Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Is Protesting Valid Communication?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Without working through it completely, this seems to have ramifications that could possibly show it as absurd.  I empathize with the concern involved, but if it robs people the right to defend those who need defending, or right what is wrong, then is it worth it to keep silent?  Also, if it did do such, wouldn´t that also risk delaying or stopping conversions?

Obviously, as I noted above, this issue may be less about protesting at all and more to do with how the protest is done. In this way, those that need to be defended, and that which needs to be changed, can be while giving little to no reason for investigators to turn away. Also, if the protest is on a legitimate error, and is done in a righteous way, then it only reveals a truth about the church that the investigator has a right to know about.  If that leads to their not joining, then it is not wrong, since the investigator decided to walk away based on a truth of the LDS church. Just like any other true aspect of the church, it may or may not justify not joining, but it is required for full agency in the investigators choice.

Share this post


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

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.

You need to rewrite it imo than because this sounds exclusive, only one option:

Quote

What is a protesting LDS member besides an active LDS member...?

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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

There would actually be a substantial overlap there. I also have a publican friend and a sex worker friend. Does this mean I am going to hell or that I am following the Savior? I would love to see that Venn diagram.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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? 

Given the church's past record towards the gay community, do you really seriously think there is anyone in current leadership who might possibly be praying for acceptance of gay marriage?   

What we do know is that church leaders prayed about is making a HUGE effort to fight against the civil rights for gays to have a civil marriage.  We know that 3 years ago, church leaders prayed to deny young children of gay couples baptism and call their parents apostates.  I highly doubt the recent change would have happened without the impact it has had on members of the church and subsequent fallout over that "revelation."  But then I am sure you have way more faith in church leaders than I do.  Our life experiences have been quite different.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Given the church's past record towards the gay community, do you really seriously think there is anyone in current leadership who might possibly be praying for acceptance of gay marriage?

I don't know and neither do you, but I understand your opinion about it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

One (well more than one) point to remember is that according to Biblical history, there was not any historical reason for the ban on those of African decent to be denied the Priesthood, with the added caveat (hope I spelled this correctly) that the Book of Mormon emphasized that (as the Bible did) that all are alike unto God. Nor was any such policy or doctrine in the D&C, as well as the PoGP. The Bible however does teach only marriage between, male and female, and strongly condeams all homosexual acts, both Old and New Testemants. To your point, President did indeed plead, many pleadings, for years. So, I am speaking “scriptually”, and I am seeking to defend in any way, as I know these points may cause harm, or hurt feelings. You know me and know I have no desire to do so, so I ask your forgiveness in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

One (well more than one) point to remember is that according to Biblical history, there was not any historical reason for the ban on those of African decent to be denied the Priesthood, with the added caveat (hope I spelled this correctly) that the Book of Mormon emphasized that (as the Bible did) that all are alike unto God. Nor was any such policy or doctrine in the D&C, as well as the PoGP. The Bible however does teach only marriage between, male and female, and strongly condeams all homosexual acts, both Old and New Testemants. To your point, President did indeed plead, many pleadings, for years. So, I am speaking “scriptually”, and I am seeking to defend in any way, as I know these points may cause harm, or hurt feelings. You know me and know I have no desire to do so, so I ask your forgiveness in advance. 

This thread isn't about Bibical support for or against gay marriage, so I am not going to address that.  But this thread is about how change and revelation occurs.  From a historical perspective, it would take a church leader to plead before God for a revelation.  Hence, my comments.

No worries about offending me.  I have always maintained that the church can keep out whoever it wants from their temples.  I am not one of those guys campaigning for gay marriage in the church.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, california boy said:

This thread isn't about Bibical support for or against gay marriage, so I am not going to address that.  But this thread is about how change and revelation occurs.  From a historical perspective, it would take a church leader to plead before God for a revelation.  Hence, my comments.

No worries about offending me.  I have always maintained that the church can keep out whoever it wants from their temples.  I am not one of those guys campaigning for gay marriage in the church.  

I was not trying to make this Biblical, I was defending the comments you were referring too. Also, at least to me, your feelings matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I understand your overall idea, but I would submit that when people see an organization (religious, academic, social, etc) acting in ways that they see as unjust, then there can be justification for non-members of that organization to protest against the organization and lobby for change.

I'm not a member of Westboro Baptist Church, but I don't think that precludes me from participating in a protest against their beliefs and tactics on the basis that since I'm not a member, it's none of my affair.

