- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
IN setting boundaries, we often find outselves acting or believing in ways that are contrary to established policies or cultural norms. Often, leaders will give a blanket statement like “this makes sense of the surface SD, but the problem is, the way we do things is divinely revealed — it’s not our place to disagree with God”.
How might you respond to this statement in a way that is kind, but assertive? I’m not quoting a specific issue to which the parties in such a convo might be responding — the response above from average believers is something I’ve heard many different times, and is general. So, I think it can be handled with a general answer…
Thoughts?
Hey SD, I would respond with a something along the lines of, “You’re right, it isn’t our place to disagree with God. But, it is our place to determine whether or not the teachings we’re given actually come from God, and not from man. Even Brigham Young said that people shouldn’t have so much confidence in their leaders that they fail to inquire of God for themselves.”
This focuses the conversation on Gospel doctrines that come from God, and eliminates a lot of those cultural norms that we’ve been talking about in other threads (beards, white shirts, taking the sacrament with the right hand, etc.). I think even the most TBM members would have a hard time arguing that when a prophet speaks, you should go to God and ask about it to gain your own testimony. Our church emphasizes building a personal relationship with God, and some people confuse disagreeing with prophets with disagreeing with God. I wouldn’t say this to a TBM member, but I can disagree with the prophet about how many ear piercings is appropriate, without disagreeing with God. It simply means that I believe that statement came from the man, and not from God.
I think I was going to say almost word for word with what Holy Cow said. You could also indicate that it’s not wise to assume that all things are inspired. That the CHI isn’t inspired — it’s “the best understanding of leaders at the time” as Bednar, I think said in WW Training a while ago. Distinguish between policy and doctrine when objecting to policy. It would be nice to have an arsenal of policies that changed over time due to not being a good idea. I would LOVE to quote the priesthood disavowal essay but that would be too much
You could respond with voodoo dolls. Smile, say, “I respect that,” and walk away. Quote:SD wrote: “Often, leaders will give a blanket statement like “this makes sense on the surface SD, but the problem is, the way we do things is divinely revealed — it’s not our place to disagree with God”.
We have all dealt with the person who when disagreed with, pulls out 1 of about 12 quotes from GA’s and offers up the quote as a way to shut down the conversation. Too often, they are not really listening to what you are saying, they are looking for a way to establish dominance.
For me, when I can make myself really listen to them, truly hear what they are trying to say, and try to not react to their displays of dominance, it makes it easier to see the person behind their bluster. Once I can recognize that they are in a poor pattern for human connectivity, it makes it easier for me to not overreact.
That’s on a good day.
On a bad day, you could probably hear me muttering a$$_____ repeatedly as I walked away.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.