Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Is Protesting Valid Communication?

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have too many things in my Netflix queue to have time to protest.

I find your inability to imagine a motive for a protest that is not a desire to “cause disturbance” to be hateful and contentious. I am going to protest this on your lawn as soon as I find out where you life. Also, I need to watch Netflix so I do not get behind on my queue. Can I get your WiFi password? K thx bye.

Come protest my house, please.  It would be fun.  I have a lawnmower you can push as you walk back and forth to give your hands something to do, so you won't be bored.  We can order pizza for dinner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Come protest my house, please.  It would be fun.  I have a lawnmower you can push as you walk back and forth to give your hands something to do, so you won't be bored.  We can order pizza for dinner.

Stacy’s mom? Is that you?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m not sure when you were a youth but in the 60s protesting was very popular as part of the counter culture and student movements. I think the difference today is that it’s popular across all groups in society, from youth to senior citizens. 

At least that’s how it seems. 

60s was my youth, though really only paying attention much at all towards the end of it (born 58).  It was more people telling stories after the big stuff was over with.  High school (San Fran) was full of gestures though, such as wearing MIA bracelets.  There were some riots there before and after I left over integration.

It comes across as more acceptable these days, but that may be in part how I hear about it now vs. then (don't hear much about irresponsible hippies any more).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

A congregation's value and worth is found in the willingness of its members to serve one another. All that refusing to serve the congregation achieves is a less well-functioning structure. If members seek their personal benefits over the congregation, then both potentially are weakened. 

You may be right. But - it would get attention in a way that isn’t marching down the street with banners. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the media uses protests, both to support causes and to malign causes.  The reality is that protests have a certain amount of influence on large institutions.  I'm not saying they are the best method, but I do like the idea that the people have ways of communicating their displeasure.  I think its an important part of a society built on the freedom of speech.  

I agree with this.

Protests push issues into public attention and therefore into the attention of organization leaders. I have no doubt that most (or all) organizations don't appreciate being placed in a position where their decision making is brought to public scrutiny. Effective protests draw the kind of attention of issues to leaders that they may not hear otherwise. For example, church leaders may not like the protests of Ordain Women or Sam Young, but those protests brought issues to the forefront. Some would argue that the protests failed. Others would say they succeeded. Either way, I think it's fair to say that leaders became more aware of the cause and the discontent than they otherwise would have been. Some feminist changes have occurred since Ordain Women's protests. Did they cause the changes? Probably not, at least not directly. But they did raise the issues for the brethren to consider. A  few years later we have women praying in conference, a talk from Pres. Oaks about women operating under the power of the priesthood, and temple changes that seem to be pleasing to most women.

I keep coming back to the simple concept that it is difficult to communicate if one doesn't have a communication partner. If leadership, of any organization won't communicate directly with people who have concerns then those with concerns can either be silent or press the issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the media uses protests, both to support causes and to malign causes.  The reality is that protests have a certain amount of influence on large institutions.  I'm not saying they are the best method, but I do like the idea that the people have ways of communicating their displeasure.  I think its an important part of a society built on the freedom of speech.  

I strongly agree with you that the media is the entity that spins the value of the protest. A protest of 50 can have national coverage and a protest of hundreds or thousands can be down-played or ignored. 

This past week I read an article about a clothing manufacturer that had instituted a program to influence corporate clients that wanted to use their clothing. If the corporation did not meet the standards of their social agenda they could not purchase their clothing. This was a straw too much for my back - I chose to write a letter explaining to the manufacturer that I have enjoyed their clothing, its quality of manufacture, etc. However, if they were going to begin demanding anyone to meet their social agenda to use their clothing for any reason, I would no longer use their clothing. I informed them I had boxed up all of the jackets, shirts, and other pieces of clothing and donated it to Goodwill. In the future, I would buy clothing from quality manufacturers who were not committed to forcing others to bow to a social agenda and just focused on making great clothing. 

This is a kind of protest that I support; it is quiet and inoffensive. It informs, but does not attempt to force behavior from another. 

Edited by Storm Rider

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am against almost all protests in this age. I have concluded that we have too many who are are just committed to protesting and seek for a cause, any cause, that will allow them to cause disturbance. I find protests, almost all of them, hateful and contentious. 

