Being Faithful - What does it mean?

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It would be hard to know exactly what President Hinckley's opinion on the subject is since he can't join in the conversation and clarify, but if you care to share what you believe he meant that would be great.  I wasn't attempting to mischaracterize his position. 

True enough, but he did say enough to understand the general drift of his conversation. Serving faithfully entails a lot of things, working to improve or gain a personal testimony, service, etc. Also promoting harmony and accord within ones own boundaries. I have been taught that questions and criticisms are not taboo, but that I need to apply a lot of thought, meditation, and prayer to questions that I have before voicing them. There are channels available in the church for voicing concerns and yes, even criticism, which can be done without causing dissension, etc.

There was a moment in my life where personal disaster had struck. I prayed as hard as I knew how but I did not get the answers I wanted. I even wrote to the first presidency for help when I did not get the answers locally I wished. My bishop called me into his office one day and noted that he had received notice of the letter and the concerns I had raised. He proceeded most kindly to explain the situation to me. I still did not like the answers. I was actually too distraught to listen well, but over a period of time I was able to master my own thoughts and feelings and truly listen to the spirit and realized that the bishop was correct. And that is something that I have tried to remember any time my thoughs go a way that might promote any type of discord or dissension.

And I believe that is what President Hinckley was getting at. To put a lot of time, effort, prayer, meditation, etc. when we have concerns and questions rather than getting on a soapbox and telling the world just how badly general authority x, y, or z is messing up.

Glenn

[Calm]

"Sometimes I don't know that I even believe in God anymore, or am not sure what I believe about God, but I still don't feel this lack of concrete believe is an act of unfaithfulness"

If you were to say to your wife "sometimes I don't know that I even believe in our marriage anymore", how would she likely interpret that? (Serious question, not a challenge...trying to understand your thoughts)

Edited January 3, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You have a different idea of what it looks like to be steadfast, loyal, and constant than the average member?

I believe so, I know from interacting with people on this and other forums, that my unorthodox way of seeing things often conflicts with the average member.  For example, I don’t automatically think that disagreement with a church leader is disloyal, and I completely disagreed with the way Elder Oaks tried to dismiss a “loyal opposition” a few conferences back.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure insecurity probably is behind it to some extent.  I don't know if that's a cultural taboo or just a part of being human. 

While I agree this is a human thing at some level, I see this problem as particularly accuse within Mormonism, and part of the Mormon tradition.  The persecution narrative that developed in the early church, and continues today in the ways church leaders articulate an attack on faith happening in the secular world.  In many ways I think Mormons are very sensitive to critiques from the outside, yet in other ways I see Mormons as quite tolerant of critiques.  I think there is good an bad on this topic.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm talking about general faithfulness.  You used your faithfulness to your wife as an example of being faithful.  Well, I personally know someone who pretended to be faithful to their wife (and pretended it incredibly convincingly!) and yet were actually sleeping with multiple women over the course of many years.  But speaking spiritually yes, I do know someone who claimed faithfulness until one day they acknowledged that no, they were actually atheists and had just been going through the motions for months.

And we all have experience with people online who have pretended to be faithful members of the church to get street cred with members or non-members when they actually left the church years ago but just never had their names removed.

I agree with you that faithfulness to a spouse can be especially disturbing when it is violated. As for faithfulness to God, I’m not sure how someone who’s religious convictions have changed is analogous.  I certainly don’t think an atheist continuing to attend church is an act of disloyalty.  In many ways I see that as an act of great courage and loyalty.  A desire to continue to attend and connect at church with others for family or other reasons, in the midst of a loss of believe is an extreme act of loyalty in my mind.  Also, I see no reason to assume atheists are disloyal or unfaithful, I find quite the opposite to be the case from my experience. 

I also have a problem with the stereotype against online actors pretending to be members.  While occasionally you will find a troll online performing an act of deception for pure amusement, the vast majority of people I’ve encountered have at some level a reasonable motivation for the interactions they make.  Some are processing grief and pain, and may be acting out of that place, and I try to have empathy for them.  In a Mormon context, the Mormon tradition created these people, and it shouldn’t label them as bad actors when they are going through sincere hurt that is largely a product of the kind of Mormonism that correlation has produced.  We take the bad with the good, and more empathy and acknowledgement of these people and their concerns is a better practice than disdain and distrust from my experience.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that's the way it's supposed to work.

Consider publicly speaking against an institution or person in other contexts.  Do you likewise feel at liberty to publicly "speak up and criticize" your spouse if and when he/she makes a mistake?  I would think . . . not.

How about your employer?  Do you think your employer expects some measure of "allegiance?"  Or do you feel at liberty to publicly speak against your employer?

Have you ever served in the military?  If so, you would know that publicly criticizing your superiors is not allowed.

Note that any of these entities (spouse, employer, military) are certainly capable of making mistakes, and yet I do not feel at liberty to publicly criticize any of them (I'm out of the military now, so I can criticize military leaders, I suppose).

