Dissent- Another Attempt To Discuss.

[wenglund]

I find that if my mind is intent on doing my part in unifying my faith with God and his disciples, and becoming one with him and them, and atoned (at-one-ment) by him, I have no cause for concern about dissent, included decisions of Church leaders.

This doesn't mean that my thoughts will always be the same as my Church leaders or fellow members. It just means that I will handle my differing thoughts in a way that will hopefully not engender concern about dissent, but will move things towards a unity of faith, atonement, and a oneness with God.

I understand and respect that this may not comport with how others may view things. To each their own.

P.S. I served in the Elders Quorum presidency in a singles ward where, in accordance with my recommendation, a women was chosen as Sunday School president.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 2, 2012 by wenglund

[pmccombs1]

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

I think the paradox is one of de facto practice or belief versus ideology. It's illustrated by one incident in 1945 when the Improvement Era came out with the following:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

As the story goes, one Unitarian minister wrote a letter to George Albert Smith with his concerns about this sort of teaching. President Smith responded with an apology of sorts, stating that the doctrine was in error. He used some quotes from Joseph Smith, and another from Brigham Young:

“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 that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwa[r]t the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

But the episode is instructive. We have a practical culture wherein "the thinking has been done" by others even though the ideal states that we ought to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. "I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do," says Joseph Smith. What does that mean for members of the Church? How far do we take it?

The reason for this paradox is just this: It is thought that The Holy Spirit will arbitrate all truth, and that He always comes down on the side of the Brethren. "Let every man and woman know by the whisperings of the Spirit of God" only applies so long as we receive the answer that supports Church Leaders. If we feel our leaders are in error then we are listening to the wrong Spirit and receiving that which is not within our jurisdiction. The need for a spiritual discernment thus disappears in a cloud of ill-logic and we are left with "the thinking has been done." Hence, there is no vehicle for dissent within the Church.

This is the problem with epistemology based in spiritual feelings: there is no benchmark for measuring the validity of a certain spiritual witness, other than the authoritative declaration of the men whose truth is questioned in the first place. If there is a considerable "cult of personality" within the Church where trusting folk are enthralled by High Offices and Sublime Titles, then it's quite likely our leaders could crack any hare-brained scheme they like and we'd have millions of testimonies that it's just what the Lord wants for His people.

[CV75]

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

As members of the Church, we can freely agree with, concur and ratify official declarations and pronouncements, and sustain officers. However, we generally lack authority to approve, authorize, endorse or sanction them.

Dissent would follow suit. As members of the Church we can “dissent within the Church” by freely disagreeing with, disbelieving and voting in opposition to ratifying and sustaining official declarations, pronouncements and callings. However, we cannot “dissent within the Church” by otherwise outwardly disapproving, opposing, rejecting or protesting them, and we haven’t the authority to veto or decommission them—doing these things and claiming authority we don’t have would be apostasy. Personal revelation is not authority.

[The Nehor]

These threads are all cagey attempts to try to convince everyone that dissent should have no negative response attached to it.

If you feel the Spirit wants you to dissent then man up, dissent, and live with the consequences. If you want it okayed because you think you have some great ideas and want everyone to have to listen to them then please stop.

[Lamanite]

This is the problem with epistemology based in spiritual feelings

Your whole post was spot on, but the sentence I quoted above is one of the most problematic issues facing any religious experience. As an aside, I experience a tremendous amount of discomfort at times trying to fit myself into a Church that uses words like "Know" and "True" when my own beliefs are subjective and based on subjective spiritual experiences.

If I understood you correctly, I agree that there is no vehicle for dissent within the Church because one cannot dissent against an absolute authority. The only exception I would make is that the previous concession does not necessarily apply to the other elements of Church administration or functionality. Church doctrine is contained in the “standard works” of scripture ... official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." and is off limits. But I think other stuff is up for grabs.

Again from Prince,

"Next, many of the most important doctrinal and historical issues within the Church are unfinished business. Choose one of the most important ones, research it deeply, and then speak and write of it in such an interesting way that it becomes integrated into Mormon thought and practice. And it is possible."

