Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[Calm]

Fewf! Makes ya wonder why we don't read how Christ spoke of the positive aspects of the Pharisees when he offered His criticisms. I mean I mostly agree with you, but to suggest criticism always needs to be accompanied by positive seems unreasonable.

 

My impression was that Christ knew those he was criticizing weren't going to be changing at that time.  However, the scriptures do only tell us part of the story and we need to look in our own lives as well on how to implement the teachings the Spirit directs to us when studying the scriptures.

 

There are lots of times when criticism does not need to be accompanied by the positive, especially if the purpose of the conversation is to show what is wrong with someone or something...such as when someone is being sentenced guilty at a trial.  However when the ultimate purpose is meant to be change for the good, I would say that I believe I've never seen positive change in someone's life and definitely not in an organization if all that is presented them is a list of things they do wrong and the conversation gets no further.

 

And in fact, it can't even be balanced one on one in most cases, even in long term relationships.  A negative is balanced out by a multitude of good if attempting to motivate someone to change because that gives the other confidence they can be successful in that change while focusing on the negative too much weakens hope and desire to change...why bother is there are so many things wrong with me (or wrong with the Church) because one minor change even if successful isn't really going to change anything.

 

But if the group talks about any possible problems and the group realizes the errors they've been promoting than the group can certainly be edified. And sometimes, as it is, the group doesn't know their error until someone, perhaps one of their own, notifies them of the problem in an effort to discuss.

 

Of course, but how the criticism is shared can be even more important than the recognition of the existence of the criticism in the first place.  If speaking a criticism ends with more destructive behaviour and not less, has recogntion of the criticism been helpful or not?

 

I am not in anyway suggesting negatives should be ignored.  I am suggesting we need to be very careful in how we present them to others and not think that the presentation itself is the endall and that once that is done, our part is finished or even to be applauded instead of appalled at.  I have seen too many critics (not talking about church things) think that recognition of what was wrong in the other or in the group was the only thing required of them and the result was disaster.

Edited June 10, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Learning.

 

Considering new ways to look at the world.

 

Get a better understanding of our fellow church/community members.

 

The chance to reconsider whether I (we?) may be able to improve in even the smallest measure.

 

Getting feedback on thinking and ideas.

 

Seeing how other people deal with the issues under discussion.

I am glad you see this conversation as effective for you in this way.  For me, about the only thing I see happening is the getting feedback and given the reaction that is written, it appears that much of the feedback that does not already agree with individuals' positions is being rejected and people's viewpoints are becoming more entrenched, not opening up.

 

Also I don't think we can see how people deal with issues under discussion just by talking about the issues.

 

As far as getting a better understanding of others...perhaps of those whose ideas align closely with one's own....otoh it seems to me there has been a signfiicant increase of negative judgment of fellow community members and misinterpretation of what others have been saying.  Perhaps there are those who are getting a truely better understanding, but from my viewpoint of what I am reading a clouded understanding is the more typical result.

[Calm]

He wouldn't need to show that to suggest, it seems Pharisees had a problem accepting Christ's criticism because they expected it to come from someone with, what they saw, as authority.

But if one is using one group to compare to another and to use to suggest modeling of behaviour (whether the same or opposite), it is important to ensure that they are comparable in appropriate ways and not just that they have some shared qualities that may not have the same impact in both groups.

[Calm]

He wouldn't need to show that to suggest, it seems Pharisees had a problem accepting Christ's criticism because they expected it to come from someone with, what they saw, as authority.

But if one is using one group to compare to another and to use to suggest modeling of behaviour (whether the same or opposite), it is important to ensure that they are comparable in appropriate ways and not just that they have some shared qualities that may not have the same impact in both groups.

 

Plus one should be sure that conditions that attach to the criticism qualify for both groups because there can be times when something is appropriate and others when it is not....a basketball player accepting orders from the coach of the other team on how to play the game wouldn't really be a good thing the vast majority of time nor is it usually a good idea to listen to the crowd telling the player what to do, but rather in that time and place sticking to the one who has stewardship is a very good thing.

Edited June 10, 2015 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Two scriptures come to mind about correcting our fellow saints (assuming the mote/beam principle is observed), and they both show the connection between worshipping together and reporting and confessing sins. They both speak to seeking and demonstrating openness about the welfare of each soul as being part of partaking of the sacrament, fasting and praying together. To me, these are hallmarks of unity (the one heart, one mind of Zion) and the means for improvement.

 

Moroni 6: 5-8: And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ. But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven.

