Mechanism For Dissent

[Lamanite]

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.

When has anyone been immature in this thread? The first example of immaturity seems to be your own.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

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

The quote you only partially cited ["citied" referring to what you copied with the "quote" function off my post] was mine—I wrote, "But if it [dissent] means promoting (rather than considering, exploring, or weighing) a variance from the position of the Lord’s anointed, there can be no mechanism in the Lord’s kingdom for that."

You cited (use whatever term you wish) only: “a variance from the position of the Lord’s anointed, there can be no mechanism in the Lord’s kingdom for that” and then responded to a point I wasn’t making, perhaps in an attempt to reassert or emphasize your original point; I don’t know (I do know partial citing and the resultant misunderstanding/misinterpretation/misrepresentation of another’s position isn’t conducive to how effective councils work!).

I take no exception to any of the quotes you provided from Brigham Young.

If someone feels inspired that the Prophet is wrong and the local leadership cannot seem to resolve the case to his satisfaction, then he can seek referral or direct access to the area, regional, or general levels. I understand the most common practice is to defer to the more local option, so if he remains dissatisfied to the point of facing a seemingly insurmountable challenge, he has the same options as the rest of us when so struggling. If his membership is more important to him than his position, he will not try to convince others of his belief outside of proper council/counsel processes. There are recent threads about faith crises and people offended by priesthood leaders that seem to speak to what might be done.

My knowledge of the “September Six” and the SCMC isn’t sufficient to use them as a case study to consider whether or how well councils and counseling function in this case or in general.

[Calm]

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

If someone is sincere about wanting a person or institution to change their underlying principles causing the alleged offense and not just be pressured into doing something about one incident by public opinion or legal threat, private approaches are much more effective than public ones where defensiveness will more likely result in justification and a solidification of the inappropriate behaviour than looking into one's own heart and repenting. Public whistleblowing, etc. should only be undertaken after private approaches have failed or if there is no other way.

Unfortunately what often happens is that when one person publicly dissents or condemns, a public response must take place in order to address the public's concern which means that there is less opportunity for a real change of heart on either side.

[Calm]

Being more decisive (euphemism for autocrat) may have worked.

I disagree. Decisiveness can be about the speed with which a decision is reached and there is no reason that such a decision has to be made in isolation without input from others (which would be in my opinion the "autocratic" way of doing things).

[Calm]

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.

I am curious to why you are so certain he didn't try this and was possibly met by rebuffs for his attempts?

[Calm]

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?

If there can be a Judas among the Lord's chosen apostles, why can't that same attitude of 'knowing better than the Lord/Prophet' exist among modern apostles? Were they not as human as Joseph was?

[Calm]

When has anyone been immature in this thread? The first example of immaturity seems to be your own.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I believe he was referring to the episode with Joseph, not to this thread. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Many were apparently young in their faith. Even if they had remarkable spiritual witnesses that they were called to testify to, they had not been tested yet. That some were involved in unethical actions of their own and were willing to resort to violence would indicate this.

[CV75]

This discussion brings to mind something I’ve seen over and over again about dissent.

The LDS leaders acknowledge they are human, have flaws and make mistakes. We know that as far as the arm of flesh goes, everyone has strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

My observation has been that those who critique the leaders do so on the basis (real or imagined) that they (the dissenters) are more expert in the subject they critique—that they are stronger, and more perfect, able, understanding and correct than the leaders on the particular point of dissention. And they may well be right (we have some examples from Kirtland on this thread)—after all, we are talking about comparing human strength with human strength.

I think problems arise when this dynamic takes precedence over testimony, covenants, spirituality, etc. and takes on a character of competition (D&C 58:41), contention and enmity. This is why I emphasize councils and counseling, individual responsibility to cultivate the companionship of the Spirit, laboring for Zion, etc. I think the problems are especially severe when one actively promotes dissention on the basis of receiving conflicting revelation from the Prophet.

People who know on one hand they are stronger, and more perfect, able, understanding and correct than another can also be charitable, “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” I think this is where Brigham Young was coming from in the quotes given in the OP.

If someone dissents, he can dissent well or poorly, as I tried to convey in post #8. I don’t see how one can persist in dissenting poorly and expect to enjoy his membership in the Church or be of any benefit to his fellow Church members.