In 1987 Elder Oaks wrote a very thoughtful article on the general subject of handling disputes and disagreements and criticisms within the LDS Church.  Here it is.  I think he makes some very good points.

I submit that membership in the Church does not create a license to publicly speak against it.  To the contrary, I think membership imposes some measure of allegiance, loyalty, and discretion.  In other words, with memberships come some constraints on our behavior.  Publicly speaking against the Church seems, in broad strokes, to be incompatible with membership in the Church.

Interesting questions, a couple comments.  A spouse, I don’t think its the same thing.  If my spouse were handling something inappropriately in my mind, something that violated my core values, I could address her directly.  I have no way of directly addressing an institution in private as large as the LDS church.  So its different that way.  But I have tried to express concerns in written form through proper channels, to date I have received no response or even indication that anyone read my letters.  

For my employer, I can’t think of any public stance they’ve taken on any issues that I disagree with.  They have special interests that they lobby government officials on, but these interests are fairly narrow for their particular industry.  

Neve been in the millitary, but I can understand the strict nature of that hierarchy, however there are still sometimes whistle blowers for eggregious abuses of authority and morality, and I applaud those courageous enough to stand out in that kind of an environment.  

I think the closest analology is whether I disagree with anything that other religious institutions do, and would I speak out against those things promoted by other religions that I find to be morally problematic.  I think I would, and I have made comments about things before that I find problematic.  

Another example that I think is appropriate is whether people who consider themselves patriotic are willing to speak out against government leaders and policies that they find issue with.  I say yes, and I do that all the time.  This I think is the best analogy to speaking out about problems with the church of which I’m a member.  

As for a license to speak out against the church, I’m not asking for permission from the church to speak out against it.  Last time I checked I never signed a non disclosure agreement or anything to that effect.  I believe that honoring my covenants including upholding the kingdom of God, includes criticism of the church when its actions or the actions of its leaders are out of alignment with the ideals of God’s kingdom.  The license is already given to everyone, and it’s called a conscience or agency.  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

True enough, but he did say enough to understand the general drift of his conversation. Serving faithfully entails a lot of things, working to improve or gain a personal testimony, service, etc. Also promoting harmony and accord within ones own boundaries. I have been taught that questions and criticisms are not taboo, but that I need to apply a lot of thought, meditation, and prayer to questions that I have before voicing them. There are channels available in the church for voicing concerns and yes, even criticism, which can be done without causing dissension, etc.

There was a moment in my life where personal disaster had struck. I prayed as hard as I knew how but I did not get the answers I wanted. I even wrote to the first presidency for help when I did not get the answers locally I wished. My bishop called me into his office one day and noted that he had received notice of the letter and the concerns I had raised. He proceeded most kindly to explain the situation to me. I still did not like the answers. I was actually too distraught to listen well, but over a period of time I was able to master my own thoughts and feelings and truly listen to the spirit and realized that the bishop was correct. And that is something that I have tried to remember any time my thoughs go a way that might promote any type of discord or dissension.

And I believe that is what President Hinckley was getting at. To put a lot of time, effort, prayer, meditation, etc. when we have concerns and questions rather than getting on a soapbox and telling the world just how badly general authority x, y, or z is messing up.

Glenn

Good comments.  I think that searching for answers is a process we need to be willing to invest a whole lot of thought and time into, and not expect easy answers.  I also think that it requires a humility that the answers we get may not conform to anything we had considered before, and from a church perspective may not conform to church orthodoxy either.  

As for the proper channels, I think one of the problems the church has today in this modern communication age is it has a very poor communication process between the lay members and the leaders of the institution.  I believe they need to change the structure to modernize communications.  I think some leaders see that the old way of doing things, letters to HQ are intercepted and sent down to local leaders, just isn’t cutting it and is especially unsuccessful with the younger generations, hence the Q&A firesides of late.  Unfortunately those fire sides have staged questions and the leaders answering the questions come across as robotic and out of touch often.  The age of the leaders doesn’t help matters either, and these are all problems that they need to address if they want to be effective in this time.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Sometimes I don't know that I even believe in God anymore, or am not sure what I believe about God, but I still don't feel this lack of concrete believe is an act of unfaithfulness"

If you were to say to your wife "sometimes I don't know that I even believe in our marriage anymore", how would she likely interpret that?

That wouldn’t go over well at all!!  But if I started out a little more gently and provided context and authenticity I’d like to think my wife would respond better in the context of a full and honest discussion if this hypothetical were a true one.  

Huge difference to me.  The kind of God that I might find worthy of praise would not be so easily dismayed by an honest and vulnerable statement like that.  The kind God that might be worthy of loyalty I think would be grateful that someone cares enough to challenge the assumptions they were raised on, to ask probing questions, to look at evidence in spite of cultural shunning, to be willing to follow that evidence when its painful and in contrast to all the biases that were in place in my worldview in the first place.  I think this journey like many other pioneering and difficult journeys in life, should be honored as a journey of courage and value.  In many ways I believe I’m following a Mormon story, but its taking me outside of orthodox Mormonism, yet its so very Mormon at the same time.  Crazy stuff.  

