Posts
On August 2nd in the Mormon Times they reprinted a talk given by Dallin Oaks in 1985 and added some of his reflections on it being as relevant today as it was then. There were several good points in the talk, but one paragraph was a little unsettling for me. What do you think?
***Elder Oaks' 1985 talk also contained the caution that "criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local. " "Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."***
Like a waterfall in slow motion, Part One
2 years ago
7 comments:
I have to say I don't agree. If they are doing something wrong - you aren't allowed to tell them?? There was a time not long ago that I was really trying to be active. I was asked to fill in for a sunday school teacher for 14/15 yr olds. It was on the WOW and one boy asked why it made. I gave the lessons answer, they wanted to know why it was ok up until that point. I said I didn't know. I told them in my personal opinion which was not the church's I thought it wasn't wrong until it became a problem. Emma complained, Joseph prayed so God said fine - don't do it anymore. Much like a parent who has kids fighting over a toy just takes it away since they can't play nice. Well that boy's mother was the relief society president. She asked me not to come back since I was not fit to teach or be around the youth and I was no longer welcome in the ward. What?????? And I am not allowed to criticze her for that??
Fine. Don't criticize them as religious leaders, but as corporate leaders. Because that's what they are. All 15 of the 12/1st Pres. are on the board of several corporations. In several foreign countries (like Brazil, for instance) the LDS church is not recognized as a church due to some obscure law. Instead it is the Corporation of the CoJCoLDS! Of course, you could always just bow your head and say "yes".
Come on..........there's a big difference between criticizing and correcting. Correcting is proper and encouraged. Criticizm usually has negativity attached with it and is simply pointing out faults to boost your ego. You're making 'a mountain out of a mole hill'. His comments are 100% correct.
I agree about criticism vs. correction.
I notice lately a trend among certain members to be awfully critical of many of our authorities and many of our policies, teachings, etc. It's disturbing to me. I just don't believe that one can raise his/her hand to sustain the leaders and accept that those leaders were divinely appointed, and then go on these verbal rampages and inappropriate rants. Either you believe the church is true, or you don't. Either you sustain your leaders, or you don't. It really can't be both ways...at least not ultimately...
I agree with the criticism vs. correction comment. I think the criticism referred to in the talk means gossiping or negatively speaking about people who are hopefully doing their best. I think part of sustaining our leaders is accepting their humanity, imperfections, and hopefully helping them serve their callings to the best of their abilities.
this is a fine line I struggle with on a weekly basis. I do respect my leaders but, ultimately I should be allowed theat same respect... and that respect allows me to state my oppinion. Just because a calling is in place doesn't make me (or anyone else) 'untouchable'.
I agree. I think it's about mutual respect.
Post a Comment