Prince seems to think that some doctrinal issues are still in play but I'm not as optimistic. Nevertheless, the vehicle for dissent is simply the distribution of ideas. The trick is distributing an idea that is interesting and carries depth and weight. He also addresses a very important part to this equation. Very Important.

"Third, be political. The political intrigue for which the Vatican is famous meets its match in the Mormon church. If you really wish to improve things for the Church, as well as for yourself, consider that how you appear and how you act can easily block out what you are trying to accomplish. Take seriously the saying of Jesus: “Be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves.” [Matthew 10:16]"

Bushman and Givens are given a little bit of latitude because of the type of men they are, and I think that has affected the reception of some of their more progressive ideas.

( I should add that I'm taking all of these Prince quotes from a talk that has been entitled his "Manifesto for change".

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I find that if my mind is intent on doing my part in unifying my faith with God and his disciples, and becoming one with him and them, and atoned (at-one-ment) by him, I have no cause for concern about dissent, included decisions of Church leaders.

This doesn't mean that my thoughts will always be the same as my Church leaders or fellow members. It just means that I will handle my differing thoughts in a way that will hopefully not engender concern about dissent, but will move things towards a unity of faith, atonement, and a oneness with God.

I understand and respect that this may not comport with how others may view things. To each their own.

P.S. I served in the Elders Quorum presidency in a singles ward where, in accordance with my recommendation, a women was chosen as Sunday School president.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not sure if you read my last post in my other thread but I freely admitted there and here that I have nothing personally to dissent from. And yet, something inside compels me to contemplate the implications of dissent and the potential possibilities. In part my question as to why do I feel the need to pursue this line of thinking has been answered.

Are you ready? It is simply that I have 4 daughters growing up in the Church and I'm not sure that culturally and institutionally the Church is as good as it could be when it comes to its female membership. Some women are perfectly happy with things just as they are. I'm not ignorant of that fact. But some women definitely think there could be some changes made. And I recognize their value as well. How do we satisfy each group? Do we even need to address the concerns of those women who want change(s)? I don't think there is a single point solution. So I am considering local changes and what that might look like and how it might be accomplished.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

Are you ready? It is simply that I have 4 daughters growing up in the Church and I'm not sure that culturally and institutionally the Church is as good as it could be when it comes to its female membership.

What do you believe the Church can reasonably do better to enable your daughters to become more like Christ--particularly as compared with other times and other faiths and institutions?

Since your daughters are also daughters of God (4 out of billions), do you think God is any less concerned than you about providing the best for his millions of daughters, and may even know better than you what may be best for them? Do you not trust that he has and will instruct his chosen leaders what reasonably may be best for all his children?

What is interesting about our modern culture, though not so much in the Church, is that it is boys that seem to be shortchanged these days rather than girls. One need but look at the disproportional drop-out rates and the percentage of women to men attending college to get a sense for what I am suggesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

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.

Language is the tool we use in discussion. Seems to me it is important if we want to end in a place of understanding we should pay close attention to using as precise terms as possible. Otherwise you will just keep repeating what has happened in each thread.

Since the goal is to ultimately become as one----are not the desires to change the community for the purpose of making it more effective in approaching this goal----it seems to me to be counterproductive to start from a position that has an underlying meaning of separation.

Why not come up with a better term that actually means the intent rather than trying to just justify the use of a term in a way it is not meant to be used?

[Glenn101]

Not sure if you read my last post in my other thread but I freely admitted there and here that I have nothing personally to dissent from. And yet, something inside compels me to contemplate the implications of dissent and the potential possibilities. In part my question as to why do I feel the need to pursue this line of thinking has been answered.

Are you ready? It is simply that I have 4 daughters growing up in the Church and I'm not sure that culturally and institutionally the Church is as good as it could be when it comes to its female membership. Some women are perfectly happy with things just as they are. I'm not ignorant of that fact. But some women definitely think there could be some changes made. And I recognize their value as well. How do we satisfy each group? Do we even need to address the concerns of those women who want change(s)? I don't think there is a single point solution. So I am considering local changes and what that might look like and how it might be accomplished.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Lamanite, could you be a little more specific? What changes do you think would be accesptable? What changes could a Bishop make in how women serve in a Ward? It is hard to really say Yea or Nay without having somthing concrete to neigh about.

