Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[Kenngo1969]

Maybe. But it's a very insular service for the most part. We serve within our own small little ward community teaching a class or serving in a leadership calling. Frankly, as good as those things are, I doubt the church as a whole does a great job of serving others and donating to charities outside of the church.

 

It makes you wonder if all those hours spent in extra meetings really has the same impact in the world as someone serving in a soup kitchen.

It's that perception that, in part, motivated my post about what happens in Bishopric and Ward Council meetings, and elsewhere behind the scenes.  Unless you're in a position to know (on the Ward Council and/or in Bishopric Meeting), you're unlikely to grasp all of the things that go on below the radar and behind the scenes.

[ttribe]

It's that perception that, in part, motivated my post about what happens in Bishopric and Ward Council meetings, and elsewhere behind the scenes.  Unless you're in a position to know (on the Ward Council and/or in Bishopric Meeting), you're unlikely to grasp all of the things that go on below the radar and behind the scenes.

 

IIRC, KJW recently completed multiple years of service as a Bishop.  I think he has some room to speak on this.

Edited June 10, 2015 by ttribe

[mormonnewb]

As Mystery Meat has quite astutely pointed out, the discussion initially developed along the lines of indicting the entire Church, its leadership, its membership, its policies, procedures, teachings, etc. for being Pharisaical.

And what is the problem with this approach on a DISCUSSION board? Is it wrong or out of place for someone to praise the Church leadership for inspired practices, like home teaching? Of course not. We can praise our leaders, culture, programs until the salamanders come home.

But any criticism (no matter how respectful) is out of bounds as ark-steadying. I contend that unconditional and unthinking praise of leadership can be an even greater form of ark-steadying. Perhaps, leaders might have their own doubts about programs and are leaning towards change. That is, until "faithful" members steady their arks with unwarranted praise.

Perhaps, that is why the Savior travelled with a radical bunch of questioning disciples who were continually saying, "What you talking about, Jesus?" And while He had to rebuke, say, Peter for "ark steadying" in the Garden of Gethsemane, it did not qualify Peter as being the rock of His new Church. Nor did Thomas' doubts. Nor did the self-serving desires of James and John.

So if the Lord didn't demand His disciples to be "Yes men" to follow Him, why would He require us to be "Yes men" to follow other men?

Edited June 10, 2015 by mormonnewb

[bluebell]

So if the Lord didn't demand His disciples to be "Yes men" to follow Him, why would He require us to be "Yes men" to follow other men?

 

I can't remember any apostle ever saying No to Jesus.  

[mormonnewb]

I can't remember any apostle ever saying No to Jesus.

John 13

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

In the end, Peter acquiesced but he did initially question the Lord's judgment. He even went to far as to say, "You wash my feet? Oh, no you won't."

So if Peter could initially question Christ's judgment, then certainly we should be able to question Church policies and procedures. In the end, we may have to acquiesce in order to remain temple worthy or in full fellowship, but this idea that questions are the sin next to the sin next to murder seems a bit much.

[3DOP]

I'm not afraid.

 

You are broadcasting calumnies against your own faith and co-religionists to the world.

 

You took it upon yourself to "call ourselves out," to publicly accuse the Church in its entirety of being Pharisaic and hypocritical, that the Church is "arbitrarily shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven," that the Church is "making it impossible for us to get in (to the Kingdom of Heaven)" (?!), that the Church neglects widows, that the Church's missionary efforts are profoundly misguided and even "destructive", that the Church improperly venerates temples, that the Church has forgotten "weightier matters--judgment, mercy, and faith," and so on.

You said all these things, but you did not mean to give offense?

Come again?

 

First, this seems like an attempt to retroactively justify you execrable comparison of the LDS Church to the Pharisees.

Second, the Savior condemned the Pharisees. That merits a separate thread if you like. But I think to characterize them as merely "people trying to do their best" is to wrest the scriptures. I just don't think Jesus was in the habit of condemning people who are "trying to do their best."

