To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[Damien the Leper]

No person is above criticism, scrutiny or reproach. To place any mortal outside the Divine on such a pedestal is fairly juvenile. How criticism is delivered says much about the critic. If I believe a GA is wrong on a subject then I'm going to express my reasoning but without hostility.

[The Nehor]

No person is above criticism, scrutiny or reproach. To place any mortal outside the Divine on such a pedestal is fairly juvenile. How criticism is delivered says much about the critic. If I believe a GA is wrong on a subject then I'm going to express my reasoning but without hostility.

 

You are an idiot. I want to be clear this is not a hostile criticism.

[ERayR]

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?

 

Come now you are smart enough to know the difference between the Church and the government or your wife.  You do yourself much disservice.

[Damien the Leper]

You are an idiot. I want to be clear this is not a hostile criticism.

 

You're an assinine ignoramus but to be clear...this is not a hostile criticism.

[The Nehor]

You're an assinine ignoramus but to be clear...this is not a hostile criticism.

 

You are a borderline retarded imbecilic git but this scrutiny is non-hostile.

[Damien the Leper]

You are a borderline retarded imbecilic git but this scrutiny is non-hostile.

 

Aww...I love you too, Nehor. It's unfortunate you're only one step above the janitor that cleans up the vomit in a hospital ER. This is not hostile.

[ERayR]

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.

 

This demonstrates the reason.  How many times has it been explained and demonstrated that it is not the questions or questioning that is the problem but the lengths some have gone to by participating in open and public opposition to the Church and its leaders. 

[teddyaware]

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.

 

For me it's frustrating when a new member of the Church, who by self-admission confesses to little actual involvement in scripture and Gospel study, spouts off with an air of confident authority that the excommunicated Kate Kelly is some sort of prophetic heroine of the latter-days. It seems to me that before any one member begins to make such bold statements they should spend ample time and effort in studying, pondering and praying over the scriptures and General Conference addresses, thus becoming thoroughly acquainted with the doctrines and principles of the restored kingdom of God before endeavoring to become a provocative iconoclast and blunt-spoken ark steadier.

 

I am reminded of my onetime ill-informed criticisms of the art of Pablo Picasso. At one time I mocked what I though was the childish simplicity of his avant garde paintings, ignorantly opining that even a small child could reproduce reasonable replications of Picasso's simplistic painting style. It was then that someone directed me to take a look at Picasso's earlier paintings and I came to realize, much to my utter humiliation, that the guy actually could really paint! After coming to the realization that Picasso had actually "paid his dues" by learning how to paint well in the more traditional styles, I came to understand Picasso had 'earned the right' to break down the barriers of tradition and paint in the new and highly impactful style of cubism.

 

Meanwhile, I think it would be best for a newly baptized converts to first pay their dues by intensive gospel study and prayer before blasting rounds of verbal salvos at the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It could well be that once the foundation of sound gospel knowledge is laid many of the Church's perplexities and seeming unfairness will evaporate into the atmosphere like the morning dew before the blazing sun on a hot summer day.  

Edited July 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

Aww...I love you too, Nehor. It's unfortunate you're only one step above the janitor that cleans up the vomit in a hospital ER. This is not hostile.

 

You would know as you are one step below said vomit. This is said in a spirit of fact-finding and has no emotional or insulting component.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Who do you include in this We.  Is it a veiled wy for you to challenge the idea that the GA actually do speak for God. 

[ERayR]

Something about sinners and casting stones.

 

Yep that is a good one also I remember something about glass houses and rocks.

[stemelbow]

This demonstrates the reason.  How many times has it been explained and demonstrated that it is not the questions or questioning that is the problem but the lengths some have gone to by participating in open and public opposition to the Church and its leaders.

Not many, but even when it has been said it is usually followed by some weird explanation that even though you can question you are of the devil, or on the path to following the devil for your questioning. Indeed, either that or the questioner doesn't know his butt from his head type of stuff.

[ERayR]

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.

 

It is certainly possible for a bishop or even a prophet can err but it is really not my or your job to call them out.  It is not in the purview of our authority.   Insert here something about beams and motes.  In case I missed it if you have been called as a GA please disregard the previous.

[Damien the Leper]

You would know as you are one step below said vomit. This is said in a spirit of fact-finding and has no emotional or insulting component.

 

Ouch. That was good.

[stemelbow]

Who do you include in this We.  Is it a veiled wy for you to challenge the idea that the GA actually do speak for God.

I'm saying we generally. Members of the Church. When I go to Church members often standing up in front of people tell the rest of us what God really thinks about a given subject, sometimes having good support for the assertion and sometimes not. And as it is, it's already been talked about, ad nausea it seems, that GAs have been wrong when attempting to speak for God at times. They aren't always right in trying to give to us God's intended ideas concerning a given topic. Infallibility is not possible, as it turns out.