[JAHS]

Jude gave us a part of what it means to be faithful:
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3) 

We should defend the gospel and Church and be willing to stand up for what we know is right. 
But we should contend without being contentious.
As Elder Dahlin H. Oaks said:
"We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious." (October 2014)

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

As for the proper channels, I think one of the problems the church has today in this modern communication age is it has a very poor communication process between the lay members and the leaders of the institution.  I believe they need to change the structure to modernize communications.  I think some leaders see that the old way of doing things, letters to HQ are intercepted and sent down to local leaders, just isn’t cutting it and is especially unsuccessful with the younger generations, hence the Q&A firesides of late.  Unfortunately those fire sides have staged questions and the leaders answering the questions come across as robotic and out of touch often.  The age of the leaders doesn’t help matters either, and these are all problems that they need to address if they want to be effective in this time.

Well, one of the problems is this age of instant communications. The internet is an unorganized, chaotic, inchoate maelstrom of communications and mis-communications. People want answers to questions right now, and they have come to expect answers that they like and can usually find a volume of people that will agree with them. But the church is a huge, monolithic organization and is designed to work mostly on local levels, and when people are willing to work locally first, things usually work pretty well. But there are many who are too impatient with that approach.

The leadership of the church has a gargantuan job on their hands and they are putting a lot of effort into communicating with the millennials, but there is a lot more to the church than that group.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure what reference from the Torah you're talking about.  I was speaking of Matthew 22.  And there it says the second is "like unto it" in the KJV, but I've read some commentaries that a more accurate translation would imbue a sense of saying that the second commandment is equally important to the first.  

I believe balance is necessary because from my vantage point there are some people who obsess over religious things so much they sacrifice their self or sacrifice others in some false sense of serving God.  How can you love God without serving others, this seems to be what Jesus taught, and is part of that balance I spoke of.  The idea of following rules and checklists and enforcing orthodoxy over loving others is how Jesus critiqued the religious leaders of his day and I believe those same critiques are applicable today.  

Jesus was asked what was the most important commandment in the Law/Torah as a “gotcha” question. Both of his two great commandments were quotes from the Torah.

There is a connection between the two of course. With God we are to love completely and trustingly with no reservations. With love of others we are to love them as we love ourselves, a more caveat filled statement.

I admit I am tired of the endless Pharisee comparisons. While the lessons have value and the warnings are of value it seems to have been watered down to the lazy proposition that all religious leaders are modern versions of the Pharisees Jesus criticized by virtue of being religious leaders.

Jesus was unconcerned with some of the expanded ritual the Pharisees took on. I do not see any indication that he thought orthodoxy or the teaching of true doctrine was unimportant. He was scathing on the topic even to his closest allies. The gospel that Jesus taught is not summarized by being nice to people as best you know how and that tenets and doctrines are unimportant despite how badly some want it to be.

[smac97]

On 1/2/2018 at 7:48 PM, hope_for_things said:

Interesting questions, a couple comments.  A spouse, I don’t think its the same thing.  

Well, no.  None of them is "the same thing."  Analogies, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things.

Quote

If my spouse were handling something inappropriately in my mind, something that violated my core values, I could address her directly.  

But you would not, I think, go online, on to social media, and "call her out."  You would not publicly air what you find to be her flaws and mistakes.  You would not invite others to join you in finding fault with her.

Elder Oaks addressed this in his article:

Quote

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.

...

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.)

"Between thee and him alone."  That sounds like the better way to go.

Quote

I have no way of directly addressing an institution in private as large as the LDS church.  

Actually yes, you do.  You can write a letter and submit it to your bishop (or, perhaps, to your stake president).

Quote

So its different that way.  But I have tried to express concerns in written form through proper channels, to date I have received no response or even indication that anyone read my letters.  

I think it would be good for the Church to be better at acknowledging such expressed concerns.  A few examples:

1. Older Singles in the Church

Our ward's bishop recently fielded a concern from an older divorced man in our ward.  This man has a very strong testimony, but he asked that the bishop make some inquiries as to certain policies affecting older singles in the Church.  It so happened that a week or so later the bishop attended a training session with a General Authority (several of them, in fact), which included an extended Q&A session for the bishops.  Our bishop's hand was the first one raised at the start of the Q&A, during which he raised the concerns which had been communicated to him.  This led to a very good exchange between the bishops and the GAs.  Our bishop later had further communications with our stake president.  Our bishop then returned to the brother in our ward and reported the results of what had happened, and also some proposed courses of action which arose from these discussions.  The brother was quite happy that his concerns had been addressed, and that the bishop had "returned and reported," so to speak.

All of this happened without the brother in our ward going on social media and berating or ripping the Church.  He spoke candidly, but privately, with our bishop, and our bishop in turn explored those concerns, such that the brother was fairly satisfied with the treatment of those concerns.

