Oaks comments about criticizing leaders

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If a Bishop is arrested and accused of molesting the youth in his ward. Would the parents be out of line to respond to media requests, and to say that they are critical of him?

Some members were publicly critical of the church's stance on Blacks and the priesthood, and the clear racism that existed in the church, as evidenced by the many racist quotes from past authorities.

I can't remember the name of the one guy, who was at the U. of Utah as an institute-type teacher. He came very close many times to being excommunicated. But it was mentioned, that he was only one of the only ones that could reach out to disaffected members and say "stay with us." Apparently some authorities thought it would be moot to excommunicate him, because his salvation seemed already gone.

This is in the David O. McKay biography. McKay was instrumental in him NOT being excommunicated.

Times have changed. I think in today's church, he would have been excommunicated.

It is Sterling McMurrin you are speaking of, though I do not believe there is any indication that the feeling was that excommunication would be moot. My sense is that this incident highlighted President McKay's tolerance and "big tent" view of belief within the church which was in contrast to others who saw him as more of a threat.

The story McMurrin relates alone makes McKay a giant in my eyes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

How about comments on a message board which are available for anyone to read? I know its not quite the same is printing it in Sunstone, but you only get Sunstone if you subscribe to it. You only read what is posted here if you come to the website. Do you think there is a distinction to be had there? Is it purely a numerical one?

Obviously there's a subjective element to judging the level of propriety in publicly disagreeing with our leaders. While an Internet message board is (relatively) anonymous, and I suppose it's benign so long as you don't name names, what does it really accomplish?

I think disagreement can be both had and expressed at appropriate times; feedback is useful since we are all imperfect beings. But we also have to decide how much we trust in God's ability to direct his own work, even at the stake and ward levels. Do we really believe that our bishop was "called of God, as was Aaron" or not?

Presumably even Uzzah had good intentions.