My modern reflection on the great and spacious building

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It is odd to read it as they would have understood it.  It would be like President Monson standing in conference and saying:

"I had vision, and behold, there was a great building, and in this building were people who were fighting against the Zidelbobs of Kebod, (Kebod being the daughter of God whom shall come to earth in the year 2654.)  Let us all learn from this vision to follow Kebod and her teachings in the day that she comes in power."

 

Would people really sit there and nod reverently?  Perhaps.  But I suspect there would be a lot of as well.

(I suspect there would be a lot of people saying "Uh, God doesn't have a daughter named "Kebod", and having such a being come to the Earth in 2654 doesn't really fit our doctrine...", which is also how people probably would have reacted back in Nephi's day as well.)

 

Yet we buy stories about dragons and beasts (please be literal!!!) and the Messiah coming in glory at the end of the world.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

So people who don't believe Noah's flood was global are in the great and spacious building.  Got it.

It is nice and roomy in here with vaulted ceilings but the HOA fees are criminal.

Edited April 21, 2017 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't know which Temple you went to, but nowhere in any Temple I've been to did I ever covenant "not to find fault with the Brethren."

I never quote from oaths taken in the temple, and the quote you have taken from me doesn't come from a temple oath, but I just assumed that you would know what I am referring to.  Certainly Scott knows, and the Brethren themselves have sometimes referred to it.  Indeed, a number of endowed members have been unchurched for it, including my friend Lavina Fielding Anderson.  Are you sure that you don't know what I am referring to?

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You did misread or misunderstand, either that or I was very muddled and unclear.  I was not speaking of breakers of temple covenants, but universally of those outside the oath-bound covenant, both LDS and non-LDS, who may freely find fault with the Brethren.  Then I quickly noted that this might be risky, since all will be judged by God in accordance with how they judge others.  I then recommended that we say something nice, and let God be the judge.

Here again is what I actually said:

Maybe the brackets help.

No, the brackets were not necessary for me to understand your meaning in that sentence.

It just seemed to me, at first, that you were saying that only those who have made covenants in the temple are accountable for contending against the apostles of the Lamb and that everyone else gets a pass for doing so. If that's not what you were saying, I'm relieved.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never quote from oaths taken in the temple, and the quote you have taken from me doesn't come from a temple oath, but I just assumed that you would know what I am referring to.  Certainly Scott knows, and the Brethren themselves have sometimes referred to it.  Indeed, a number of endowed members have been unchurched for it, including my friend Lavina Fielding Anderson.  Are you sure that you don't know what I am referring to?

Yes, I understood quite clearly what you are referring to.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So people who don't believe Noah's flood was global are in the great and spacious building.  Got it.

Apparently you bypassed or forgot this sentence from my second post on this thread:

Quote

I think there's a clear distinction in meaning between disagree and contend.

Moreover, holding an opinion about whether the flood was global does not strike me as contending against the apostles of the Lamb.

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the urging of President Monson in the last general conference, I have begun to re-read the Book of Mormon.

Thus, I have just finished reading again the account of Lehi's vision of the tree of life and Nephi's subsequent viewing of and enlargement upon that vision.

I was struck in particular by the description of the great and spacious building. By way of review, Lehi and Nephi beheld a great and spacious building that stood high in the air. They saw that it was filled with people of all ages, male and female, with fine manner of dress, who were pointing at and mocking those who were partaking of the fruit form the tree of life.

Lehi and Nephi observed further that those who had tasted of the fruit but were then being scoffed at by the inhabitants of the building "fell away into forbidden paths and were lost." Other multitudes were "feeling their way towards that great and spacious building" and "many were drowned in the depths of the fountain, and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads." Those who entered the building joined the scoffers in mocking those who had partaken of the fruit (see 1 Nephi 8:26-32).

