be careful not to let error remain in the Church. It will, in some cases. I'm not saying OW is an error by the Church (maybe the excommunication is, but we'll leave that to God). I'm saying its fair for us to challenge the narrative a little. Give ourselves time to stop and reflect. Sadly it seems to me, challenges, even questions largely, are seen as unfaithful attacks on leaders personally or something. Kinda fruitless when it always ends up people throwing their hands up being done with another, though.

[stemelbow]

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.

What action has been taken against JD? And what are God's instructions to His Church regarding KK's and JD's activities?

As think Mormonewb's point is a good one--while we pretend to speak on behalf of God sometimes we fail to realize our structure is such that God need not have us speak for Him. He can speak for Himself. We think we ought to be more cautious is pronouncing His judgment on matters before we actually hear Him speak.

[why me]

Report me to the mods and have me banned from the thread for failing to answer your pedantic CFR.  I'm done with you and with the thread.  I've tried to be civil (you once all but called me a racist, remember?) but I'm done with you.  Don't bother trying to engage me in the future.  Thanks.

I challenged mormonnewb sometime ago on a different thread to tell us what his vision of his lds church would be. I thought that he was being overtly negative and critical too many times not to give us his vision of what he would like the church to be. Tearing something down is easy. Much more difficult to defend and support against a someone who is constantly negative about the church and yet, claims to be an active member. Very easy for someone like this to constantly take the moral high ground from such a position, Heck, I could do it too very well...just need to push the right buttons.

 

When I challenged mormonnewb I was reported and banned for being too harsh. But we humans can lose our patience. I am coming to the opinon not to engage him anymore because of his attitude toward the lds church etc and the discussion just goes round and round.

[why me]

What action has been taken against JD? And what are God's instructions to His Church regarding KK's and JD's activities?

As think Mormonewb's point is a good one--while we pretend to speak on behalf of God sometimes we fail to realize our structure is such that God need not have us speak for Him. He can speak for Himself. We think we ought to be more cautious is pronouncing His judgment on matters before we actually hear Him speak.

He did. He excommunicated KK. The problem comes when people cannot accept his decision. And with john d. he now knows that his activities are being seen as favorable to the church. What else should god do? He could begin to turn people to salt again etc. But he seems to be working through prophets etc. The problem comes when people cannot accept his decisions through the mouths of the prophets.

[Calm]

Sadly it seems to me, challenges, even questions largely, are seen as unfaithful attacks on leaders personally or something. Kinda fruitless when it always ends up people throwing their hands up being done with another, though.

A couple of observations and a hefty dose of advice based on my own experiences with a variety of communities over the years.

I think one of the problems is when criticism is the main topic of conversation a person has. Mormonewb seems to recognize why it is a problem if we treat those we walk with in this fashion but many of us it seems to me to see newb doing the same with leadership and with posters on the board, whether it is his intent or not. And we ask ourselves why is it a problem for him for those he wants to protect but when we react in the same way for those we feel protective towards we get accused of being angry, unkind, etc.

I personally believe that anyone who lets criticism dominate their focus on the board (and elsewhere) is going to perceived by others as unkind, not a good saint, unfaithful, take your pick from various angles depending on where the reader stands him/herself on the issues. It is easy enough to tolerate criticism if we wholeheartedly agree with it. It gets old fast if we are not so committed to that particular reform and if we see it as focused on people or things we love, it will feel like an attack in most cases.

If we however work towards a mix of at least 1 part criticism to 3 parts supportive and positive remarks, most posters will see criticism more in line with looking for and sharing insight as opposed to being critical by desire, taking satisfaction in tearing something or someone down. It would be even better IMO to go to a 1 part negative to 9 parts positive with the positive first to establish that sense of commitment that opens up greater trust in others (and in close relationships where it is much easier to hurt others because they have opened themselves up to you and allowed themselves to be vulnerable 1 to 99 or even 999.

