Diversity In The Church

[Mark Beesley]

In a thread that died a belated, painful death, Pa Pa raised the question of whether liberalism was creeping into the Church, and later refined that to a question of urban versus rural thought.

I was teaching the lesson in our High Priest Group yesterday, and the basis for the lesson was Elder Oaks' talk in the last General Conference on Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament. Within that talk, Elder Oaks commented that he has seen a welcome increase in the spirituality in Sacrament Meetings since he was a youngster in Utah. I had noticed a difference some 40 years ago when our family moved from California to Utah. (Can you imagine moving a 13-year old from from Santa Cruz, California to Kanab, Utah?!?!?! It wasn't pretty.) But that was a change based on geography rather than passage of time.

Anyway, someone suggested that the diversity that we have in California and other places outside Utah may have a negative impact on the spirituality of our meetings. I wonder where this kind of thinking comes from. But it is not far removed from the sentiment implied in Pa Pa's thread, that somehow LDS should remain homogenous in their political philosophy, and that liberalism creeping into the Church may be bad thing.

Isn't it time for Latter-day Saints to embrace diversity? I like annewandering's tagline, quoting Elder Oaks, "I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism-but I find no salvation in any of them.â? The Church of Jesus Christ is larger than Utah. It is larger than the West. And it is larger than the United States. The Gospel embraces people of all nations and all political persuasions. The unifying factor is our love of the Savior, our testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and our belief in continuing revelation from Heaven, which belief requires recognition that we do not know it all and are still learning.

Your friendly, resident Christian Socialist

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I like the diversity within the church and without the church.

I have said, one of the reasons why I like Utah is because there are many church members. One of the reasons why I don't like Utah is because there's nothing but church members. (sheer exaggeration but not hard to understand)...

[semlogo]

Brazil is one of the fastest growing mission fields, and most of the members are pretty socialist compared to US members (though socially conservative). Conservative Mormons need to recognize that Ronald Reagan wasn't a prophet, and neither is Rush Limbaugh. There is room for both conservatives and liberals in the church.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Brazil is one of the fastest growing mission fields, and most of the members are pretty socialist compared to US members (though socially conservative). Conservative Mormons need to recognize that Ronald Reagan wasn't a prophet, and neither is Rush Limbaugh. There is room for both conservatives and liberals in the church.

And back in CA, you can see that. The furthest evidence that supports your claim is the political diversity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in recent and current memory...

[Risingtide]

Hi Mark,

If by diversity you mean wards that are filled with people of different and varying nationalities, incomes, and backgrounds I agree wholeheartedly. In fact I agree with nearly all the sentiment you expressed. Funny thing is that I'm very conservative politically, so your last line about being our " friendly, resident Christian Socialist" is a long way from my convictions.

It seems we should welcome all of God's children, and in doing so we are naturally going to be shoulder to shoulder with people we have political and cultural differences with. When it comes to Church doctrine, we should be one and there is no advantage in diverse opinion.

There is a distinct Mormon culture, and some things I'd be very hesitant to change. For example our music. It's distinct from the black Southern Baptist style. For some converts our style lacks soul. Should we change to that other style in the name of diversity? I don't think so. When I was young, I thought our music was boring, but I've grown to love it, finding in it a great deal of spirituality, and I would very much miss it if it was replaced with the style I've heard in some other churches. I don't think we need bass guitars, drums, electric guitars and swaying choirs in bright uniforms. That style while exciting and praise worthy in many ways would steal reverence from our meetings. Some I'm sure would find the it easier to feel at home in our meetings, but I still wouldn't welcome that change. But I do welcome those members from diverse backgrounds, and feel that long time members should go out of our way to help new members feel loved and appreciated.

Risingtide a crunchy conservative

[Sparty]

Having lived in 6 different states in the last 13 years, I can tell you that the Church is not homogeneous politically, economically or racially. Even in my new Utah home, our ward has Hispanic, Islander, Black, and Asian families.

