To Whom Little Is Given, Much Is Criticized

[stemelbow]

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?

You are not alone in this. There are probably plenty of times someone was ex'd wrongly and God will do justice when the time comes. If KK was ex'd wrongly, so be it. It's quite possible that she was.

[wenglund]

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

 

...that, or you are blind and cannot see what is plainly manifest. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

Once again, God didn't Ex KK.  The Church didn't Ex KK.  KK ex'd herself by refusing to abide by the conditions of membership in an organization she made her membership invalid.  All the Church did was point it out to her.

 

It's really simple. 

Church: "You have to do A & B to be a member of this organization."

KK: "I will only do A because I disagree with B."

Church: Then you will not be able to stay a member.

KK: "I really do want to be a member but I will not do B."

Church: "You have to do A & B to be a member of this organization."

KK: "I don't think I have to.  I think I can do A and protest B."

Church: "You know that this organization requires A & B for membership."

KK: "I don't accept that."

Church: "Then you can no longer be a member."

 

It doesn't matter if it's the Church, the Shriners, the Masons, the US Government, or ANY organization.  There are rules of membership.  If you don't follow them you don't get to be a member.  Your choice, just as KK chose, nobody chose but her.  All the Church did was not allow her to be an exception to the organizations rules.

[wenglund]

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.

 

While no person is above criticism, scrutiny, and reproach (no one is suggesting otherwise--it is juvenile to assume that they are), not everyone is always in a rightful or effectual position to do so, though they may presumptuously assume otherwise and do so with or without hostility--members and former members with inverted views of the restored gospel do it all the time. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There are rules of membership.  If you don't follow them you don't get to be a member.  Your choice, just as KK chose, nobody chose but her. 

 

Correct. A good, non-religious example of this is Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA for racial comments. (see HERE)

 

Objections to that anyone?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

While no person is above criticism, scrutiny, and reproach (no one is suggesting otherwise--it is juvenile to assume that they are), not everyone is always in a rightful or effectual position to do so, though they may presumptuously assume otherwise and do so with or without hostility--members and former members with inverted views of the restored gospel do it all the time. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The "Who are you to criticize?" tactic is an epic failure. My aunt is a Family Nurse Practitioner. She has called lower ranking staff,doctors and administrative staff on their issues. Likewise, it has been done to her. She has every right to deal with an administrator as such when necessary. This idea of top-down authoritarianism being beyond the scope of reproach by those at the lowest levels demonstrates the depth being asinine. The GAs are not apostles because they are more righteous than the other 15 million members. They are divinely chosen because of their willingness to serve and their talents in growing the kingdom of God.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Correct. A good, non-religious example of this is Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA for racial comments. (see HERE)

 

Objections to that anyone?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Agreed. Memberships come with expectations and we are required to toe the line. Good example, Wade.

 

ETA: I'm also partial to a Michael Vick being a member of the ASPCA analogy.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Valentinus

[mormonnewb]

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 agree wholeheartedly that I am one of the worst offenders when it comes to unwarranted attacks (as I think I have mentioned in about half dozen posts in this thread).  In fact, the point of my thread was not to express dismay or shock that PEOPLE treat one another this way, but rather to question why, as Mormons, we seem to exempt our leaders from this type of treatment when the world (and I argue, Christ) did just the opposite and were most critical of those in the highest positions.

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.

 

While I agree that this is a great way to interact with other people in person, what kind of DISCUSSION board would this be if 99 out of every 100 comments read, "Our leaders are inspired and have us on the right track," "I loved EVERY talk at GC," "The last church essay on the BoA was everything I wanted it to be"?  It seems to me that a DISCUSSION board needs someone with an opposing point of view.  And while this board existed long before me and will certainly survive upon my exit from Mormondom, I posit that it is dependent upon the faithful members having SOMEONE to contend with.

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.

 

As for the delivery, I agree that my style can rub some the wrong way.  However, I didn't grow up in this wonderful community nor did I come to it early in life.  I was 43 years old when I joined the Church.  I don't think that I could learn to speak Mormonese at this late stage of the game, even if I wanted to do so.  Nor, quite frankly, do I believe that HF brought me to this community because He needed another soft spoken and gentle persuasion type of brother.  I think he chose ME to join the Church.  In fact, it was just the thing that so many of you find objectionable that brought me in contact with the saints in the first place.  I find it hard to believe that HF used my irreverence to bring me to the Church, only to have me abandon it once I got here.

