Tweet
I just read through this article from our favorite blog Mormon Women Stand. Couple interesting paragraphs:
Pretty much all of us are going to hell.
Again, we are all going to hell.
Thankfully the author is female and therefore has no right to receive revelation for me. That has to come through my stake president and/or someone else up that chain (of which chain there are no women).
On a serious note, I wonder at what point would I no longer sustain the prophet. I'm already for equal rights in marriage, however Pres. Monson himself has made it clear that political differences in that realm are fine. I think two earrings in one ear is fine and thus mock (in a way) GBH for pulling that commandment over us. If the prophet came ot me and told me to take another wife I'm pretty sure I'd tell him no.
At what point would you no longer sustain the prophet?
With this negative “whispering campaign”, the adversary sets out to gradually—but purposefully—sow seeds of doubt or criticism about individual members of The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He might:
- Offer convincing, subtle alternatives such as groups, symposiums or blogs so that members’ attention is diverted to them instead of the words of living prophets;
- Encourage members of the church to begin to view prophets and apostles as fairly regular, kind, older gentlemen whose words are nice-—but not always up to speed with social trends. Get them to pick and choose what to follow from their words.
- Point the potential for fallibility. Suggest an “old-age release” or the possibility that newer or younger Church leaders might bring in more liberal ideologies. Hope that as a result, LDS doctrine will evolve to be more in sync with current social trends;
- Suggest that there are power struggles, discord, and unity issues among the Brethren;
- Finally, weaken the messenger so that the message becomes weak (or at least taken with a grain of salt) and thus lessen the authority and divinity of the calling of the holy apostleship.
- Offer convincing, subtle alternatives such as groups, symposiums or blogs so that members’ attention is diverted to them instead of the words of living prophets;
- Encourage members of the church to begin to view prophets and apostles as fairly regular, kind, older gentlemen whose words are nice-—but not always up to speed with social trends. Get them to pick and choose what to follow from their words.
- Point the potential for fallibility. Suggest an “old-age release” or the possibility that newer or younger Church leaders might bring in more liberal ideologies. Hope that as a result, LDS doctrine will evolve to be more in sync with current social trends;
- Suggest that there are power struggles, discord, and unity issues among the Brethren;
- Finally, weaken the messenger so that the message becomes weak (or at least taken with a grain of salt) and thus lessen the authority and divinity of the calling of the holy apostleship.
Is it wrong to speak ill or critically of church leaders or of a talk they give in General Conference? Yes. How serious is speaking and writing against the leaders of the Church? Very serious. Recognizing what we know about the roles of prophets and apostles (and who they represent), criticizing these special witnesses of Jesus Christ is ultimately a matter of undermining the Savior. Consider what Elder Dallin H. Oaks said about this:
I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:
Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) 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. … When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and His cause.[xiii]
I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:
Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) 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. … When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and His cause.[xiii]
Thankfully the author is female and therefore has no right to receive revelation for me. That has to come through my stake president and/or someone else up that chain (of which chain there are no women).
On a serious note, I wonder at what point would I no longer sustain the prophet. I'm already for equal rights in marriage, however Pres. Monson himself has made it clear that political differences in that realm are fine. I think two earrings in one ear is fine and thus mock (in a way) GBH for pulling that commandment over us. If the prophet came ot me and told me to take another wife I'm pretty sure I'd tell him no.
At what point would you no longer sustain the prophet?
Comment