2. Increased Visibility Re: Young Women Serving in the Church

Our bishop also previously expressed a concern/thought to the stake president (again, privately) regarding ways in which young women could be afforded more opportunities to visibly serve in the Church.  A few weeks ago, the Church came out with new guidelines which expanded the opportunities for young women to serve in the temple.  I don't think there was a causal effect here, but I suspect our bishop's thought had been repeated by other bishops, such that the general idea eventually "filtered up" to the upper quorums of the Church.

3. Ancestor Worship/Veneration

Many years ago I served as a missionary in Taiwan.  The local and regional church leaders there ran into a problem in which members of the Church were feeling conflicted between observing the Gospel injunction against "worshipping" anything other than God and their family members' expectations that they (converts to the Church) participate in ancestor worship ("bai bai").  The local and regional church leaders there eventually formulated a policy regarding whether members of the Church in Taiwan could engage in the practice of bai bai (quasi-ritualized worship/veneration of ancestors).  That topic was a point of concern for the Taiwanese Saints, and also a point of confusion given the scriptural prohibitions against worshipping anything or anyone other than God.  So the local and regional church leaders came out with a policy that clarified what members could and could not do.  This happened, as I understand it, following extensive discussions that were conducted privately.  

4. Consumption of Kava

Our ward's bishop was approached a while back by a member of the Church who wanted to know if the Church had a policy regarding the recreational consumption of Kava   The bishop, looking on LDS.org and not seeking much in the way of guidance, conferred with our stake president, who in turn conferred with regional authorities, and then came back with a response.  

All of these things happened mostly or entirely after questions and concerns were aired.  Privately.  No petitions.  No marches.  No public demands.  No protests on Temple Square.  So while we can certainly improve in addressing concerns in the Church, I think we should recognize that the principles summarized by Elder Oaks can and do work, and can and are employed (more often than we may think).

Quote

For my employer, I can’t think of any public stance they’ve taken on any issues that I disagree with.  

Okay.  But if they did, would you feel at liberty to publicly oppose them?  

Quote

Neve been in the millitary, but I can understand the strict nature of that hierarchy, however there are still sometimes whistle blowers for eggregious abuses of authority and morality, and I applaud those courageous enough to stand out in that kind of an environment.  

Yes.  Extreme circumstances can sometimes warrant extreme courses of action.  But in the main . . . 

Quote

I think the closest analology is whether I disagree with anything that other religious institutions do, and would I speak out against those things promoted by other religions that I find to be morally problematic.  I think I would, and I have made comments about things before that I find problematic.  

But you aren't a member of "other religious institutions."  There is no expectation of fealty or devotion to those "other religious institutions."

I think that analogy is much further afield than the ones I have proffered.

Quote

Another example that I think is appropriate is whether people who consider themselves patriotic are willing to speak out against government leaders and policies that they find issue with.  

Elder Oaks addresses this:

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

..

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.)

That sounds about right.

Quote

I say yes, and I do that all the time.  This I think is the best analogy to speaking out about problems with the church of which I’m a member.  

I recommend that you read Elder Oaks' article.  I think he differentiates public criticism of "government or corporate officials" from public criticism of the leaders of the Church.  And he cites quite a few scriptures to substantiate his position.  So I think your analogy is, with respect, one of the least appropriate (in an LDS context, anyway).

Quote

As for a license to speak out against the church, I’m not asking for permission from the church to speak out against it.  

Yes, I've caught that vibe.  And the Church isn't in the business of giving such permission anyway.

Quote

Last time I checked I never signed a non disclosure agreement or anything to that effect.  

You probably did not sign an NDA when you got married, either.  And yet most folks do not feel at liberty to publicly criticize / demean / faultfind / humiliate / find fault with their spouse.

Quote

I believe that honoring my covenants including upholding the kingdom of God, includes criticism of the church when its actions or the actions of its leaders are out of alignment with the ideals of God’s kingdom.

Again, I encourage you to real Elder Oaks' article.  I am not aware of any "covenant" in the Church that "includes {public} criticism of the Church."  In contrast, I am aware of substantial guidance from prophets and apostles that we are not supposed to publicly criticize the Church.

That doesn't mean ignore problems.  Or hide them.  Or evade the obligations of civil law.  Nor does it mean that extraordinary circumstances cannot arise (I am open to that possibility).

At the end of the day, your proposal is a recipe for chaos.  The Church will be criticized for what it does, for what is doesn't do.  The Church will be criticized no matter what it does.  And your proposal is that members of the Church, which institution is described in the scriptures as the Bride of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7–8; 21:2, 9), are obligated by covenant to rise up and publicly speak against the Bride of Christ?

I think we'll have to disagree about that.  I am reminded here of Alma 12:14:

Quote

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

You are not within my stewardship.  I have no authority over you.  I will not presume to tell you want to do.  But I hope you will give some reconsideration to what you have said here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The gospel that Jesus taught is not summarized by being nice to people as best you know how

That is precisely the core of the gospel, nothing else really matters. 

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That is precisely the core of the gospel, nothing else really matters. 

And the normal trap and rationale for discarding the gospel in this way. Because something is important everything else can be safely disregarded as unimportant.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That is precisely the core of the gospel, nothing else really matters. 