Third, if you really believe that the Latter-day Saints really are "trying to do their best," then why the need to "call them out?"

 

Nor do I. But that does not justify your condemnations of the Church.

 

I think we do that on an individual level. It is not within our stewardship to call the Church in its entirety to repentance, as you have done. Or to accuse the Church in its entirety of gross sin, as you have done.

If a husband and wife are having marital difficulties, the husband does his marital relationship any favors by betraying his wife's trust and confidence by going online and publishing to the world all of the things he thinks she is doing wrong.

 

That's the job of us to assess ourselves individually. It is not our place to accuse those not within our stewardship of gross moral failings (like comparing the Latter-day Saints to a group complicit in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ).

 

By publicly accusing me (along with the rest of the Church) of being a pharisee and a hypocrite?

Wow. With friends like these...

-Smac

 

I am not going to read all of the thread...Good job to my fellow "Catholic/Mormons". I made it to page three or so. I am not in any way saying that it is okay to be LDS if the Catholic Church is of God, or vice versa. But I am closer to Mormons who defend their Church than I am to Catholics who despise their own, or to Mormons who don't like their own. Self-loathing seems to be a popular disease, of which those who are afflicted, seem proud. I do not question, much less, loathe my church. If the Mormon Church were true, and I deny that it is, I sense some brotherly unity with those who would vehemently say the same to me about the exclusive truth and goodness of their own community. God bless you RussMac, and SMac, and SLloyd, and any others who will to be so associated with them. They seem fewer on both sides as time goes by. May we all somehow worship together the same good God in this life, and forever.   

 

"To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ,  And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church..." (Eph.3:8-10)

Edited June 10, 2015 by 3DOP

[bluebell]

John 13

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

In the end, Peter acquiesced but he did initially question the Lord's judgment. He even went to far as to say, "You wash my feet? Oh, no you won't."

So if Peter could initially question Christ's judgment, then certainly we should be able to question Church policies and procedures. In the end, we may have to acquiesce in order to remain temple worthy or in full fellowship, but this idea that questions are the sin next to the sin next to murder seems a bit much.

He questioned, but obeyed. that's not the same as saying no.

[Russell C McGregor]

He questioned, but obeyed. that's not the same as saying no.

And he didn't harp on endlessly about how Jesus wasn't "inclusive" enough.

Or how he cared more about a religious ceremony -- getting anointed -- than feeding the poor.

[Russell C McGregor]

In a post yesterday, I took some pains to define introspection. I made the point that introspection, by definition, is directed inward (that's what the prefix intro- means). It is not introspection to use Christ's harsh reproach of the Scribes and Pharisees of His day to call the latter-day Church institutionally and all of its membership to repentance. I said that you can't do introspection for others; by definition, you can only do it for yourself.

Quite apart from the issue of "introspection" as a euphemism for "I claim membership in this community, so I'm entitled to stick it to them and remain immune from criticism," there is the decidedly odd phenomenon of introspection-as-public-performance.

If you're going to gaze at your own navel, you really don't need to point a webcam at it.

[Storm Rider]

I am not going to read all of the thread...Good job to my fellow "Catholic/Mormons". I made it to page three or so. I am not in any way saying that it is okay to be LDS if the Catholic Church is of God, or vice versa. But I am closer to Mormons who defend their Church than I am to Catholics who despise their own, or to Mormons who don't like their own. Self-loathing seems to be a popular disease, of which those who are afflicted, seem proud. I do not question, much less, loathe my church. If the Mormon Church were true, and I deny that it is, I sense some brotherly unity with those who would vehemently say the same to me about the exclusive truth and goodness of their own community. God bless you RussMac, and SMac, and SLloyd, and any others who will to be so associated with them. They seem fewer on both sides as time goes by. May we all somehow worship together the same good God in this life, and forever.   