 

As for effectiveness, I'm not convinced that the "Mormon pleasant" is really the answer.  Pleasantness doesn't seem to have done much for the sisters in this 

Church.  In fact, I still contend that KK did more for gender equality in one YEAR of "faithless agitation" than the last 150 years of "faithful long suffering."  And pleasant didn't do a darn thing for my bruthas and sistas prior to 1978.  Now, I will admit that being more pleasant would result in getting more rep points, but since my creditors don't take payments in rep points (it must be a Utah thing), I think I'll just keep being the person that HF called to this Church (at least, for now).

 

 

[Calm]

I was talking generically and included the 1 in 99 for close friends and family in real life where one is talking with each other, being supportive, etc. I don't think most people open themselves up to such vulnerabilities on message boards.

[mormonnewb]

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 the record, I LIKE you.  I really, really like you.  I don't see where you get this impression that I have some special hatred for you.

 

Do I make snarky comments in reply to your posts?  Sure.  But I do that to EVERYONE.  And generally speaking, I don't find your posts THAT annoying as you are pretty even-handed in your approach to most issues.  Sure, you're usually dead wrong, but you're even-handedly so.

 

Besides, you have a personal humility that I find endearing.  As you can see, it's not a trait that I share, so I always have an affinity for those who exhibit such a fundamental trait of the Gospel.

 

And, as for the calling you a racist thing, let's clear that up once and for all.  As I remember it, the whole thing was prompted when you made some joking remark about my "jive talk."  Several OTHER posters took you to task for the comment and I MAY have piled on.  I honestly don't remember if I did, but I find it hard to believe that I would have wasted such a perfect opportunity to be a jerk.

 

In any event, being called a "racist" by ME isn't something that you take personally.  Who haven't I called a racist?  I've probably called Blue Dreams a racist once or twice and I THINK she's half black (still not sure I fully trust that white half of her).  Didn't I once title a thread, "What is Wrong With White Men?"  You should be offended if I hadn't called you a racist by now.  THAT would demonstrate my dislike for you.

 

So you can go on hating me (you won't be the first ... or the last), but I have no ill-will towards you (and even a bit of respect for your humility ... but I'm sure that will pass in time).  So to borrow my favorite sig line on the board.

 

With luv,

MN

[wenglund]

The "Who are you to criticize?" tactic is an epic failure. My aunt is a Family Nurse Practitioner. She has called lower ranking staff,doctors and administrative staff on their on their issues. Likewise, it has been done to her. She has every right to deal with an administrator as such when necessary. This idea of top-down authoritarianism being beyond the scope of reproach by those at the lowest levels demonstrates the depth being asinine. 

 

What you, in your typical straw man style, immaturely and ignorantly dismiss as an "epic failure" and "asinine," reasonable and informed people consider to be proven bounds of propriety and pragmatic orientation. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

I was talking generically and included the 1 in 99 for close friends and family in real life where one is talking with each other, being supportive, etc. I don't think most people open themselves up to such vulnerabilities on message boards.

 

Fair enough.  I didn't read carefully enough (nothing new there).

 

But taking the 1 in 3 number as a good baseline, I still think this would be a very boring board if "complainers and whiners" like me stuck to that metric.  After all, we have many members who have see the Church as perfect.  I'm an American so I'm not going to try to do the math, but it still seems to me that this would lead to a lot of threads reading:

 

"I agree wholeheartedly with the Church."

 

"Well, I agree MORE than wholeheartedly."

 

"I'm offended that you even expressed an opinion.  It is not my place to agree or disagree, but just obey."

 

"Why aren't you all on this board agreeing when you should already be out obeying?"

 

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see this board as being particularly "hostile" to the Church (nor should it be).  In fact, in my warped view, we could probably use a few more whiners and complainers.

 

Also, please understand that I agree with our leaders FAR MORE than I disagree with them.  I don't usually chime in on this threads in which I'm in agreement with the Church because I think there are more than enough people to argue on behalf of the Church, most of whom will do it much better than I could.

[Damien the Leper]

What you, in your typical straw man style, immaturely and ignorantly dismiss as an "epic failure" and "asinine," reasonable and informed people consider to be proven bounds of propriety and pragmatic orientation. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Your duplicity is showing in this comment, Wade. Your mischaracterization of my post is astounding. Your "informed" people must be out of touch with the more highly educated people who are grounded in reality and not merely "proprietal sense". And your typical poor logic is on par with the likes of Bill Maher.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Valentinus

[USU78]

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?

 

No.  You are missing it.

 

The default position is that the leaders work from inspiration from Him Who runs the Church when in council, and what is said and/or done there is His will.

 

This includes the procedure from bottom at the Ward/Stake level up to the First Presidency.  Only when the final word is spoken and the last act accomplished in a disciplinary proceeding is the council complete.