Being "nice" is not always the loving thing to do.

[rpn]

Being faithful requires us to be baptized, search for understanding of things of God, practice each principle until you develop a testimony of it that informs your living it, and then do your personal best to live each principle of the Gospel and quickly repent when we make mistakes.  That is all, and that is enough.   In most cases that will lead to other actions and behaviors that are part of the commitment to become like our Heavenly Parents in all things.   But some people who live simply the best lives they can, objectively far short of perfection, are also completely faithful and perfect in Christ. 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think a generally faithful person can still commit a faithless or wicked act, whatever his core moral code may be. Hopefully for him, his moral code aligns with others in his community or even across the globe, and that repentance is part of his moral code!

 

I think Elder Hinckley was referring to the kind of unfaithfulness that seeks to speak against and undermine the Church, and some of the ways this is done that sound like “hard” critique (to borrow your phrase, but actually, "critique" is very, very different from "criticism"; see quote below, taken from "Writing Alone, Writing Together; A Guide for Writers and Writing Groups" by Judy Reeves http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html ):

 

The Difference between Critique and Criticism resource

 

    Criticism finds fault/Critique looks at structure

 

    Criticism looks for what's lacking/Critique finds what's working

 

    Criticism condemns what it doesn't understand/Critique asks for clarification

 

    Criticism is spoken with a cruel wit and sarcastic tongue/Critique's voice is kind, honest, and objective

 

    Criticism is negative/Critique is positive (even about what isn't working)

 

    Criticism is vague and general/Critique is concrete and specific

 

    Criticism has no sense of humor/Critique insists on laughter, too

 

    Criticism looks for flaws in the writer as well as the writing/Critique addresses only what is on the page

 

Criticism and critique are pretty synonymous, actually:

 

cri·tique

noun

a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

 

crit·i·cism

noun

the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.

 

Other definitions for criticism:

 

: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis

 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (such as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

The gospel that Jesus taught is not summarized by being nice to people as best you know how

That is precisely the core of the gospel, nothing else really matters. 

A few scriptures come to mind:

First, Matthew 22:

Quote

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So "Love God a lot, and love your neighbor as thyself."

Second, Mosiah 2:17:

Quote

And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

and Matthew 25:

Quote

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

So there is a clear and strong link between the concepts of loving God and loving one's fellow man.

Finally, Romans 10:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

And Matthew 23:23:

Quote

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

And Matthew 7:

Quote

21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I think we run into serious problems when we pick and choose convenient and personally palatable doctrines to accept and commandments to obey, when we disregard "the other {aspects of the law}," when we instead "establish {our} own righteousness" and decline to "{do} the will of {our} Father which is in heaven."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Criticism and critique are pretty synonymous, actually:

cri·tique

noun

a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

crit·i·cism

noun

the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.

I'm not so sure.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

critique

A critique is a detailed evaluation of something. The formal way to request one is “give me your critique,” though people often say informally “critique this”—meaning “evaluate it thoroughly.” But “critique” as a verb is not synonymous with “criticize” and should not be routinely substituted for it. “Josh critiqued my backhand” means Josh evaluated your tennis technique but not necessarily that he found it lacking. “Josh criticized my backhand” means that he had a low opinion of it.

You can write criticism on a subject, but you don’t criticize on something, you just criticize it.

And here:

Quote

Critique versus Criticize
By Michael Kandel

Claire Kehrwald Cook, in her Line by Line, noted that critique as a verb “has not yet won full acceptance.” That was more than thirty years ago, and nowadays a great many scholarly writers use critique as a verb routinely and without blinking. But Cook also observed, though in passing, that the meaning of critique, “to give a critical examination of,” differs from that of criticize or review (174).

The difference is important. Merriam-Webster defines the noun critique as “a careful judgment in which you give your opinion about the good and bad parts of something (such as a piece of writing or a work of art)” but points out its overlap with criticism:

Quote

Criticism usually means “the act of criticizing” or a “remark or comment that expresses disapproval,” but it can also refer to the activity of making judgments about the qualities of books, movies, etc. (as in “literary criticism”). Critique is a somewhat formal word that typically refers to a careful judgment in which someone gives an opinion about something.

The overlap notwithstanding, here is a reasonable example of why maintaining a distinction matters: On the one hand, “The ballet instructor critiqued the dancer’s pirouette” could mean that the ballet dancer performed an excellent pirouette but that the teacher gave the dancer pointers to make it dazzling. On the other hand, “The reviewer criticized the dancer’s pirouette” means that the reviewer regarded the dancer’s performance unfavorably.

The formal prose required in scholarly writing can make writers hesitant to use simple, down-to-earth words, lest their authority appear questionable. But the preference for critique in academic writing often erases the valuable difference between the two words.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

But you would not, I think, go online, on to social media, and "call her out."  You would not publicly air what you find to be her flaws and mistakes.  You would not invite others to join you in finding fault with her.

Elder Oaks addressed this in his article:

Someone's relationship with an individual is completely different than a relationship to a giant institution.  I don't even see any valid comparisons here.  