 

"To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ,  And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church..." (Eph.3:8-10)

 

It is easy to conclude that because it is the latter days we see how the elect fall away and dwindle in unbelief; however, that seems to be too easy of an answer.  I don't have a clue why this board attracts so many doubters or those who find fault with almost anything the Church has done or does.  

 

As you have said, Rory, it is a malady that is found among Catholics also.  The Body of Christ atrophies with the unbelief of its members.  Falsehoods and the teachings of man become paramount while the simple teachings of Christ are put aside.  

Give me a faithful LDS or a faithful Catholic and I know that I can worship Christ in fullness and with a grateful heart.  Those that are lukewarm....well, I can understand why they are spit out. 

[Okrahomer]

If you're going to gaze at your own navel, you really don't need to point a webcam at it.

I love this! A quotable line, if there ever was one!

[why me]

Perhaps, that is why the Savior travelled with a radical bunch of questioning disciples who were continually saying, "What you talking about, Jesus?" And while He had to rebuke, say, Peter for "ark steadying" in the Garden of Gethsemane, it did not qualify Peter as being the rock of His new Church. Nor did Thomas' doubts. Nor did the self-serving desires of James and John.

So if the Lord didn't demand His disciples to be "Yes men" to follow Him, why would He require us to be "Yes men" to follow other men?

I think that once the savior returned and showed himself to his disciples, they became yes men. I don't remember them questioning very much after that. They went out and preached his gospel. And since we know that the savior returned, and his current apostles know that too, I think that it may be okay to be a yes man or yes woman. I don't remember that the early church was questioning paul or james etc. But I do remember that the early church stayed and paul had to put them in place.

 

So, your above post is off target. But it was a good try in making a point that just didn't work in the end. The early apostles lacked faith. But once faith was returned through the reappearance of christ it seemed the questioning stopped and they went into active service.

 

Today, we have perhaps more people questioning this and questioning that. Not good to be always questioning evey thought and move. Sometimes, we just need faith. Do you believe in the book of mormon? Do you believe that the lds church is a true church of christ? If so, all usually works out in the end.

Edited June 10, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I think that once the savior returned and showed himself to his disciples, they became yes men. I don't remember them questioning very much after that. They went out and preached his gospel. And since we know that the savior returned, and his current apostles know that too, I think that it may be okay to be a yes man or yes woman. I don't remember that the early church was questioning paul or james etc. But I do remember that the early church stayed and paul had to put them in place.

So, your above post is off target. But it was a good try in making a point that just didn't work in the end. The early apostles lacked faith. But once faith was returned through the reappearance of christ it seemed the questioning stopped and they went into active service.

Today, we have perhaps more people questioning this and questioning that. Not good to be always questioning evey thought and move. Sometimes, we just need faith. Do you believe in the book of mormon? Do you believe that the lds church is a true church of christ? If so, all usually works out in the end.

It usually works out in the end? That certainly was at the core of Christ's message. "Hey, don't worry about the poor and oppressed! It usually works out in the end!"

It doesn't work out in the end unless WE work it out in the beginning and middle. One thing I like about out Gospel is that it isn't a set of beliefs devoid of action. We truly take to heart that "faith without works is dead." So the idea that we should just have faith that Christ will work everything out in His church is a nice platitude but it is an abdication of responsibility.

And in a few cases, I've seen it used by this Church as a way to NOT deal with problems. "Don't worry that 30 million black Americans will not even listen to our one true gospel, HF will work it out in the end." "Don't worry that our CURRENT doctrine condemns gays and lesbians to a lifetime devoid of the companionship that forms the basis of belief in the eternal nature of family. HF will work it out in the end."

I find it interesting that this sentiment is most often uttered by those for whom HF has worked it all out now.

[why me]

It usually works out in the end? That certainly was at the core of Christ's message. "Hey, don't worry about the poor and oppressed! It usually works out in the end!"

It doesn't work out in the end unless WE work it out in the beginning and middle. One thing I like about out Gospel is that it isn't a set of beliefs devoid of action. We truly take to heart that "faith without works is dead." So the idea that we should just have faith that Christ will work everything out in His church is a nice platitude but it is an abdication of responsibility.

