- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
GBSmith wrote:
I thought this was interesting from the SLTrib piece.
Quote:Braegger — a descendant of Mormon pioneers who reported contributing more than $250,000 in tithes and offerings in his decades in the church — said he filled a Mormon mission, has served in LDS bishoprics and a stake high council, and worked in the temple.
He said he began losing faith in Mormon leaders a year ago after reading essays that the church posted on its website to answer thorny doctrinal or historical issues.
Braegger said he had always been diligent about avoiding “anti-Mormon” rantings, but when he read these articles, he found himself “quickly realizing that I and all members of the LDS Church have been lied to for decades regarding some pivotal claims of our church and its leadership.”
Some people are just not ready for the essays on LDS.org and are blindsided when they read them. I wonder why some people go down the “I’ve been lied to” path and others the “that’s interesting” route and try and sort it out without doing the bathwater thing.
I think there’s really only three things that happen in the situation, GBS. We either do the “I’ve been lied to” or we shelf it or for some unknown reason we just don’t care. And I think the reaction can be different for different aspects. I’ve done the “I’ve been lied to” with doctrinal issues, but not historical issues. Nevertheless, I don’t put the historical issues on a shelf, either – I don’t know why, but I just don’t care.
I agree with you that some people probably aren’t ready for them, yet I think they need to be there and ready or not I think people need to know at least the gist of them if only so they don’t perpetuate the lies. (Please note that I am using the word “lie” very loosely, in general I don’t think people are purposely lying.)
From my post: Quote:Mormons are sometimes too quick to assume any dissent is “anti-Mormon,” that we must always be quiet and non-confrontational. And yet, the voting process asks if there are any opposed for a reason. For example, a stake member may have information about the worthiness of someone who is being sustained to a stake calling. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Quote:“Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action. This process provides for direction of the Church by revelation, while protecting the agency of the members to verify in their own minds whether decisions have been proper and made according to the will of God.”
Protecting the agency of church members to agree or disagree with the direction of the church is fundamental to this process, and shouldn’t be viewed as a threat to the body of the church any more than free speech is a threat to the country. The two caveats E. Cook gives in his talk are: 1) that each of us seeks personal revelation in the process, and 2) that we are seeking to implement Christ’s teachings and gospel according to our best understanding.Mostly I think casting a dissenting vote is kind of silly, but I’m glad people have that right. If they didn’t have the right, why ask “any opposed?” Like Ray, I think it’s important we take the time to really see if there are any courageous dissenters. We shouldn’t shout down critics.
hawkgrrrl wrote:We shouldn’t shout down critics.
Are you suggesting we be Christ-like?:wtf: That’s crazy talk!
LookingHard wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:We shouldn’t shout down critics.
Are you suggesting we be Christ-like?:wtf: That’s crazy talk!I think it depends what the critic says.
I cant imagine the time where I would actually cast a dissenting vote. Mostly because I think those people are doing the best they can with what they have for the most part. I have much more issues and problems with the organization, the corporation, the church itself, not necessarily the local leaders who are trying to keep the boat afloat. The best i can do to show my dissent is stop financing the institution i think.
Most of the time at stake level I’m asked to sustain people I’ve never heard of before! Even at ward level – we get a lot of transients especially students and Americans. They’ll say so and so called to such and such and I’m like “who?”
I think it would have to be severe for me to vote against i.e. criminal activities of various natures.
I have had to oppose a calling once, but at the time I just couldnt do it publicly. I just thought it was unnecessary. It was only ward level though, so it just made more sense to do it privately with the bishop and then our stake president came the next week to hear my concerns. The person I opposed was then removed from their calling a few weeks later to try and make it less obvious. It was a criminal thing though, so I felt very strongly I had to bring it to the attention of the bishop. I don’t even know if a dissenting vote on the top levels would even mean anything, so I guess what is the point?? I understand their need to voice it, but it really wont get seriously heard. Once it is prophet level, its out of our hands. Right?? I don’t believe the members could do anything about it. I definitely wouldnt say anything, I know I would just look crazy to all the TBM’s there and made fun of later
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.