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it would be good for the Church to be better at acknowledging such expressed concerns.  A few examples:

1. Older Singles in the Church

Our ward's bishop recently fielded a concern from an older divorced man in our ward.  This man has a very strong testimony, but he asked that the bishop make some inquiries as to certain policies affecting older singles in the Church.  It so happened that a week or so later the bishop attended a training session with a General Authority (several of them, in fact), which included an extended Q&A session for the bishops.  Our bishop's hand was the first one raised at the start of the Q&A, during which he raised the concerns which had been communicated to him.  This led to a very good exchange between the bishops and the GAs.  Our bishop later had further communications with our stake president.  Our bishop then returned to the brother in our ward and reported the results of what had happened, and also some proposed courses of action which arose from these discussions.  The brother was quite happy that his concerns had been addressed, and that the bishop had "returned and reported," so to speak.

All of this happened without the brother in our ward going on social media and berating or ripping the Church.  He spoke candidly, but privately, with our bishop, and our bishop in turn explored those concerns, such that the brother was fairly satisfied with the treatment of those concerns.

2. Increased Visibility Re: Young Women Serving in the Church

Our bishop also previously expressed a concern/thought to the stake president (again, privately) regarding ways in which young women could be afforded more opportunities to visibly serve in the Church.  A few weeks ago, the Church came out with new guidelines which expanded the opportunities for young women to serve in the temple.  I don't think there was a causal effect here, but I suspect our bishop's thought had been repeated by other bishops, such that the general idea eventually "filtered up" to the upper quorums of the Church.

3. Ancestor Worship/Veneration

Many years ago I served as a missionary in Taiwan.  The local and regional church leaders there ran into a problem in which members of the Church were feeling conflicted between observing the Gospel injunction against "worshipping" anything other than God and their family members' expectations that they (converts to the Church) participate in ancestor worship ("bai bai").  The local and regional church leaders there eventually formulated a policy regarding whether members of the Church in Taiwan could engage in the practice of bai bai (quasi-ritualized worship/veneration of ancestors).  That topic was a point of concern for the Taiwanese Saints, and also a point of confusion given the scriptural prohibitions against worshipping anything or anyone other than God.  So the local and regional church leaders came out with a policy that clarified what members could and could not do.  This happened, as I understand it, following extensive discussions that were conducted privately.  

4. Consumption of Kava

Our ward's bishop was approached a while back by a member of the Church who wanted to know if the Church had a policy regarding the recreational consumption of Kava   The bishop, looking on LDS.org and not seeking much in the way of guidance, conferred with our stake president, who in turn conferred with regional authorities, and then came back with a response.  

All of these things happened mostly or entirely after questions and concerns were aired.  Privately.  No petitions.  No marches.  No public demands.  No protests on Temple Square.  So while we can certainly improve in addressing concerns in the Church, I think we should recognize that the principles summarized by Elder Oaks can and do work, and can and are employed (more often than we may think).

These are all great examples of good people making things work in a lay ministered church.  This is emblematic of the Mormon spirit.  What I see happening in these examples is people working together to solve problems and doing so with love for individuals and treating others with care.  This is one of the things I love about Mormons.  

But all of that is in spite of the flaws in the organizational structure.  The organizational flaws can often times be overcome or worked around as demonstrated by the examples you shared, but the flaws remain, and its within the power of church leaders to remedy and improve upon those flaws.  Significant flaws exist that if improved upon would eliminate these kinds of issues from even happening in the first place, and help many other issues that continue to plague Mormons everywhere. 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But if they did, would you feel at liberty to publicly oppose them?  

Speaking out against my employer would be hard to do I imagine, especially since I'm bound by company policies to follow certain rules.  Again, I can't think of any examples where this would even be applicable, but I acknowledge it would be difficult.  I think that since they are paying me for my services I have a certain obligation to promote their interests, and thankfully I've never felt a conflict on any moral or ethical grounds.  

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

But you aren't a member of "other religious institutions."  There is no expectation of fealty or devotion to those "other religious institutions."

I think that analogy is much further afield than the ones I have proffered.

I think the difference here for me is that a member relationship is different than an employee relationship.  Perhaps being a member of another charitable organization would be a better comparison.  Firstly if as a contributing member of a charity I had a problem with any of their policies my easiest recourse could be to curb my contributions or limit my participation.  Secondly contacting the charity and attempting to communicate my concerns internally is something I would try to do in order to remedy the situation.  If those avenues were unsuccessful, I think publicly discussing the concerns and bringing attention to them via whatever platforms a person has is a perfectly legitimate recourse.  

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I recommend that you read Elder Oaks' article.  I think he differentiates public criticism of "government or corporate officials" from public criticism of the leaders of the Church.  And he cites quite a few scriptures to substantiate his position.  So I think your analogy is, with respect, one of the least appropriate (in an LDS context, anyway).

