Dissent- Another Attempt To Discuss.

[Lamanite]

Language has become a huge issue when I have attempted to discuss this subject. It seems the dialog is doomed from the outset. So maybe if we lay the groundwork pertaining to the language we use and how we understand that language we can make some progress. It seems Matthew Bowman had these same concerns when writing on dissent for the "Faith and Knowledge" conference at Harvard 2007.

For some, dissent is embedded in apostasy:

"For many Mormons, the word dissent functions, more or less, as a synecdoche for apostasy—that state defined in official Church

publications as a state of being rather than as a particular violation, as a general orientation against the principles of the faith.1

Elders Neal A. Maxwell, James E. Faust, and Russell M. Nelson, among other contemporary General Authorities, have used the

terms interchangeably. There is simultaneously a great deal of line-blurring and very little wiggle room here. Dissenters stand in

company with "critics" and "skeptics—anyone who keeps us in darkness and tries to keep us from finding the light," as President

Faust put it.2 "Saints of the Lord follow Him and His anointed leaders," Elder Nelson warned, so inevitably "the path of dissent

leads to real dangers." He offered as an example the corrupted Nephite dissenters referred to in Alma 47:36, who "not long after

their dissensions became more hardened and impenitent, and more wild, wicked and ferocious." (Matthew Bowman. Toward a Theology of

Dissent: An Ecclesiological Interpretation- DIALOGUE; A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL. 42;3)

On the other hand those who dissent,

"insist that their actions are not the fruit of apostasy. Rather they are motivated by deep commitment

to the principles of Mormonism. They point to the tradition of Joseph Smith, dissenter from frontier evangelicalism.They insist that Mormon doctrine describes individuals who are born equipped with the right to seek divine inspiration, tools of powerful spiritual discernment, and a conscience uncorrupted by the Fall; thus, they are able to correctly make moral decisions— and all of this independent of the structure of the institution. This argument ought to temper our fear of dissent by reminding us that dissent is as rooted in Mormon theology as the assertions of obedience to authority"

Ultimately we find are left with the insurmountable task of solving the following conundrum.

"neither of these competing definitions of dissent is entirely satisfying. ...On the one hand, we are told that personal inspiration

should confirm what General Authorities have already stated; on the other, we hear the constantly repeated mantra that the Brethren

are capable of mistakes, too. These claims do little to resolve the deeper tension between individual conscience and the ordained

hierarchy, a tension that exists because Mormonism grants to both a legitimate claim to epistemological authority." [emphasis added]

Matthew comes to an interesting conclusion:

"The Church does not exist for its own sake, but neither do we gain salvation in isolation. So one can—and should—dissent

as a member of a faith. The act of dissent should not be understood as a departure from that Church but rather as an act within

it that draws upon its theology, history, and relationships. A Mormon dissenter should dissent first as a Mormon."

Later on I want to discuss some specific examples of dissent that came up last month but I first wanted to resolve some of the language barriers that might exist.

Any issues with Matthew's approach to dissent?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 2, 2012 by Lamanite

[BCSpace]

I think one should compare one's own beliefs with the doctrine and freely admit when one is opposed to that doctrine rather than arguing "it's not doctrine" no matter how good one's reasoning seems to be. There is risk in this when one disagrees with critical, moral, or foundational doctrines. But the alternative is to try to quietly change the Church from within which, if one believes the Church is true, cannot possibly happen because the Church is guided by revelation, not internal whisperings.

[KevinG]

For me the answer to the paradox of individual and hierarchical authority comes in counsels and scope of authority.

There are methods of making our will and knowledge known to church authority and methods for authority to solicit the input of the general membership that are outlined in our practices and doctrines. When these methods of counseling and sustaining are used correctly by authority and member alike the ultimate result is that the will of the Lord is known and followed and blessings are received.

A great example of this is the welfare program which started as a local Stake effort and grew to become the practice of the church worldwide.

A more personal and powerful example is a Bishops court I was involved in. The Bishop and I (1st Counselor) both felt one decision should be reached while the 2nd Counselor received a different answer to his prayerful considerations. We all returned to discussion and prayer in rounds until we ended up agreeing on an action that was much more in line with the 2nd counselors original thoughts. In the end his being true to his inspiration and our prayerfully reconsidering our positions turned into an inspired decision that was better for the person involved.