I work in downtown Portland Oregon, and you have perfectly described the vast majority of protests I have witnessed (and been negatively impacted by) in the last several years. 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with this.

Protests push issues into public attention and therefore into the attention of organization leaders. I have no doubt that most (or all) organizations don't appreciate being placed in a position where their decision making is brought to public scrutiny. Effective protests draw the kind of attention of issues to leaders that they may not hear otherwise. For example, church leaders may not like the protests of Ordain Women or Sam Young, but those protests brought issues to the forefront. Some would argue that the protests failed. Others would say they succeeded. Either way, I think it's fair to say that leaders became more aware of the cause and the discontent than they otherwise would have been. Some feminist changes have occurred since Ordain Women's protests. Did they cause the changes? Probably not, at least not directly. But they did raise the issues for the brethren to consider. A  few years later we have women praying in conference, a talk from Pres. Oaks about women operating under the power of the priesthood, and temple changes that seem to be pleasing to most women.

I keep coming back to the simple concept that it is difficult to communicate if one doesn't have a communication partner. If leadership, of any organization won't communicate directly with people who have concerns then those with concerns can either be silent or press the issue.

I completely agree.  I think the evidence is clear that the church and other organizations are influenced by public commentary on issues including protests.  I think the POX roll back recently is another example of public pressure influencing the decision making of leaders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

With regards to political change A Harvard study identified the precise reason protests are an effective way to cause political change.
"A clever analysis by economists from Harvard University and Stockholm University finds that protests do in fact have a major influence on politics,
just not in the way you might think. Their research shows that protest does not work because big crowds send a signal to policy-makers—rather,
it’s because protests get people politically activated."

So perhaps while protests might not provoke church leaders into changing something, they might get members better informed of an issue and inspire them into getting involved in doing whatever they can about the issue.
 

Edited by JAHS
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The biggest problem with protests is that it gives a bigger voice to those able to take time out to protest and is in a certain way anti-democratic. I think it can be useful for raising awareness but often protestors want more than that. Sometimes it becomes a kind of blackmail - give us what we want or we'll make your life hell. On the other hand we'd almost certainly have never gotten the civil rights reforms without protest. So I don't want to really condemn it. But it's sure rife for misuse.

Relative to LDS protests I think it's more complex since there's always an issue if you're pushing converts away. That's not an issue for those who don't take certain truth-claims regarding authority seriously. But for everyone else it means you're messing with people's salvation. Even if the ends are perhaps justified, the means are so damaging that I think few are sympathetic. Of course there's again a way to have raising awareness protests that are acceptable so long as they don't cross into the line of disruption (such as at Conference) or again pushing people away from the Church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

My thoughts on this briefly:

 

For whatever reason, Latter-day Saints (at least in the US) can't seem to separate their politics from their faith. They want the former to have a prominent place in the latter. For a long time the politically conservative members of the Church did this by guilting and claiming some sort of divine approval of their politics thereby elevating them above those who dared vote democrat. In the past 10 years or so (basically since the election of Pres. Obama), it feels to me like those in our faith on the American left have been prone to inject their politics into the Church (SSM, Ordain Women, etc.). Folks on the American left love their protests, sit ins, and other public pressure campaigns to influence change. I say good for them. But many seem to want to use the same tactics to influence change in the Church. The problem is there is no scriptural precedent supporting this and there is a lot that doesn't.

In short, God doesn't care if you are a R or a D. I think God cares very much when you bring your worldly politics, whatever they may be, into his divine kingdom.

One doesn’t ordinarily have the option to resign from citizenship in a sovereign state. Therefore, under extreme circumstances, a lawful protest against the government might be a needed recourse. 

Membership in a church, on the other hand, is a voluntary association with the mutual consent of both parties. Under extreme circumstances, the remedy open to the disaffected member instead of public protest is to unilaterally terminate his membership.