One question I see from the OP is that, had Joseph Smith a different skill set with regards to banking, or dealing with those who dissented on that basis, would things have gone better. On one hand, looking at the arm of flesh, perhaps. But looking at it realistically, the adversary and adversaries would have only worked on another weakness to undermine the greater good. Could Joseph Smith had been more spiritually advanced and thus been more successful against teh powers of darkness? -- he who is more advanced please step forward!.Had Joseph Smith been as perfect as Jesus Christ, who knows -- we see how Jesus handled His dissenters, so maybe giving up his life was the highest form of service he could render. Does knowing whether Joseph's human weaknesses contributed to his death matter, if the Lord was well pleased with it?

[Lamanite]

This discussion brings to mind something I’ve seen over and over again about dissent.

The LDS leaders acknowledge they are human, have flaws and make mistakes. We know that as far as the arm of flesh goes, everyone has strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

My observation has been that those who critique the leaders do so on the basis (real or imagined) that they (the dissenters) are more expert in the subject they critique—that they are stronger, and more perfect, able, understanding and correct than the leaders on the particular point of dissention. And they may well be right (we have some examples from Kirtland on this thread)—after all, we are talking about comparing human strength with human strength.

I think problems arise when this dynamic takes precedence over testimony, covenants, spirituality, etc. and takes on a character of competition (D&C 58:41), contention and enmity. This is why I emphasize councils and counseling, individual responsibility to cultivate the companionship of the Spirit, laboring for Zion, etc. I think the problems are especially severe when one actively promotes dissention on the basis of receiving conflicting revelation from the Prophet.

People who know on one hand they are stronger, and more perfect, able, understanding and correct than another can also be charitable, “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” I think this is where Brigham Young was coming from in the quotes given in the OP.

If someone dissents, he can dissent well or poorly, as I tried to convey in post #8. I don’t see how one can persist in dissenting poorly and expect to enjoy his membership in the Church or be of any benefit to his fellow Church members.

One question I see from the OP is that, had Joseph Smith a different skill set with regards to banking, or dealing with those who dissented on that basis, would things have gone better. On one hand, looking at the arm of flesh, perhaps. But looking at it realistically, the adversary and adversaries would have only worked on another weakness to undermine the greater good. Could Joseph Smith had been more spiritually advanced and thus been more successful against teh powers of darkness? -- he who is more advanced please step forward!.Had Joseph Smith been as perfect as Jesus Christ, who knows -- we see how Jesus handled His dissenters, so maybe giving up his life was the highest form of service he could render. Does knowing whether Joseph's human weaknesses contributed to his death matter, if the Lord was well pleased with it?

Well said. Very well said.

If I may comment on Joseph's spirituality. I don't think anyone could have contributed more to the salvation or exaltation of Man than did Joseph Smith. He stands alone in what he bestowed on this dispensation and maybe even in all of known time save Jesus only.

This was a valuable discussion for me. Very rarely have I expressed my personal opinion in this thread. Most often I have offered various scenario's and possibilities for institutional changes. In reality, I think comparing the modern church to the organization that existed in Kirtland is a very poor one. The parallels just don't hold up. The value of the comparison for me exists in the thought experiment.

In the end, my opinion regarding dissent is that we should be valiant in our own personal testimonies of Christ. How that valiance is expressed will often look different depending on circumstances. Each instance will often require a different set of behaviors, but the guiding principles and loyalties will remain constant. At least that's how I look at things.

Thanks for the dialectic. Sorry if some of my posts or responses were a little disingenuous as it pertains to my own convictions and beliefs. It was kind of necessary to draw out the info that I needed.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited September 20, 2012 by Lamanite

[volgadon]

I disagree. Decisiveness can be about the speed with which a decision is reached and there is no reason that such a decision has to be made in isolation without input from others (which would be in my opinion the "autocratic" way of doing things).

Aye, that is it.

[volgadon]

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

There was a little girl,

Who had a little curl,

Right in the middle of her forehead.

When she was good,

She was very good indeed,

But when she was bad she was horrid.

[CV75]

This was a valuable discussion for me. Very rarely have I expressed my personal opinion in this thread. Most often I have offered various scenario's and possibilities for institutional changes. In reality, I think comparing the modern church to the organization that existed in Kirtland is a very poor one. The parallels just don't hold up. The value of the comparison for me exists in the thought experiment.

I agree—the keys are the same but so much else has been revealed and is yet to be revealed about many things, including how the Church is organized and operated. As others have pointed out, we (including our leaders) have built on the learning and experience of others, often by observing the hard knocks they took.