In Chapter 11, where Nephi is privileged to behold the same vision, he learns that the great and spacious building represents "the pride of the world." Verses 34-36 (bold emphasis mine for reference):
 

Note that the verses don't say the multitudes gathered in the great and spacious building would be fighting directly against the Lamb of God, but rather, that they would be fighting against "the apostles of the Lamb." That is, the apostles, as Christ's emissaries, would be the ones that would be confronted by those who oppose Christ and His teachings.

In context, the great and spacious building and its inhabitants are prototypical; that is, they represent the pride of the world in all ages, not just the age immediately following the death of the mortal Messiah.

Likewise, "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" in this context are prototypical, representing not just the apostles chosen by the mortal Christ, but men of all ages who have held the apostolic office, including those who live today, and including the First Presidency, each of whom also holds the apostolic office.

Ergo, those who contend against the united word of the apostles of Christ place themselves in the unhappy category of those represented in Lehi's dream as the multitude who inhabit the great and spacious building, the "pride of the world," as it were, who mock and scoff at those who are pressing forward to partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

To bring it down to our day, this applies to whatever the matter at issue might be: marriage redefinition, the handbook policy that surfaced a year ago last November, expenditure of Church funds, the authenticity of the scriptures and other revelations of the Church, the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the commandments of the Lord past and present, etc.

To the extent that I continue posting on this board, I might from time to time share other insights that occur to me as I progress with my reading of the Book of Mormon. I invite others to do so as well as they undertake a reading of the book.

To read multitudes were gathered to fight against the 12, as a tiny few who disagree with some of the off-hand remarks from the 12 and say so from time to time in a non-confrontational manner is, at least, interesting, Scott.  on that basis any stated prophesy will be fulfilled. 

In this day, there are no multitudes gathered to fight.  There are some people questioning, sure, but they are so few as by and large most people don't pay a bit of attention to the 12. 

"those who contend against the united word of the apostles of Christ place themselves in the unhappy category of those represented in Lehi's dream as the multitude who inhabit the great and spacious building, the "pride of the world," as it were, who mock and scoff at those who are pressing forward to partake of the fruit of the tree of life."

Let's make this easy.  Who is mocking and scoffing at you? 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only those who are bound by temple covenant have taken an oath not to find fault with the Brethren, even if/when they are wrong.  All others of those both in and out of the LDS faith may freely find fault with the Brethren.  One might want to pause, however, before passing judgment too hastily.  For with what judgment you judge, so shall you be judged.  Might be better to say something nice.  Let the Lord pass judgment.

Small but important clarification- There is no covenant not to find fault with "the brethren". There is mention of the "Lord's anointed" but that doesn't necessarily refer to the brethren. Who are the anointed? Anyone who has received their endowment.

I would also note that to "find fault" implies an active effort to find anything to criticize of with which to find fault. Sometimes one merely needs to open ones eyes to recognize obvious faults. No one is searching for these faults, but merely recognizing them. And why shouldn't they? Are prophets and apostles beyond reproach? Nope. Why not? Because they are humans and are fallible just like the rest of us.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To read multitudes were gathered to fight against the 12, as a tiny few who disagree with some of the off-hand remarks from the 12 and say so from time to time in a non-confrontational manner is, at least, interesting, Scott.  on that basis any stated prophesy will be fulfilled. 

In this day, there are no multitudes gathered to fight.  There are some people questioning, sure, but they are so few as by and large most people don't pay a bit of attention to the 12. 

"those who contend against the united word of the apostles of Christ place themselves in the unhappy category of those represented in Lehi's dream as the multitude who inhabit the great and spacious building, the "pride of the world," as it were, who mock and scoff at those who are pressing forward to partake of the fruit of the tree of life."

Let's make this easy.  Who is mocking and scoffing at you? 

Feeling a bit defensive, stemelbow?

There, there. You can stand down. I'm not interested in turning this into a brawl.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Feeling a bit defensive, stemelbow?

There, there. You can stand down. I'm not interested in turning this into a brawl.

???