And in a few cases, I've seen it used by this Church as a way to NOT deal with problems. "Don't worry that 30 million black Americans will not even listen to our one true gospel, HF will work it out in the end." "Don't worry that our CURRENT doctrine condemns gays and lesbians to a lifetime devoid of the companionship that forms the basis of belief in the eternal nature of family. HF will work it out in the end."

I find it interesting that this sentiment is most often uttered by those for whom HF has worked it all out now.

I think that your previous post was not about lack of action but about questioning. This was my point. When it comes to church leadership sometimes it is good to just have faith that they know what they are doing. No sense to be constantly in questioning mode. Just have faith. I don't want to make this about blacks and the priesthood again. But it did work itself out in the end as the leadership was questioning the concept and received a revelation. And members were in active discussion about it when the ban was happening.

 

If the church is true, one must agree with church policy and the sanctity of the family. Do black baptists sanction gay marriage? Are they also wrong? I remember that you were contemplating going back to the black baptists. I think that it is the same in the black baptist church too. But this thread is not about gays and the priesthood ban. Keep to my post about how after christ returned to the apostles, they became rather unquestioning.

Edited June 10, 2015 by why me

[why me]

I mean call the Church, meaning us, out for being a Pharisaic org?

Interesting in GD yesterday, no? Assuming everyone is on the same schedule as our ward--Woe unto you,...Hypocrites"

Going to Matthew 23 wherein Christ is said to have condemn the scribes and Pharisees.

Vs 13

The more I sit in Church, the more I discuss with other LDS soteriology, I feel like we're arbitrarily shutting people out of the kingdom of heaven, making it impossible for us to get in, and often, Church members seem gleeful expressing how many won't make it. Is this not us?

Vs 14

Not sure we figured out what was meant by devouring widows' houses, so any insight is appreciated here. Making long showy prayers seems applicable to much of LDS meetings' prayers to me. I fear we forget the widows often, if that holds any meaning here--we get pretty busy in life. We get a little more showy than substance. This seems very applicable to our modern church.

vs 15

If applicable as it seems to me, ouch! We expend a lot of effort to compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and with the attitude we often carry it may be more destructive than helpful, I fear.

vs 16 - 22

Sometimes we seem more concerned with the ornate than the actual object of import. We love our temples and are proud of their beauty, forgetting that it isn't the beauty that is important, it isn't the appearance of being a part of it that is important. I don't know, I might be stretching a little on this one.

vs 23 - 24

I've certainly felt like I myself and my fellow Church goers get caught up in things like tithing, whether we are exactly observant there and forget that weightier matters--judgment, mercy, and faith. I feel on this we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

vs 25 - 26

We can certainly seem to worry more about appearing clean for the outside and forget that we are no more clean than others. I have a big concern that this is a big problem that is only growing.

vs 27 - 28

I hate thinking on this because I know of so much personal pain and anguish in the Church. But I think there is plenty applicable here as well. I fear I too am inwardly unclean, full of dead men's bones, but somehow come off trying to appear as righteous.

vs 29 - 39

We wont' see Christ until we can say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord". We certainly feel blessed to have our prophets and apostles, but perhaps we still aren't quite getting it. perhaps we're still unable to comprehend that which He needs us to comprehend. Our love for our apostles and prophets has not brought Christ unto us. Not until sometime in the future when change has affected us and we are more apt to feel blessed for those whom the Lord sends.

Some of my thoughts from yesterday. the class, as little as I participated as to not upset, seemed to disagree with me and felt defensive as I asked questions, so I thougth I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why are you using 'we' or'us'. I  am not you. Maybe I have absolutely none of the problems that you are mentioning. We cannot use the 'we'. But we can use the 'I'. I think that members are doing quite well in asia and in africa. I don't think that they would be too inclueded in the 'we'. Maybe in the USA there is a problem because of american materialism and consumerism. But even then, a blanket 'we' would not be fair. So, maybe 'I' would have been better since you may have been rather intropective about yourself and your relation with the greater 'we' around you.