Non-members of the church have no standing for public protest since it is none of their affair what that church does. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Whether it's Harold B Lee pioneering the church's welfare program as a stake president, Emma Smith seeking changes that resulted in the WoW, or something more controversial like protests, that over time have helped to shift church and leadership opinion in areas such as feminism, race relations, BYU honor code violations, or protecting children by calling for an end to one-on-one interviews with minors, the church has a history of bottom-up leadership towards change. I suspect many here will take exception to my characterization of bottom-up leadership including protesters, but that's really what I want to discuss. As I'm watching/reading about protests at BYU-I regarding the honor code I'm seeing a kind of anger expressed by many staunch members about the method of communication. I am seeing many comments like "I agree with the changes they're asking for, but they're doing it in the wrong way. They should go have an adult conversation with the leaders if they want to effect change." It's not too many years ago that this would have been my comment too, but now I'm more ambivalent.

For many in the church there seems to be a strong aversion to the entire concept of protesting. People will readily agree that Emma did well in taking her concerns to the prophet, thus culminating in the WoW, but that wasn't "protest". Lee is likewise credited for being a change agent as he worked from within the system to create something new and good, but that wasn't "protest". There are many differences between Emma, Lee, and modern day protesters, but the one I have been thinking about is the modern lack of access the average member has to decision makers. Emma was married to the prophet: easy access there. Lee was a SP at a time when the church was much smaller, in a place where he had access to top church leaders. Today, most of us don't have that access, so we don't really have the opportunity to take issues of concern directly to top leadership who has the ability to make official change. I think many within the church feel that they have no voice and therefore no ability to reach decision makers. Going to the bishop and SP doesn't meet the need for access in a church of 16 million people. 1 bishop out of 35,000 bishops is nearly as inconsequential in having his voice heard as any other member.

In lieu of access to decision makers, members seem more inclined to turn to protests to have their voices heard even though most membership views protests as ineffective/inappropriate.

I'm curious if anyone is aware of any study/writing done on the subject or protests in the church. IMO protests seem to be the only way sometimes for people to be heard, yet is has a stigma attached to it that seems to make it counterproductive in some ways. But it could also be argued that protests on race, feminist issues, honor code issues, child protection issues have had some impact, even if the impact isn't immediate. Thoughts.

 

Soon, I will be able to post on my Ipad again, as posting on my laptop is very difficult. Due to my back injuries, sitting in straight back chairs at tables or desks,  is very difficult. However, I wanted to respond to this post before my response became swallowed up in pages, or hundreds of reply's. Very often members, or non-members, mistake some things as divine or revelation, be they policy, or vice vasa. Even Church leaders may assume (especially on the local level, and the general membership...even more so) that any counsel, from the First Presidency is, or was as if from the, "burning bush" itself, or etched on "tablets of stone".  But outside influence, and inside influence ("as the prayers of the righteous availeth much")  can be a result of legitimate change to many things. But, both policy change, or revelation from God our Father, can be affected (or is it "effected"). Very often outside influence can make a difference, as in Emma's example, she led to Joseph to question the issues surrounding WoW, and such questions led to revelation addressing various health issues. Also, his Father's dreams about the continuation of the family beyond death, leading to wondrous revelation and the appearance and warnings of Elijah, and the "Keys of sealings, of past, present and future generations, to the family of man. The changing world  that caused President Spencer W Kimball to question, and to plead to God, which of course changed the policy which granted the Priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church, also the blessing and sealing blessings to all mankind. I do not however believe that the protestors who usually surround Temple Square cause change, if so we would have abandoned the Book of Mormon, closed our Temples and disbanded our Faith long ago. Some outside events may be a catalyst for change, but insulting signs, the profane, and the angry are not the voices that God listens too. Nor do leaders and most members who come to worship, as such tactics only cause most, if not all to did their heals in, and resist any change promoted by those who only wish to disrupt, and rob others of the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures all filled with examples of Prophets and Apostles who both questioned, and changed the mind and will of God. Moses for example pleaded with and changed the mind of God, when he told Moses he was going to destroy his "chosen people", which doing so, as scripture states, "...the Lord repented of the evil he sought to do unto his people". (see Exodus 32: 7-14) This is not the only instance, however. When the issue came up concerning children of Gay couples, or same-sex married couples, not being allowed to be baptized, I stated then that it would later change, knowing that good men, would feel God's calling for change,  (if it be policy), or heed God would hear the pleadings of the righteous, (if it be revelation). It is for lack of a better term, the "steadying of the Ark", which is the nature of conditions of a righteous people, or a chosen people. It is noteworthy that some protesting, when asked how they felt, or were they happy said nothing. I am sure this probably steamed from the fact that it was not enough in their eyes. I know this is a difficult and heartbreaking issue, and I pray this is not the only thing anyone takes from my comments. Be that as it many, please forgive any errors, but hopefully next time we debate, or discuss...it pray it be on my Ipad. This laptop, and the need to use it, (pardon the pun) is "backbreaking". :)      