Your point on language as a barrier is pretty much spot on. As another poster pointed out, the word "dissent" brings up negative connotations, and probably would for any organization, not just the church.

However, I believe that thinking about ways to improve the spiritual experience for any group of people can be done in a postive way. It does not have to involve or be viewed as dissent. One poster noted how the current welfare system was inspired largely by the way it was handled in one ward. If there are better ways to involve women in the wards and stakes, presenting those ideas at the ward and stake level, and implementing them could have that same kind of galvanizing efect on the church as a whole.

Glenn

[rodheadlee]

Prayer is the proper channel to seek change. A conversation with Heavenly Father regarding change will reach the proper authority in the Church if the change requested is the Will of Heavely Father.

[Calm]

However, I believe that thinking about ways to improve the spiritual experience for any group of people can be done in a postive way. It does not have to involve or be viewed as dissent. One poster noted how the current welfare system was inspired largely by the way it was handled in one ward. If there are better ways to involve women in the wards and stakes, presenting those ideas at the ward and stake level, and implementing them could have that same kind of galvanizing efect on the church as a whole.

Glenn

Talking about what we can do to contribute to our communities in new and helpful ways is going to get a dramatically different reaction than one of typical dissent which in part starts off by saying someone is wrong. Apply the same rule of thumb for missionary Work to one's mission in your community with the idea of here we have great truth and value for us all, what can we add to it to make it even better.

As soon as you start from a position of competition where you wwant to impose your choices on others instead of negotiate to see how all could fit together in ways acceptable for all....you will end up going now where fast.

[volgadon]

How do we satisfy each group?

To be perfectly frank? You cannot satisfy each and every group, no matter what you do or what mechanisms for dissent could be implemented.

[Lamanite]

Language is the tool we use in discussion. Seems to me it is important if we want to end in a place of understanding we should pay close attention to using as precise terms as possible. Otherwise you will just keep repeating what has happened in each thread.

Since the goal is to ultimately become as one----are not the desires to change the community for the purpose of making it more effective in approaching this goal----it seems to me to be counterproductive to start from a position that has an underlying meaning of separation.

Why not come up with a better term that actually means the intent rather than trying to just justify the use of a term in a way it is not meant to be used?

I'd be the last person qualified to coin a term or phrase that embodies the notions of positive dissent. That's why in my OP I used Matthew to help underscore the difficulties that accompany the competing definitions of dissent between authorities and dissidents. Dissent as a word may imply separation or rejection of the Church, but for some dissidents the word reflects positive change enacted within the Church and not against it.

Maybe we could use the phrase "loving eye gouge" instead. I really don't know. It seems simple enough to expect that both parties let down their defenses and approach one another with a reasonable amount of love, trust and understanding. Then it wouldn't matter what words or phrases we used.

For example, if I approached my Bishop and asked that I be allowed to play "Praise to the Man" on my ukulele to honor the Prophet in a personal way that may enhance the spiritual experience of my Ward one Sunday, even though I know that this request is outside the boundaries of Sacrament meeting tradition, he could lovingly approve my request because he may feel (by the Holy Ghost) how important it is to me, and how beneficial it may be to his flock. No doctrinal issues violated. No sacred traditions tossed aside. Just a guy (Me) who dissents against the consistent use of the organ as the primary instrument for one Sunday and requests that his Bishop consider a different approach to worship for a day can't be so bad right? It's not a perfect example but it makes the point.

If I think something could be better within the Church and I think a change could benefit myself and others, I simply make some suggestions. Then I proceed as I am inspired and as my conscience dictates. That's pretty much it. The last step is the one that irritates most people. They want to say, "well if things don't go your way then the issue should be dropped and you should fall in line." And maybe that's what I'm inspired to do. But maybe it's not. It sure wasn't for Lavina.

From Prince:

"And finally, be patient and try not to complain too loudly. Most of the worthwhile things that happen do not happen quickly. The fruit that grows from seeds that you sow now may not be picked until your children and grandchildren come along."