Defensive?  I disagreed with the way you framed it, Scott, and explained how and why.  No brawl, just sharing thoughts. 

Don't want to discuss the topic you created?  Fine.  I'll happily stand down.  But maybe someone else will be interested. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is odd to read it as they would have understood it.  It would be like President Monson standing in conference and saying:

"I had vision, and behold, there was a great building, and in this building were people who were fighting against the Zidelbobs of Kebod, (Kebod being the daughter of God whom shall come to earth in the year 2654.)  Let us all learn from this vision to follow Kebod and her teachings in the day that she comes in power."

 

Would people really sit there and nod reverently?  Perhaps.  But I suspect there would be a lot of as well.

(I suspect there would be a lot of people saying "Uh, God doesn't have a daughter named "Kebod", and having such a being come to the Earth in 2654 doesn't really fit our doctrine...", which is also how people probably would have reacted back in Nephi's day as well.)

 

I'm not sure how much of Nephi's vision would have been preached or publicized to his contemporaries. My understanding was that it was revealed to him and recorded to come forth in our day.

But in any event, it is also my understanding that the doctrine of a Messiah coming in the meridian of time to redeem His people was part and parcel of the word of God as it was preached from Adam down through the prophets that preceded the coming of Christ, though that knowledge or a portion thereof may have been lost through apostasy.

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Small but important clarification- There is no covenant not to find fault with "the brethren". There is mention of the "Lord's anointed" but that doesn't necessarily refer to the brethren. Who are the anointed? Anyone who has received their endowment.

I would also note that to "find fault" implies an active effort to find anything to criticize of with which to find fault. Sometimes one merely needs to open ones eyes to recognize obvious faults. No one is searching for these faults, but merely recognizing them. And why shouldn't they? Are prophets and apostles beyond reproach? Nope. Why not? Because they are humans and are fallible just like the rest of us.

In this talk

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to apply the definition to the Lord's anointed that I have always understood it to mean: those who have been called of God to lead His people.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never quote from oaths taken in the temple, and the quote you have taken from me doesn't come from a temple oath, but I just assumed that you would know what I am referring to.  Certainly Scott knows, and the Brethren themselves have sometimes referred to it.  Indeed, a number of endowed members have been unchurched for it, including my friend Lavina Fielding Anderson.  Are you sure that you don't know what I am referring to?

Are you referring to the topic of this article in Meridian, wherein they say:

Quote

But why is that the case? Many of us have made a sacred covenant in holy places to avoid evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.

http://ldsmag.com/article-1-13005/

If the author, Ron McMillan, was overstepping his bounds in publishing that article and I'm breaking decorum by quoting it, I apologize.

But if that is the basis on which you are making your claim, you should probably be very clear that it is your interpretation of the oaths taken in the Temple that criticism of Church leaders is included,  especially since someone who hadn't been through the Temple and didn't know you were paraphrasing might think we actually take such an oath.

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But in any event, it is also my understanding that the doctrine of a Messiah coming in the meridian of time to redeem His people was part and parcel of the word of God as it was preached from Adam down to through the prophets that preceded the coming of Christ, though that knowledge or a portion thereof may have been lost through apostasy.

 

It's entirely possible you're correct about that.  But there's also this thing that people do called "retconning" that would totally apply if it weren't true.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Small but important clarification- There is no covenant not to find fault with "the brethren". There is mention of the "Lord's anointed" but that doesn't necessarily refer to the brethren. Who are the anointed? Anyone who has received their endowment.

I would also note that to "find fault" implies an active effort to find anything to criticize of with which to find fault. Sometimes one merely needs to open ones eyes to recognize obvious faults. No one is searching for these faults, but merely recognizing them. And why shouldn't they? Are prophets and apostles beyond reproach? Nope. Why not? Because they are humans and are fallible just like the rest of us.

