Mechanism For Dissent

[Lamanite]

One of the finest treatments of dissent and Mormonism is an article written by Matthew Bowman entitled, "Toward a Theology of Dissent: An Ecclesiological Interpretation" I agree with most if not all of what Matthew said. Today my thoughts of dissent and dissenters came while reading John Turner's new bio on BY, "Brigham Young- Pioneer Prophet". Specifically, while I was reading about all that went on in Kirtland. Regarding Joseph and the struggles of the Kirtland Safety Society Turner writes:

"They believed he [smith] understood spiritual things....but they did not believe he knew how to manage temporal affairs.' The murmurings of the winter and spring grew into open rebellion in late May...'[M]any & some in high places had risen up against Joseph.' Smith attempted to quell dissent from the pulpit, but Warren Parrish, one of the prophet's clerks and an officer in the bank, publicly denounced him. The next day, the church's high council heard charges against Parrish and four other dissenters, including two apostles and one of Smith's counselors in the church's presidency...the council 'dispersed in confusion.' Several members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles publicly censured Smith, and others privately doubted his prophetic calling...An open battle between Smith loyalists and dissenters took place in the temple, complete with pistols and bowie-knives....Smith...[then] led a council in disciplining a number of his ecclesiastical enemies, but by then it was too late= nothing could still the opposition....Young later recalled a church meeting at which leading members discussed deposing Smith. Parrish and others who rejected Smith's leadership...pledged to hold it, 'if it is by the shedding of blood.' Excommunications held no sway. 'Far from flourishing as their prophet had foretold... the Saints were caught in a downward spiral.' Joseph...failed to take decisive action against his ecclesiastical opponents. Smith and those loyal to him lost Kirtland and its temple, roughly one-third of the church's high-ranking officers, and a sizable portion of the church's entire membership." (pg. 53-54)

How did BY respond to all of this? Turner quotes Brigham as saying, "God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine." (pg. 54) I'm sure many of you feel the same way Brigham did.

I admire Brigham's loyalty. However, I think He could have left off the part about it not being his business. Of course it was his business. It was the Church's business. I wholeheartedly agree that we should allow Joseph the ability to commit error without doubting his Prophetic calling; but in addition to our empathy for our leader's human frailties, there should be a mechanism for dissent. The membership should have a means by which we can be heard and thoughtfully considered. Perhaps it was Kirtland that later prompted Brigham to say:

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security"

IMO, had there been a mechanism for dissent in Kirtland the damage done to the Church and the loss of leadership and lay people would have been significantly mitigated. I also think the events that took place with the issues surrounding the "ERA" and the "September 6"could have had an entirely different outcome. One which would have been largely positive.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited September 19, 2012 by Lamanite

[Calm]

Define what you mean by a "mechanism of dissent" please. Do you mean a way to act on dissent or just to express it for consideration? If the first, what would you suggest? If the second, perhaps you could give more details on how it was lacking in Kirtland.

[Lamanite]

Define what you mean by a "mechanism of dissent" please. Do you mean a way to act on dissent or just to express it for consideration? If the first, what would you suggest? If the second, perhaps you could give more details on how it was lacking in Kirtland.

That's the million dollar question now isn't it? I guess my first instinct for the modern church would be to involve the Strengthening Church Members Committee. What issues it would choose to consider and respond to would be an interesting discussion. I think that when dealing with situations and members like Sonia and the "Six", it would be easier to extend consideration to them through something like the SCMC, than through a largely uninformed local authority. With the "Six" I think there was a huge disconnect between them, the local leadership, and the concerns of the General Authorities involved. Communication triangles are pretty worthless in my opinion. When the situation concerns a committee involving GA's it should probably be dealt with by a committee of GA's. Don't get me wrong, I think in most cases our local leadership is perfectly capable of handling most issues. However, there are times when the SCMC gets involved and starts gathering information and begins communicating with local leadership where I think we could just cut out the local authorites and begin good faith discussions between high level authorities and those involved that include listening, hearing, understanding, humility, empathy, and love.