There are people who are critical at times on the board who are not accused routinely as attacking others, etc. But are listened to thoughtfully for the most part by others. I would say if you care about your message, you want it to be listened to and minds changed, watch and learn how they share their ideas and adapt that to your own style as much as you can. People arent paying to come and listen to a presentation, motivational speaker, etc. it is not the time to get up on the pulpit. If you really want to create a community that shares your ideas then surely it is worth the effort to adapt and change how one goes about spreading that message. If holding on to a unique style of delivery is more important to someone than the actual convincing of minds and hearts....well, that individual has shown what is most important to them and in my experience they eventually lose a real voice in the community and are tolerated at best, mostly ignored by serious posters and often move on to other communities that serve as better venues for chest thumping.

Edited July 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Something about sinners and casting stones.

[JLHPROF]

What action has been taken against JD? And what are God's instructions to His Church regarding KK's and JD's activities?

As think Mormonewb's point is a good one--while we pretend to speak on behalf of God sometimes we fail to realize our structure is such that God need not have us speak for Him. He can speak for Himself. We think we ought to be more cautious is pronouncing His judgment on matters before we actually hear Him speak.

 

God's instructions come through his priesthood leadership.  I certainly don't pretend to speak for God, but I watch God's representatives fulfilling his instructions. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/excommunication

I particularly think D&C 64:34-36  and II Thes 3:6 probably apply, but again, I am not the judge.

 

I find this whole discussion as illogical as saying I want to be a member of the Church but I disagree with Baptism so I should be allowed to refuse and still be called a member.  The Church has doctrines.  If you believe you do what is necessary to become a member.  If you don't believe you don't become a member.  If you believe all but one or two points you still do what is necessary to become a member and trust that God is running his Church.

Edited July 8, 2014 by JLHPROF

[wenglund]

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?

 

I was referring to "criticisms" in general since that was what you were asking about, though perhaps I should have used the term "constructive criticism" to avoid misunderstanding.

 

Please realize, though, that constructive criticism may at times rightly include the use of illuminating descriptors, like "ark-steadiers," that some may wish to unwarrantably dismiss as "name-calling," as well as extraspections (insightful assessment of individuals by others) like determining that a person's view of the gospel is "upside-down," which some may wish to unwarrantably dismiss as "personal attacks," where in truth the intent behind such descriptors and extraspections is to enlighten and strengthen fellow member, though some members are wont to kick against the pricks and may be loath to accept constructive criticism they so freely dish out.

 

With that having been said, then In terms of criticism, yes, your view of the gospel is upside-down. The gospel/church is designed to humbly change you for the better, not the other way around.

 

However, as always, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

He did. He excommunicated KK. The problem comes when people cannot accept his decision. And with john d. he now knows that his activities are being seen as favorable to the church. What else should god do? He could begin to turn people to salt again etc. But he seems to be working through prophets etc. The problem comes when people cannot accept his decisions through the mouths of the prophets.

That's difficult though. For certain a bishop or even a prophet can err in determining God's will as it pertains to an individual. Perhaps it is God's will that KK not be ex'd. Perhaps it is. Who knows? I'm not sure I have good grounds to comment on but I have for some odd reason.

I can accept that it is her bishop's decision to make and I can accept that God can very well endorse the decision even if it was preferred she not get ex'd.

[stemelbow]

A couple of observations and a hefty dose of advice based on my own experiences with a variety of communities over the years.

I think one of the problems is when criticism is the main topic of conversation a person has. Mormonewb seems to recognize why it is a problem if we treat those we walk with in this fashion but many of us it seems to me to see newb doing the same with leadership and with posters on the board, whether it is his intent or not. And we ask ourselves why is it a problem for him for those he wants to protect but when we react in the same way for those we feel protective towards we get accused of being angry, unkind, etc.

I haven't seen Mormonewb criticize leaders in the same way people have criticized other members, or excommunicated members for that matter. He's perhaps challenged ideas presented by leaders but it seems to be he has a great affection for and love for the leaders themselves. I too question and wish to challenge some of the assumptions and ideas that are given us. And I have no desire to attack or criticize the leaders themselves. Two different things in my view.