 

D&C 59: 12: 12: But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

[Calm]

 Nothing? Is all well in Zion in yoru view? if not, in what ways is not all well?

And this is where I see these types of discussions go very wrong so often.  Not only did you not deal with my question of evidence of effective discussion, you've taken it in a direction that is pretty much what I have been saying is ineffective...how does that actually deal with what I have been discussing?

 

Where in anything I've said have I implied that all is well in Zion?  I have been discussing the methodologies and effectiveness  of criticism for the purpose of change and you appear to have interpreted it as a discussion of if there is anything that actually needs to be criticized in the first place and then you ask me a question that would tend to lead the conversation into a method of criticism that is the very one I am challenging as ineffective.

 

 Why do you think simply making a list of what is wrong in Zion is an effective discussion?

Edited June 10, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

But the point is, you can't look at the scriptures as the literal words of Christ. These are accounts written by unknown authors 100+ years after Christ lived. So in that sense, searching for the exact words of Christ is impossible. Citing the scriptures as an absolute authority of literal truth is problematic in this case, as well as others. It would be like me writing a letter as though I were Joseph Smith. 2000 years from now it may seem like I was close enough to his time to get it right but the truth is I wouldn't be able to share first hand detail of his experience or teachings so the Letter of Joseph (actually written by Jackwagon) may not be that credible in defining eternal truth claims, even if it did happen to be canonized as part of his writings at some point.

I don't concede that the veracity of the scriptures is as tenuous as you make it seem here. The latter-day revelations through Joseph Smith are pervaded by echoes of and allusions to the language of scripture and the words attributed to Christ therein. It's my personal conviction that the Lord more or less guided events by which what we have today as the Bible was preserved through the ages.

 

So, if the Bible as we have it does not provide a perfectly accurate record (and, according to the 8th Article of Faith, it doesn't) the sense I get is that it is close enough that God has preserved and led His servants to make it accessible to us and to admonish us to read and study it.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

And this is where I see these types of discussions go very wrong so often.  Not only did you not deal with my question of evidence of effective discussion, you've taken it in a direction that is pretty much what I have been saying is ineffective...how does that actually deal with what I have been discussing?

 

Where in anything I've said have I implied that all is well in Zion?  I have been discussing the methodologies and effectiveness  of criticism for the purpose of change and you appear to have interpreted it as a discussion of if there is anything that actually needs to be criticized in the first place and then you ask me a question that would tend to lead the conversation into a method of criticism that is the very one I am challenging as ineffective.

 

 Why do you think simply making a list of what is wrong in Zion is an effective discussion?

I've already answered this question, Calmoriah. We ought to identify things we see as problems in order to to address them. So making a list is putting the issue out there to discuss as to whether it is a problem or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

And this is where I see these types of discussions go very wrong so often.  Not only did you not deal with my question of evidence of effective discussion, you've taken it in a direction that is pretty much what I have been saying is ineffective...how does that actually deal with what I have been discussing?

 

Where in anything I've said have I implied that all is well in Zion?  I have been discussing the methodologies and effectiveness  of criticism for the purpose of change and you appear to have interpreted it as a discussion of if there is anything that actually needs to be criticized in the first place and then you ask me a question that would tend to lead the conversation into a method of criticism that is the very one I am challenging as ineffective.

 

 Why do you think simply making a list of what is wrong in Zion is an effective discussion?

I think the "all is well in Zion" passage is occasionally misapplied. Reading it in context (2 Nephi 28:21), I get the sense that the "all is well in Zion" claim is characteristic of those who are in a state of apostasy, who have been "lull(ed) away into carnal security," who are allowing themselves to be "carefully" led "down to hell."

 

I don't see that as applying to the anointed servants of God in the Church of Jesus Christ or to those who are earnestly striving to obey the commandments and do what is right.

[stemelbow]

I think the "all is well in Zion" passage is occasionally misapplied. Reading it in context (2 Nephi 28:21), I get the sense that the "all is well in Zion" claim is characteristic of those who are in a state of apostasy, who have been "lull(ed) away into carnal security," who are allowing themselves to be "carefully" led "down to hell."

 

I don't see that as applying to the anointed servants of God in the Church of Jesus Christ or to those who are earnestly striving to obey the commandments and do what is right.

Interesting, Scott. I'll take this little tangent and go with it. In 2 Nephi it said those who think all is well, also say Zion prospereth. it seems to be talking about those who are part of Zion, at least consider themselves as such, and therefore would be those who are not in a state of apostasy--at least until they get carefully led down. Context demands they aren't in a state of apostasy but are headed in that direction, unbeknownst to themselves.

it seems to me those who sing praises of all is well in Zion and Zion prospereth are those who are unwilling to accept criticism of their own group.

