Is any of you active LDS

[Archaea]

uncomfortable being in public disagreement with Church leadership.

Let me give a for instance.

The priesthood ban never made sense to me, but in public I just kept my mouth shut. Now that a change has been made, I feel it is not inappropriate to critisize the past mistake.

There are many here who critisize the Church leadership for the FMA, while it is still policy. And let's cut the bull about the Church not directing which way it wanted people to voice their opinions.

I can see how privately persons can believe one thing or another. Critisizing the Church leadership for doing something, "when other things are more pressing," actually seems very lame. What other family related legislation was at issue in competition for the FMA? I don't know of any.

To me, criticism of leadership can be retrospective or prospective.

Retrospective is allowable about a past action, especially one rectified.

Prospective only makes sense if one is in the chain and one's opinion is asked or one is involved in the decision.

Apparently the opponents of the FMA believe otherwise.

For you, my question, what level of criticism is permissible, or is it no holds barred?

Are any of you anti-FMAers in the least bit uncomfortable with being at odds with Church leadership? I'm not saying your membership is threatened. And you shouldn't answer, but is any there any discomfort for you?

I admit when my thoughts are at odds with the leadership, I wonder why I believe that and it does give me pause for thought. For example, prior to the Church's opposition to the MX missile concept, I kinda liked it. However, after President Kimball opposed it, I changed my thoughts, believing his arguments made sense, even though, it was a quasi-political matter. I also acknowledge the fact that we often become too belicose and figured, what the hell, if we get blown to bits, better having tried to be peaceful and lost.

I may not always agree intellectually with Church leaders, but usually I believe they have thought about public positions. Perhaps there exist situations, but none come to mind, where the Church leaders have acted rashly.

Thoughts from Fuz, homeboy, hoya and others who rejected the request by leadership. Am I the only one that worries if he does not understand or agree with counsel from the Church?

[creekster]

WHen I have had certain callings I feel that it is unreasonable to expect the ward or stake membership to divorce critical statements I might make as an infdividual from the calling I am filling. Accordingly, I attempt to avoid saying or doing anything that might confuse or disturb someone else. WHen not in such a calling, and within the bounds of propriety and following proper meditation and consideration, I have no problem with doing so.

[Archaea]

WHen I have had certain callings I feel that it is unreasonable to expect the ward or stake membership to divorce critical statements I might make as an infdividual from the calling I am filling. Accordingly, I attempt to avoid saying or doing anything that might confuse or disturb someone else. WHen not in such a calling, and within the bounds of propriety and following proper meditation and consideration, I have no problem with doing so.

So as a bishop or stake president, you need to be cautious in how you voice dissent? What about being a past bishop or stake president, because once you're a bishop, you're always a bishop?

What about being a BYU prof?

And when you voice dissent, do you emphasize your disagreement with Church leadership, or the concepts being discussed?

Do you state, "I don't believe that legislation accomplishes the stated goals," or do you state, "President Hinckley is egomaniacal idiot who is under the control of the moronic Republican Party?"

Do you mollify how you critisize because it's the Church leadership with whom you disagree?

[creekster]

I've never been a bishop or stake president (knock on wood) so have not had to address the specific example you raise.

In general, I can say that I try to avoid contention (especially at church) for contention's sake, menaing I see no reason for bellicose belligerence in quorum meetings or gospel doctrine. If an issue is raised with which I disagree, I think it is more important that the discussion stays civil and on-topic than it is to try to make everyone realize that I am a deep thinker that can critically analyze leadership's positions (not that I am really, just that it seems most people speaking out feel like they are). It is not my role in life to make sure other people have the ammunition they might need to be critical of leadership or to plant the seeds of apostasy with others. OTOH, with certain freinds or acquaintances, and in apporpiate settings (which have included leadership meetings, btw) I think it is appropriate to raise issues about which I am concerned or curious and seek input from others. Similarly, if someone is preaching what I believe is false doctinre I have no problem responding with a considered (and hopefully considerate) view of the issue. I taught EQ for over 10 years (usually as a second calling) and so had to deal with this type of issue all the time, and these werre my personal guidelines.

A BYU Prof takes a job knowing the terms of his employment. A deciiosn to speak out is made knowingly with a clear picture of the likely consequences. So be it.

[Archaea]

You handle matters similarly to me.

I remember in High Priest when one member thought the Gospel of Judas was intended to be literal and he took this to show that the world is bastardizing who Christ was.

Without trying to embarass the well-meaing but uninformed member, I stated my two cents.

In small settings discussing disagreements makes sense, but it's the public proclamations that bother me and campaigning for a change, instead of going through proper channels.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Creekster has quite accurately summed up how I try to interact with other members on these issues.

[ute4ever]

I recently learned that back in the day, when a couple had separated and was going through a divorce, the man's temple recommend was automatically yanked, until discussing the situation with his file leaders. Brilliant move by the church leaders. As difficult as divorce is, how comforting it must have been for the man to know he then faced an uphill battle with his community of saints.

Yes folks, several things in life have automatic "if / then" clauses, for example:

- If a child has bruises, then her parents put them there

- If your hubcaps are missing, then the nearest Mexicans stole them

- If an LDS couple separates, then the guy is to blame and certainly his priesthood is unworthy.

[fusnik11]

I'm comfortable expressing discomfort, disappointment, disagreeance with church leadership with certain friends, certain cyber communities, my family, and my leaders.

I am uncomfortable expressing my feelings on certain matters, both doctrinal and procedural in church, during home teaching visits, and with ward and stake members.

Can people be hypocritical and be so simply for the sake of being critical? Of course they can. Can criticism and voicing one's opinion bring about change? I would hope so as I believe we are truly brothers and sisters and that we aren't to be elevated one above the other and our voices are of value, I don't believe the church belongs to the leadership, I believe the church belongs to us individually. (I realize many here think that's a stupid sentiment)

[Archaea]

I kinda thought the Church belongs to the Lord, a vehicle he created and guides to aid his children.

I don't claim any ownership in the not for profit organization.

So I don't get your point.

It is not my job to steady the ark, as it were, but to give aid and assistance. If asked, I give my opinion, but volunteering it seems out of line.

[RockyBalboa]

I recently learned that back in the day, when a couple had separated and was going through a divorce, the man's temple recommend was automatically yanked, until discussing the situation with his file leaders. Brilliant move by the church leaders. As difficult as divorce is, how comforting it must have been for the man to know he then faced an uphill battle with his community of saints.

Yes folks, several things in life have automatic "if / then" clauses, for example:

- If a child has bruises, then her parents put them there

- If your hubcaps are missing, then the nearest Mexicans stole them

- If an LDS couple separates, then the guy is to blame and certainly his priesthood is unworthy.

When I was going through a divorce the bishop asked for my temple recommend. I didn't really understand the reason why because if there ever was a time where I needed to feel the comfort of the temple that was it. Still, I respected his request and handed it over.

After my divorce was official, which seemed to take forever, he then gave it back to me.

[il Padrino Ute]

When I was going through a divorce the bishop asked for my temple recommend. I didn't really understand the reason why because if there ever was a time where I needed to feel the comfort of the temple that was it. Still, I respected his request and handed it over.

After my divorce was official, which seemed to take forever, he then gave it back to me.

Did the Bishop take your soon to be ex-wife's recommend? Or is it only priesthood holders who lose the priveledge of temple attendance during a divorce?