In the end, my opinion regarding dissent is that we should be valiant in our own personal testimonies of Christ. How that valiance is expressed will often look different depending on circumstances. Each instance will often require a different set of behaviors, but the guiding principles and loyalties will remain constant. At least that's how I look at things.

It seems the life cycle of a thread involves the participants realizing that definitions and their alternatives need to be clarified and understood as soon as possible. Regarding valiance, I think part of our testing seems to be to act on what is more important—our own strength (fixing a problem) or the Lord’s (fixing our natures), and erring on the side of the latter where the real sacrifice takes place.

It was kind of necessary to draw out the info that I needed.

No harm done—but next time I’ll probably ask you what you are trying to draw out a lot sooner! Thank you for bringing up the subject.

[Lamanite]

This is a message I sent to an associate I had been discussing this topic with. It kind of reflects some of the conclusions I've come to relating to dissent within the modern Church. Keep in my that this quote fits within a larger conversation and in places may not make sense.

"I think you're right that the events in Kirtland are best understood within certain contexts. I also think my parallel between the Modern Church and the organization in Kirtland is flawed. It just doesn't hold up as a valid comparison. However, the thought experiment for me was extremely valuable. I also learned [that some members] are light years away from considering dissent a valid/necessary ecclesiological function. Some can't see the disconnect between the admission that LDS leaders are inherently flawed [as human beings] and the belief that leadership is basically infallible.

Ecclesiological dissent in any form triggers the same basic human reaction/emotions in both the dissenters and the officers of the institution. This leads me to believe that the problem is not institutional in nature, rather it seems the primary issue surrounding dissent may be a simple reflection of the human condition. I think the challenge may not be the creation of a mechanism for dissent, but rather pursuing personal and institutional harmony by challenging natural human tendencies towards self preservation and the defense of agendas and beliefs. Admittedly, the ever evolving individual and institution- needs to maintain various types of structure, stability, and managed growth. If I'm correct, that the solution resides not in mechanism but in the cultivation of certain attributes and values, both parties need to become "converted" and "born again." Acquiring attributes through the acceptance and application of the Atonement will bridge the gap that exists between the Church and the dissenter. This spiritual rebirth by very definition and in every case brings to pass a mighty change of heart. As a result of this new or renewed covenant relationship, the parties involved are endowed with the powe to reconcile the relationship between member, church, and the Bridegroom. In the end, the relationships are governed by the principles by which the Priesthood is maintained.

"persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned. By kindness, and pure knowledge"

Moving forward in our spiritual journey our future dissent may be wrapped in our desire to be "valiant in the testimony of Jesus". When we dissent we must put Christ first so that his church may accept our offering in his name. Both dissenter and church become reconciled and satisfied. Within this model our mechanism for dissent will literally become our covenant relationship with God. To be sure, behaviors relating to dissent will vary, but the nature of our dissent will reflect the Savior because His image is in our countenance."

This is where I'm at this morning. These ideas really haven been fleshed out and need a more detailed structure to be considered a possible model for dealing with dissent. Just an update.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited September 20, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

This is where I'm at this morning. These ideas really haven been fleshed out and need a more detailed structure to be considered a possible model for dealing with dissent. Just an update.

Some thoguts on a couple of lines you wrote:

"Some can't see the disconnect between the admission that LDS leaders are inherently flawed [as human beings] and the belief that leadership is basically infallible."

The fallibility of leadership may be tied in with human weakness, or it may be tied in with the Lord’s unwillingness to reveal a truth at a given time through a leader that is more than capable of receiving it for himself, but where the membership is not prepaed to follow. In the latter case, the fallibility of leadership may then be tied to the human weakness of those who would or should sustain him. What are infallible are the Lord’s management of His own Church and the placement of His servants.

"When we dissent we must put Christ first so that his church may accept our offering in his name. Both dissenter and church become reconciled and satisfied. Within this model our mechanism for dissent will literally become our covenant relationship with God."

I think this agrees with my thought that we need to be vigilant in recognizing the source and nature of our dissent—whether it concerns the arm of flesh or the arm of the Lord, and then either repent or approach our differences with charity as appropriate. When we put Christ first our dissent takes on a proper character, and probably would not be recognized as dissent but s part of a worthy priesthood format for discussion. After all, dissent is merely about opinion and need not be expressed as apostasy, which is all too commonly the application.