 

It is the very rare exception [see, e.g., Avraham Gileadi or Helmut Huebener] does the council system break down and make errors:  in both the local leaders made errors which were later straightened out.

 

In no way was KK misjudged or did passions carry councilmen away to make faulty judgments, as far as I can see.

[Kenngo1969]

The "Who are you to criticize?" tactic is an epic failure. My aunt is a Family Nurse Practitioner. She has called lower ranking staff,doctors and administrative staff on their issues. Likewise, it has been done to her. She has every right to deal with an administrator as such when necessary. This idea of top-down authoritarianism being beyond the scope of reproach by those at the lowest levels demonstrates the depth being asinine. The GAs are not apostles because they are more righteous than the other 15 million members. They are divinely chosen because of their willingness to serve and their talents in growing the kingdom of God.

I would agree with you ... if you were comparing two earthly organizations.  But you're not: you're comparing an earthly organization with one, the roots of which are (if one has a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be) not of this world.

[wenglund]

Your duplicity is showing in this comment, Wade. Your mischaracterization of my post is astounding. Your "informed" people must be out of touch with the more highly educated people who are grounded in reality and not merely "proprietal sense". And your typical poor logic is on par with the likes of Bill Maher.

 

You could have shortened this considerably, and retained the essence of your quip, by quoting Peewee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I would agree with you ... if you were comparing two earthly organizations.  But you're not: you're comparing an earthly organization with one, the roots of which are (if one has a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be) not of this world.

 

All physical churches on earth are upheld by mortality, including the LDS church. The only difference is that the LDS church has a prophet and apostles, whom I believe are divinely mandated, who share in the responsibilities of continuing the Kingdom of God. The church is not the Kingdom, it is a representation and a tool used to further Heavenly Father's will. Having a testimony of the Church and a testimony of Jesus Christ are completely separate things. To make them synonymous is fallacious and without merit. My testimony of Christ supersedes that of any testimony of a church. Christ before all else. We are called to do so.

[Damien the Leper]

You could have shortened this considerably, and retained the essence of your quip, by quoting Peewee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

LOL...despite disagreeing on certain issues, I do love you, Wade. I'd be happy to have a glass of Mormon Tequila with you.

[mormonnewb]

I would agree with you ... if you were comparing two earthly organizations.  But you're not: you're comparing an earthly organization with one, the roots of which are (if one has a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be) not of this world.

 

Does the Church claim that its leaders are infallible?  Or did not one of them recently at GC acknowledge that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine”?

 

It seems to me that many of us members are ascribing infallibility to the prophets that they themselves do not claim.

 

With love,

MN

Edited July 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[teddyaware]

Does the Church claim that its leaders are infallible?  Or did not one of them recently at GC acknowledge that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine”?

 

It seems to me that many of us members are ascribing infallibility to the prophets that they themselves do not claim.

 

With love,

MN

Here's your mistake. There is so much powerful and edifying truth and light coming from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve at this time that you are ignoring. You focus on two or three pet points

and then seem to sweep aside, without much consideration, all the wonderful things the brethren are teaching us.

It's kind of like someone looking at a masterpiece painting and rather than focusing his attention on the 99% of the paining that is beautiful, well-preserved, vibrant and inspiring, he chooses instead to obsessively focus nearly all of his attention on the 1% of the painting that has degraded on the lower left corner. It's also like someone standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon at sunset, but rather than enjoying the spectacular, awe-inspiring view of natural beauty that's set before him, he chooses instead to focus on and complain about a couple of nearby discarded beer bottles.

These two examples are not perfectly analogous, but they serve well enough to make my point. There's so much great spiritually uplifting stuff you could be focusing on, things that could greatly help you toward the goal of overcoming the fallen nature and obtaining exaltation, but you choose instead to focus on the lurid, contentious and spiritually unedifying.

Edited July 8, 2014 by teddyaware

[Guest]

One only need to read comments not said between members, but to the world via the Internet to suggest otherwise. If someone here were to mention a Bishop or Stake President by name and the mods should and will take action. When it comes to "leadership" they must allow much more seeking more to direct discussion.

[The Nehor]

The "Who are you to criticize?" tactic is an epic failure. My aunt is a Family Nurse Practitioner. She has called lower ranking staff,doctors and administrative staff on their issues. Likewise, it has been done to her. She has every right to deal with an administrator as such when necessary. This idea of top-down authoritarianism being beyond the scope of reproach by those at the lowest levels demonstrates the depth being asinine. The GAs are not apostles because they are more righteous than the other 15 million members. They are divinely chosen because of their willingness to serve and their talents in growing the kingdom of God.