I personally believe that anyone who lets criticism dominate their focus on the board (and elsewhere) is going to perceived by others as unkind, not a good saint, unfaithful, take your pick from various angles depending on where the reader stands him/herself on the issues. It is easy enough to tolerate criticism if we wholeheartedly agree with it. It gets old fast if we are not so committed to that particular reform and if we see it as focused on people or things we love, it will feel like an attack in most cases.

Then the problem is not with the criticizer. He's just offering ideas to discuss and in return his faith is questioned, unfairly.

If we however work towards a mix of at least 1 part criticism to 3 parts supportive and positive remarks, most posters will see criticism more in line with looking for and sharing insight as opposed to being critical by desire, taking satisfaction in tearing something or someone down. It would be even better IMO to go to a 1 part negative to 9 parts positive with the positive first to establish that sense of commitment that opens up greater trust in others (and in close relationships where it is much easier to hurt others because they have opened themselves up to you and allowed themselves to be vulnerable 1 to 99 or even 999.

He hasn't torn people down. He's offered challenges which it appreciated by me. And he does offer positive. I've seen it myself. I don't like this line of reasoning. People who are treated poorly are to blame. That seems to have come out here, at least a little.

There are people who are critical at times on the board who are not accused routinely as attacking others, etc. But are listened to thoughtfully for the most part by others. I would say if you care about your message, you want it to be listened to and minds changed, watch and learn how they share their ideas and adapt that to your own style as much as you can. People arent paying to come and listen to a presentation, motivational speaker, etc. it is not the time to get up on the pulpit. If you really want to create a community that shares your ideas then surely it is worth the effort to adapt and change how one goes about spreading that message. If holding on to a unique style of delivery is more important to someone than the actual convincing of minds and hearts....well, that individual has shown what is most important to them and in my experience they eventually lose a real voice in the community and are tolerated at best, mostly ignored by serious posters and often move on to other communities that serve as better venues for chest thumping.

Such a view promotes divisiveness in my view. It's the other's fault. I think we can all learn to tolerate each other. Some won't tolerate the faithful view either. I know I've tried on message boards. The faithful won't tolerate dissent sometimes, which is too bad. Because on my view dissent, challenges, criticism can really foster good dialogue.

[stemelbow]

God's instructions come through his priesthood leadership.  I certainly don't pretend to speak for God, but I watch God's representatives fulfilling his instructions. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/excommunication

I particularly think D&C 64:34-36  and II Thes 3:6 probably apply, but again, I am not the judge.

But some of us think God's instructions and truths come from all sorts of sources and that his leadership while good and great in many ways, can't always be right. So it's fair to question that. To give us a chance to talk these things through. I think there have been times when the leadership was wrong and it is a good thing that things have changed. Without outside forces causing the questions, challenges, we may be stuck in a different era. Luckily there was some opening up. I don't want to get stuck. I want to be open. Willing to embrace truths no matter the source. All too often the message around here that there is no other source for truth. We must trust that God only works through His priesthood. Well, that's merely an assumption.

 

I find this whole discussion as illogical as saying I want to be a member of the Church but I disagree with Baptism so I should be allowed to refuse and still be called a member.  The Church has doctrines.  If you believe you do what is necessary to become a member.  If you don't believe you don't become a member.  If you believe all but one or two points you still do what is necessary to become a member and trust that God is running his Church.

There is tons of gray area to talk about. How do ordinances save? Will all be baptized at some point? what level of belief constitutes being a member? Plenty to discuss on that.

Edited July 8, 2014 by stemelbow

[thesometimesaint]

There is tons of gray area to talk about. How do ordinances save? Will all be baptized at some point? what level of belief constitutes being a member?

By themselves they can not save anyone. IE; Baptism is just getting wet if it is not accepted by God.