I read the quotes of Oaks you posted here, and I can honestly tell that I'm just not going to agree with him based on the little I've read that you quoted.  No need for me to consider his entire thesis if I already see so much disagreement in these select quotes.  He's trying to make an argument that criticizing church leaders is different than other types of criticism because of revelation?  So equating criticizing a person with criticizing God, trying to make it taboo to even utter a critique.  

Then he throws in that other phrase "evil speaking" which conjures to mind temple covenants and equates people criticizing a policy or idea in the church with someone who speaks evil of others.  Personally I've always viewed evil speaking as ad hominem types of attacks, slanderous statements that have little to no merit made to try and smear an opponent unfairly.  

Lastly, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing for the right to critique something that I already have the right to critique.  I think we can distill this whole conversation down to something rather simple.  I'm critiquing things on a discussion board and you don't think I should for various reasons.  Good enough, now lets move on from this debate about whether you think I should be able to do the very thing I'm already doing.  I'm doing it, end of discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And the normal trap and rationale for discarding the gospel in this way. Because something is important everything else can be safely disregarded as unimportant.

I call that looking beyond the mark.  

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Being "nice" is not always the loving thing to do.

Then perhaps you're not truly being nice.  Still seems simple to me.  Feed my sheep, that is the gospel in a nut shell.  

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not so sure.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, one definition of criticism has to do with negative disapproval. But in scholarly circles it means something more like this:

 

: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis

3 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (such as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Being faithful requires us to be baptized, search for understanding of things of God, practice each principle until you develop a testimony of it that informs your living it, and then do your personal best to live each principle of the Gospel and quickly repent when we make mistakes.  That is all, and that is enough.   In most cases that will lead to other actions and behaviors that are part of the commitment to become like our Heavenly Parents in all things.   But some people who live simply the best lives they can, objectively far short of perfection, are also completely faithful and perfect in Christ. 

I know that this is the typically road map that the church teaches, I taught it as a missionary.  It just doesn't work for me anymore or make any sense to me.  Being faithful is following a checklist of actions?  This doesn't seem like faithfulness to me.  It seems very robotic.  It doesn't seem like this is actually faithfulness or loyalty. 

Thought experiment.  Think about what you would want out of your very best friend in the world.  What exactly you would require of them to be faithful to you.  Would it be a list of performances?   Would it be following certain principles that you've articulated?  What would it be that you would want of that person to consider them faithful to you?   

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we run into serious problems when we pick and choose convenient and personally palatable doctrines to accept and commandments to obey, when we disregard "the other {aspects of the law}," when we instead "establish {our} own righteousness" and decline to "{do} the will of {our} Father which is in heaven."

I agree that loving God, man and self are all part of this commandment and these items need to be balanced together.  I was making that point to another person earlier as well.  I think it call harmonizes if you balance these things properly.  

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Someone's relationship with an individual is completely different than a relationship to a giant institution.  I don't even see any valid comparisons here.  

Okay.  I think there are some overlapping elements, but also some real differences.  I acknowledge that.

Quote

These are all great examples of good people making things work in a lay ministered church.  This is emblematic of the Mormon spirit.  What I see happening in these examples is people working together to solve problems and doing so with love for individuals and treating others with care.  This is one of the things I love about Mormons.  

But all of that is in spite of the flaws in the organizational structure. 

Nope.  All of these things happened pretty much within the organizational structure.

Quote

The organizational flaws can often times be overcome or worked around as demonstrated by the examples you shared, but the flaws remain, and its within the power of church leaders to remedy and improve upon those flaws.

I think the organization of the Church works well a lot of the time.  It clearly has room for improvement, but circumventing it is not the way.

Quote

Significant flaws exist that if improved upon would eliminate these kinds of issues from even happening in the first place, and help many other issues that continue to plague Mormons everywhere. 

What "flaws" do you have in mind?  What improvements?

Quote

Speaking out against my employer would be hard to do I imagine, especially since I'm bound by company policies to follow certain rules. 

Actually, it wouldn't be "hard to do" at all.  Publicly speaking out against your employer would be easy.  You are just unwilling to do it.  I understand that.  I don't fault you at all.  It's rational self-interest at work.  You have a mutually beneficial relationship with your employer.  You work for your employer, and your employer pays you.  Publicly speaking against your employer could damage or destroy that relationship.

Similarly, an individual's role in the "Body of Christ" (see 1 Cor. 12) is mutually beneficial.  The hand should not work against the foot, or the eye against the ear.  But that is what you are proposing.

It is interesting that you cite "company policies" which "bind" you to "follow certain rules," and hence you do not speak against your employer.  And yet there are also doctrines in the Church which "bind" us to "follow certain rules," and yet you feel at liberty to ignore them.  I don't see the difference.  Why do you bind yourself to your employer's policies but not your religion's teachings?

Quote

Again, I can't think of any examples where this would even be applicable, but I acknowledge it would be difficult. 

It wouldn't be "difficult" for you to publicly oppose your employer.  You simply choose to abstain from that conduct.  Out of self-interest.  

Quote

I think that since they are paying me for my services I have a certain obligation to promote their interests, and thankfully I've never felt a conflict on any moral or ethical grounds.