 

You are mixing I and we in your sentences. And this is the problem with your OP.

Edited June 10, 2015 by why me

[Stargazer]

I mean call the Church, meaning us, out for being a Pharisaic org?

 

 

Perhaps your ward has a problem with Phariseeism.  Mine doesn't seem to have this as an issue.

[why me]

Perhaps your ward has a problem with Phariseeism.  Mine doesn't seem to have this as an issue.

 

Which is why I encourged the OP to use I and not we on the previous page. Too much 'we' make it all sounds a little preachy. A person can only be aware of his or her own acts and thoughts and behaviors. Or the general behaviors in one's own ward. Not sure where the 'we' would fit into a world wide church.

[mormonnewb]

I think that your previous post was not about lack of action but about questioning. This was my point. When it comes to church leadership sometimes it is good to just have faith that they know what they are doing. No sense to be constantly in questioning mode. Just have faith. I don't want to make this about blacks and the priesthood again. But it did work itself out in the end as the leadership was questioning the concept and received a revelation. And members were in active discussion about it when the ban was happening.

 

If the church is true, one must agree with church policy and the sanctity of the family. Do black baptists sanction gay marriage? Are they also wrong? I remember that you were contemplating going back to the black baptists. I think that it is the same in the black baptist church too. But this thread is not about gays and the priesthood ban. Keep to my post about how after christ returned to the apostles, they became rather unquestioning.

 

Two things:

 

1)  As I've tried to make clear 1,000 times, the priesthood ban did NOT work out in the end.  Please read this carefully.  30 million black Americans are extremely unlikely to receive the blessings of our Gospel because they believe (not unreasonably) that we are a racist church.  Now, if you think that HF doesn't care about these precious souls or that the Gospel doesn't hold any value in this life but only in the life to come, then everything worked out in the end.  Otherwise, WE are screwing up big time.

 

2)  As for your idea that all of the early Christians got in line with the leadership, that's not my reading of the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.  In fact, the vast majority of Paul's epistles seem to address just this subject -- disagreement between various doctrinal factions within the Church.  The early apostles disagreed about just about everything -- the necessity for circumcision, keeping kosher, whether to admit Paul as a disciple, whether to preach to the Gentiles, shall I continue?  So your idea that once Christ returned, everyone got in line behind the leaders doesn't square with my (perhaps, flawed) reading of the biblical and historical record.  This idea of yours about one harmonious church has yet to exist ANYWHERE and God help us if we ever reach your idyllic state of conformity.  We're called a "body" of Christ for a reason, because we have all various parts to play and not all of them are so pleasantly harmonious (at least, from an outward appearance).

 

For instance, I have never enjoyed the experience of throwing up.  It is painful, messy and generally distasteful.  Yet, on a number of occasions, it has literally saved my life by emptying my system of toxins that would do much more harm if allowed to fester untreated in the body.  Fortunately, that part of my body isn't so intent on achieving harmony and trusting that I know what I'm doing because I don't remember giving it permission to do its work.  In fact, had it asked, "Newb, would you like to throw up?", I would have almost certainly said, "No thank you, esophagus!  Why don't you just trust that it will work out in the end?"

 

For our church body to be healthy, we need to have "pukers" -- those who bring out the hidden toxic elements.  Now, I will grant you that us pukers need to pick our spots.  My life would be a living hell if I was constantly throwing up.  Likewise, constantly trying to "cleanse" the church of EVERY conceivable germ or microbe creates its own problems.  So, like in all things in life, there should be a balance.  Fortunately, at present, the pukers haven't taken over the Church (or even this board), so we still have work to do.