Big UP!

Lamanite

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 3, 2012 by Lamanite

[Lamanite]

To be perfectly frank? You cannot satisfy each and every group, no matter what you do or what mechanisms for dissent could be implemented.

As I said before using womens issues as an example, some women are perfectly happy with things just as they are. I'm not ignorant to that fact. But some women definitely think there could be some changes made. And I recognize their value as well. How do we satisfy each group? I don't think there is a single solution. But I do think adopting an attitude of love and understanding would go a long way for both parties involved. Then dissidents could use some of the examples I've provided from Prince.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

However, I believe that thinking about ways to improve the spiritual experience for any group of people can be done in a postive way. It does not have to involve or be viewed as dissent. One poster noted how the current welfare system was inspired largely by the way it was handled in one ward. If there are better ways to involve women in the wards and stakes, presenting those ideas at the ward and stake level, and implementing them could have that same kind of galvanizing efect on the church as a whole.

Glenn

That pretty much embodies the type of dissent I'm trying to describe and the way in which I would suggest carrying it out.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

What do you believe the Church can reasonably do better to enable your daughters to become more like Christ--particularly as compared with other times and other faiths and institutions?

Since your daughters are also daughters of God (4 out of billions), do you think God is any less concerned than you about providing the best for his millions of daughters, and may even know better than you what may be best for them? Do you not trust that he has and will instruct his chosen leaders what reasonably may be best for all his children?

What is interesting about our modern culture, though not so much in the Church, is that it is boys that seem to be shortchanged these days rather than girls. One need but look at the disproportional drop-out rates and the percentage of women to men attending college to get a sense for what I am suggesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This makes me think of the Orson Pratt and Brigham Young feud over the Adam God doctrine. During the 1850's Pratt and Young went *** for tat regarding Brigham's assertion that "Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ." From Turner's BY bio we read:

"In a heated 1856 discussion on the topic of Adam, Young put forth his beliefs with the full sanction of revelatory authority, informing Pratt that "things were so and so in the name of the Lord." The apostle refused to accede to Young's judgment, insisting "that the President's word in the name of the Lord was not the word of the Lord to him" Still unconvinced the next month, Pratt clarified that he "preferred to receive the written revelations of J[oseph] S[mith]." This attitude was unacceptable to Young. Though he cited both scripture and Joseph Smith's revelations as authoritative sources in his sermons, Young claimed that the "living oracles" were more valuable "than all that has ever been written from the days of Adam until now. " Smith had left behind an expanded canon, but to Young, God's ongoing instructions took precedence." (pg. 235)

Thankfully, Pratt's dissent in addition to a few of the lay member's confusion, forced BY to back away from his theological absurdities by 1857 feigning indifference. This abandonment was similar to his abandonment of of ritual adoption.

It appears that although God's interest and love for his children is infinite, it is at times necessary to stand up for what we believe to be true and right despite the circumstances. And although it is almost always unwise to challenge a Prophet that declares his teaching(s) to be in the "name of the Lord", in the case of Pratt and BY, dissent proved to favor the dissident and not the Prophet, at least as far as we understand Adam and God in Mormonism.

And I do think leaders are "reasonably" inspired. However, it was a wise observation made by Henry Eyring Sr. when he said, "the Lord had a perfect Church until He let all of us inside!" Ironically, I'm quite certain it will be "us" that work towards its restoration. That restoration may be assisted by dissent.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 3, 2012 by Lamanite

[Lamanite]

If you feel the Spirit wants you to dissent then man up,

It's been a minute since I've had someone pop off to me in a thread like that. Kinda weird for me this time....

Anyway, in response to your post, the Spirit hasn't told me to do anything. Additionally, I'm not sure my ideas would be great for anyone but myself. And to be honest I'm not that interested in analyzing specific issues except for the issue of how to dissent in the most positive/effectual way possible? To which I would answer, Greg Prince has some pretty good jump off suggestions.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 3, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

This makes me think of the Orson Pratt and Brigham Young feud over the Adam God doctrine.