Yes all will be baptized at some point, whether in this life, or in the next by proxy.

The correct answer to the baptismal questions.

[Kenngo1969]

Wow. I'm surprised at how angry people have gotten towards Mormonewb. ...

It might have something to do with his passive-aggressiveness.  He doesn't haul off and hit anybody, metaphorically speaking.  He simply pokes certain posters ... not hard enough to do any real damage, mind you, but  just hard enough to hurt.  Then when somebody demonstrates impatience with his modus operandi, he does one of these and pulls out the "Christian Love Card" and the "You're My Brother/Sister Even If We Disagree Card" .  Personally, I prefer (Indeed, on some level, I even respect) naked aggression to passive-aggressiveness and feigned brotherhood.  At least in the former case, I know where somebody stands.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

asks the prophets for CONTINUING revelation

When it comes to asking the prophets for continuing revelation, or anticipating continuing revelation, or seeking continuing revelation, or hoping for continuing revelation on a specific subject or on an outcome we are personally fond of, I think three principles need to be aligned in order for us to enjoy “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding (Philippians 4:3-6)” regardless of the outcome of our pursuit, and these go along with the three attitudes from Philippians 4:3-5:

 

“Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Let your moderation [forbearance] be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing [don’t worry of be afraid about anything]; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.”

 

The three principles that have to work together for seeking continuing revelation are: ask not amiss; ask with real intent; work with and within the councils.

[stemelbow]

It might have something to do with his passive-aggressiveness.  He doesn't haul off and hit anybody, metaphorically speaking.  He simply pokes certain posters ... not hard enough to do any real damage, mind you, but  just hard enough to hurt.  Then when somebody demonstrates impatience with his modus operandi, he does one of these and pulls out the "Christian Love Card" and the "You're My Brother/Sister Even If We Disagree Card" .  Personally, I prefer (Indeed, on some level, I even respect) naked aggression to passive-aggressiveness and feigned brotherhood.  At least in the former case, I know where somebody stands.

I say if ya can't see where someone stands don't try and assign to him/her a faith evaluation. just take the ideas as they come and respond. You don't like the other poster, then don't respond at all. NO need to tell everyone you don't like him.

But do what you want. Just trying to do as Calmoriah has done and offer some advice even if not wanted.

[wenglund]

But some of us think God's instructions and truths come from all sorts of sources and that his leadership while good and great in many ways, can't always be right. 

 

I believe that most if not all of us believe this to varying degrees.

 

Where we tend to part company is when certain members believe they, themselves, and pop culture, are less fallible in matters of God than are his chosen earthly leaders, and who believe that it is they, and not God, who are in a position to point out the supposed fallibility of church leaders.

 

At a point, what may be right-side up in relation to the gospel (i.e. the Church leaders are fallible, but they are lead by a perfect God, and have been ordained to perfect the saints), can go too far and become upside-down (i.e. imperfect members are here to perfect the Church and its leaders).

 

And, when this inversion happens, it is in everyone's interest to point it out and seek for correction, even if coming imperfectly from fallible fellow saints.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[stemelbow]

I believe that most if not all of us believe this to varying degrees.

 

Where we tend to part company is when certain members believe they, themselves, and pop culture, are less fallible in matters of God than are his chosen earthly leaders, and who believe that it is they, and not God, who are in a position to point out the supposed fallibility of church leaders.

nobody believes that.

 

At a point, what may be right-side up in relation to the gospel (i.e. the Church leaders are fallible, but they are lead by a perfect God, and have been ordained to perfect the saints), can go too far and become upside-down (i.e. imperfect members are here to perfect the Church and its leaders).

 

And, when this inversion happens, it is in everyone's interest to point it out and seek for correction, even if coming imperfectly from fallible fellow saints.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It hasn't happened.

[wenglund]

nobody believes that.

 

To me, certain people words and deeds suggest otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

To me, certain people words and deeds suggest otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're trying too hard to read something into other's words something that is not there.