Oaks comments about criticizing leaders

[MikeWaters]

I'm not sure what that means.

If President Taylor said something to the effect that Blacks are the spawn of Satan, it is not appropriate for me to criticize that statement?

When I expressed misgivings about my Stake President banning crewcuts among the young men, is that inappropriate?

What does common consent mean if you can't ever express any dissatisfaction?

Some will say there is an appropriate time and place for such things. Where and when is that?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not sure what that means.

If President Taylor said something to the effect that Blacks are the spawn of Satan, it is not appropriate for me to criticize that statement?

When I expressed misgivings about my Stake President banning crewcuts among the young men, is that inappropriate?

What does common consent mean if you can't ever express any dissatisfaction?

Some will say there is an appropriate time and place for such things. Where and when is that?

Here are a couple of places and times it isn't appropriate

1. TV interviews
2. Public rallies
3. Printed material for public consumption

Talking private in a respectful manner with those in authority that we disagree with is not inappropriate.

[Requiem]

Like you I was greatly troubled by these comments. Members have no recourse if we cannot constructively criticize. Ironically, Elder Oaks agrees. On May 4, 1986 he gave a speech outlining five ways in which we can criticize/correct church leaders who are in error. He cites a terrific quote from President Hinckley: "I am not asking that that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction". We can and should criticize where appropriate.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not sure what that means.

If President Taylor said something to the effect that Blacks are the spawn of Satan, it is not appropriate for me to criticize that statement?

When I expressed misgivings about my Stake President banning crewcuts among the young men, is that inappropriate?

What does common consent mean if you can't ever express any dissatisfaction?

Some will say there is an appropriate time and place for such things. Where and when is that?

I think it is like a lot of things. I think there are plenty of things that I can believe, for example, and still answer all my temple recommend questions correctly, hold callings and be in good standing inspite of them not being mainstream or doctrinal. If I were to begin to teach them to others, however, I would have crossed a line.

I would say that if you criticized your SP within the stake in a way that undermined him you would probably be crossing a line. I see no harm in talking about it hear. I guess the next logical question is whether it is inappropriate to criticize leaders in this setting who have stewardship over us all. I suppose I would say it depends on the tone and the spirit of it. I think it is possible to disagree with what a leader says and respectfully state why you believe something else to be correct with out making it personal. I think there is a difference between saying "I respectfully disagree because" and saying "that leader is wrong and is teaching false doctrine."

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Here are a couple of places and times it isn't appropriate

1. TV interviews
2. Public rallies
3. Printed material for public consumption

Talking private in a respectful manner with those in authority that we disagree with is not inappropriate.

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?

[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.

[Indy Coug]

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?

I've been working with Church HQ to put together dossiers on you guys.


Sincerely,

The Infiltrator

[Requiem]

Like you I was greatly troubled by these comments. Members have no recourse if we cannot constructively criticize. Ironically, Elder Oaks agrees. On May 4, 1986 he gave a speech outlining five ways in which we can criticize/correct church leaders who are in error. He cites a terrific quote from President Hinckley: "I am not asking that that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction". We can and should criticize where appropriate.

[Venkman]

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.

Sterling McMurrin

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Like you I was greatly troubled by these comments. Members have no recourse if we cannot constructively criticize. Ironically, Elder Oaks agrees. On May 4, 1986 he gave a speech outlining five ways in which we can criticize/correct church leaders who are in error. He cites a terrific quote from President Hinckley: "I am not asking that that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction". We can and should criticize where appropriate.

Nice job! This post is now 1/3 of all of your posts! I think it gets better every time it is posted.