As an aside....I am really burned out on politics....both parties do not have the nation's best interest in mind, but really seek public division as a political tactic...there are many issues where politicians could unite, but they choose not to. Democrats and Republicans both have propaganda machines (Rush and Anne Coulter on the right, Michael Moore and Jon Stewart on the left) that promote more separation. I really don't think politics has any place in the Church because of its divisive nature....the only exception may be where social issues that influence salvation (abortion, sexual issues, etc) are concerned.

Sparty

[zerinus]

In a thread that died a belated, painful death, Pa Pa raised the question of whether liberalism was creeping into the Church, and later refined that to a question of urban versus rural thought.

I was teaching the lesson in our High Priest Group yesterday, and the basis for the lesson was Elder Oaks' talk in the last General Conference on Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament. Within that talk, Elder Oaks commented that he has seen a welcome increase in the spirituality in Sacrament Meetings since he was a youngster in Utah. I had noticed a difference some 40 years ago when our family moved from California to Utah. (Can you imagine moving a 13-year old from from Santa Cruz, California to Kanab, Utah?!?!?! It wasn't pretty.) But that was a change based on geography rather than passage of time.

Anyway, someone suggested that the diversity that we have in California and other places outside Utah may have a negative impact on the spirituality of our meetings. I wonder where this kind of thinking comes from. But it is not far removed from the sentiment implied in Pa Pa's thread, that somehow LDS should remain homogenous in their political philosophy, and that liberalism creeping into the Church may be bad thing.

Isn't it time for Latter-day Saints to embrace diversity? I like annewandering's tagline, quoting Elder Oaks, "I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism-but I find no salvation in any of them.â? The Church of Jesus Christ is larger than Utah. It is larger than the West. And it is larger than the United States. The Gospel embraces people of all nations and all political persuasions. The unifying factor is our love of the Savior, our testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and our belief in continuing revelation from Heaven, which belief requires recognition that we do not know it all and are still learning.

Your friendly, resident Christian Socialist

Does your liberal leanings incline you towards supporting Prop. 8 or opposing it?

zerinus

[Avatar4321]

Id prefer unity in the Church. After all, if we are not One, we are not His.

[Dutch]

I'm personally burned out on the word "diversity." Diversity focuses on that which divides us and, within the Church framework, that is completely opposed to what Christ wants from us. I agree with Avatar. Our energies should be going to promote unity in faith and purpose.

[thesometimesaint]

I find great strength in our diversity, it is great that the strict Liberal, and the strict Conservative can come together and support each other in our various Church responsibilities. More willing hands to do the vital work of the Lord.

I was torn from tepid support of Prop 8 to a contributor to the cause. I'm a firm believer in the Agency of all men to live their lives as best they can. What eventually decided it for me was not the Church support for 8, but the realization that the Homosexual community was not just asking for Civil Unions(something they already have in California) but were demanding my approval of their actions.

You can do pretty much anything you want, but it is wrong to demand that I approve of it.

[katherine the great]

I'm personally burned out on the word "diversity." Diversity focuses on that which divides us and, within the Church framework, that is completely opposed to what Christ wants from us. I agree with Avatar. Our energies should be going to promote unity in faith and purpose.

Other than the fact that they were all Jewish and followers of Jesus, the early apostles were a very "diverse" group.

[Zakuska]

Democrats sit on the back row.

[BCSpace]

The Gospel embraces people of all nations and all political persuasions.

The Gospel also asks you to shed the baggage of false doctrines and antiGospel ideologies.

[The Nehor]

Id prefer unity in the Church. After all, if we are not One, we are not His.

Diversity is not strength. Put Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore in the same room and set them to a task. With that much diversity in the room they should be able to pull off herculean tasks like curing cancer or ending racism. I suspect they'd have trouble lighting a candle.

A diverse population united in common purpose can do wonderful things but Conservatives, Liberals, Communists, and Socialists sitting down to discuss government usually accomplish nothing.

I want politics kept OUT of the Church, even an implied relationship.