Regarding the temple covenant, it is well to speak of everyone charitably no matter how one interprets those words, and the LDS leaders are certainly part of the greater cohort of those that have received their endowments. Given that, and acknowledging the difference between fault-finding and recognizing faults, “reproach” would not be the charitable go-to response in communicating with those perceived to have faults.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this talk

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to apply the definition to the Lord's anointed that I have always understood it to mean: those who have been called of God to lead His people.

 

While I don't disagree that church leaders may sometimes describe themselves as the "Lord's anointed" that really doesn't mean they're the only anointed. Elder Oaks' comment could be taken as a bit self-serving.

But the issue of "evil speaking" of the "Lord's anointed" as covenanted in the temple has never been described (as far as I know) as part of a covenant not to disagree, contend, or find fault with the brethren.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never quote from oaths taken in the temple, and the quote you have taken from me doesn't come from a temple oath, but I just assumed that you would know what I am referring to.  Certainly Scott knows, and the Brethren themselves have sometimes referred to it.  Indeed, a number of endowed members have been unchurched for it, including my friend Lavina Fielding Anderson.  Are you sure that you don't know what I am referring to?

I thought Lavina Fielding Anderson was "unchurched" for "apostasy".  I guess it's implied in the Temple oaths to "not be an apostate", but I'm not sure how that applies here.

And according to Lavina, she was ex'd for publishing an article about abuse in the Church.  If it is your understanding that the Temple Oaths include not talking about "ecclesiastical" abuse in the Church and the leaders who commit it, then they certainly need to make this clearer before people take the oaths.

Quote

What triggered the LDS Church's disciplinary action against you?

I wrote an article for "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" that summarized 133 cases of LDS ecclesiastical abuse, and my pleas to do better to care for the Mormon faithful. That came out in early 1993. In May, my stake president called me in about it. He didn't seem to know what footnotes are so he thought I made the whole thing up. I assured him I did not. He then announced that I was not a member in good standing and could not use my temple recommend. I wouldn't give it up, but promised him I wouldn't use it. Then I went away to my cabin for the summer and he called all the temples in Utah, saying he was canceling my recommend. It really hurt my feelings. I had never been treated as a liar before.

What was the reason for the discipline?

That's a good question. They never gave me one reason. The stake president said I was "exed" for apostasy but I didn't really fit the handbook definition. He said it was apostasy because I believed that general authorities had done something wrong. I said I didn't think members believe general authorities don't make mistakes. But the cause didn't really matter because it was pretty clear that Elder [Boyd K.] Packer [of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles] was trying to send a message by targeting certain people, such as historians and feminists. He left it up to local leaders to come up with a reason.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/58075419-78/church-mormon-lds-women.html.csp

So if that's your example of someone being justifiably ex-communicated because they broke your interpretation of a Temple covenant, then I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to.  If anything, this is a good example of the dangers of people being afraid to talk about what goes on in the Temple because it allows us to perpetrate our own version of what is said and done without anyone being able to contradict you for fear of violating an oath.  There is no way that's a good thing (and it certainly isn't what we agree to not reveal during the actual Temple ceremony).

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's entirely possible you're correct about that.  But there's also this thing that people do called "retconning" that would totally apply if it weren't true.

It's entirely possible that cinepro has never beaten his wife. But if that supposition is not true, he is certainly guilty of domestic violence.

The understanding that the content of the Book of Mormon was produced expressly for us who are living in the latter days did not originate with me. President Ezra Taft Benson taught it repeatedly a generation ago:

 

Quote

 

The second great reason why we must make the Book of Mormon a center focus of study is that it was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.

Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. Nephi said: “The Lord God promised unto me that these things which I write shall be kept and preserved, and handed down unto my seed, from generation to generation” (2 Ne. 25:21). His brother Jacob, who succeeded him, wrote similar words: “For [Nephi] said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation” (Jacob 1:3). Enos and Jarom both indicated that they too were writing not for their own peoples but for future generations (see Enos 1:15–16, Jarom 1:2).