Kirtland is a pretty interesting scenario. Do I think the Q12 and other leaders and lay members were right in publicly eviscerating Joseph? No. Do I think Joseph should have gone around excommunicating and castigating people for their understandable frustration and concern? No. What could have been done? I suspect a lot of things. From my perspective there is nothing better than sitting down with people in an attitude of love and understanding and trying to work things out. Prophethood does not mean absolute correctness in leadership (see Brighams admission of Josephs "error".) Nor is discipleship and faithfulness cultivated in rocky soil. I think a lot of things could have been avoided by extending and receiving love.

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned...By kindness, and pure knowledge.” (D&C 121:41-42)

What are your thought?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lightbearer]

I think that dissent will always happen at one level or another, at least untime the Second Coming when we will "all see eye to eye" but until then it would be wise for all members to have a little more patience and faith. The Kirtland Bank incident (as well as Zion's camp) were not examples of the prophet getting it wrong so much as a test or loyalty and faith of the members and leaders. They had just had a pentacostal outpouring of biblical purportions, after such a great experience there is always a trial of faith. Where much is given much is expected. That is the nature of this life. It is part of the pride cycle in the Book of Mormon. Often the natural man gets the better of us and we stumble.If we repent we can recover, if not them we are likely to loose our way and become lost as many have. I also think that often when we see the mote in prophets and leaders eyes in the past (or present) we often overlook the beam in our own. The ERA situation and Sept 6th, were not examples of leadership exercsing unrighteous dominion, but that was removing a cancer that could have corrupted the entire church. Satan is alive and well and he tries every possible way to decieve even the very elect. HIs greatest tool is pride and also contention, because if he can cause anger or rage to enter our hearts we will loose the spirit of the Lord and then spiritual blindness sets in. Yes all instances of dissent or rather I would call it rebellion should be handled face to face and not in public. The ERA Sonia Johnson dissent was a public event that was intended to make the church look bad. I cannot say much about Sept 6, but I suspect the same must have been true. Any time someone publicly comes out in rebellion against the Lord's anointed then consequences must follow and they are usually negative. That is the purpose of dissent, to oppose to be adversarial and to force the will of the dissenter on the Church. That is why there was a war in heaven, Satan and one third of our brothers and sisters were cast out. Sometimes there is no way one can compromise. The purposes of God will not be frustrated or come to naught. That is my thoughts for what it's worth.

[Glenn101]

Before anyone actually lays the blame for the Kirtland Safety Society's demise at Joseph Smith's feet, maybe they should read the article at www.fairlds.org/Misc/KSS.pdf. Of course there will be other points of view. But that article throws more light on why the Kirtland Safety Society failed and why maybe Joseph did the best he could under the circumstances, especially in light of the "pistols and bowie knives."

Dissent should always be in private. Public dissent undermines the offices and leaders against whom the dissent is aimed.

Here is an excerpt from a talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve in the Ensign, February 1987. I should think that it answers all of Lamanites questions:

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.)

Elder Lorenzo Snow also observed some “imperfections” in Joseph Smith, but he also reached a positive conclusion about the Prophet:

“I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him … for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me.” (Quoted by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 10.)

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

Hope this helps.

Glenn

[Lamanite]

To Glenn,

So organizing a committee of senior ranking Church leaders in Kirtland who sit down with dissenters in a Priesthood setting, while being loving and cautious, to hear the members concerns would have negative effects? Surely trying something like this couldn't have made things any worse. Providing a mechanism for redress would not be better than letting Warren and others to run wild in Kirtland? Providing a means by which the Prophet could sit down with dissenters and discuss temporal and spiritual concerns while being filled with the Holy Ghost and expressing the full mantle of his Prophethood wouldn't have made things just a little better? I think it would have.

Yes, I think a mechanism for public and private dissent should be available. And perhaps we already have the framework for both and just need someone to recognize its necessity.

Lightbearer said:

"The ERA situation and Sept 6th, were not examples of leadership exercsing [sic] unrighteous dominion, but that was removing a cancer that could have corrupted the entire church."