   

Edited June 10, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Tacenda]

I think that your previous post was not about lack of action but about questioning. This was my point. When it comes to church leadership sometimes it is good to just have faith that they know what they are doing. No sense to be constantly in questioning mode. Just have faith. I don't want to make this about blacks and the priesthood again. But it did work itself out in the end as the leadership was questioning the concept and received a revelation. And members were in active discussion about it when the ban was happening.

If the church is true, one must agree with church policy and the sanctity of the family. Do black baptists sanction gay marriage? Are they also wrong? I remember that you were contemplating going back to the black baptists. I think that it is the same in the black baptist church too. But this thread is not about gays and the priesthood ban. Keep to my post about how after christ returned to the apostles, they became rather unquestioning.

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

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

I thought the Holy Spirit was our "puker" of residence?  Newb, what you are proposing is that we let humans decide was is acceptable and what is not....hmm, seems like there is a problem there. Who tells the pukers that need to be puked up?

[stemelbow]

You called the church a pharisaic organization and for evidence to back up the assertion you quoted the Savior calling the pharisees and scribes hypocrites.

No. I asked the question is the Church a pharisaic org? Well I asked, essentially, is there a need for us to repent?

 

 

The pharisees were part of the ruling body of Jews (the Sanhedrin) which were responsible for bring Christ before the Romans seeking His death.

But you can't suggest that the same Pharisees Christ called out, since you were trying to make the point that Christ only had certain ones in mind, were the same one responsible for killing Jesus--unless, of course, you paint with a broad brush. In this you are having cake and eating it too, type of thing.

 

 

I realize that.  I just don't think you appreciate or realize the severity of the charge you have leveled against the church.  In Matt. Christ says that the pharisees and scribes are hypocrites because they aren't a part of the kingdom of heaven themselves, neither do they want anyone else to be.  That's a pretty serious thing to accuse Mormons of, don't you think?

As young lad I learned that many in the Church aren't really those who would be exalted. That there was a church without organization operating in the world known as the Church of the First Born. That it consisted of many members and many non-members. Its nothing new to go off of a "many are called but few chosen" approach. The Church itself preaches it and members, as I see it, often act like it's true--many members won't be chosen--wont' make it. Aren't those who are part of the kingdom of heaven. I've never put it as every member is in the boat described.  

 

Jesus also says that they use up the resources of those in need (such as widows) while only pretending to care about God (long prayers in pretense).  Those are also very serious charges against the church.

Not sure what to say here. It seems patently obvious to me that many of us members do quite well, using up resources for those in need for our own enjoyment and give our ten percent (which really does nothing to very little for those in need) and a modest fast offering. This is very condemning to me personally because it's hard. Sometimes I feel like in many ways, I've gone through enough. A lot of times I just want, to the point of saying I need, a break, so I take my whole family and spend. I don't know that many members are not in my same boat.

 

 

Since we're talking about Jesus, who has proven, that He is able to discern the intents of our hearts without knowing us personally, this seems like an odd question.  He certainly has more of a right to call people hypocrites that he doesn't know personally than you or i do.

I agree. But that doesn't stop me from asking how scripture might apply to us.

 

 

I think these are all good questions and ones that every religious person, mormon or not, needs to contemplate personally.  I just don't know that these are questions that can be answered for an entire organization, or for other people.  I don't think it's possible to answer 'we' questions such as these.

And surely I disagree. Culture carries a heavy influence on the members. People are often swayed by the great influence of culture and tradition of their time and place. I continue to think it's good and healthy to ask if such influences are causing us, generally, to go in the wrong direction. I think self-introspection is two-fold--personally and as groups. I get many great lessons from the BoM on such a notion. Indeed, one great message from the BoM is to ask the group that we are a part of, are we wrong and being sinful for doing what we're doing? It's not like when the Nephites were condemned for pride that each Nephite was less humble than modern members.

 

It's appropriate for me to answer those questions for myself, but I don't know that's it's appropriate for me to answer those questions for you, for example.  That would be overstepping my abilities.

That's why I'm not calling anyone else out individually.