Mormon himself said, “Yea, I speak unto you, ye remnant of the house of Israel” (Morm. 7:1). And Moroni, the last of the inspired writers, actually saw our day and time. “Behold,” he said, “the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

“Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing” (Morm. 8:34–35).

If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, “Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?”

And there is example after example of how that question will be answered. For example, in the Book of Mormon we find a pattern for preparing for the Second Coming. A major portion of the book centers on the few decades just prior to Christ’s coming to America. By careful study of that time period, we can determine why some were destroyed in the terrible judgments that preceded His coming and what brought others to stand at the temple in the land of Bountiful and thrust their hands into the wounds of His hands and feet.

From the Book of Mormon we learn how disciples of Christ live in times of war. From the Book of Mormon we see the evils of secret combinations portrayed in graphic and chilling reality. In the Book of Mormon we find lessons for dealing with persecution and apostasy. We learn much about how to do missionary work. And more than anywhere else, we see in the Book of Mormon the dangers of materialism and setting our hearts on the things of the world. Can anyone doubt that this book was meant for us and that in it we find great power, great comfort, and great protection?

 

Link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

On the other hand, the notion that everything Nephi wrote or recorded by way of revelation was preached or distributed to the people living back then is not self-evident to me. Perhaps you can substantiate it.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

To read multitudes were gathered to fight against the 12, as a tiny few who disagree with some of the off-hand remarks from the 12 and say so from time to time in a non-confrontational manner is, at least, interesting, Scott.  on that basis any stated prophesy will be fulfilled. 

In this day, there are no multitudes gathered to fight.  There are some people questioning, sure, but they are so few as by and large most people don't pay a bit of attention to the 12. 

"those who contend against the united word of the apostles of Christ place themselves in the unhappy category of those represented in Lehi's dream as the multitude who inhabit the great and spacious building, the "pride of the world," as it were, who mock and scoff at those who are pressing forward to partake of the fruit of the tree of life."

Let's make this easy.  Who is mocking and scoffing at you? 

I think it is relative. 12 is a very small number compared to a multitude, which in Book of Mormon terms seems to be on the order of 2500 (see 3 Nephi 17:25 and 19:6). Many multitudes would be, say, 12 or more times that, or at least 30,000, which seems to be a very conservative estimate of those, especially on a worldwide level, actively engaged in knowingly opposing LDS leadership on one issue or another.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I don't disagree that church leaders may sometimes describe themselves as the "Lord's anointed" that really doesn't mean they're the only anointed. Elder Oaks' comment could be taken as a bit self-serving.

But the issue of "evil speaking" of the "Lord's anointed" as covenanted in the temple has never been described (as far as I know) as part of a covenant not to disagree, contend, or find fault with the brethren.

When we attend to the Lord's instructions in 3 Nephi 11 and 12, we will heed His servants in a spirit of charity and unity, as opposed to contenting and disputing against what they are given to teach and do.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I don't disagree that church leaders may sometimes describe themselves as the "Lord's anointed" that really doesn't mean they're the only anointed. Elder Oaks' comment could be taken as a bit self-serving.

 

Your definition strikes me as a new one, one not intended in the scriptural passages in which the phrase occurs. In fact, I would call it quirky.

Quote

But the issue of "evil speaking" of the "Lord's anointed" as covenanted in the temple has never been described (as far as I know) as part of a covenant not to disagree, contend, or find fault with the brethren.

I'll have to acknowledge sharp disagreement between us on that statement.

[cinepro]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's entirely possible that cinepro has never beaten his wife. But if that supposition is not true, he is certainly guilty of domestic violence.

The understanding that the content of the Book of Mormon was produced expressly for us who are living in the latter days did not originate with me. President Ezra Taft Benson taught it repeatedly a generation ago:

 

Link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

On the other hand, the notion that everything Nephi wrote or recorded by way of revelation was preached or distributed to the people living back then is not self-evident to me. Perhaps you can substantiate it.

