The Nehor wrote:They are accountable to God. How he chooses to hold them accountable is his business. I can't be bothered.
Criticism of leaders does not imply that the leaders are always right. It is an understanding that it is not your duty to correct it.
I think some see authoritarianism where there is little or none. How much influence and power does the Bishop have over my life? Not a lot. Stake President and up the chain? Ditto.
There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church. I am commanded not to criticize my Church Leaders and God has reiterated that command to me directly. I have no right to make it difficult for them to do their job by demeaning either their office or them.
GBH, or one of the Bretheren, has come out and said something along the lines of "there is no such thing as loyal opposition." If somebody is up to it, they can double check this.
It is comments like this by Nehor that lead to critics to refer to believers as "sheep."
What is it about believers that make them want to submit to unaccountable authoritarians? I just don't get it.
Nehor, how are you different from the followers of Heaven's Gate?
As a purely hypothetical exercise, to what lengths are you prepared to go to withhold criticism from Mormon authority figures? What would they have to do to get you to criticize them and demand some kind of earthly accountbility?
Last edited by Guest on Mon May 07, 2007 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote:GBH, or one of the Bretheren, has come out and said something along the lines of "there is no such thing as loyal opposition." If somebody is up to it, they can double check this.
It is comments like this by Nehor that lead to critics to refer to believers as "sheep."
What is it about believers that make them want to submit to unaccountable authoritarians? I just don't get it.
Yep, I believe that was Faust who said that, but I'd have to check. The statement points out the lack of checks and balances in the LDS hierarchy, to steal a constitutional phrase. In the English parliament, the loyal opposition serves the role of check and balance against the majority party. In Mormonism, to question a decision is considered treason. It is a very authoritarian system, and authoritarianism is often comforting to those who fear a chaotic world.
The Nehor wrote:They are accountable to God. How he chooses to hold them accountable is his business. I can't be bothered.
Criticism of leaders does not imply that the leaders are always right. It is an understanding that it is not your duty to correct it.
I think some see authoritarianism where there is little or none. How much influence and power does the Bishop have over my life? Not a lot. Stake President and up the chain? Ditto.
There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church. I am commanded not to criticize my Church Leaders and God has reiterated that command to me directly. I have no right to make it difficult for them to do their job by demeaning either their office or them.
Sorry, Nehor, it seems that Pres. Faust disagrees with you:
In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27).
Mister Scratch wrote:Sorry, Nehor, it seems that Pres. Faust disagrees with you:
In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27).
The Nehor wrote:There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church.
The Nehor wrote:They are accountable to God. How he chooses to hold them accountable is his business. I can't be bothered.
Criticism of leaders does not imply that the leaders are always right. It is an understanding that it is not your duty to correct it.
I think some see authoritarianism where there is little or none. How much influence and power does the Bishop have over my life? Not a lot. Stake President and up the chain? Ditto.
There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church. I am commanded not to criticize my Church Leaders and God has reiterated that command to me directly. I have no right to make it difficult for them to do their job by demeaning either their office or them.
GBH, or one of the Bretheren, has come out and said something along the lines of "there is no such thing as loyal opposition." If somebody is up to it, they can double check this.
It is comments like this by Nehor that lead to critics to refer to believers as "sheep."
What is it about believers that make them want to submit to unaccountable authoritarians? I just don't get it.
Nehor, how are you different from the followers of Heaven's Gate?
As a purely hypothetical exercise, to what lengths are you prepared to go to withhold criticism from Mormon authority figures? What would they have to do to get you to criticize them and demand some kind of earthly accountbility?
Hypothetically if the demands of my leaders started seriously conflicting with my conscience I'd hold a long consultation with God about the matter. If prayer did not change my mind I would speak with the leader privately on the matter. If there was still no reconciliation I would quietly not follow them (going less-active if necessary). To get earthly accountability they would have to break the law in some way. If the Bishop raped my sister or the Stake President stole my car I would demand earthly accountability.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Mister Scratch wrote:Sorry, Nehor, it seems that Pres. Faust disagrees with you:
In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27).
(Ensign, Nov. 1993. emphasis added)
I said that 'loyal opposition' was the wrong method to use in the Church. I think my post was misunderstood.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church.
Which section was this book listed under?
It was written by a Joseph McKonkie I believe. I don't own the book and haven't seen it for about 8 years so I can't be more specific. Sorry.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:They are accountable to God. How he chooses to hold them accountable is his business. I can't be bothered.
Criticism of leaders does not imply that the leaders are always right. It is an understanding that it is not your duty to correct it.
I think some see authoritarianism where there is little or none. How much influence and power does the Bishop have over my life? Not a lot. Stake President and up the chain? Ditto.
There was a book written some time ago where the author wondered whether disagreeing with the GA's of the Church was apostasy. He asked a friend of his (an Apostle) if an honest disagreement with them was apostasy. He took it to the 12 and they discussed and said that no, it was not as long as it was not in the form of a 'loyal opposition' or factioning the Church. I am commanded not to criticize my Church Leaders and God has reiterated that command to me directly. I have no right to make it difficult for them to do their job by demeaning either their office or them.
GBH, or one of the Bretheren, has come out and said something along the lines of "there is no such thing as loyal opposition." If somebody is up to it, they can double check this.
It is comments like this by Nehor that lead to critics to refer to believers as "sheep."
What is it about believers that make them want to submit to unaccountable authoritarians? I just don't get it.
Nehor, how are you different from the followers of Heaven's Gate?
As a purely hypothetical exercise, to what lengths are you prepared to go to withhold criticism from Mormon authority figures? What would they have to do to get you to criticize them and demand some kind of earthly accountbility?
Hypothetically if the demands of my leaders started seriously conflicting with my conscience I'd hold a long consultation with God about the matter. If prayer did not change my mind I would speak with the leader privately on the matter. If there was still no reconciliation I would quietly not follow them (going less-active if necessary). To get earthly accountability they would have to break the law in some way. If the Bishop raped my sister or the Stake President stole my car I would demand earthly accountability.
Does mass murder (MMM) and/or covering up mass murder count as breaking the law?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."