I recall a teaching aid on the subject of marriage, a diagram of a triangle with Jesus at the apex, the husband and wife at each of the other corners. As each spouse moves closer to Jesus, they grow closer to each other. And as they move closer to each other, they also move marginally closer to the Lord. This stresses the need to be united, even if not perfect in our human weakness, but to put Christ first, and the importance of not letting differing opinions get in the way of keeping sacred covenants.

Edited September 20, 2012 by CV75

[Lamanite]

The fallibility of leadership may be tied in with human weakness

Defining "fallible" could result in at least two likely scenarios where both involve human weakness. (weakness is not always my most favorite choice of words) First, an error resulting from a morally wrong choice; second, erroneous outcomes that bear no negative moral implications on the individual

When questioning my leaders I'm curious as to what my responsibility is (if any) as far as differentiating between the two scenarios when dealing with an issue where I think a priesthood leader may have missed the mark.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited September 20, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

When questioning my leaders I'm curious as to what my responsibility is (if any) as far as differentiating between the two scenarios when dealing with an issue where I think a priesthood leader may have missed the mark.

I think our primary responsibility is to seek and follow the Lord's will. Any talent for differentiating between moral and non-moral choices, and any other talent or gift (talents for developing a thorough situational awareness and building trust with the leader also come to mind), would then be directed to building the cause of Zion. Open discussion in the council/counsel settings might reveal the true nature of the weakness with attendant resolution. Sin is handled one way, ignorance another.

[CV75]

Giving this some more thought:

I think our overall responsibility is to live so as the have the Spirit as our constant companion so that we know the Lord’s will. That would develop our ability to discern truth from error on the Lord’s terms. This in turn would inform our responsibility to properly sustain our leaders in relation to the spiritual gifts to discern and differentiate between truthful and erroneous actions and their cause, as the case may require.

When in doubt as to what one’s responsibility is, sometimes it’s good to be submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love and obedient, and take the risk to get the conversation started by saying something in the spirit of studying it out.

When questioning anyone, leader or not, about a difference in opinion, it is probably wise to frame the conversation in terms of exploring opinion and not competing conclusions.

Assuming we are confident that we have a grasp on truth and error on the Lord’s terms, sometimes turning the conditions of the question in various directions may help in how to sustain our leaders:

1. Truthful action is taken – results from a righteous choice (Joseph incorporates the Church)

vs.

2. Truthful action is taken – results from a morally wrong choice (wicked Gentiles scatter Lehites)

vs.

3. Truthful action is taken – the choice was neutral (Lamanites baptized by fire though they knew it not)

...

4. Error is committed – results from a morally wrong choice (we do this all the time)

vs.

5. Error is committed – results from a righteous choice (Zion’s Camp, D&C 124:49)

vs.

6. Error is committed – the choice was neutral (Teancum went on one more outing)

[wenglund]

To me, a good gage of humility is the degree to which members may be concerned about having a mechanism for dissent. As I understand things, there is an inverse relationship between the two notions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2012 by wenglund

[tyler90az]

Lets start by looking at what we can change. The only way we stand a chance at changing a dissenters behavior is changing our reactions. Generally speaking, members usually isolate the dissenter. Which I understand, people will find a way to rationalize anything to keep their faith. Maybe a little less isolation will cause dissenters to fall away with less hostility.

Also, how many times has that tactic worked? I have only seen one time and that would be me. Take a mans wife and kids away that will usually do it. Sometimes members referred to it as being "humbled." I personally refer to them as being crazy. Even though I do love the church at times I do not want to go because I feel like I have been compelled to go. That is also why I have a little bit of bite on these forums, sorry.

That can easily be eliminted if dissenters are allowed to fall away easier. No amount of manipulation is going to work to get a member back. On the contrary, it will only infuriate them more. The solution is simple, shwo an increased amount of love. I think the wisest thing to do if someone falls away is to ask them if they need any service done. Even let them know we just want to do service nothing else. No doubt, it will be hard to be around a dissenter but it will be worth it. That shows them that they are still loved and will have a higher probability of bringing them back.

As always I am a little off topic... Nonetheless, I feel this is a good modern day strategy.