 

No, I agree that people in Lehi's day were probably not talking about a great and spacious building and the apostles of Jesus who would be walking the earth 600 years later.  On that, we totally agree.  Sorry for any confusion.

Edited April 21, 2017 by cinepro

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your definition strikes me as a new one, one not intended in the scriptural passages in which the phrase occurs. In fact, I would call it quirky.

I'll have to acknowledge sharp disagreement between us on that statement.

It's always fun when you have the leadership of a group that makes rules about criticizing them or pointing out their errors.

Obviously, they would never try to totally outlaw people criticizing them or pointing out their errors.  They are, after all, fallible, and everyone knows they make mistakes.

But please only criticize on the points that they will allow you to criticize them, in the way that they specify, and only point out those errors that they will accept being pointed out.

Edited April 21, 2017 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's always fun when you have the leadership of a group that makes rules about criticizing them or pointing out their errors.

Obviously, they would never try to totally outlaw people criticizing them or pointing out their errors.  They are, after all, fallible, and everyone knows they make mistakes.

But please only criticize on the points that they will allow you to criticize them, in the way that they specify, and only point out those errors that they will accept being pointed out.

On this point, I would return to the speech Elder Oaks gave that I cited earlier:

 

Quote

 

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.) Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.)

In these two instances, the Bible teaches that rejection of or murmuring against the counsel of the Lord’s servants amounts to actions against the Lord himself. How could it be otherwise? The Lord acts through his servants. That is the pattern he has established to safeguard our agency in mortality. His servants are not perfect, which is another consequence of mortality. But if we murmur against the Lord’s servants, we are working against the Lord and his cause and will soon find ourselves without the companionship of his Spirit.

 

Further:

 

Quote

 

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.)

Elder Lorenzo Snow also observed some “imperfections” in Joseph Smith, but he also reached a positive conclusion about the Prophet:

“I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him … for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me.” (Quoted by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 10.)

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

President John Taylor described these last two remedies when he taught how we should sustain a leader:

“But supposing he should … be found lying or cheating, or defrauding somebody; or stealing or anything else, or even become impure in his habits, would you still sustain him? It would be my duty then to talk with him as I would with anybody else, and tell him that I had understood that things were thus and so, and that under these circumstances I could not sustain him; and if I found that I had been misinformed I would withdraw the charge; but if not it would then be my duty to see that justice was administered to him, that he was brought before the proper tribunal to answer for the things he had done; and in the absence of that I would have no business to talk about him.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:207–8.)

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

By following these procedures, Church members can work for correction of a leader or for change of a policy. Members who do so in the correct spirit will not grieve the Spirit of the Lord. They will not alienate themselves from their leaders or their brothers and sisters in the Church.

 

On the insinuation here of heavy-handedness by Church leaders with regard to how they deal with criticism, Elder Oaks taught:

Quote

Throughout our history we have had members who have criticized the Church and its leaders. Church disciplinary action against such members has been rare or nonexistent. Persistent, public critics punish themselves. By deliberately separating themselves from those who have been called as their leaders, critics forfeit the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. They drift from prayer, from the scriptures, from Church activity, and from keeping the commandments. They inevitably lose spirituality and blessings. As the prophet Nephi observed, those who succumb to pride and “works of darkness” are on the way to spiritual destruction, “for the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man.” (2 Ne. 26:10–11.)

And there's this challenging bit of wisdom:

Quote

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

 

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since the apostles of Jesus Christ are charged in any age with the responsibility to direct the work of proclaiming His gospel teachings and to administer His church, including the baptizing of those who embrace the gospel (see Mark 16:15-16) it follows that all who contend against the teachings of Christ and His gospel in any way or sense are by logical extension and in a symbolic way, contending against the apostles of the Lamb of God.

Who are these boogieman who you consider are contending?  The LDS church is one of hundreds of the Christian sects.  All claim to teach the gospel of Christ. I hope you are not implying that anyone who disagrees with the LDS version is contending against Christ.