My point is that I don't agree with your general statement that non-membership in an organization means that it's none of my business what that organization does. Instead, I'd say that it comes down to specific details. In some cases, it is none of my business. In others, it could very well be my business. For example, I wouldn't think it wrong were some LDS to join a public protest against the practices and policies that led to the terrible abuse scandal in my church, even though you are non-members.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me this could have involved the Church councils that appealed / repealed the excommunications (reinstating the dissidents with disfellowhipment), and performed outreach. If President Smith acted alone, that would be interesting, but I'm sure he discussed his plans in council. I don't see what the Third Convention did was a protest but making a demand and storming off when it wasn't met. A demand is different and more egregious (in my opinion) than a protest anyway, and by nature cuts itself off from any council process. These leaders certainly had access in one form or another to the Church leaders to whom they made the demand, including their peers.

I am not sure that you are correctly characterizing the causes and results of the Third Convention problem, but it does indicate that the Brethren can be out of touch with the locals.  Another egregious instance was the apostasy of some in the French mission in the late 1950s.  It was a horrible and permanently upsetting experience for many of the missionaries there.  Some of them tried writing to the First Presidency and Twelve, but their letters were automatically rerouted back to the French mission HQ, where the apostate first counselor in the mission intercepted them.  Only when a missionary wrote to his parents, who personally knew one of the Brethren, did any action take place.to nip the problem in the bud.  Excommunications quickly followed, but by then heavy damage had been done.

There needs to be a more effective method than just protest to let the Brethren know of problems out in the boondocks.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

.......................From a historical perspective, it would take a church leader to plead before God for a revelation.  ...........................

It is certainly true that revelation has traditionally come to the Brethren via recognition of problems or questions.  A protest or letter might just bring that mater to the attention of the Brethren.

I am reminded of the old practice in South Arabia to regularly hold court for anyone and everyone to come and complain directly to the king or to the tribal sheikh, who could provide a solution then and there.  In the Bible, we read of father-in-law Jethro telling Moses that he needed to appoint judges to hear all the cases pressing upon him.  In such cases a council could draft a formal request or suggestion to the Brethren.  Some means needs to be found in which to allay the need for protests (whether unruly or quiet).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I understand your overall idea, but I would submit that when people see an organization (religious, academic, social, etc) acting in ways that they see as unjust, then there can be justification for non-members of that organization to protest against the organization and lobby for change.

I'm not a member of Westboro Baptist Church, but I don't think that precludes me from participating in a protest against their beliefs and tactics on the basis that since I'm not a member, it's none of my affair.

My point is that I don't agree with your general statement that non-membership in an organization means that it's none of my business what that organization does. Instead, I'd say that it comes down to specific details. In some cases, it is none of my business. In others, it could very well be my business. For example, I wouldn't think it wrong were some LDS to join a public protest against the practices and policies that led to the terrible abuse scandal in my church, even though you are non-members.

Fair enough. 

I suppose I was thinking of issues impacting only members of the faith, such as Catholic teachings on divorce or birth control, or the current pope’s aversion to having the papal ring kissed. I don’t think those things are any of my business. 

Similarly, I don’t believe non-believers in the Latter-day Saint faith have any business trying to pressure the Church to ordain women to the priesthood or to grant temple recommends to practicing gays or heterosexuals who engage in fornication or adultery. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am reminded of the old practice in South Arabia to regularly hold court for anyone and everyone to come and complain directly to the king or to the tribal sheikh, who could provide a solution then and there

And that reminds me of West Wing's "Big Block of Cheese Day" :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fair enough. 

I suppose I was thinking of issues impacting only members of the faith, such as Catholic teachings on divorce or birth control, or the current pope’s aversion to having the papal ring kissed. I don’t think those things are any of my business. 

Similarly, I don’t believe non-believers in the Latter-day Saint faith have any business trying to pressure the Church to ordain women to the priesthood or to grant temple recommends to practicing gays or heterosexuals who engage in fornication or adultery. 

Fair enough, too :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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?

I would in good conscience engage in lawful protest against any of the declared Democratic presidential candidates. I find the political views of each and every one of them odious in the extreme, alarmingly harmful to the nation, insanely stupid and, in some cases, immoral (i.e. late-term abortion/infanticide). I’ve never been this impassioned about presidential politics in my life. 

Edited to add: Of course, I would never invoke the name of the Church while engaging in such protests. It would be improper to do so. That should go without saying. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

D&C 85:8 is still in effect. “The shaft of death.” Fools.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Burnside said:

D&C 85:8 is still in effect. “The shaft of death.” Fools.

 so is Matthew 5:22

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours 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. 