Edited June 10, 2015 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

Even so, if one is going to use scriptures as authority in some way, one needs to be consistent beyond a "I agree with this, so I accept it as inspired by God" and a "I don't agree with this, so just man's writings"....especially if one is using scripture to support one's point in a discussion.

I leave for lunch and come back to about 20 new posts by Calmoriah. Wow, I'm seriously impressed.

 

I just want to say that I respect the way you give thoughtful, reasoned responses, even to people you disagree with. I think you set a good example for the way we should all try to be more generous in our communications with each other.

 

To answer your question, I think you're right about the inconsistency IF we are using the Bible as the authority instead of using the Bible to inform the authority with in us. In other words, the Bible in and of itself is not an ultimate authority but rather teaches principles that help to provide context as we decide what we believe via the spirit. Therefore, the consistency would be found in the spirit and not in our agreement with all parts of the Bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The contradiction is noted, accepted, agreed to and taken. I will withdraw.

 

My apologies.

That is all it took for you to totally cave? You know the funny thing is that those in this thread that agree with the OP will never succeed that they are wrong in this issue. They have no authority to call the church to repentance and call it "Pharisaical".

 

Perhaps this thread changed its coarse. I don't really care. I just find it fascinating that so many are unwilling to bend despite the contrary of very reasoned arguments. Not even so much as a consideration.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[stemelbow]

That is all it took for you to totally cave? You know the funny thing is that those in this thread that agree with the OP will never succeed that they are wrong in this issue. They have no authority to call the church to repentance and call it "Pharisaical".

 

Perhaps this thread changed its coarse. I don't really care. I just find it fascinating that so many are unwilling to bend despite the contrary of very reasoned arguments. Not even so much as a consideration.

I haven't seen any reasons offered to express why the modern Church, it's pervading culture and all that, is not pharisaic in any sense. I'm not sure what reasoned arguments you have in mind.

I'm more than willing to adjust my views based on what I see as reasoned arguments. Just because one's view doesn't change after some discussion doesn't mean the person is unbending, or unwilling.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting, Scott. I'll take this little tangent and go with it. In 2 Nephi it said those who think all is well, also say Zion prospereth. it seems to be talking about those who are part of Zion, at least consider themselves as such, and therefore would be those who are not in a state of apostasy--at least until they get carefully led down. Context demands they aren't in a state of apostasy but are headed in that direction, unbeknownst to themselves.

 

I think it applies to those who don't grasp or who have lost sight of the meaning of Zion, that being unity, holiness and charity. They declare that "all is well in Zion" notwithstanding the presence of influences and forces that work against those ideals, including the disposition to stand stridently and publicly against the united voice of Christ's anointed servants, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (see the immediately preceding verse about the devil stirring up the hearts of the children of men to anger against that which is good).

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

There were too many mistakes the leaders made to have faith come easily, IMO. Everyday I see little signs...pro and con about the church. For instance, the cost for a Senior couple to go on a mission. Thousands each month, to a place that wouldn't cost half that if the couple were to do it on their own. Why is the church asking for that much money? I'll post something in a bit. But yesterday I sat thinking, once a Mormon always a Mormon, I can't think of any other place I'd rather be as far as a church, of course I've only attended maybe two or three services elsewhere.  ETA: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/callings/missionary/senior-missionary/senior-missionary-opportunities.pdf

I don't think that it is expensive for senior missionaries. Of course, many have the money to serve but if they don't I do believe that help is available. I don't that that noone is denied the opportunity to serve. Most senior missionaries are from countries were money is in short supply. I am sure that the church is there to help.

 

At times members who are hyper critical of everything inside the church need to take a step back and see the greater picture. How many families have been saved from domestic violence because of the word of wisdom? Or how any teenagers have been saved from drugs because of the word of wisdom? Or unwanted pregancies because of chasity? And I hear many talks on service coming from the GAs. There is much positive about the church. But for the complainers who seem to ignore the positive and swim with the negatives are missing out on a good positive swim.

[why me]

I hate to break it to you but HUMANS are currently deciding what is acceptable. They are often inspired by the Spirit in coming to their decisions but unless they have forfeited their agency, they are ultimately in control of their decisions. To paraphrase something Pres. Uchtdorf taught us, HF works through flawed human beings because that's all He has to work with. Sorry for the buzzkill, but the prophets are ... gulp ... HUMAN.

