What is the correct balance between deification of leaders, healthy respect and
 

courtesy and disrespect and discourtesy?

Many active members probably border on sanctification and deification. In administrative terms, this makes the leaders' jobs easier. Others can discuss the pitfalls of such a social occurrence.

What is a proper, healthy balance?

I remember the faithful parents of girls I dated in high school, and they planned their whole week around what was announced in sacrament meeting, and really respected the leaders to a point of almost deification.

What is a healthy way of viewing and treating leaders?

Pardon me, but isn't this the question I just asked you?

No you used the term "annointed" which has a different angle for me.

The continual and in your face style of brow beating of those Apostles of the Lord is overdone by some on here in my opinion.

Personally I think you kinda revel and enjoy it. At least it certainly seems that way.

I rarely see you talk about the good things and good people in the Church. It's constant negativity with you when it comes to Apostles and Church Doctrine, Culture, etc. Are you growing increasingly dis-enfranchised? Because it seems pretty obvious to me that you are.

Do you ever answer a question?

Read the tone of the question and answer, if you desire to set a different tone. Otherwise ignore what you dislike. The nature of your answer just now will engender more of the tone which you claim to dislike. So which is it, you dislike a disrespectful tone or not?

Way to avoid what I just asked....lol

Arch you are ALWAYS negative. ALWAYS.

Honestly,,,what is wrong with you that you're ALWAYS being negative towards the church, it's leaders and it's culture? You obviously seem to be disenfranchised by it, and seemingly more so all the time. There's a lot of underlying and obvious contempt in a lot of your criticism towards it. It's pretty obvious to me. I don't understand why one would continue on with something that displeases them so intensely as the church seems with you.

Answer that question and we might have a basis to continue the discussion.

Oh and my response to your question...if you couldn't obviously read between the lines in what I wrote then don't know how more plainly I can spell it out for you. There's a difference between asking questions and then continually expressing contempt for what I've mentioned above. You've gradually displayed a diminishing lack of respect.

that's a good idea. Maybe I should start doing that. That way sacrament meeting is more meaningful.

Did you just say "annointed," as from the word "to annoy"?

I think you revealed more about how you feel about the leaders of the Church than you intended, Arch. :)

Speaking of the proverbial hyperbole, this post is Exhibit 1.

You still haven't answered the question.

Feel free anytime,,unless of course you want to provide the usual "I refuse to answer a question who's premise I reject....blah, blah, blah...bullshit, yackety yak,,,"

Why are you ALWAYS negative towards the church, the culture, etc...etc..etc?

I mean you're pretty much negative with just about everything anyway,,,the question still exists.

I reject the question because it assumes a fact not in evidence. Negative about the Church?

Are you stating in my posts here or in my life? In my life, I have spent a mission, a temple marriage, a lifetime rearing four children active in the Church so that they might be worthy and studious enough to matriculate as undergraduates at BYU. What's negative about that?

Am I negative in the efforts of a few, not most, leaders to restrict the efforts of legitimate scholars to research whatever topic that pleases them? Perhaps you might see my wish for greater academic and artistic freedom as a pejorative expression, but I do not. I see it as an expression to improve BYU and its students. I want our people to be innoculated against the illness arising from a lack of knowledge. The illness of ignorance. In my own life, I struggle to unravel my own ignorance to add learning and knowledge well beyond my formal training. Is this negative toward Church? I thought the rubric about BYU, a subsidiary of the Church, "The World is our Campus, enter to learn, go forth" to earn? little joke there.

Your narrow articulation of what is and what is not permissible is not one I share. But I do respect your right to a narrow view, I just won't take that path.

I do not see negativity, only a healthy expression of ideas. As John Stuart Mill argued, we should allow Truth and Error to grapple before us so that we can see if Truth is stronger and can overcome Error. I am not afraid of Truth, for it strengthens my faith.

Now anwer my positive question which you avoided.

I reject your premise of your question like you reject mine, because you ask it under the guise of not realiizing that you're constantly negative towards the church. That's like poop asking the question "What is the proper amount of stink before eating it?". You almost ALWAYS are negative about almost everything. I could care less about you serving a mission, temple marriage..blah, blah, blah.....lol..is that supposed to impress me or someone in my mind make me suddenly realize....."Oh wait Arch donated all this time and now he's a pretty pissed off stockholder?"

Until you pull your head out of your arrogant ass, there isn't much to discuss. If you answer my question, we can talk,,,otherwise no. And I've already answered your question, you arrogantly and condescendingly chose to reject and neglect the answer because it doesn't fit your warped and out there style of introspection and "open mindedness". I think your level of imbalance in regards to your question is so lopsided that no matter what answer you get,,you'll come up with a bullshit response for it, just like you always do, to justify your odd behavior.

I find your bizarre and seemingly off the wall intense negative feelings for the church, it's culture, history and doctrine something that I feel bad for you. You're a prisoner to your own "faith" cause it clashes so vehemently with your thought processes.