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Soon, I will be able to post on my Ipad again, as posting on my laptop is very difficult. Due to my back injuries, sitting in straight back chairs at tables or desks,  is very difficult. However, I wanted to respond to this post before my response became swallowed up in pages, or hundreds of reply's. Very often members, or non-members, mistake some things as divine or revelation, be they policy, or vice vasa. Even Church leaders may assume (especially on the local level, and the general membership...even more so) that any counsel, from the First Presidency is, or was as if from the, "burning bush" itself, or etched on "tablets of stone".  But outside influence, and inside influence ("as the prayers of the righteous availeth much")  can be a result of legitimate change to many things. But, both policy change, or revelation from God our Father, can be affected (or is it "effected"). Very often outside influence can make a difference, as in Emma's example, she led to Joseph to question the issues surrounding WoW, and such questions led to revelation addressing various health issues. Also, his Father's dreams about the continuation of the family beyond death, leading to wondrous revelation and the appearance and warnings of Elijah, and the "Keys of sealings, of past, present and future generations, to the family of man. The changing world  that caused President Spencer W Kimball to question, and to plead to God, which of course changed the policy which granted the Priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church, also the blessing and sealing blessings to all mankind. I do not however believe that the protestors who usually surround Temple Square cause change, if so we would have abandoned the Book of Mormon, closed our Temples and disbanded our Faith long ago. Some outside events may be a catalyst for change, but insulting signs, the profane, and the angry are not the voices that God listens too. Nor do leaders and most members who come to worship, as such tactics only cause most, if not all to did their heals in, and resist any change promoted by those who only wish to disrupt, and rob others of the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures all filled with examples of Prophets and Apostles who both questioned, and changed the mind and will of God. Moses for example pleaded with and changed the mind of God, when he told Moses he was going to destroy his "chosen people", which doing so, as scripture states, "...the Lord repented of the evil he sought to do unto his people". (see Exodus 32: 7-14) This is not the only instance, however. When the issue came up concerning children of Gay couples, or same-sex married couples, not being allowed to be baptized, I stated then that it would later change, knowing that good men, would feel God's calling for change,  (if it be policy), or heed God would hear the pleadings of the righteous, (if it be revelation). It is for lack of a better term, the "steadying of the Ark", which is the nature of conditions of a righteous people, or a chosen people. It is noteworthy that some protesting, when asked how they felt, or were they happy said nothing. I am sure this probably steamed from the fact that it was not enough in their eyes. I know this is a difficult and heartbreaking issue, and I pray this is not the only thing anyone takes from my comments. Be that as it many, please forgive any errors, but hopefully next time we debate, or discuss...it pray it be on my Ipad. This laptop, and the need to use it, (pardon the pun) is "backbreaking". :)      

 

I pretty much agree with what you wrote.  But for me, the key point you made is the pleading of Spencer W. Kimball to God on behalf of those who were barred from the priesthood and temple blessings.  As I understand it, this pleading was not a one shot prayer but a continued earnest inquiry to God.

I don't see anyone in current church leadership willing to earnestly plead to God for those temple blessings of eternal marriage extended to worthy gay couples.  Does anyone see such an effort by current church leaders?

So I, like many, doubt those blessings will be extended to gay couples until at the very least, a church leader rises up who is willing to go before the Lord in earnest and plead for those gay couples that are currently excluded.  At this point, for me, it is a moot point.  I think it will take a leader that rises up in a church environment that is more friendly towards those that are gay.  Perhaps the purpose of the policy was to rally church members in becoming aware of this issue.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That might be a boon to leadership as I am guessing the Venn diagram of people willing to protest like this and those who don’t do anything in their callings anyway is a probably nearly a perfect circle.