 And so were the early apostles. Far from perfect because they were human. And paul was far from perfect. We just don't know much about the early apostles and paul. And as such, we need to give them leeway and not judge the current leadership of the lds church. They are not perfect either....they are only human, no gulps necessary.

 

And since you believe that they are human, why be so hard on them with your criticism? I have not seen the GAs misleading us yet. And certainly the black community can certainly need their teachings. Go into the crowd and preach family and the word of wisdom and the importance of chasity.

 

You did well for youself. Maybe it is time for you to go into the black community and call them out. You are a good example. And I will call out the young people that I come into contact with. I always try to discuss values with the young people I come across in my work.

Edited June 10, 2015 by why me

[stemelbow]

I think it applies to those who don't grasp or who have lost sight of the meaning of Zion, that being unity, holiness and charity. They declare that "all is well in Zion" notwithstanding the presence of influences and forces that work against those ideals, including the disposition to stand stridently and publicly against the united voice of Christ's anointed servants, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (see the immediately preceding verse about the devil stirring up the hearts of the children of men to anger against that which is good).

Wait a second. Are you saying this is what the phrase has been used for? Or are you saying this is what 2 Nephi is saying? Because if the latter, I think yu are reading way too much into the text.

It seems pretty clear in 2 Ne. that there will be people who are a part of Zion who refuse to accept that there are problems with Zion, pretending instead that the prospering and such means everything is great and grand and there is no need to consider any criticism.

it, of course, says nothing about "unity, holiness, and charity", says nothing about having to submit to the leaders in all things. It almost seems the way you apply it is opposite of what the passage says.

Edited June 10, 2015 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait a second. Are you saying this is what the phrase has been used for? Or are you saying this is what 2 Nephi is saying? Because if the latter, I think yu are reading way too much into the text.

It seems pretty clear in 2 Ne. that there will be people who are a part of Zion who refuse to accept that there are problems with Zion, pretending instead that the prospering and such means everything is great and grand and there is no need to consider any criticism.

it, of course, says nothing about "unity, holiness, and charity", says nothing about having to submit to the leaders in all things. It almost seems the way you apply it is opposite of what the passage says.

I am applying one application of the scripture. Scripture can have more than one application. In fact, it almost always does.

 

I love this talk from Elder Dallin H. Oaks from which this passage comes:

 

 

The idea that scripture reading can lead to inspiration and revelation opens the door to the truth that a scripture is not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Even more, scripture reading may also lead to current revelation on whatever else the Lord wishes to communicate to the reader at that time. We do not overstate the point when we say that the scriptures can be a Urim and Thummim to assist each of us to receive personal revelation.

Because we believe that scripture reading can help us receive revelation, we are encouraged to read the scriptures again and again. By this means, we obtain access to what our Heavenly Father would have us know and do in our personal lives today. That is one reason Latter-day Saints believe in daily scripture study.

 

My definition of Zion as comprising unity, holiness and charity comes from this talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I am applying one application of the scripture. Scripture can have more than one application. In fact, it almost always does.

 

I love this talk from Elder Dallin H. Oaks from which this passage comes:

 

 

My definition of Zion as comprising unity, holiness and charity comes from this talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

I'm as happy as a clam to use scriptural passages in many different ways, even using them in ways different from the original use. But that is what this is, make no mistake. I thought you were saying it is often taken from it's context and applied differently than intended, but then you went ahead and did just that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm as happy as a clam to use scriptural passages in many different ways, even using them in ways different from the original use. But that is what this is, make no mistake. I thought you were saying it is often taken from it's context and applied differently than intended, but then you went ahead and did just that.

Some applications are appropriate; some aren't.

 

I think justification for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is reading way too much into it.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Some applications are appropriate; some aren't.

 

I think justification for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is reading way too much into it.

Your vote has been noted.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your vote has been noted.

I'll say it again: I cast my lot with the prophets.

[ttribe]

I think justification for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is reading way too much into it.

 

Could you identify what it is you think qualifies as "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed?"

[stemelbow]

Some applications are appropriate; some aren't.

 

I think justification for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is reading way too much into it.

Uh...suggesting I'm justifying evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is reading way too much into anything I've said. So I guess we have some common ground to work from here.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is all it took for you to totally cave?

I think Mystery Meat is highly sensitive to being drawn into doing the thing he is speaking against, and that ttribe's accusation touched a nerve with him.

 

I don't blame him for standing down.