Edited September 21, 2012 by tyler90az

[Lamanite]

To me, a good gage of humility is the degree to which members may be concerned about having a mechanism for dissent. As I understand things, there is an inverse relationship between the two notions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Black and White thinking and assumptions are not the best approach when dealing with this issue. Which is how I view your statement and opinion. I find Matt Bowman a fine example of Mormonism (apparently so do his Priesthood leaders) and he is also "concerned" with dissent. (link to his paper in OP) His paper is a wonderful representation of a humility and concern for his church.

In my case, the contemplation of the institutional involvement, if any, with dissent resulted in deep and reflective thinking. And in a few instances this resulted in my performing thought experiments. Contemplating various aspects of the gospel and the church is not necessarily spawned because the inquisitor lacks humility. The "inverse relationship" you describe is not always the case as should not be applied to all cases.

"Sometimes" should have been inserted in several places in your post.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

Black and White thinking and assumptions are not the best approach when dealing with this issue. Which is how I view your statement and opinion.

To view my statement that way would require ironically imposing black/white thinking onto my statement, when I clearly spoke in terms of "degrees."

I was also stating what I figure to be a general rule, which allows for rare exceptions.

I find Matt Bowman a fine example of Mormonism (apparently so do his Priesthood leaders) and he is also "concerned" with dissent. (link to his paper in OP)

I am not in a position to judge Matt Bowman or anyone else's Mormonism, and so I didn't. I simply spoke generically, and as a general rule, to what I see as an inverse relationship between humility and dissent.

If you wish to challenge that specific view of mine, I would be pleased to consider it.

His paper is a wonderful representation of a humility and concern for his church.

What do you mean by "humility," and could you provide some examples of humility from his paper?

To me, "humility" is having a correct/workable perception of one's relationship to God and others, particularly in terms of where to place trust and respect and authority.

In my case, the contemplation of the institutional involvement, if any, with dissent resulted in deep and reflective thinking. And in a few instances this resulted in my performing thought experiments. Contemplating various aspects of the gospel and the church is not necessarily spawned because the inquisitor lacks humility.

True. However, couldn't varying degrees of humility, or the lack thereof, be a factor in how various aspects of the gospel are viewed?

The "inverse relationship" you describe is not always the case as should not be applied to all cases.

Can you give me some examples?

"Sometimes" should have been inserted in several places in your post.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I will gladly insert it when it is reasonably demonstrated that it should be inserted. At this point, I reasonably view the proposed inverse relationship as a general rule even were certain exceptions to later be demonstrated.

After all, dissent against my proposition may, itself, be because of a lack of humility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

...

After doing a moderate amount of historical research on the subject I could probably apply your statement as a general rule to dissent/dissenting.

If you still want me to answer your other questions just place $5.00 in my in-box and I will get you your refs and examples. J/K. Let me know if you're interested in examples and my train of thought.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

After doing a moderate amount of historical research on the subject I could probably apply your statement as a general rule to dissent/dissenting.

If you still want me to answer your other questions just place $5.00 in my in-box and I will get you your refs and examples. J/K. Let me know if you're interested in examples and my train of thought. Big UP! Lamanite

I am interested. I think the relationship between dissent and humility is important, especially on a discussion board where there is frequent expression of dissent from the Church and its leaders.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

I am interested. I think the relationship between dissent and humility is important, especially on a discussion board where there is frequent expression of dissent from the Church and its leaders.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

OK. Let's start from the beginning then. This is a difficult issue for me to wrap my head around because I have never really had anything to dissent from or about. I have no reference point. I operate completely from a place of understanding and empathy for both parties.

I guess I could dissent from the Church's position on same sex marriage, which I disagree with, but I have chosen to just keep my mouth shut. I would never dream of sharing my opinion in Church or at a Church function. When I have been asked about my opinion by Ward members, which is rare, most of the time I just lie about it. Serious. I don't want to affect them in any way that could possibly diminish their testimony of the gospel or their perceptions of the Church or its leaders. In addition to same sex marriage I am very cautious when asked about any issue that may be considered controversial. All my academic study and research stays in my brain more often than not. Consequently I feel very alone at times because I can't discuss or share my journey with very many people.

Anyway, because my interest in dissent is abstract and impersonal, give me a minute to create a mental scenario that could possibly facilitate a good discussion. Or maybe just use a real life example and just try to insert myself into their situation.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

While I continue trying to create a personal scenario for discussion perhaps this will provide a case for discussion.

What women know

Big UP!

Lamanite