Correct.

However, nowadays, the protest aren't counter-culture, but culture conformity-- bordering, at times, on the very fascism  to which they pretend to object, and this in unwitting contradiction to the nauseatingly banal chants they recite that are well past their expiration dates.  

I don't know about "valid form of communication," but today's protest are oft ineffectual if not counterproductive, and merely provide a false sense of virtue and meaningfulness.

That having been said, it is a form of speech and ought to be protected whether one agrees with what is being protested or not--ironically, many of the protests are attempts at squashing speech.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not sure that you are correctly characterizing the causes and results of the Third Convention problem, but it does indicate that the Brethren can be out of touch with the locals.  Another egregious instance was the apostasy of some in the French mission in the late 1950s.  It was a horrible and permanently upsetting experience for many of the missionaries there.  Some of them tried writing to the First Presidency and Twelve, but their letters were automatically rerouted back to the French mission HQ, where the apostate first counselor in the mission intercepted them.  Only when a missionary wrote to his parents, who personally knew one of the Brethren, did any action take place.to nip the problem in the bud.  Excommunications quickly followed, but by then heavy damage had been done.

There needs to be a more effective method than just protest to let the Brethren know of problems out in the boondocks.

I wasn't trying to address causes and results, but rather suggesting that the Third Convention took a “demand” vs. a “protest” approach. I’m not a proponent of protest either and agree that there are more constructive and effective ways to express concern than that (or even than writing letters or leveraging personal influence, though these might work -- is that be how letters get read in General Conference?). There is also a difference between policy and local apostasy.

An opposing vote is one way to communicate issues that demand First Presidency attention, but situational emergencies such as those you described in Mexico and France are handled differently today than they were in the 1920s-50s, mostly having to do with technology and priesthood organization.

But writing a letter to the right person seems to work now as it did then. Can someone be inspired to write the right letter to the right person? Can we make everyone that inspired or bolster the uninspired with discernment, good judgment and a handbook (as in, “Don’t write.”)? Is the Lord able to heal heavy damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 

Is Protesting Valid Communication?

Valid?  Do you mean moral/ethical/good, or do you mean effective/helpful, or both, or neither?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Correct.

However, nowadays, the protest aren't counter-culture, but culture conformity-- bordering, at times, on the very fascism  to which they pretend to object, and this in unwitting contradiction to the nauseatingly banal chants they recite that are well past their expiration dates.  

I don't know about "valid form of communication," but today's protest are oft ineffectual if not counterproductive, and merely provide a false sense of virtue and meaningfulness.

That having been said, it is a form of speech and ought to be protected whether one agrees with what is being protested or not--ironically, many of the protests are attempts at squashing speech.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Protests are not exactly a hallmark of fascism.....unless the protestors are getting run over or shot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

And that reminds me of West Wing's "Big Block of Cheese Day" :) 

I liked the UFO nut claiming that the US government was not taking the UFO threat seriously enough and the staffer is worried that they might be spending any time at all on it. I also liked the safe highway for migrating wolves idea. Seems a harsh joke now with the current administration about to begin wholesale wolf slaughter again. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Burnside said:

D&C 85:8 is still in effect. “The shaft of death.” Fools.

For example people who scream about “apostate” geography models despite the Brethren not seeing fit to weigh in. I guess someone has to steady that ark.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

................................But writing a letter to the right person seems to work now as it did then. Can someone be inspired to write the right letter to the right person? Can we make everyone that inspired or bolster the uninspired with discernment, good judgment and a handbook (as in, “Don’t write.”)? Is the Lord able to heal heavy damage?

"A stitch in time saves nine."   We should not have to depend upon special influence in order to do what should be a matter of efficient maintenance of problems.  We need to nip problems in the bud, before they become monsters out of control.  The economy of God does not depend, and should not depend, only upon inspiration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"A stitch in time saves nine."   We should not have to depend upon special influence in order to do what should be a matter of efficient maintenance of problems.  We need to nip problems in the bud, before they become monsters out of control.  The economy of God does not depend, and should not depend, only upon inspiration.

Well that's for sure; what  have you found to be a better way for the First Presidency to "nip problems in the bud, before they become monsters out of control?" One, on the local level per your examples (frustrations and personalities leading to apostasy), and also for the types of areas brought up in the OP (policy, systems, common individual offenses). An ecclesiastical management structure is already in place, so leaving inspiration, skills and personal worthiness aside, what systems would you use to ensure the efficient prevention and management of social and moral problems by those serving within the priesthood order?

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...