So to be clear: You have a greater sense of devotion to your employer than you do to the church?

You are willing to abide by "certain obligation{s}" as to your employer, but not to your church?

Quote

I think the difference here for me is that a member relationship is different than an employee relationship. 

Clearly.  You value your employer/employee relationship more than you value your member/church relationship.

You have more respect for and allegiance to your employer than you do for the LDS Church.

I am open to correction on these points.

Quote

Perhaps being a member of another charitable organization would be a better comparison. 

Not really.  "Being a member of another charitable organization" does not involve the receipt of sacred covenants.

Other charitable organizations do not claim to have leaders called by God.

Other charitable organizations do not have members who regularly promise to sustain those leaders.

And on and on.  Lots of differences here.

Quote

Firstly if as a contributing member of a charity I had a problem with any of their policies my easiest recourse could be to curb my contributions or limit my participation. 

You could do the same thing with your employer.  And yet you privilege and elevate your allegiance and devotion to your employer.  

Quote

Secondly contacting the charity and attempting to communicate my concerns internally is something I would try to do in order to remedy the situation. 

You could do the same thing with your employer.  You could do the same thing in the Church.

Quote

If those avenues were unsuccessful, I think publicly discussing the concerns and bringing attention to them via whatever platforms a person has is a perfectly legitimate recourse.  

I quite agree.  You have no covenant relationship with that organization. 

You do not sustain the leaders of that organization as divinely-called prophets, seers and revelators.

And on and on and on.

You could also "publicly" oppose your employer.  And yet . . . you don't.  Because of self-interest.  Because you value your employment and your income more than . . . other things.

Quote

I read the quotes of Oaks you posted here, and I can honestly tell that I'm just not going to agree with him based on the little I've read that you quoted. 

Yes, I have sensed that.  I have also sensed that, despite my linking to the article repeatedly, you have not read it.

Quote

No need for me to consider his entire thesis if I already see so much disagreement in these select quotes. 

No need, huh?  Not with fifteen minutes of your time?

Elder Oaks is an apostle of Jesus Christ.  If he were your employer, and if he in that capacity told you to read and abide by a set of policies, I think you'd do it.  And that would be a perfectly sensible and appropriate thing to do.  Unfortunately, you do not seem to value Elder Oaks as an apostle of Jesus Christ.  

Quote

He's trying to make an argument that criticizing church leaders is different than other types of criticism because of revelation? 

No need to ask me.  Just read the article.

Quote

So equating criticizing a person with criticizing God, trying to make it taboo to even utter a critique.  

No need to speculate or mischaracterize.  Just read the article.

Quote

Then he throws in that other phrase "evil speaking" which conjures to mind temple covenants and equates people criticizing a policy or idea in the church with someone who speaks evil of others.  Personally I've always viewed evil speaking as ad hominem types of attacks, slanderous statements that have little to no merit made to try and smear an opponent unfairly.

Oh, the irony.  You are criticizing an article you refuse to read.

Quote

Lastly, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing for the right to critique something that I already have the right to critique. 

I do not dispute that you have this right.  It's not about whether we can critique the Church, but how we should do it.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this at some length.  I encourage you to read the article.

Quote

I think we can distill this whole conversation down to something rather simple. 

We can also read and consider Elder Oaks' article.  He is an apostle, after all.

Quote

I'm critiquing things on a discussion board and you don't think I should for various reasons. 

Nope.  You are not getting it.  

Again, I encourage you to read Elder Oaks' article.

Quote

Good enough, now lets move on from this debate about whether you think I should be able to do the very thing I'm already doing.  I'm doing it, end of discussion.  

As I said previously, you are not within my stewardship.  I have no authority over you.  I will not presume to tell you want to do.  But I hope you will give some reconsideration to what you have said here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

Criticism and critique are pretty synonymous, actually:

 

cri·tique

noun

a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

 

crit·i·cism

noun

the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.

 

Other definitions for criticism:

 

: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis

 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (such as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

 

Yes, they often are, but as you can see, some do distinguish between them as well as treat them the same -- and subjectively so in both instances, as you observed by your use of "pretty... actually". I'll refer you to the subsequent posts about that.

A key difference I see in the two main definitions you offered from your source: assessment versus judgement* and the focus on "merits and faults" when criticizing, suggesting a comparatively more objective set of standards to attain the level of detail required when critiquing. You didn't provide "other definitions" for critique, which might reflect the flavor for criticism. This is why the subsequent posts addressed the subjective nature of most interpersonal communication over the subject of religion, and what works best, whatever one calls it.

* My online thesaurus has judgement listed as a synonym for assessment, but not the other way around. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/judgment . In the definitions I looked up, judgement emphasizes decisions and conclusions, while assessment emphasizes the process of evaluation. Of course that distinction can always go back to the same kind of dynamic we see between criticism and critique. But it might end up a bit more off-putting to others when someone favors criticizing and judging over critiquing and assessing -- depends entirely on how he comes across (tone and approach)! I think taking a council approach helps smooth these differences and brings people together better.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by CV75