Isn't It Time We Call Ourselves Out?

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't called out the Church of Jesus Christ. I asked a question about whether it is possible we fit the condemnations as recorded in Matthew. It seems like, speaking generally, or painting with a broad brush as Christ was reported to have done, it's possible the same condemnations that scribes and Pharisees received might need to be leveled at the modern Church of Jesus Christ. Not because he hates us, or has rejected us, or has designs to send us all to hell, but because He loves us.

Where is it "reported" that He "painted with a broad brush"?

[Rain]

I don't know that I agree with your points specifically, but I do agree that I'm sometimes mystified by the Church's emphasis on certain things and lack of emphasis on others. In the last 185 years, the Church has developed into an incredibly organized and efficient "machine", but based on what I hear each week, our efforts seem to be most focused on getting people to home teach each other and go to the Temple to do vicarious work for the dead.

I think it would be cool if someone flipped a switch in the COB and President Monson stood up in conference and said "We're doing great with the vicarious work, and now it's time to work just as hard to help out the living." Instead of monthly organized Stake Temple trips and an annual day of community service, we would do monthly service projects with an annual organized Stake Temple trip. The focus of the youth and adult programs would be constant service, with food drives, clothing drives, regular service projects and a continual reminder of the ways in which we can help other people. What if the Church looked at other specific needs in our communities and attacked them with the same energy and focus that was dedicated to Prop 8 in California?

There have been interesting moves to emphasis service (I thought the Church had set up a website to identify community service opportunities, but I couldn't find it). And I understand missionaries are spending more time in community service, which is great. But in the overall scheme of things, the things we emphasize in Church week after week do seem kind of...odd when compared to what we read in the New Testament and when we think of what a "christian" lifestyle can mean.

Cal mentioned the website, Justserve.org when you posted this. Just wanted to add the reason you may not find it linked from church sources is because it is still in pilot stages.

In our stage right now we are sharing the website with the community and working with our wards to see how we can get it to work better.

It's odd to me that you mention President Monson and service. I hear so much more about service from him than temple work. And so much more about service by him.

I do think it would be interesting to compare community service done by the saints verses others. When I was in Utah I was aware of a charity that helped the children's hospital. As far as we know it was the largest of it's kind in the world. It's leaders would get visits from people all over the US to find out how it was done in Utah. They were told, "it's the people. We could not do it without the volunteers here in Utah." They had literally a couple of thousand volunteers in one week and many of those prepared throughout the year. Not all were LDS, but great majority of them were.

I also think that service goes on far more in private than we suspect. I am aware of basketball players and celebrities that come into hospitals privately to visit people, lawns that get mowed when no one is aware. Visits made to nursing homes etc.

That all said, most individual members can improve. I am now arranging time to visit in ward counsels to see what I can do to help wards utilize the just serve website. I have been speaking with the stake RSP about helping wards have more focus on service in their activities.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Rain

[Rain]

It all just reminds me of an experience I had with my son once. Somewhere I got in my mind that since my grandparents were sort of the first members in the church and my parents were the first to have any regular scripture study and we were the first to add on regular FHE and temple attendance for the youth then my son would be a spiritual giant right? He had more gospel teaching than any of his ancestors. At one point I was frustrated over why he wasn't spiritually stronger than I was. The Lord was quick to point out to me that while it is important for me to teach him principles he is still the one who has to learn it. He still needs to learn basic math before calculus.

And that I think is the problem here. Each of us are in a different stage. I think sometimes we look at the members struggling the most or being a Pharisee and think, "that is the church". Or others look at members who are near perfect in a specific  area and think, "that is the church". However the church is the framework that teaches the member how to be a part of God's family. It is not a saint or a Pharisee. We are the saint and/or sinner.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Rain

[stemelbow]

Reading the verse in context, I don't get the sense he is addressing Peter or his apostles when he uses those words. Perhaps there is something I'm missing or unaware of.

Fair point. I read it as if he is speaking to his disciples only, but it seems he could have turned to the whole group at verse 54. I just read his "the people" as his disciples. I can still see it either way.

[stemelbow]

Where is it "reported" that He "painted with a broad brush"?

In Matt 23 he speaks to the masses, which could either include scribes and Pharisees or not. But in so doing he doesn't specify which scribes and Pharisees. he paints with a broad brush by saying scribes and Pharisees.