In that same Ward we sometimes struggled with how to serve the sisters because they were too shy about counseling the Bishopric. We found ways to reach out and get their input and collect their concerns. One creative way was to call the spouse of a Bishopric member as Compassionate Service Leader.

Another illustration of how it is done is the Saints in West Africa writing the brethren with their impressions of race and priesthood yet pledging to sustain the brethren no matter the decision they made.

I take those lessons with me whenever I have an idea or inspiration I think my auxiliary or priesthood leaders can use. It is always offered with the understanding that it is my opinion and no matter their final decision I will sustain them with my energy, support and effort.

Edited October 2, 2012 by KevinG

[Lamanite]

Dissent does not always mean challenging or disagreeing with something doctrinal. Dissent could be something as simple as not enjoying the music in our worship services. Perhaps those outside the Country would like to inject some cultural music into their worship services. We don't need sweeping changes to the world wide Church, just a sensitive priesthood leader who says, "sure, we can use some traditional drums as accompaniment" He's the inspired priesthood leader right? Change can be made at a local level. Especially on issues that don't affect the doctrines of the Church.

From Greg Prince-

"inject your own flavor into your church experience, and show others how to do the same. Until the Church truly reflects all of its constituencies, and treats them fairly and wholly—and these include women, gays, people of color, people with disabilities, and foreign cultures of all types—it will be incomplete."

Big UP!

[why me]

From Greg Prince-

"inject your own flavor into your church experience, and show others how to do the same. Until the Church truly reflects all of its constituencies, and treats them fairly and wholly—and these include women, gays, people of color, people with disabilities, and foreign cultures of all types—it will be incomplete."

Big UP!

I think that outside the US, the hymns can be different. There is the influence of cultural religious music. However, the meetings still usually follow the same format. And I think that this is done for a reason: to prevent weird things from entering the meetings. For example, if I remember correctly one ward had candles burning during the WWII. This happened because the members strayed from sacrament meeting basics or forgot the procedure.

So, I do think that there is room for cultural influence but the basic nature of the meetings should stay put.

Edited October 2, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Any issues with Matthew's approach to dissent?

Big UP!

Lamanite

We need to remember the historical background in Mormonism. Persecution and dissent went hand in hand in driving mormons from state to state. And much of the persecution was initiated by exmormons. I am sure that historical background has influenced mormon understandings of dissent now. And Joseph Smith was no big fan of people who would leave the church and betray him, especially his friends.

[Lamanite]

I am sure that historical background has influenced mormon understandings of dissent now.

Absolutely true. Brigham's leadership style from Nauvoo to Utah was oriented towards squashing and type of dissent. The Mormon reformation had as much to do with Brigham's fear of reliving the type of dissent that occurred in Kirtland and Nauvoo as anything else. And I can't really fault him for that reaction.

Is it healthy or necessary to still let our past inform our approach to dissent today?

If music is ok to change...will it be OK to start changing the roles that women function in at a local level? And by function, I mean anything a Bishop wants to do regarding the functioning role women play in his ward that doesn't contradict current doctrines of the Church? These things would require no change in ordination for women, just a change/increase in roles and functions. Again, no doctrine or change in ordination.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[why me]

Absolutely true. Brigham's leadership style from Nauvoo to Utah was oriented towards squashing and type of dissent. The Mormon reformation had as much to do with Brigham's fear of reliving the type of dissent that occurred in Kirtland and Nauvoo as anything else.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

I don't think that it was just a brigham thing. I believe that it was a church thing. We need to remember that the members who followed BY westward were very much aware the harm that dissent caused. It was William Law, former member, who published the nauvoo expositor which led to its distruction and the arrest of Joseph Smith. All had that memory inside them as they headed westward. I think that the church had very little tolerance for dissenters after the murder of JS. We also need to remember that Oliver was putting feelers out about coming back to church. And I think that he was not exactly getting a warm welcome at first. It took time for him to be accepted back by BY and the members.

I think that the church then was attempting to escape the dissenters and mobs when they headed out to no man's land.

[Lamanite]

...

OK. I concede.

Concerning dissent.