[ERayR]

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

 

It doesn't take any effort at all to see that it is there.

[stemelbow]

For me it's frustrating when a new member of the Church, who by self-admission confesses to little actual involvement in scripture and Gospel study, spouts off with an air of confident authority that the excommunicated Kate Kelly is some sort of prophetic heroine of the latter-days. It seems to me that before any one member begins to make such bold statements they should spend ample time and effort in studying, pondering and praying over the scriptures and General Conference addresses, thus becoming thoroughly acquainted with the doctrines and principle of the restored kingdom of God before endeavoring to become a provocative iconoclast and blunt-spoken ark steadier.

eh...I say it best to not get worked up over it and let people have their opinions. I don't castigate my son, for instance, when he speaks confidently in ignorance. I let him be and kindly talk the idea through with him, hoping he gains a better understanding of the issue. Instead it seems to follow the example around here, I should attempt to make him feel stupid about his ideas, suggest he should just keep his mouth shut until he knows as much as I and then question his heart and his intent. And unfortunately, mormonewb is not even a child at all. he seems well-read enough. he's not some ignorant goof. He has an interesting perspective in my mind.

I am reminded of my onetime ill-informed criticisms of the art of Pablo Picasso. At one time I mocked what I though was the childish simplicity of his avant garde paintings, ignorantly opining that even a small child could reproduce reasonable replications of Picasso's simplistic painting style. It was then that someone directed me to take a look at Picasso's earlier paintings and I came to realize, much to my utter humiliation, that the guy actually could really paint! After coming to the realization that Picasso had actually "paid his dues" by learning how to paint well in the more traditional styles, I came to understand Picasso had 'earned the right' to break down the barriers of tradition and paint in the whole new and highly impactful style of cubism.

But you have failed to explain how mormonewb is offering ill-informed criticisms, nor has he mocked what he thought was childish simplicity. present a good argument to the ideas and you need not characterize him as something he is not.

 

Meanwhile, I think it would be best for a newly baptized converts to first pay their dues by intensive gospel study and prayer before blasting rounds of verbal salvos at the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It could well be that once the foundation of sound gospel knowledge is laid many of the Church's perplexities and seeming unfairness will evaporate into the atmosphere like the morning dew before the blazing sun on a hot summer day.

Nobody has blasted rounds of verbal salvos at anyone, save for those who are trying to do so to mormonewb himself. Plenty of very well informed members have left the faith on the ground of not finding it credible anymore. We have to stop pretending we're all in some club of special knowledge unattainable by others. At least that's my opinion.

[ERayR]

Not many, but even when it has been said it is usually followed by some weird explanation that even though you can question you are of the devil, or on the path to following the devil for your questioning. Indeed, either that or the questioner doesn't know his butt from his head type of stuff.

 

You tend to exaggerate what has really been posted to fit your narrative. 

[mormonnewb]

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.

So if God Himself ex'd KK, did He also ex Helmuth Hubuner? Or was that some "rogue" branch president?

Why do we insist on deifying our leaders? God did not ex KK! A leader in the CHURCH did. Am I the only one who sees the difference?

[stemelbow]

It doesn't take any effort at all to see that it is there.

Whether it takes one effort or not to think ill of another by ascribing motivations to him or not, doesn't really address the point.

[ERayR]

I'm saying we generally. Members of the Church. When I go to Church members often standing up in front of people tell the rest of us what God really thinks about a given subject, sometimes having good support for the assertion and sometimes not. And as it is, it's already been talked about, ad nausea it seems, that GAs have been wrong when attempting to speak for God at times. They aren't always right in trying to give to us God's intended ideas concerning a given topic. Infallibility is not possible, as it turns out.

 

I think you do project your own attitudes in this regard. 

 

Did you or did you not receive a calling where this kind of criticism would be in your purview?

[USU78]

So if God Himself ex'd KK, did He also ex Helmuth Hubuner? Or was that some "rogue" branch president?

Why do we insist on deifying our leaders? God did not ex KK! A leader in the CHURCH did. Am I the only one who sees the difference?

 

"[W]hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Edited July 8, 2014 by USU78

[stemelbow]

I think you do project your own attitudes in this regard. 

 

Did you or did you not receive a calling where this kind of criticism would be in your purview?

What kind of criticism are you asking about? I welcome criticism of my ideas.

[ERayR]

Whether it takes one effort or not to think ill of another by ascribing motivations to him or not, doesn't really address the point.

 

Nice dodge

[stemelbow]

"[W]hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Are we taking this to mean that all things said by our leaders is from God Himself? I don't think that works very well in practice. Too many times our leaders have told us we can't just take everything they say as from God Himself. So what is the qualifier of what we take from His servants as being the same as from Him? Truth? if so, no problem. So when leaders speak untruth we can say that was not the same as coming from God, no?