Paul Toscano and Quinn may have proved to be a cancer in some minor ways but Whitesides, Gileadi, Hanks, and Anderson deserved to speak with someone from the SCMC and attempt to resolve the issues. I'm confident things could have worked out if discussions were based upon the right virtues and principles. Sonia could have fit into this model well, IMO.

The Newells situation with "Mormon Enigma" could have been handled waaaaaay diffeerent!(see History of Dialogue Three). From it we read that after the publication of Enigma, "The[ir] bishop told us he had received word that two 'girls' had written a controversial book about Emma Smith, and we were not to encourage the sale of the book by inviting them to speak in any of our church meetings(1)....Hansen also said he had learned that the decision came from the First Presidency (of whom second counselor Gordon B. Hinckley was the only functioning member at the time) and the Quorum of the Twelve. Hansen said the reason the speaking prohibition was given was because Linda and Avery had been "using sacrament meeting and other church meetings" to promote sales of their book. Linda immediately countered: "If they had talked to me first I could have told them that Val had never spoken in a sacrament meeting on Emma Smith, and it was my own personal policy not to speak in sacrament meeting after the book was published." Oaks...recognizing the fact that the manner in which the instructions had been given had resulted in damaged reputations, Maxwell acknowledged that the ban 'could have been handled better and [he] said that they were sorry for the way it was carried out.'

"your book represents a non-traditional view of Joseph Smith" and thus may damage the faith of church members who read it. Linda explained that the letters and calls she had received from readers described a positive reaction. Oaks acknowledged that possibility yet maintained that he believed "the weight of the evidence was on the other side."184 Jack countered that the issue was whether or not the book was an honest and true portrayal of the facts, readers reactions being incidental. When Linda asked whether the two apostles had read the book, Maxwell did not answer and Oaks admitted he had only read portions of it, citing time constraints as the reason. He acknowledged that in what he had read, Linda and Avery had used restraint when discussing aspects of Joseph Smith's life and his relationship with Emma. Apparently, however, it was not enough. After more discussion, Oaks emphasized that, despite his academic background and reputation as a scholar and intellectual, his duty as an apostle meant he had an obligation to "protect what is most unique about the LDS church" and stressed that "if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."

"Oaks also expressed concern about repairing the damage to Linda's reputation caused by the ban. Jack said rescinding it would be the best way. Oaks responded: "I'm quite sure that wouldn't happen." However, after Linda asked how long the ban would be in place, Oaks said: 'It's permanent.' Tuesday, 25 June, Dart [A Los Angeles Times reporter] called Linda once again and told her that he planned to proceed with his story for the Los Angeles Times, with or without her help. Linda prepared a three-page statement and sent copies to Oaks and Maxwell, explaining that the story was coming out anyway and this was her way to safeguard herself against being quoted out of context. On Friday, 28 June, local reporter Dawn Tracy also called, and Linda provided her with the same statement. The next day articles appeared in both the Salt Lake Tribune and Los Angeles Times. Both reporters quoted what to Linda was the most painful part of the whole ordeal: "No one had any explanation as to why, as lifetime church members, neither Val nor I had been informed officially of this decision or been given an opportunity to speak on our own behalf. By not informing us, established church rules of due process were ignored."

Some kind of mechanism for due process and consideration on both sides would have been great in the Newell/Tippetts case.

Big UP!

Lamanite

1. *in 1985 "on April 13, I requested through my stake president that Church leaders reconsider their prohibition. Last Thursday, April 24th, he telephoned me with the news that my request had been honored, and that previous restrictions placed on Valeen Avery's and my speaking on Church history at Church sponsored meetings is no longer in effect. I am naturally pleased with this decision. It renews my confidence that leaders and members can reason together when basic differences arise, and provides

hope that other independent LDS scholars will be spared the difficulties that Valeen and I have experienced." [emphasis added]

Edited September 19, 2012 by Lamanite

[volgadon]

So organizing a committee of senior ranking Church leaders in Kirtland who sit down with dissenters in a Priesthood setting, while being loving and cautious, to hear the members concerns would have negative effects?

