Is it wrong to Question?

[curiousheathen]

Unfortunately society and culture are linked...you can't really have one sort of questioning and upheaval and not have the other. After all, you guys banned black men from getting the priesthood for awhile. Took some society upheaval for it to final make an impact religiously.

Maybe it is because I am not Mormon, but I have seen many people discourage questioning, though I can't site a specific reference. It's mostly the attitude, which is partly what gives you guys that reputation (I mean no offense honestly, just giving some input into how Mormons tend to be viewed by non-Mormons in my area). I think the closest I can come to an example is the thread about reading anti-Mormon literature.

This brings up the question I asked in another post...what kind of faith (and in this case religion) is so weak that a question can tear it down or make it somehow false?

That said, arguing for the sake of arguing is rude and usually pointless. Questioning is never wrong (but I'm horribly post modernist and not LDS so my opinion probably doesn't matter tooooo much. )

[estradling75]

This brings up the question I asked in another post...what kind of faith (and in this case religion) is so weak that a question can tear it down or make it somehow false?

Its not the faith(aka Church) that is weak... All the anti questions have been dealt with one way or another and the church is just fine with them out there. However we are our brother's keeper and some of our fellow saints could be weak for one reason or another. We are to nurture them and help them become strong. Those questions can destroy the struggling testimony.

[dahlia]

I would say it’s ok to question publically, if something is wrong it’s wrong. But I don’t think you should go out of your way to criticize leaders or attack them personally. On the same token I don’t think the lord will find fault for someone calling a duck a duck.

I don't see criticism and attack as equaling questioning. I question all the time. I do it here, I do it in Gospel Principles, I do it with fellow ward members. I have to question until I can understand what the truth is.

That said, I would not attack Pres Monson or other leaders, nor would I attack the Church as an organization (at least, not yet). In fact, as someone who teaches management, I'm pretty much in awe of the organization that is the Church. I might criticize the bishop if he does something that calls for real criticism, not just criticizing because he says or does something differently than I do.

[LittleWyvern]

Ultimately we have to receive our answers from God regardless of the subject, and to do that we must ask questions. Sometimes we ask our questions through prayer, sometimes we must ask our church leaders, sometimes we must ask our most trusted friends, and sometimes we must ask ourselves. So, while questions are vital to gaining knowledge, we must be careful who we're asking questions of and our motive behind the question we ask (for example, are we asking to sincerely learn, or asking to prod and annoy?).

In connection with that, a few people have mentioned that views held by the church today would be held as heretical or apostate 40 years ago. To me, that just illustrates the coolest thing about a church that holds continuing revelation as vital: we can get better! We can gradually learn more and expand our circle of knowledge and sometimes even correct past actions! The way I see it, the changes of the church just mean we're (collectively) slowly learning more and becoming better as a unit. Questions are vital to this process, and we can build off answers to previous questions to stretch out and ask questions that will continue to help us learn. While we must obey the commandments we receive, we can always ask "What does this mean?" or, "What would happen if we were to do this?" and we may get more knowledge or even different direction on a subject.

And, while I'm using a collective application, I think the same happens individually with our own testimonies. :)

[Vort]

Unfortunately society and culture are linked...you can't really have one sort of questioning and upheaval and not have the other.

True. What has this to do with divinely revealed religion?

After all, you guys banned black men from getting the priesthood for awhile. Took some society upheaval for it to final make an impact religiously.

Incorrect. "We guys" didn't ban anyone. The leadership of the kingdom of God barred men of African ancestry from holding the Priesthood. It took a revelation from God to make a religious impact in that.

Maybe it is because I am not Mormon, but I have seen many people discourage questioning, though I can't site a specific reference.

So we just accept your say-so?

It's mostly the attitude, which is partly what gives you guys that reputation

An attitude that you can't specifically reference but that you infer in a religious community of which you are not a part.

(I mean no offense honestly, just giving some input into how Mormons tend to be viewed by non-Mormons in my area).

I think we are well aware of the "reputation" we have among many ignorant non-Latter-day Saints. Those who insist of thinking the worst of people they don't know are not liable to changing their minds.