The Nehor, what would the Venn diagram of the people willing to protest and those who you actually know look like?

Share this post


Link to post

What is a protesting LDS member besides an active LDS member who thought protesting was wrong until they had an issue of their own not solved by immediate leadership, that seemed to affect the LDS church significantly, and, after prayer, the member thought they were led to speak out?

To assume anything else less reputable about these LDS protesters is to show bias, to poison the well, and to put self-comfort and church defense over compassion and real engagement of your brothers and sisters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with this.

Protests push issues into public attention and therefore into the attention of organization leaders. I have no doubt that most (or all) organizations don't appreciate being placed in a position where their decision making is brought to public scrutiny. Effective protests draw the kind of attention of issues to leaders that they may not hear otherwise. For example, church leaders may not like the protests of Ordain Women or Sam Young, but those protests brought issues to the forefront. Some would argue that the protests failed. Others would say they succeeded. Either way, I think it's fair to say that leaders became more aware of the cause and the discontent than they otherwise would have been. Some feminist changes have occurred since Ordain Women's protests. Did they cause the changes? Probably not, at least not directly. But they did raise the issues for the brethren to consider. A  few years later we have women praying in conference, a talk from Pres. Oaks about women operating under the power of the priesthood, and temple changes that seem to be pleasing to most women.

I keep coming back to the simple concept that it is difficult to communicate if one doesn't have a communication partner. If leadership, of any organization won't communicate directly with people who have concerns then those with concerns can either be silent or press the issue.

It is also a simple concept that it is difficult to communicate if one doesn't have the language (I mean that broadly: the wherewithal on many levels, which transcends style and technique) to create a communication partner or entice a partner to communicate with him.

For example, I think we all bear a personal responsibility to communicate disapproval and objections to Church policy, leadership decisions, etc. without contention and disputation. The most universal way we have to do this is to oppose rather than sustain the leaders (and everyone can register opposition with his stake president). That is the degree to which they are held responsible for their decisions and held accountable to the members, so if anyone wants better revelation, he can sustain better revelators (including qualifying to become one worthy to be sustained), reexamine his priorities and ambitions, advance his knowledge of how revelation works, get into a council, etc. He has to speak the language of those he is trying to reach, which is reflected in what I just described.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with this.

Protests push issues into public attention and therefore into the attention of organization leaders. I have no doubt that most (or all) organizations don't appreciate being placed in a position where their decision making is brought to public scrutiny. Effective protests draw the kind of attention of issues to leaders that they may not hear otherwise. For example, church leaders may not like the protests of Ordain Women or Sam Young, but those protests brought issues to the forefront. Some would argue that the protests failed. Others would say they succeeded. Either way, I think it's fair to say that leaders became more aware of the cause and the discontent than they otherwise would have been. Some feminist changes have occurred since Ordain Women's protests. Did they cause the changes? Probably not, at least not directly. But they did raise the issues for the brethren to consider. A  few years later we have women praying in conference, a talk from Pres. Oaks about women operating under the power of the priesthood, and temple changes that seem to be pleasing to most women.

I keep coming back to the simple concept that it is difficult to communicate if one doesn't have a communication partner. If leadership, of any organization won't communicate directly with people who have concerns then those with concerns can either be silent or press the issue.

It is also a simple concept that it is difficult to communicate if one doesn't have the language (I mean that broadly: the wherewithal on many levels, which transcends style and technique) to create a communication partner or entice a partner to communicate with him.

For example, I think we all bear a personal responsibility to communicate disapproval and objections to Church policy, leadership decisions, etc. without contention and disputation. The most universal way we have to do this is to oppose rather than sustain the leaders (and everyone can register opposition with his stake president). That is the degree to which they are held responsible for their decisions and held accountable to the members, so if anyone wants better revelation, he can sustain better revelators (including qualifying to become one worthy to be sustained), reexamine his priorities and ambitions, advance his knowledge of how revelation works, get into a council, etc. He has to speak the language of those he is trying to reach, which is reflected in what I just described.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am against almost all protests in this age. I have concluded that we have too many who are are just committed to protesting and seek for a cause, any cause, that will allow them to cause disturbance. I find protests, almost all of them, hateful and contentious. 