[hagoth7]

I had an interesting conversation with a non-member the other day who had lived around Mormons for much of his life and in various communities. He expressed that he saw members fight like dogs with each other but band together to cut out the ' outsider ' when it came to business dealings. He was not interested at all in investigating because of such experiences. Can WE acknowledge the accuracy of these criticisms or do WE reject them out of hand?

Acknowledge them. Admitting faults and frailties shouldn't be an issue. When we attempt to cover our sins...well, we know what happens. Someone I worked for had a husband who was interviewing in the area (neither of them were members of the church), and my boss mentioned that in each of her husband's interviews, the persons conducting the interview started telling stories about their own full-time missionary experiences, and then paused....apparently to invite the candidate to share his own experiences. (As if to filter out candidates who weren't members or who hadn't served). When I heard that, I became frustrated and disappointed (it's illegal and unfair to do that). I apologized to my boss, and contacted a former neighbor who was well-connected in the industry in which the man was trying to land a job. That neighbor helped find an opening with someone he knew nearby, and an interview was arranged. If I had instead abrasively and piously insisted that her husband must somehow be mistaken or exaggerating, and that members of the church wouldn't do such I thing, I think it would have only added insult to injury.

[tonie]

One issue I observe during lessons, is we are too busy saying "Well the people of the time, this; the people of the time that."   And we forget the admonishment of Nephi to "liken the scriptures" to ourselves.  

[hagoth7]

There should be a call out, as guided by the Spirit. One sure way to know it is not by the Spirit is when someone is seeking to call out those for whom he does not have stewardship. In such a case, if it is not of the Spirit it could only be from somewhere else.

As to calling out the church, that may be one matter.

 

As to individuals, that is a separate matter. For example, my kids occasionally catch me doing or saying something that is inconsistent, and essentially invite me to change.

I certainly don't slap them upside the head and scold them for having no stewardship over me. Instead, I consider their ribbing, and take it to heart, and apologize and change, where needed.

I'm open to accepting correction or an invitation to repent from anyone, whether they have stewardship over me or not.

[Mystery Meat]

As to calling out the church, that may be one matter.

 

As to individuals, that is a separate matter. For example, my kids occasionally catch me doing or saying something that is inconsistent, and essentially invite me to change.

I certainly don't slap them upside the head and scold them for having no stewardship over me. Instead, I consider their ribbing, and take it to heart, and apologize and change, where needed.

I'm open to accepting correction or an invitation to repent from anyone, whether they have stewardship over me or not.

 

I certainly think there is a "Family Exception." But that is a bit different to me calling out some bishop on the other side of town or the world.

[Scott Lloyd]

In Matt 23 he speaks to the masses, which could either include scribes and Pharisees or not. But in so doing he doesn't specify which scribes and Pharisees. he paints with a broad brush by saying scribes and Pharisees.

If the Matthew account is as unreliable as you indicate, I don't see how it can be definitively concluded that He painted with a broad brush.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

One issue I observe during lessons, is we are too busy saying "Well the people of the time, this; the people of the time that."   And we forget the admonishment of Nephi to "liken the scriptures" to ourselves.  

Typically, there is a lot of self-likening in our Sunday school class.

[bluebell]

It's just as likely that whoever wrote Matthew did not have the story correct. If Christ said ye scribes and Pharisees and then went on to denote their sins with the possibility that the sin does not apply to all scribes and Pharisees then it seems He did paint with a broad brush. With any sizable group their are many varieties and complexities. People are individual.

 

And sadly we treat his condemnations as if the whole of the scribes and Pharisees were evil. But in Matthew 23, Jesus wasn't talking to Scribes and Pharisees. he was talking to His disciples about the groups named scribes and Pharisees. As reported he painted with a broad brush.

 

Oddly enough most people are sincere and trying their best and yet most people can be hypocritical at some point. In answering Peter Jesus says, "Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?" (luke 12:56)

In my judgment, Peter was a pretty sincere dude. But he was included in a condemnation of being a hypocrite. Not so bad...we're all hypocritical at times.

 

I agree, I said that in my first post-we are all hypocrites sometimes.  

 

But you called the church, collectively, pharisaical hypocrites.  That's a horse of a different color.  

 

The pharisees that Christ were speaking to were evil men who eventually had Him crucified, despite being present for some of His miracles and hearing Him teach in person.  They mocked Him and spit on Him.  They condemned Him for blasphemy because He claimed He was the Son of God, all while congratulating themselves on their own righteousness.  They feared the power and fame He had because it was taking away from their own power and fame.