I think the closest I can come to an example is the thread about reading anti-Mormon literature.

Clearly, you are of the group who thinks our children should be reading Mein Kampf. I disagree.

This brings up the question I asked in another post...what kind of faith (and in this case religion) is so weak that a question can tear it down or make it somehow false?

What kind of small plant (and in this case a seedling tree) is so weak that a stomp can destroy it or somehow kill it?

That said, arguing for the sake of arguing is rude and usually pointless. Questioning is never wrong (but I'm horribly post modernist and not LDS so my opinion probably doesn't matter tooooo much. )

Clearly, your generalization is false at specific times. When you receive a battlefield command from your superior, questioning it is generally wrong.

More specifically for this conversation, when "questioning" is a cover word for "tearing down", then it's no longer questioning. Pretending it is mere questioning is dishonest.

[bcguy]

Are people capable of making there own decisions without always praying about it?

I remember once, I was asked for a calling by a member of our ward. I was to be the scout assistant. I said, I am sorry, I have to turn it down as I work evening shifts. He asked again firmly "can you except the calling as a scout assistant??" At that point, I was thinking to my self, doesn't this guy get it? I WORK for a living.

The next time I saw him I said hi, and he totally ignored me. I question is lack of common scene if I work, I cannot serve nights as a scout assistant.

[Traveler]

Is it wrong to question things you don’t understand or seem to be incongruent? Some have suggested that to question any facet associated with the church is tantamount to treason and hypocrisy. When is it ok to question and when isn’t it?

Joseph Smith Questioned which religion was right, was that ok?

Brigham Young questioned who should be the successor of the church, was he a hypocrite?

Members in the twenties questioned wearing full length (ankle and wrist) garments, were they wrong?

Many more members questioned the priesthood ban before it was lifted, were they disloyal?

How different would the world be if no one had the intestinal fortitude to question what is established?

It is beyond stupidity and on the border of insanity, treason and a host of other incredibly dumb things to ask a question that you think you have already achieved the answer and have no intention to learn anything. To change an old saying just a little, there is no stupid question that will bring new knowledge and understanding.

The Traveler

[Guest saintish]

I am glad to see that vort is an equal opportunity offender and not just rude to me.

Clearly, your generalization is false at specific times. When you receive a battlefield command from your superior, questioning it is generally wrong.

As an Officer in the military I can assur you that it is not, In fact it is expected of junior officers. Its the way we cover our superiors rears. Granted there is a way to it and gereral disobediance will get you in trouble.

More specifically for this conversation, when "questioning" is a cover word for "tearing down", then it's no longer questioning. Pretending it is mere questioning is dishonest.

I dont think anyone has suggested that honest questioning is a "cover word" for "tearing down" except for you of course

[FunkyTown]

I am glad to see that vort is an equal opportunity offender and not just rude to me.

As an Officer in the military I can assur you that it is not, In fact it is expected of junior officers. Its the way we cover our superiors rears. Granted there is a way to it and gereral disobediance will get you in trouble.

I dont think anyone has suggested that honest questioning is a "cover word" for "tearing down" except for you of course

Saintish? While it's not wrong to honestly question, and in fact it's healthy, you are completely wrong about almost everything else.

As an Officer in the military I can assur you that it is not, In fact it is expected of junior officers. Its the way we cover our superiors rears. Granted there is a way to it and gereral disobediance will get you in trouble.

Let's go to the handy dandy:

To Obey or Not to Obey

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

So: Are soldiers supposed to question their superior's orders? I guess that depends on what you mean by 'Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question'.

My interpretation are that they are taught to obey immediately. And without question.

But wait! There is more.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

Disobey a lawful order. If you are ordered to shoot civilians? You are expected to disobey. If you are ordered to go, once more, in to the breach? You are expected to obey. Immediately. And without question.

That's neither here nor there, however: Questioning is important, so long as you question as a child does - As one who is searching for answers and is glad to get them when you do. If you do not question as a child does, and are merely asking a question because you think you already know the answer, you are incapable of learning.

This is bad.

[Guest saintish]

What Military are you apart of funkytown?