Also, Storm Rider, what is the Venn diagram of those who protest and those you actually know (who they are, what they value, why they do this - from their own mouths and your own personal engagement with them)? Specifically, what does the Venn look like in regards LDS who protest?  Are you claiming that LDS cannot protest b/c almost all protests are hateful and contentious - even those by LDS?

I appreciate the ¨almost all¨, though.

Edited by Joshua Valentine

Share this post


Link to post

My sister-in-law watched Unplanned and it made her want to stand outside of abortion clinics and pray. 

Share this post


Link to post

Pertinent Question for All Here:

What would a good LDS protest look like?

That is, unless we are to conclude that no protest is compatible with being a good LDS member, it would seem that only the specifics are what make the protest not a good one: place, manner, methods, etc.

So is it impossible for LDS members to justifiably assemble in a respectful but clear manner to make their voices heard?  Or is it just how they do it that matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

What is a protesting LDS member besides an active LDS member who thought protesting was wrong until they had an issue of their own not solved by immediate leadership, that seemed to affect the LDS church significantly, and, after prayer, the member thought they were led to speak out?

I knew as a college kid and older a lot of protesting Church members who were never solid believers, but grew up in homes with parents who were believers and thus were active because they just went along until something they wanted got blocked. It had nothing to do with prayer for them.  And they were happy to describe themselves as so.

So I don't see your description as the only option, though one of them.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The biggest problem with protests is that it gives a bigger voice to those able to take time out to protest and is in a certain way anti-democratic. I think it can be useful for raising awareness but often protestors want more than that. Sometimes it becomes a kind of blackmail - give us what we want or we'll make your life hell. On the other hand we'd almost certainly have never gotten the civil rights reforms without protest. So I don't want to really condemn it. But it's sure rife for misuse.

Relative to LDS protests I think it's more complex since there's always an issue if you're pushing converts away. That's not an issue for those who don't take certain truth-claims regarding authority seriously. But for everyone else it means you're messing with people's salvation. Even if the ends are perhaps justified, the means are so damaging that I think few are sympathetic. Of course there's again a way to have raising awareness protests that are acceptable so long as they don't cross into the line of disruption (such as at Conference) or again pushing people away from the Church.

Surely someone here would point out that if someone were to avoid the truth and salvation simply because of protests, then they would find other ways to avoid salvation even without protests.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Surely someone here would point out that if someone were to avoid the truth and salvation simply because of protests, then they would find other ways to avoid salvation even without protests.

I figure anyone confused about the Gospel due to others' behaviour hasn't had a real chance to accept it yet and things will get balanced out somtime.  But there still is the loss of the time they could have been learning and enjoying blessings and that is harmful if not eternal*** in my view, and something we will need to repent of or bear the consequences of others' pain if we don't.

***similar to careless driving causing an accident and killing someone; that person isn't going to be robbed in the long run of eternal opportunities, but they got shafted by that driver and that driver needs to learn to care and will in some fashion, willingly or not.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I knew as a college kid and older a lot of protesting Church members who were never solid believers, but grew up in homes with parents who were believers and thus were active because they just went along until something they wanted got blocked. It had nothing to do with prayer for them.  And they were happy to describe themselves as so.

So I don't see your description as the only option, though one of them.

I was not denying that there are such LDS protesters. I was specifically calling attention to the issue of assuming that all, or even most, LDS protesters are anything less than fully devout and righteous members. The line between a devout, righteous member who does not protest and a devout, righteous member who does protest is a certain set of experiences - including earnest prayer.  If one assumes that all or most LDS are not devout and sincere, without really knowing any of them, then they may be fooling themselves, and even find themselves protesting in the future. What would they wish their fellow members would do in response to them then?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't see anyone in current church leadership willing to earnestly plead to God for those temple blessings of eternal marriage extended to worthy gay couples.  Does anyone see such an effort by current church leaders?

How would you know if they have or have not already been doing this? Perhaps they have been praying about it but haven't gotten a definite answer yet? 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...