[stemelbow]

And what is the problem with this approach on a DISCUSSION board? Is it wrong or out of place for someone to praise the Church leadership for inspired practices, like home teaching? Of course not. We can praise our leaders, culture, programs until the salamanders come home.

But any criticism (no matter how respectful) is out of bounds as ark-steadying. I contend that unconditional and unthinking praise of leadership can be an even greater form of ark-steadying. Perhaps, leaders might have their own doubts about programs and are leaning towards change. That is, until "faithful" members steady their arks with unwarranted praise.

Perhaps, that is why the Savior travelled with a radical bunch of questioning disciples who were continually saying, "What you talking about, Jesus?" And while He had to rebuke, say, Peter for "ark steadying" in the Garden of Gethsemane, it did not qualify Peter as being the rock of His new Church. Nor did Thomas' doubts. Nor did the self-serving desires of James and John.

So if the Lord didn't demand His disciples to be "Yes men" to follow Him, why would He require us to be "Yes men" to follow other men?

Thanks, mormonnewb. I note that I agree with you quite often around here, and what you say here is no different. In my mind we need more of what you're talking about. For some reason many members have bought into the devil's persuasive position that average members should not dare to ask questions and explore ideas. If we do, they say, we're overstepping our stewardship. I think, as ttribe has noted, such a position supports the points raised in the OP rather than refutes them.

Really? We as individuals who seek our God in personal ways, can't feel influence from scripture and the Holy Ghost to bring out questions and concerns and discuss with each other? We can't work to bring about something better than what we have?

Oh please, sorry, I disagree with the majority voice around here on this particular point so plainly. Yeah, I hear them, I shouldn't be asking questions, exploring ideas that come to me through scripture study and personal prayer. Whatever.

This has nothing to do with disrespecting the brethren. It has to do with, this world can get pretty complex and unless all of us throw our ideas and feelings into the mix we might very well find ourselves working against God instead of with Him.

[stemelbow]

Quite apart from the issue of "introspection" as a euphemism for "I claim membership in this community, so I'm entitled to stick it to them and remain immune from criticism," there is the decidedly odd phenomenon of introspection-as-public-performance.

If you're going to gaze at your own navel, you really don't need to point a webcam at it.

But as I've pointed out in this thread, I don't exclude myself from this at all, and don't feel in any way immune from criticism.

[stemelbow]

I am not going to read all of the thread...Good job to my fellow "Catholic/Mormons". I made it to page three or so. I am not in any way saying that it is okay to be LDS if the Catholic Church is of God, or vice versa. But I am closer to Mormons who defend their Church than I am to Catholics who despise their own, or to Mormons who don't like their own. Self-loathing seems to be a popular disease, of which those who are afflicted, seem proud. I do not question, much less, loathe my church. If the Mormon Church were true, and I deny that it is, I sense some brotherly unity with those who would vehemently say the same to me about the exclusive truth and goodness of their own community. God bless you RussMac, and SMac, and SLloyd, and any others who will to be so associated with them. They seem fewer on both sides as time goes by. May we all somehow worship together the same good God in this life, and forever.   

 

"To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ,  And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church..." (Eph.3:8-10)

I'd say questioning, promoting dialogue over constructive criticism is loving the Church rather than loathing it, as you suggest. In my way of thinking, the Church can be Christ's Church and still have problems arise that need addressing and correcting. If the unquestioning and upset want to get together to worship together exclusive of the rest of us, I say more power to ya. But I find great privilege and benefit from worshipping with those who disagree with me. I'd feel less if you all formed an elitist group of worshippers while excluding the rest of us.

[CV75]

I mean call the Church, meaning us, out for being a Pharisaic org?

I think our leaders continually invite us to consider our ways and to be authentic in our discipleship of Christ. I think the Holy Ghost does also, with whomever He is striving and the Light of Christ also reminds us continually as long as we receive it. For this reason, I think the Church is structured on many levels to be a “calling out” organization and is to “cry repentance …to both the Gentiles and also the house of Israel.” (D&C 8: 14, .