The dissenters were the senior ranking church leaders and Joseph did meet with them. As I read it, the problem was that Joseph wasn't as decisive as he should have been, which allowed dissent to grow to a point where it couldn't be reigned in.

[CV75]

IMO, had there been a mechanism for dissent in Kirtland the damage done to the Church and the loss of leadership and lay people would have been significantly mitigated. I also think the events that took place with the issues surrounding the "ERA" and the "September 6"could have had an entirely different outcome. One which would have been largely positive.

Where empathy is not necessarily agreement, differences can be effectively handled at all Church levels of organization through the priesthood council and counseling structures. However, these are not promoted as mechanisms for dissent but rather as modes of operation for Spirit-guided unity in seeking and abiding in the Lord’s will.

Assuming “good-faith dissent” means seeking the Lord’s will with real intent, the council structure would be very helpful. But if it means promoting (rather than considering, exploring, or weighting) a variance from the position of the Lord’s anointed, there can be no mechanism in the Lord’s kingdom for that.

Participating effectively in a priesthood council requires some spiritual processes and gifts that are provided in the D&C. As to what is our business and what isn’t, I think we have to be guided by that by the Spirit as well, and have to act in our best conscience.

I think the council / counseling approach has been promoted at the local level quite heavily since 1990 (perhaps before), probably in response to the increased need to identify and solve problems locally.

[Lamanite]

The dissenters were the senior ranking church leaders and Joseph did meet with them. As I read it, the problem was that Joseph wasn't as decisive as he should have been, which allowed dissent to grow to a point where it couldn't be reigned in.

The dissenter were some of the senior ranking church leaders. Being more decisive (euphemism for autocrat) may have worked. Brigham sure ruled the Utah territory with an iron fist to quell dissent and apostasy. It's definitely a valid comparison and should be considered as a possible solution to dissent within the Church.

However, it's my opinion that if Joseph would have been more forthcoming and discussed the Banks issues, National Bank issues (for context), and asserted his Prophethood with love, concern, and caring he would have been met by dissenters with an increase of love and acceptance.

Two different approaches. I favor one but see the possible merits of the other.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

a variance from the position of the Lord’s anointed, there can be no mechanism in the Lord’s kingdom for that.

God makes Prophets out of men. Men are flawed and prone to mistakes. It must be concluded then that errors affect their execution of Prophetic duties to a greater or lesser degree. (Brigham already admitted that Joseph committed errors with the Bank. Partly because of Josephs temporal mistakes Kirtland and its Temple was lost.) Thus, there should be a mechanism in place to dissent.

For example, shortly after the death of Joseph, Brigham extemporaneously announces that Black people can no longer hold the Priesthood or receive the blessings of the Temple, which is in direct conflict with the traditions and practices of the former Prophet. Surely this qualifies as a situation that could have used a dissenting hot line.

That's just me.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

So organizing a committee of senior ranking Church leaders in Kirtland who sit down with dissenters in a Priesthood setting, while being loving and cautious, to hear the members concerns would have negative effects? Surely trying something like this couldn't have made things any worse. Providing a mechanism for redress would not be better than letting Warren and others to run wild in Kirtland? Providing a means by which the Prophet could sit down with dissenters and discuss temporal and spiritual concerns while being filled with the Holy Ghost and expressing the full mantle of his Prophethood wouldn't have made things just a little better? I think it would have.

You assume the dissenters are reasonable people who just want their side heard. It think this is naive like imagining Iscariot's betrayal could have been avoided if only Jesus had spent more time chatting with him and listening to his views on things.

[Lamanite]

You assume the dissenters are reasonable people who just want their side heard. It think this is naive like imagining Iscariot's betrayal could have been avoided if only Jesus had spent more time chatting with him and listening to his views on things.

You have very little faith in Men who Joseph called as Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Doubting those who were called and trusted as Special Witness of the Savior? Seems to be a contrary attitude for those who assert that dissent has no place in the Church. I probably would have given them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since what was at stake for the dissenters involved them and their families, in addition to their religious community. Yeah, I probably would say they definitely had a right to air their grievances and solutions in a way that is consistent with the Spirit of God.