Until we're all ready to defer to the King of Kings and have him teach us about government I think we shouldn't go nuts with our ideologies as they really don't matter that much. Unfortunately God is seen more as a partisan (particularly by Republicans) and not as a teacher.

[MormonMason]

God's politics are monarchical in nature--it's the King's way or the "broad way."

I have seen in several Wards in several states more an increase of those who truly believe that wickedness is happiness and that debauchery is freedom. Some comments made in the now dead thread seemed to reflect that stance--perhaps, unknowingly.

[Lightbearer]

It depends on what you mean by "diversity" if it means opposing the Kingdom of God (The Church's) stand on anything, whether social, political, religious or whatever, then it is "not of God." I think the Lord said the following:

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 7:18) "And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."

Also the following:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 38:27) "Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."

In light of these scriptures I do not see a lot of room for the worldly concept of diversity.

[annewandering]

It depends on what you mean by "diversity" if it means opposing the Kingdom of God (The Church's) stand on anything, whether social, political, religious or whatever, then it is "not of God." I think the Lord said the following:Also the following:In light of these scriptures I do not see a lot of room for the worldly concept of diversity.

i like the spiritual sense of diversity, being that man is so full of amazing and wonderful differences. different isnt bad. until we have a perfect form of government we have to cob together the best we can from bits and pieces.

the two general sets of thought now in this country are not all that great, but they each have good and bad.

one thing i worry about with lack of divergency is how it spills over into other areas. an example is something that happened in a former ward in oakland. the 1st councilor in the relief society was my visiting teacher. we got along fine and liked to have nice chats. one day she brought up an interesting subject. it was how she thought it was disgraceful that the polyonesians in our ward took off their shoes in church. she was greatly offended at their lack of respect to God.

she never realized that they thought it was disrespectful to wear shoes in a house of God. and didnt bother to find out.

she was a wonderful lady, but it is this lack of even thinking others might be different but still right that worries me.

[Tsuzuki]

Does your liberal leanings incline you towards supporting Prop. 8 or opposing it?

zerinus

You don't need liberal leanings to oppose Prop. 8.

[BCSpace]

You don't need liberal leanings to oppose Prop. 8.

But you do need to be in opposition to the Church on the issue in order to do so. Hence, as Lightbearer points out, there is not much room for the worldly definition of diversity.

[annewandering]

that would be true if it were doctrine when they asked for support for it. as it was they asked for support and that is all.

[BCSpace]

that would be true if it were doctrine when they asked for support for it. as it was they asked for support and that is all.

The Church's support for Prop 8 is published by the Church itself, therefore, it is doctrine by it's own definition of doctrine.

[hagoth7]

I think the following from Methodist founder John Wesley contains a lot of wisdom:

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

[talisyn]

Democrats sit on the back row.

[/quote

I can attest to that, but that's because I don't want my bright blue hair to be a distraction to others who may not be comfortable with my theory of hair as decorative art. Speaking as a church socialist, I had not a hard time but a def lack of interest in prop 8 when we were asked to support it. It did give me many hours of contemplation (mostly huh?) but I came to my own conclusions and my conclusions turned out to be what happened after the vote (uncivil protests, court battles against the church's tax-exempt status). I think what's important to understand is most people in the USA are just trying to do what's right with their family, God, and country. We have different ideas on how to get to political bliss but I take comfort in the fact that the Church is true and that we are united in the gospel.

Now, about ethnic diversity, it took me about 3 years after I moved from S. Cali to S. Idaho to get use to all the white people. And all these Mormons! The LDS part was great but a bit intimidating. It's kind've hard going from holding your lonely light up in a sea of Gentiles to being one of many holding their own lights up in a sea of Mormons.

[BCSpace]

We have different ideas on how to get to political bliss but I take comfort in the fact that the Church is true and that we are united in the gospel.

In your opinion, was the Church's support for Prop 8 inspired by God or not? I'll not comment on a simple yes or no answer.

[annewandering]

The Church's support for Prop 8 is published by the Church itself, therefore, it is doctrine by it's own definition of doctrine.

find me a reference to that because it is my understanding that is completely not true.