Would it be OK to start changing the roles that women function in at a local level? And by function, I mean anything a Bishop wants to do regarding the functioning role women play in his ward that doesn't contradict current doctrines of the Church? These things would require no change in ordination for women, just a change/increase in roles and functions. Again, no doctrine or change in ordination.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[why me]

Is it healthy or necessary to still let our past inform our approach to dissent today?

Lamanite

I think that when one reads the dissenter boards, one can see absolute hatred for things lds. They attack the leadership, make a point at bringing up anything embarrassing at the local level and they revel in perceiving the lds church to be in decline. They also enjoy bringing up quotations out of context and they mock the lds apologists. Hard to see dissent any different than it was back in the days of Joseph Smith except for the fact that mobs are not breaking down doors and chasing mormons out.

How to approach dissent with a blank history? I think that the dissent that we are seeing now is only the tip of the iceberg. It will get much worse before it gets better. There are exmembers who want to harm the church into oblivion. And it is not getting better with the rise of the internet. The lds church is engaged in a cyber war with dissenters on the attack.

[CV75]

Any issues with Matthew's approach to dissent?

For the purposes of this thread, I would take it step further and offer a precise definition of “dissent” as used in the dictum, “The act of dissent should not be understood as a departure from [the] Church but rather as an act within it that draws upon its theology, history, and relationships.” It could be any definition that suits or reflects your understanding.That way, those who participate in the thread can speak to that perspective. Alternate definitions might be acknowledged, but for the purposes of this discussion, posters can stick to the one construct and not derail.

[CV75]

OK. I concede.

Concerning dissent.

Would it be OK to start changing the roles that women function in at a local level? And by function, I mean anything a Bishop wants to do regarding the functioning role women play in his ward that doesn't contradict current doctrines of the Church? These things would require no change in ordination for women, just a change/increase in roles and functions. Again, no doctrine or change in ordination.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

I recommend taking a step back, even prior to asking if there are any issues with Matthew's approach to dissent.

For the purposes of this thread, I would offer a precise definition of “dissent” as used in the dictum, “The act of dissent should not be understood as a departure from [the] Church but rather as an act within it that draws upon its theology, history, and relationships.” It could be any definition that suits or reflects your understanding.That way, those who participate in the thread can speak to that perspective. Alternate definitions might be acknowledged, but for the purposes of this discussion, posters can stick to the one construct and not derail.

[The Nehor]

The Holy Ghost is perfectly capable of resolving this clash when it comes up. The forms of dissent Lamanite seems to want to discuss seem to involve taste. I do not like many of the hymns either. Instead of agitating for change I accept that hymns that bore me spiritually edify others and in humility I should endure them and sing to help them. I am sure many do the same thing for me when I speak in sacrament meeting.

[why me]

OK. I concede.

Concerning dissent.

Would it be OK to start changing the roles that women function in at a local level? And by function, I mean anything a Bishop wants to do regarding the functioning role women play in his ward that doesn't contradict current doctrines of the Church? These things would require no change in ordination for women, just a change/increase in roles and functions. Again, no doctrine or change in ordination.

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

What functions do you want women to have? You need to clarify. I think that women are very involved in church functions: they give talks, they hold teaching positions, they hold important roles in relief society, they are visiting teachers, they participate in young women's organizations. And most importantly they have jurisdiction in the home. Ask any man who is the boss at home and the response will be the wife. The lds male is a rooster without much of a sqawk.

[why me]

Alternate definitions might be acknowledged, but for the purposes of this discussion, posters can stick to the one construct and not derail.

I am afraid that this will not work. The word 'dissent' brings up connotations that hit close to church history. So, it is impossible to give such a definition to dissent. Dissent lumps all definitions into the main construct: subverting the church even though it may not be so.

[Lamanite]

What functions do you want women to have? You need to clarify. I think that women are very involved in church functions: they give talks, they hold teaching positions, they hold important roles in relief society, they are visiting teachers, they participate in young women's organizations. And most importantly they have jurisdiction in the home. Ask any man who is the boss at home and the response will be the wife. The lds male is a rooster without much of a sqawk.

Why would it matter? If a Bishop has women who dissent from traditional roles (not roles of ordination) in his congregation and as a result he wants to increase their function ,in any capacity he sees fit, why would that be bad?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I am afraid that this will not work. The word 'dissent' brings up connotations that hit close to church history. So, it is impossible to give such a definition to dissent. Dissent lumps all definitions into the main construct: subverting the church even though it may not be so.