Do you not sustain and support the Lords Anointed? Do you not sustain and support the General Authorities of the Church? These are the men you are doubting. If they are capable of mistakes and poor judgment, why not a Prophet? Even more interesting is why some cannot accept Josephs errors and still sustain him as a Prophet? I know I can. I can also apply context, empathy, understanding, and forgiveness to all of our leaders mistakes which happen with a less or increasing frequency, and a greater and lesser severity depending on the Man or Woman.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

You have very little faith in Men who Joseph called as Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Doubting those who were called and trusted as Special Witness of the Savior? Seems to be a contrary attitude for those who assert that dissent has no place in the Church. I probably would have given them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since what was at stake for the dissenters involved them and their families, in addition to their religious community. Yeah, I probably would say they definitely had a right to air their grievances and solutions in a way that is consistent with the Spirit of God.

Do you not sustain and support the Lords Anointed? Do you not sustain and support the General Authorities of the Church? These are the men you are doubting. If they are capable of mistakes and poor judgment, why not a Prophet? Even more interesting is why some cannot accept Josephs errors and still sustain him as a Prophet? I know I can. I can also apply context, empathy, understanding, and forgiveness to all of our leaders mistakes which happen with a less or increasing frequency, and a greater and lesser severity depending on the Man or Woman.

Nice try on the derail. I do support the Twelve and find your feeble attempts to guilt me into feeling I am a traitor manipulative and a derail. I support the Twelve but when they are out of harmony with the Prophet then I will stop supporting them. The Church is not a democracy. Their call is to counsel the Prophet but then follow his decisions.

As to having little faith inthem those that repented and described their apostasy later justify my lack of faith intheir reasonableness. Most spoke of spiritual darkness. The attack on Joseph Smith Sr. in the temple do not convince me that this was a simple difference of opinion or relatively innocent hurt feelings over not being consulted. They were traitors. I judge them the way I do Iscariot.

[BCSpace]

The Church's handling of dissent now is, imho, described by "bend but don't break". In other words, we accept as many opinions as can fit within as broad an interpretation of LDS doctrine as possible. We have a relatively unwritten/undefined but fairly consistent notion of what doctrines are most important or most critical (notice I am NOT saying any doctrine is not important or not critical, it depends on the circumstances). And we don't worry too much about major personal dissent unless it becomes public. Goes along well with "wheat and the tares".

Anyone who believes the Church's relative inaction on certain issues or people justifies false teachings and philosophies is fooling themselves. This is Gospel Law, not the Law of Moses where everything must be specifically spelled out.

Edited September 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[KevinG]

We have a mechanism for dissent and agreement. It is called the church counsel. We have them at all levels from the local branch to the first Presidency.

The procedure is any time counselors and president are not in agreement they go back to the Lord and pray together as many times as it takes to find enlightened agreement. I have been involved in counsels and they are a wonderful thing.

[Lamanite]

Nice try on the derail. I do support the Twelve and find your feeble attempts to guilt me into feeling I am a traitor manipulative and a derail. I support the Twelve but when they are out of harmony with the Prophet then I will stop supporting them. The Church is not a democracy. Their call is to counsel the Prophet but then follow his decisions.

As to having little faith inthem those that repented and described their apostasy later justify my lack of faith intheir reasonableness. Most spoke of spiritual darkness. The attack on Joseph Smith Sr. in the temple do not convince me that this was a simple difference of opinion or relatively innocent hurt feelings over not being consulted. They were traitors. I judge them the way I do Iscariot.

It's not a derail in the least. These men were entrusted with all the keys of the Priesthood. Men called to be Special Witness of Jesus Christ. Sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in their own right and collectively. Most had been ritually washed and anointed by this point. They were set apart. They were trusted by Joseph for a reason and a purpose. And in consideration for the former, I feel like it would have worked for everyone's benefit to have something in place for grievances. Especially since it was painfully obvious that their current course was leading to destruction.