Your right you are required to obey LAWFUL orders immediatly, but you are also responsible for deciding if it is lawful or not before you obey. I'm not talking about PVT. Flapjack not wanting to charge a beach because he is being shot at. Soldiers are expected to follow a certian set of ethics an DISOBEY unlawful orders.

[FunkyTown]

What Military are you apart of funkytown?

Your right you are required to obey LAWFUL orders immediatly, but you are also responsible for deciding if it is lawful or not before you obey. I'm not talking about PVT. Flapjack not wanting to charge a beach because he is being shot at. Soldiers are expected to follow a certian set of ethics an DISOBEY unlawful orders.

I'm part of the military that knows how to look things up online when someone says something. We call it the 'Willing to look stuff up brigade'.

You said it was okay to disobey. I pointed out that you would be arrested for disobeying a direct and lawful order. You then changed your mind and agreed with me when I said you could only disobey unlawful orders.

I'll reiterate what Vort said and place my stamp of approval. When you say 'Question', it seems to mean 'Tear down'. That is very different from 'Questioning'. Questioning implies humility and the willingness to learn.

[Guest saintish]

I'm part of the military that knows how to look things up online when someone says something. We call it the 'Willing to look stuff up brigade'..

ah I see, so in other words you dont know what you are talking about except for what you read on one web source. gotcha.

You said it was okay to disobey. I pointed out that you would be arrested for disobeying a direct and lawful order. You then changed your mind and agreed with me when I said you could only disobey unlawful orders.

No vort said there were instances when it wasn't ok to question, like on the battlefield, he didn't quantify lawful or unlawful orders. When i said it was ok, I was implicitly refering to unlawful orders. You seemed to miss that point, so i clearified. Do try to keep up.

I'll reiterate what Vort said and place my stamp of approval. When you say 'Question', it seems to mean 'Tear down'. That is very different from 'Questioning'. Questioning implies humility and the willingness to learn.

Bottom line, if its wrong its wrong and needs to be torn down.

[FunkyTown]

Heheh. Good one. I'm going to assume you're joking, since I went to the US military's metapage itself and got answers from the FAQ right there.

I mean... We can either believe you, some random dude on the internet who claims to work for the military, or we can believe... Y'know... The military. Which is who I quoted.

It's a tough call, I admit.

And I recognize what you're saying: That if it's wrong, it's wrong. However, what about when you're wrong? Are you willing to admit that what you think could be what's in error here? Because, again, if I have to choose between believing the prophet or believing some random dude on the internet who claims to know better than the prophet, it's going to be just as tough a call as believing the military or believing some random dude on the internet who claims to be in the military.

ah I see, so in other words you dont know what you are talking about except for what you read on one web source. gotcha.

No vort said there were instances when it wasn't ok to question, like on the battlefield, he didn't quantify lawful or unlawful orders. When i said it was ok, I was implicitly refering to unlawful orders. You seemed to miss that point, so i clearified. Do try to keep up.

Bottom line, if its wrong its wrong and needs to be torn down.

[Just_A_Guy]

Heheh. Good one. I'm going to assume you're joking, since I went to the US military's metapage itself and got answers from the FAQ right there.

Bah. We all know you Canadians are just trying to drive wedges between us and our fighting corps, in preparation for The Invasion.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Bah. We all know you Canadians are just trying to drive wedges between us and our fighting corps, in preparation for The Invasion.

Don't you know we're just 'Merica's Hat?

[Just_A_Guy]

I question that assumption.

[FunkyTown]

i question that assumption.

ಠ_ಠ

[Dravin]

ಠ_ಠ

Ever tried to wear poutine as a hat? Not pretty.

[Traveler]

I thought to add a thought or few at this point.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the concept of obedience is not just a touchy feely thing - it is an essential element of our covenant. If we are obedient according to covenant to those that are appointed by authority and then, if in obedience, there is sin, the sin by covenant is born by those in authority. If in disobedience there is sin then according to the covenant not only are we guilty of that sin but we are also guilty of disobedience to the covenant.

