rebuking the brethren
 

so, I'm curious what you guys think. We're commanded over and over again in the NT to "rebuke" and "correct" the brethren. Do you think this is intended literally? And if it is, how is it supposed to work, and have you ever had to do it?

I need some more context here.

You're asking the wrong people.

We are a people where the votes are more unanimous than Stalin-era USSR.

I don't know. I intended it as more theoretical than "in this instance over here..." You can pick your context, I guess. There's not really much context in the NT. The exhortations are very general: rebuke one another with all authority. These sorts of things. There's a recurring idea that we're supposed to hold each other to standards of righteous living, that we have an obligation to speak up if someone is astray.

I have friends that believe this wholeheartedly, and "rebuke" to the point that it's little more than self-righteous meddling. So, I was wondering if y'all have feelings on the subject, and if you've ever taken a friend aside and said, "hey, I'm concerned that you're starting to X."

I wish to research the context of the scripture, but my uninitiated sentiments seem to be more along the lines of correcting gently with kindness and loving more greatly thereafter. I also believe the context relates to stewardship. I don't have the right to correct a stranger whom I don't know and for whom I have no stewardship. Those are my instinctual answers.

lol, I really did need some context. At first, I was thinking of the BRETHren, as in rebuking church leadership. I was thinking along the lines of Mike's favorite "suggestion box" line. I wasn't familiar with scriptures about that.

So if you're just talking about other people in general, then it's always tricky. We walk a fine line between judging and helping on that one. I usually opt for the mind-you-own-business approach, which may be the easiest. If I have a duty to rebuke, though. . . maybe I should start looking for some opportunities.

Your instincts seem based on the D&C. I'm not sure the NT is too clear about the appropriate way to correct each other.

In the LDS church, we have been taught that even when the apostles are wrong, they are right.

That's about as far a position from correcting and rebuking as you can get.

The proper and accepted course in the LDS church, is to stuff it down, or to simply slink away and go inactive or apostasize.

To which reference are you relying upon?

In Friedman's book, he makes the point that there was a distinction between priests and prophets. Priests were part of a lineage and served a distinct role. Whereas prophets did not need to be a priest, they could emerge from any of the tribes, they could be anyone. Someone with "the gift."

We see this in the Book of Mormon in the personage of Samuel the Lamanite.

In the LDS church there is no recognition of such, the argument being, I suppose, that God is a god of "order." We are taught that it is not possible for our president (I.e. High priest) to lead us astray. So by definition, it seems, a rebuke directed towards him is a rebuke of God.

Samuel, climb down, we have no need for you. We are infallible in toto.