These types of men should have been given an ecclesiological mechanism for dissent. Their temporal and spiritual lives were crumbling around them. Had a mechanism been in place perhaps they would not have had to resort to public pulpits. Perhaps if Joseph would have been approached in private via an ecclesiological mechanism he would not have had to excommunicate some of the dissenters.

My best guess is that things could have been resolved with less drama. But I can't say for sure. It's all just a guess on my part. But I can't see anything wrong with creating a means by which dissenters and their issues can't be considered and responded to by the Church in a way that meets the needs of the Church and the individuals. Excommunication is a violent spiritual act that needs to be carefully considered by the right people through the right methods. And if one of those methods involves a committee like the SCMS in rare cases then that's great in my mind.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The Nehor]

It's not a derail in the least. These men were entrusted with all the keys of the Priesthood. Men called to be Special Witness of Jesus Christ. Sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in their own right and collectively. Most had been ritually washed and anointed by this point. They were set apart. They were trusted by Joseph for a reason and a purpose. And in consideration for the former, I feel like it would have worked for everyone's benefit to have something in place for grievances. Especially since it was painfully obvious that their current course was leading to destruction.

These types of men should have been given an ecclesiological mechanism for dissent. Their temporal and spiritual lives were crumbling around them. Had a mechanism been in place perhaps they would not have had to resort to public pulpits. Perhaps if Joseph would have been approached in private via an ecclesiological mechanism he would not have had to excommunicate some of the dissenters.

My best guess is that things could have been resolved with less drama. But I can't say for sure. It's all just a guess on my part. But I can't see anything wrong with creating a means by which dissenters and their issues can't be considered and responded to by the Church in a way that meets the needs of the Church and the individuals. Excommunication is a violent spiritual act that needs to be carefully considered by the right people through the right methods. And if one of those methods involves a committee like the SCMS in rare cases then that's great in my mind.

They had a means. They could talk to Joseph or even do an end-run around him and talk to God. What mechanism do they need to talk to the Prophet other then, "Hey Joseph, can we talk?"

Either they did and continued in rebellion or they did not because they would not and a mechanism would not have changed that.

[Lamanite]

Their call is to counsel the Prophet but then follow his decisions.

Perhaps a reading/re-reading of Kimball's Lengthening your stride will refresh your memory on how the Q12 operates with the First Presidency and the Prophet regarding important issues facing the Church. One dissenting voice from the Quorum halts everything until further light and knowledge is revealed and all members can be united in purpose.

Joseph lacked this unity in Kirtland and should have met more frequently those to whom he anointed as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Council and Counsel.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[KevinG]

Perhaps a reading/re-reading of Kimball's Lengthening your stride will refresh your memory on how the Q12 operates with the First Presidency and the Prophet regarding important issues facing the Church. One dissenting voice from the Quorum halts everything until further light and knowledge is revealed and all members can be united in purpose.

Joseph lacked this unity in Kirtland and should have met more frequently those to whom he anointed as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Council and Counsel.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Something tells me that a person who was willing to take over a Temple with weapons would not have lsitened well in a counsel situation anyway.

[CV75]

God makes Prophets out of men. Men are flawed and prone to mistakes. It must be concluded then that errors affect their execution of Prophetic duties to a greater or lesser degree. (Brigham already admitted that Joseph committed errors with the Bank. Partly because of Josephs temporal mistakes Kirtland and its Temple was lost.) Thus, there should be a mechanism in place to dissent.

For example, shortly after the death of Joseph, Brigham extemporaneously announces that Black people can no longer hold the Priesthood or receive the blessings of the Temple, which is in direct conflict with the traditions and practices of the former Prophet. Surely this qualifies as a situation that could have used a dissenting hot line.

That's just me.

Big UP!

Lamanite

The quote you only partially cited is actually "But if it [dissent] means promoting (rather than considering, exploring, or weighting) a variance from the position of the Lord’s anointed, there can be no mechanism in the Lord’s kingdom for that." Emphasis mine; the de-emphasis was yours--why sabotage your own thread?