 

Those are the kind of people that you have compared the church to.  Not Peter.  Not someone who is generally trying their hardest but falls back into their human nature sometimes.  The pharisees.  Do you really think that comparison is fair or just?  Go back and read what Christ said to the pharisees specifically when He called them hypocrites (since that is the kind of accusation you are leveling) and see exactly what He charges them with.  

 

Of course there are members of the church who are pharisaical hypocrites, but as a whole?    

 

It's one thing to recognize our own hypocrisy, but it starts getting sticky when when we start pointing the fingers at whole groups of people, most of which we don't even know personally.

[stemelbow]

If the Matthew account is as unreliable as you indicate, I don't see how it can be definitively concluded that painted with a broad brush.

True. Definitively concluded is not my intent here.

[stemelbow]

I agree, I said that in my first post-we are all hypocrites sometimes.  

 

But you called the church, collectively, pharisaical hypocrites.  That's a horse of a different color.

I did what?

 

The pharisees that Christ were speaking to were evil men who eventually had Him crucified, despite being present for some of His miracles and hearing Him teach in person. They mocked Him and spit on Him. They condemned Him for blasphemy because He claimed He was the Son of God, all while congratulating themselves on their own righteousness. They feared the power and fame He had because it was taking away from their own power and fame.

Not so sure about this. CFR. How do we know which persons were in the crowds listening and which persons are responsible for crucifying? Seems like you're painting with a broad brush on this.

  

Those are the kind of people that you have compared the church to.  Not Peter.  Not someone who is generally trying their hardest but falls back into their human nature sometimes.  The pharisees.  Do you really think that comparison is fair or just?  Go back and read what Christ said to the pharisees specifically when He called them hypocrites (since that is the kind of accusation you are leveling) and see exactly what He charges them with.

I started this thread with quotes from Matthew the specify what they did wrong. In some ways I see similarities to what they were condemned for and what I witness at church, at least some of the time.  

 

Of course there are members of the church who are pharisaical hypocrites, but as a whole?    

 

It's one thing to recognize our own hypocrisy, but it starts getting sticky when when we start pointing the fingers at whole groups of people, most of which we don't even know personally.

Did Christ know each individual Pharisee?

I have no interest to condemn each and every Mormon. Essentially in my mind, my questions and concerns are,

Do we get carried away in thinking we are better than we are?

Do we often strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel?

Do we do good for appearances?

Are we sometimes happy to appear righteous but inwardly we aren't so?

do we take the wrong direction?

Are we clouded with misunderstanding?

Do we think we are doing well when sometimes in trying we actually injure?

[Mystery Meat]

I did what?

 

Not so sure about this. CFR. How do we know which persons were in the crowds listening and which persons are responsible for crucifying? Seems like you're painting with a broad brush on this.

  

I started this thread with quotes from Matthew the specify what they did wrong. In some ways I see similarities to what they were condemned for and what I witness at church, at least some of the time.  

 

Did Christ know each individual Pharisee?

I have no interest to condemn each and every Mormon. Essentially in my mind, my questions and concerns are,

Do we get carried away in thinking we are better than we are?

Do we often strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel?

Do we do good for appearances?

Are we sometimes happy to appear righteous but inwardly we aren't so?

do we take the wrong direction?

Are we clouded with misunderstanding?

Do we think we are doing well when sometimes in trying we actually injure?

 

What gives you the ecclesiastical authority to call the Church out? It leaders? Its membership? Anyone other than yourself and family?

[stemelbow]

What gives you the ecclesiastical authority to call the Church out? It leaders? Its membership? Anyone other than yourself and family?

I'm not claiming ecclesiastical authority to call the Church out. I haven't even decided if calling the Church out is necessary.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm not claiming ecclesiastical authority to call the Church out. I haven't even decided if calling the Church out is necessary.

 

Then you should probably change the title of this thread, which seems to indicate otherwise. If you do decide to call out the Church without such authority, just no that your call out is valueless.

[stemelbow]

Then you should probably change the title of this thread, which seems to indicate otherwise. If you do decide to call out the Church without such authority, just no that your call out is valueless.

It wouldn't be mine. It was a question to discuss. I don't see why I'd need to change the title. I'm asking for people's thoughts.

[Mystery Meat]

It wouldn't be mine. It was a question to discuss. I don't see why I'd need to change the title. I'm asking for people's thoughts.

 

You really don't think the question: "Isn't it time we call ourselves out?" implies that you think it is in fact time we call ourselves out? Can't you even concede that much? If not it calls into question your sincerity, motives or understanding of basic communication.

