NOM

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:31 am 1) The actions and words of the apostles are the actions of God by definition. They have so fully given themselves over to the spirit, that God moves them in ways that not even they understand. To therefore criticize them is to blaspheme against God.
2) The words of an apostle automatically obtain the status and weight of scripture, and cannot be questioned.
4) Any mistakes made by an apostle are only apparent mistakes because they are all apart of a grand plan that God is orchestrating. To criticize a supposed mistake is the same as misleading them and drawing them away from God.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:28 am His logic creates some real problems though, with the notion that much of what is said by an apostle is opinion and not doctrine. Because with his hard-line approach its pretty simple to find contradictions, and then does God contradict himself?

Jeffret wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:55 am Keep in mind that in the FP press conference, Oaks contradicted Bednar. He didn't criticize Bednar directly of course, but he did state that only when the words are affirmed by council, by all of the apostles, are they actually the word and actions of god and obtain the status and weight of scripture.

I'm sure though that this isn't a real contradiction. It's clear that Bednar's approach is generally favored by the apostles, including Oaks. It's only when there is something clearly wrong, or that the Church wants to disavow or hide, that they revert to the claim that the only authority is in councils.

Noam Chomsky wrote:“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:33 am I think the better model of understanding doctrine and policy disagreements among church leaders is best expressed by Noam Chomsky:

Noam Chomsky wrote:“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

Lot's of topics within the church allow some level of debate. A few do not. Knowing the difference will keep your religious social standing intact.

Lot's of topics within the church allow some level of debate. A few do not. Knowing the difference will keep your religious social standing intact.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:31 am I see a clear difference here. Oaks is approaching this from a very practical and administrative position. Bednar, on the other hand, is taking the approach that the apostleship itself is holy and beyond question or reproach. Of these two, I find Bednar's opinion magnitudes more disturbing that Oaks' and I wonder whether that same belief is held by others in the quorum.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:28 amYikes, it scares the schnit out of me, that Bednar may one day be the top dog.

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:34 am Does this explain why Dieter is out and Oaks is in? Because Dieter called out leaders of the past for making mistakes because they did not have further light and knowledge? Once again, they want to have it both ways: Give leaders a break, because they are just men and sometimes talk like just men, but they should never be questioned or criticized because they are being directed by God in his grand scheme. For me an my house, we threw down the bull$hit card on all of them!

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:31 am The thread about Oak's belief that church leaders should never be criticized even if the criticism is true got me thinking about a few things I've heard David Bednar say on the subject.

Oaks lays out the following reasons for why criticism isn't acceptable (Feb. 1987 Ensign - Criticism):
1) Constructive criticism is reserved for issues, not people, and can only be guided by revelation. The spirit will never guide someone to criticize a church leader, therefore constructive criticism where church leaders are involved is impossible.
2) Criticism, of this bad sort, is fault finding and this leads to contention. Contention is of the devil and therefore imperils our "spiritual well-being".
3) Truth is a tool that is meant to be used for building up the church. To use truth in a way that tears down the church is an inappropriate or wrong use of the tool.
4) The job of a church leader is to criticize those beneath them, or call them to repentance, and criticizing leaders impedes their ability to perform this function.
5) Criticism of church leaders is unnecessary because the church is not a democracy, and the authority of its leaders are constrained by the hierarchy.

I'd like to contrast these reasons with what I've heard from David Bednar. I apologize for not having a source handy because I heard him speak these things from the pulpit at the local level. It's possible he's said similar things elsewhere that are recorded.

Bednar has laid out these reasons for why criticism isn't accetable:
1) The actions and words of the apostles are the actions of God by definition. They have so fully given themselves over to the spirit, that God moves them in ways that not even they understand. To therefore criticize them is to blaspheme against God.
2) The words of an apostle automatically obtain the status and weight of scripture, and cannot be questioned.
4) Any mistakes made by an apostle are only apparent mistakes because they are all apart of a grand plan that God is orchestrating. To criticize a supposed mistake is the same as misleading them and drawing them away from God.

I see a clear difference here. Oaks is approaching this from a very practical and administrative position. Bednar, on the other hand, is taking the approach that the apostleship itself is holy and beyond question or reproach. Of these two, I find Bednar's opinion magnitudes more disturbing that Oaks' and I wonder whether that same belief is held by others in the quorum.

felixfabulous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:33 am One of the central messages of Jesus was that he disrupted the status quo, both as a critic of Judaism and challenging the authority of the Roman empire. His message was so outrageous that he was put to death for it. We often portray Jesus as the obedient son who was the one person who got a 100% on the test and did the atonement for extra credit. If you actually read the New Testament he was not a fan of the state of the Church, was critical of the obedience culture and said things that shocked everyone. When people tried to praise him, he said "Why do you call me good?" and directed them toward God. I think our leaders would have more credibility but probably less control if they followed that example and let people evaluate their teachings on their merits, not only appealing to their authority. Can you imagine if the brethren sincerely said things like "don't focus on me, I'm just the messenger, don't praise me, praise God!" Sadly, all we seem to hear is "trust us," "do what we say," and then "we're only human, please disregard any perceived shortcomings."