This is an example of the point I made in the OP, namely that language is a barrier to this discussion.

"They point to the tradition of Joseph Smith, dissenter from frontier evangelicalism.They insist that Mormon doctrine describes individuals who are born equipped with the right to seek divine inspiration, tools of powerful spiritual discernment, and a conscience uncorrupted by the Fall; thus, they are able to correctly make moral decisions— and all of this independent of the structure of the institution. This argument ought to temper our fear of dissent by reminding us that dissent is as rooted in Mormon theology as the assertions of obedience to authority"

Dissent from within the Church....not against it.

This is where I'm operating from. Not from the Laman and Lemuel/Korihor type of dissent.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 2, 2012 by Lamanite

[The Nehor]

Why would it matter? If a Bishop has women who dissent from traditional roles (not roles of ordination) in his congregation and as a result he wants to increase their function ,in any capacity he sees fit, why would that be bad?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Because the Bishop does not hold the Priesthood keys to make said change?

[Lamanite]

The Holy Ghost is perfectly capable of resolving this clash when it comes up. The forms of dissent Lamanite seems to want to discuss seem to involve taste. I do not like many of the hymns either. Instead of agitating for change I accept that hymns that bore me spiritually edify others and in humility I should endure them and sing to help them. I am sure many do the same thing for me when I speak in sacrament meeting.

We could expand the simple issues of taste into more substantive changes. Like local changes in curriculum or implementing scriptural study groups outside of the 3 hour block. Doing these things without the knowledge and guidance of Priesthood leadership would be bad, but because the "Holy Ghost is perfectly capable" of influencing the Leaders of the Church, these types of local changes shouldn't be a problem as long as it is done under the direction of the Priesthood right? As long as it doesn't challenge or contradict current doctrine of course.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Because the Bishop does not hold the Priesthood keys to make said change?

Of course he does. He hasn't made any changes that would require priesthood keys. Again, these are issues that don't require ordination, only a shift in function or an additional role within the structure of his ward. He would of course only do these things as the Spirit permits. But in that scenario, women dissenting could provide the cause for positive change in the church at a local level.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Another tidbit for change from Prince:

"Next, individualize your religion, and then be an example to others who need and [sic] individualized approach outside the mainstream."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[why me]

Why would it matter? If a Bishop has women who dissent from traditional roles (not roles of ordination) in his congregation and as a result he wants to increase their function ,in any capacity he sees fit, why would that be bad?

Big UP!

Lamanite

But I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever seen the I Am a Mormon series on youtube? Most of the women on those videos are in roles that seem to undercut the women at home stereotype. Now if you are talking about being president of sunday school etc, I wouldn't care at all.

[why me]

"They point to the tradition of Joseph Smith, dissenter from frontier evangelicalism.They insist that Mormon doctrine describes individuals who are born equipped with the right to seek divine inspiration, tools of powerful spiritual discernment, and a conscience uncorrupted by the Fall; thus, they are able to correctly make moral decisions— and all of this independent of the structure of the institution. This argument ought to temper our fear of dissent by reminding us that dissent is as rooted in Mormon theology as the assertions of obedience to authority"

Dissent from within the Church....not against it.

This may have been the case in the early church up to a certain time. But when the church began to grow and people began to leave the fold and took actions against the lds church, I do think that dissent was handled differently. Also, in the early church, right at the very beginning a mormon service was just a tad different than today: people were speaking in tongues, having spiritual visions, not to mention hiram paige's seer stones. Then we had problems with david, oliver, other whitmers etc.

People needed to get with the picture.

[The Nehor]

Of course he does. He hasn't made any changes that would require priesthood keys. Again, these are issues that don't require ordination, only a shift in function or an additional role within the structure of his ward. He would of course only do these things as the Spirit permits. But in that scenario, women dissenting could provide the cause for positive change in the church at a local level.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Changes in Church policy require priesthood keys or the approval of those holding said keys.

[Tacenda]

There is a podcast that talks about dissention and feminist women. Found at FeministMormonHousewivesPodcasts website. Sorry I'm unable to link. Scroll down to the "Bonus Podcast: September Six and Other Disciplined Dissindents".

Edited October 2, 2012 by Tacenda