- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
dande48, “shady” carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest. Old Timer wrote:
dande48, “shady” carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest.
In spite of my own issues over the years with the church, I’ve never believed the church leaders to be dishonest or shady. Although nothing surprises me anymore, we haven’t had high profile financial scandals as in other “churches” that are there for the personal benefit of their leaders. Further, I believe the leaders at the top of our church are fundamentally good people.
At the same time, their faith can lead them to believe things that cause a certain arrogant approach toward policy. I believe confidence in the one true church concept can blind leaders and members alike to obvious warts in our religion that the original policy-maker couldn’t see — either due to personal weakness or the prevailing culture at the time.
So, at least they are changing stuff for the better.
I do think arrogant is more apt than shady, but I get where dande48 is coming from. Psychologically, though, it is incredibly hard for anyone to truly internalize the feeling of being wrong because once we know we were wrong, we are “right” about having been wrong in the past. We never know what it feels like to BE wrong. hawkgrrrl wrote:
I do think arrogant is more apt than shady, but I get where dande48 is coming from. Psychologically, though, it is incredibly hard for anyone to truly internalize the feeling of being wrong because once we know we were wrong, we are “right” about having been wrong in the past. We never know what it feels like to BE wrong.Wise words from a female superhero.
Old Timer wrote:
dande48, “shady” carries an obvious connotation of dishonesty. That is my only objection to using it in a case like this. I truly believe the leadership is not being dishonest.
A doctor who misdiagnoses or mistreats usually isn’t being “dishonest” either. I strongly believe the prophets and Church leaders are being honest and have the best of intentions when presenting “revelation”. If there are mistakes, they are honest mistakes. But when it’s brought to light, that what you said under authority was false, and you seek to “cover it up”, that is what I call both “dishonest” and “shady”.
D&C 121:37 wrote:
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; butwhen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. dande48 wrote:
A doctor who misdiagnoses or mistreats usually isn’t being “dishonest” either. I strongly believe the prophets and Church leaders are being honest and have the best of intentions when presenting “revelation”. If there are mistakes, they are honest mistakes. But when it’s brought to light, that what you said under authority was false, and you seek to “cover it up”, that is what I call both “dishonest” and “shady”.
Except that they do so in their role as defenders of the faith. Are defense lawyers “shady” in their presentation of a plausible alternate narrative in defense of their client? Are PR people shady in how they seek to “spin” events? Because of the negative connotations associated with the term “shady” – let’s agree to use less pejorative terms and let the matter drop.
Roy wrote:
2) I believe that top leadership also understands that they are playing a role as defenders of the faith. I assume that they are not to discuss details of whether or not they have seen Jesus lest they weaken the faith of those that feel such is a requirement for the office. I understand that once a decision is made it is the duty of each member of the quorum to present a united front. I understand that the Q15 are not to keep journals lest they later shed too much light on the inner workings.
I think we can all agree that the church leadership has been operating from a different mindset then perhaps a “warts and all” historian would use. They operate more like lawyers, PR people, or CEOs. That is reasonable and understandable without questioning their moral compass.Roy wrote:
I think we can all agree that the church leadership has been operating from a different mindset then perhaps a “warts and all” historian would use. They operate more like lawyers, PR people, or CEOs. That is reasonable and understandable without questioning their moral compass.
I question the moral compass of most all lawyers, PR, and CEOs.
😆 I don’t trust them either. I guess part of me hoped the “True and Living Church” would be better than that.dande48 wrote:
Roy wrote:
I think we can all agree that the church leadership has been operating from a different mindset then perhaps a “warts and all” historian would use. They operate more like lawyers, PR people, or CEOs. That is reasonable and understandable without questioning their moral compass.
I question the moral compass of most all lawyers, PR, and CEOs.
😆 I don’t trust them either.I guess part of me hoped the “True and Living Church” would be better than that.
Exactly my issue. It was really hard to be treated by the church the same way impersonal, temporally-driven organizations treat their members and employees. You hear about miracles, heavenly visitions, high ideals, big promises in the eternities, only to find the same kind of CYA and organizationally egocentric behavior you see in non-divine organizations.
I have since decided they are just like any other temporal organization and expect far less. But in return, they get less from me. It seems fair and is conducive to inner peace.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.