Next thought: having served as a counselor to a bishop it is my understanding that at any time I have a concern (question) that I could go before the bishop and express my concern (which BTW I often did). However, once the bishop thought over and made a decision it was my obligation to either “get on board” or bring my concern before the stake president (which I never did but considered). The one thing that I must not do is go home or to the internet and grumble, mummer and complain.

Another thought: When under the covenant of marriage it has been my experience that it is better for a husband and wife (me being a husband) to act in unity with error and being wrong than it is for me to act alone being correct and right. I have no doubt that as soon as some fool reads this statement that they will dream up some extreme counter scenario that would be an exception (like strangling a child) that is not at all what I am trying to communicate. I am talking about finding way to become united and one in marriage covenant.

Final thought: Evil speaking of the L-rd’s anointed. Often when we discuss things of importance among ourselves it is easy to allow a spirit of contention to overtake us. I am especially good at this myself and if anyone has been offended by me - I apologize. I personally like to drill down in pondering and considering things - it is part of the scientist within me to explorer. I often do stupid things in my exploring (like set off alarms in places of business exploring something that looks strange to me - which I have done at stores and offices). For me it is exciting to consider and learn about things and often this is highlighted by an “Hmmmmm what if I ….” attitude which is often annoying to others. So I apologize a lot - perhaps too often in some eyes or not enough for others. But my point is that we all need to be especially careful in criticizing anyone trying to be obedient to their covenant with G-d. And I do understand that there are exceptions - but in all honesty - seldom do I believe there has been exception on this forum among sincere posters (I am not talking about the occasional troll here).

The Traveler

[Vort]

Bah. We all know you Canadians are just trying to drive wedges between us and our fighting corps, in preparation for The Invasion.

[Vort]

Bottom line, if its wrong its wrong and needs to be torn down.

To reiterate: Trying to tear something down under the pretense of questioning is simply dishonest

[Vort]

I dont think anyone has suggested that honest questioning is a "cover word" for "tearing down" except for you of course

On the contrary, I have suggested no such thing. Honest questioning is not a cover for any other thing. Dishonest questioning, however, is often a cover for trying to tear something down. Even things that people might think need to be torn down...

By the way, I'm still waiting for the evidence you said you would provide from this site for the following statement:

Some have suggested that to question any facet associated with the church is tantamount to treason and hypocrisy.

[Guest saintish]

Questioning is just that, asking if something is right or wrong. there is no need to add a pretense to it. Most people won't question something unless they suspect it might be wrong.

[Vort]

saintish, to use battlefield parlance that you can understand, you are losing badly. You need to admit defeat and cut your losses.

Let's review this part of the thread that saintish is so caught up in. It began when curiousheathen made the following remarkable statement:

Questioning is never wrong

My response was obvious and, I daresay, predictable:

Clearly, your generalization is false at specific times. When you receive a battlefield command from your superior, questioning it is generally wrong.

saintish then baffled everyone by openly taking up for the losing argument:

As an Officer in the military I can assur you that it is not, In fact it is expected of junior officers. Its the way we cover our superiors rears.

Let's review yet again what just happened in the exchange above:

curiousheathen: Questioning is never wrong.

Vort: Bad generalization. Of course it sometimes is wrong, as in a battlefield command.

saintish: No it is not! I'm a US military officer, and I am telling you that it is never wrong to question a superior's command!

Everyone else: <dumbstruck>

At this point, FunkyTown quotes from the military's own web site the word-for-word answer to the issue:

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

saintish's response:

What Military are you apart of funkytown?

All the dancing around in the world won't hide the fact that you are firmly on the wrong side of this debate, saintish. Your best course of action would be to admit that you got sucked into standing up for your position, no matter what, and that in fact you realize that you are wrong.

Or you can just keep on pretending that you're right and trying to find linguistic loopholes that, in your mind, somehow justify your absurd stance. Your choice.

[Guest]

And when all sources point to "wrong", there has to be willingness to accept that, or I think that's when one crosses the line into "tearing down" and "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed". I've learned the hard way that when it comes to direction and counsel from the Brethren, I am really not an exception, even when I think my circumstances or personality or whatever might make me different from the average Joanne.