 

I have to disagree. The Church as an organization is top-down and nothing like a hospital. It is in most ways utterly foreign to modern sensibilities. It is an absolute monarchy with a king who reserves to Himself the right to criticize and displace members of his hierarchy.

 

Of course the apostles are not the most righteous 15 members of the Church. They are administrators called by God and answerable only to Him (and through Him to their leaders within their quorum or Presidency). We are told not to judge someone else's servant. Now, some members of the Church have been called to judge others. That is their job. Everyone else has been told not to judge or slander or seek to correct their leaders. This is commanded in the scriptures. It is part of the covenant we make when we join the Church. Criticizing Church leaders is a SIN!!! It is DAMNING!  It does not matter if you are right about it. It does not matter if you feel hurt by it. It does not matter if you feel this infringes on some personal freedom you feel you are due. It is not your concern unless you are placed in a position where God makes it your concern. It is definitely not illegal to criticize church leaders and it is even congenial to our modern sensibilities but it can send you to hell anyways.

[JLHPROF]

 

It seems to me that many of us members are ascribing infallibility to the prophets that they themselves do not claim.

 

 

Well this I agree with.  But when mistakes are made in doctrine it is up to God to reveal correction.  It goes back to stewardship.  We do not have the right to correct the Church or its leaders.  Period.  Only God does.  If members truly believe something is out of order they should be praying their hearts out, fasting, and pleading with the Lord to reveal further truth to the GA's.  They should not be protesting or complaining about the perceived mistakes.

This is what led to Orson Pratt almost being excommunicated twice - he refused to follow his head on matters of doctrine he disagreed with.  Fortunately, he was a righteous man that recognized the importance of sustaining his leaders.  And oddly enough, both those doctrines have been either changed or revoked.  By God.  Not by Orson.

 

It is not now nor will it ever be the place of the members to correct the Church.  They don't have that stewardship.  You cannot make corrections upwards in the Church - it is out of order to do so.

Edited July 8, 2014 by JLHPROF

[why me]

Here's your mistake. There is so much powerful and edifying truth and light coming from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve at this time that you are ignoring. You focus on two or three pet points

and then seem to sweep aside, without much consideration, all the wonderful things the brethren are teaching us.

It's kind of like someone looking at a masterpiece painting and rather than focusing his attention on the 99% of the paining that is beautiful, well-preserved, vibrant and inspiring, he chooses instead to obsessively focus nearly all of his attention on the 1% of the painting that has degraded on the lower left corner. It's also like someone standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon at sunset, but rather than enjoying the spectacular, awe-inspiring view of natural beauty that's set before him, he chooses instead to focus on and complain about a couple of nearby discarded beer bottles.

These two examples are not perfectly analogous, but they serve well enough to make my point. There's so much great spiritually uplifting stuff you could be focusing on, things that could greatly help you toward the goal of overcoming the fallen nature and obtaining exaltation, but you choose instead to focus on the lurid, contentious and spiritually unedifying.

I also think that people who claim to be active need to balance their posts a bit. Too be always negative about a church one belongs to seems contradictory when one is a member. I know that for myself if I lost faith in the leaders of the lds church and if I felt the need to constantly second guess them, I would probably leave the church. I would find a nice home with the catholics. And if I felt the need to constantly criticize the catholic church, find a negative here and there and if I lost faith in the pope and in the priests, I would probably have to leave that church. It wouldn't be in the criticism but rather in the constant criticism and in overlooking that which is good because I fail to see it. What would be the point in my being a member of either chuch if I no longer have faith in the leaders by constantly questioning their decisions? It would show a lack of trust on my part.

[Damien the Leper]

I have to disagree. The Church as an organization is top-down and nothing like a hospital. It is in most ways utterly foreign to modern sensibilities. It is an absolute monarchy with a king who reserves to Himself the right to criticize and displace members of his hierarchy.

 

Of course the apostles are not the most righteous 15 members of the Church. They are administrators called by God and answerable only to Him (and through Him to their leaders within their quorum or Presidency). We are told not to judge someone else's servant. Now, some members of the Church have been called to judge others. That is their job. Everyone else has been told not to judge or slander or seek to correct their leaders. This is commanded in the scriptures. It is part of the covenant we make when we join the Church. Criticizing Church leaders is a SIN!!! It is DAMNING!  It does not matter if you are right about it. It does not matter if you feel hurt by it. It does not matter if you feel this infringes on some personal freedom you feel you are due. It is not your concern unless you are placed in a position where God makes it your concern. It is definitely not illegal to criticize church leaders and it is even congenial to our modern sensibilities but it can send you to hell anyways.

 

Rather arrogant in the same sense as Pontifex Maximus over primus inter pares.