[ttribe]

Perhaps the intent of the thread was not to initiate an actual "calling out" of the Church as an organization, so much as to spur discussion on whether our LDS culture too often resembles the very target of the Savior's rebukes for hypocrisy?  There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over certain words and "authority" to have this conversation, etc.; none of which addresses the substantive issue raised by the OP.  Indeed, some of this seems to be proving the very point of the OP, IMO.

[stemelbow]

You really don't think the question: "Isn't it time we call ourselves out?" implies that you think it is in fact time we call ourselves out? Can't you even concede that much? If not it calls into question your sincerity, motives or understanding of basic communication.

My goodness... I'm not saying there's no implication in the title. It's a question posed to help define the topic and to catch people's attention. It's not suggesting, "I'm going to call out the Church".

[Mystery Meat]

Perhaps the intent of the thread was not to initiate an actual "calling out" of the Church as an organization, so much as to spur discussion on whether our LDS culture too often resembles the very target of the Savior's rebukes for hypocrisy?  There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over certain words and "authority" to have this conversation, etc.; none of which addresses the substantive issue raised by the OP.  Indeed, some of this seems to be proving the very point of the OP, IMO.

 

If that were/is the intent (I doubt it personally. I think the OP may not have realized he was actually giving us his opinion, but whether or not it was subconscious or conscious, he did actually give his opinion) then the thread should have a different title, such as: Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its Membership any better than the pharisees?  Or: "Should we call ourselves out?"

 

Furthermore, the reaction does nothing to prove his point. He has NO authority (none) to call the Church out for anything. Even if next week, President Monson got up and called the Church out for the exact same things as the OP has cited to herein, he (the OP) would still be wrong for calling the Church out because it exceeds his ecclesiastical authority. Uzzah had no authority to touch the ark even, though his intentions were good and it needed steadying, and he was struck down by God for it. 

 

Jesus had the authority, because, well he was the giver of the law and because He is God. Prophets throughout time have also had authority to call people out and they often do (the priesthood session seems to call out after call out). The reason why I cannot trust his interpretation of the New Testament as it applies to the Church (or my own, or anyone else in this thread) is because the Spirit will never, ever, ever (no exception) reveal such a thing to someone who does not have such authority (but other sources may try to deceive) while the Lord has those called and ordained to receive such communication on the earth.

 

I admit and acknowledge that the intent of the thread was probably good. But, as Uzzah has demonstrated, good intention are not all that matters.

[Mystery Meat]

My goodness... I'm not saying there's no implication in the title. It's a question posed to help define the topic and to catch people's attention. It's not suggesting, "I'm going to call out the Church".

 

The problem, then with the thread, is it invites and to even answer the question posed, requires speculation into things that are above each of our ecclesiastical authority (how Church monies are spent, the missionary program, etc.). That seems very unwise. 

[ttribe]

If that were/is the intent (I doubt it personally. I think the OP may not have realized he was actually giving us his opinion, but whether or not it was subconscious or conscious, he did actually give his opinion) then the thread should have a different title, such as: Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its Membership any better than the pharisees?  Or: "Should we call ourselves out?"

 

Wait, so you know stem's thoughts better than he does?

 

 

Furthermore, the reaction does nothing to prove his point. He has NO authority (none) to call the Church out for anything. Even if next week, President Monson got up and called the Church out for the exact same things as the OP has cited to herein, he (the OP) would still be wrong for calling the Church out because it exceeds his ecclesiastical authority.

 

He has specifically stated he isn't trying to step into a role of authority to actually "call out" the Church.  You are focusing on words and ignoring the substance, just like...wait for it...wait for it...the Pharisees!

[Mystery Meat]

Wait, so you know stem's thoughts better than he does?

 

 

 

He has specifically stated he isn't trying to step into a role of authority to actually "call out" the Church.  You are focusing on words and ignoring the substance, just like...wait for it...wait for it...the Pharisees!

 

Look, I imagine that I have more in common with your run of the mill pharisee than I do Jesus (goes without saying) or even an average latter-day saint (sadly, my priesthood leaders reserve the right to determine if I am like the Pharisees...I am sure that bothers you), but the difference between me and the Pharisees is who was speaking. Jesus had the authority to do so. Whereas even speculating on and discussing the merits of the substance of the OP is ark steadying and beyond our ecclesiastical authority. 

Edited June 9, 2015 by Mystery Meat