So, as you said (my response in bold):

God makes Prophets out of men. Yes. Men are flawed and prone to mistakes. Yes. It must be concluded then that errors affect their execution of Prophetic duties to a greater or lesser degree. But it is the Lord's Church ans he will intervene with the prophet as necessary. (Brigham already admitted that Joseph committed errors with the Bank. And that he thought it none of his business, I believe because it is the Lord's Church ans he will intervene with the prophet as necessary. Partly because of Josephs temporal mistakes Kirtland and its Temple was lost.) Thus, there should be a mechanism in place to dissent. Yes, and there is, depending on what "disent" means, as I pointed out in my first post.

For example, shortly after the death of Joseph, Brigham extemporaneously announces that Black people can no longer hold the Priesthood or receive the blessings of the Temple, which is in direct conflict with the traditions and practices of the former Prophet. Surely this qualifies as a situation that could have used a dissenting hot line. As you said, "That's just you." if you are interested in the welfare of Zion, you may certainly bring up any good-faith dissenting opinion as guided by the Spirit in a council or in counsel. Otherwise there is no "hot line" for "just you."

[The Nehor]

Perhaps a reading/re-reading of Kimball's Lengthening your stride will refresh your memory on how the Q12 operates with the First Presidency and the Prophet regarding important issues facing the Church. One dissenting voice from the Quorum halts everything until further light and knowledge is revealed and all members can be united in purpose.

Joseph lacked this unity in Kirtland and should have met more frequently those to whom he anointed as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Council and Counsel.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I disagree and unanimity is sought but not required. By this standard Judas would have the right of veto on everything Jesus said and taught. The Twelve are obligated to sustain the Prophet. President Kimball had the advantage of not having his entire Twelve go bad. We see less of this now as Joseph had to pick unseasoned members of the church and we are no longer so limited in options.

[CV75]

dissent has no place in the Church

Correct--promoting dissent without the Spirit or in councils or counsel has no place in the Church. Why should it?

[Glenn101]

To Glenn,

So organizing a committee of senior ranking Church leaders in Kirtland who sit down with dissenters in a Priesthood setting, while being loving and cautious, to hear the members concerns would have negative effects? Surely trying something like this couldn't have made things any worse. Providing a mechanism for redress would not be better than letting Warren and others to run wild in Kirtland? Providing a means by which the Prophet could sit down with dissenters and discuss temporal and spiritual concerns while being filled with the Holy Ghost and expressing the full mantle of his Prophethood wouldn't have made things just a little better? I think it would have.

Yes, I think a mechanism for public and private dissent should be available. And perhaps we already have the framework for both and just need someone to recognize its necessity.

Lamanite, After doing a bit more research into the matter, there appears to be evidence that some members of the twelve, including Warren Parrish, were embezzling funds from the Kirtland Bank. While Joseph was on a trip to Canada a campaign was mounted against him those members, accusing Joseph of being the instrument of destruction of the Kirtland Banking Society. Joesph defended himself ably from the pulpit, but was denounced in that meeting by Warren Parrish. As I noted, Joseph may have walked back into a situation after his trip that was already out of control. At this point in history, I don't think that we can pass an informed judgement on Joseph's actions there. The article I referenced does show that the problem with the bank was not of Joseph's or Sidney's making and that the problems continued after they had severed their ties to the Society and Joseph had warned the saints to do the same. Warren Parrish remained the telled in that bank.

Also, as I pointed out in my post, there are mechanisms in the church for orderly dissent and criticism.

Glenn

[KevinG]

The mechanisms the Lord has put in place for resolution of disagreements requires a great deal of maturity on the part of those involved. The point is underscored by this discussion.

[Lamanite]

The quote you only partially cited is actually...

I can't see where I cited anything. Help me out.

From Brigham again:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him."

What happens if the answer comes back that the Prophet is wrong? What if you still want to be Mormon but need to reconcile some things that can't be handled by local leadership. This was the case with most of the Six. Their local leaders were so far out of touch with what was going on with academia that it made their courts a sham. The SCMC could have probably been a mechanism for reconciliation. What to do?

Big UP!

Lamanite