I think this points to the fact that Orson Pratt as an apostle had the authority to wrangle over doctrine with his peers including the Church President. It may have been messy, but he did it within the scope of his calling, council and whatever conversations he had with President Young.

On the other hand, members without these keys, and who believe that the Lord leads them, can bring up their dissenting position in councils or in private counsel and see if the matter gets any attention at the official level they seek it.

[Lamanite]

I think this points to the fact that Orson Pratt as an apostle had the authority to wrangle over doctrine with his peers including the Church President. It may have been messy, but he did it within the scope of his calling, council and whatever conversations he had with President Young.

On the other hand, members without these keys, and who believe that the Lord leads them, can bring up their dissenting position in councils or in private counsel and see if the matter gets any attention at the official level they seek it.

That's an interesting position to take. I'm wondering why this "authority to wrangle" with a Prophet didn't exist for the apostles who dissented in Kirtland? If the right to publicly dissent from the Prophet was within the "scope" of their calling then Joseph sure didn't know about it.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Arbiter]

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.

Isn't that already okay? It sounds like you're trying hard to be tactful and polite. Which is always a good thing. But I'm wondering if maybe you're thinking of a change in women's roles that might be controversial. Are you?

[Lamanite]

Isn't that already okay? It sounds like you're trying hard to be tactful and polite. Which is always a good thing. But I'm wondering if maybe you're thinking of a change in women's roles that might be controversial. Are you?

I guess a controversial change may be to allow women to hold their infants during a baby blessing. I don't have an opinion on that issue at all, it's just something I've heard brought up by Mormon feminists.

Again, I don't want to get hung up on specific issues, I'm more interested in different methodologies for change.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

That's an interesting position to take. I'm wondering why this "authority to wrangle" with a Prophet didn't exist for the apostles who dissented in Kirtland? If the right to publicly dissent from the Prophet was within the "scope" of their calling then Joseph sure didn't know about it.

Evidently the President in either case made a call as to how to handle the dissent, weighing the several factors of the circumstances and using the keys he possessed. I think this is great, as the outcome of dissent should not be predictable. For those who are truly and sincerely dissenting, either faith or integrity has to be strong enough to make the subject of dissent important enough to risk everything (otherwise it's just whining). Then it plays out the best way it can, without undermining the Lord's salvation of His children.

[Lamanite]

Evidently the President in either case made a call as to how to handle the dissent, weighing the several factors of the circumstances and using the keys he possessed. I think this is great, as the outcome of dissent should not be predictable. For those who are truly and sincerely dissenting, either faith or integrity has to be strong enough to make the subject of dissent important enough to risk everything (otherwise it's just whining). Then it plays out the best way it can, without undermining the Lord's salvation of His children.

I respect your ability to take obvious contradictions and force them to fit within your current belief system. I do it all the time. It makes life way easier. And I'm not being a jerk, I seriously do that.....consciously too.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

This makes me think of the Orson Pratt and Brigham Young feud over the Adam God doctrine. During the 1850's Pratt and Young went *** for tat regarding Brigham's assertion that "Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ." From Turner's BY bio we read:

Thankfully, Pratt's dissent in addition to a few of the lay member's confusion, forced BY to back away from his theological absurdities by 1857 feigning indifference. This abandonment was similar to his abandonment of of ritual adoption.

It appears that although God's interest and love for his children is infinite, it is at times necessary to stand up for what we believe to be true and right despite the circumstances. And although it is almost always unwise to challenge a Prophet that declares his teaching(s) to be in the "name of the Lord", in the case of Pratt and BY, dissent proved to favor the dissident and not the Prophet, at least as far as we understand Adam and God in Mormonism.

And I do think leaders are "reasonably" inspired. However, it was a wise observation made by Henry Eyring Sr. when he said, "the Lord had a perfect Church until He let all of us inside!" Ironically, I'm quite certain it will be "us" that work towards its restoration. That restoration may be assisted by dissent.

Big UP! Lamanite

While your comments are of interest, I am not sure how they even remotely address the questions and statements in my post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

What do you believe the Church can reasonably do better to enable your daughters to become more like Christ--particularly as compared with other times and other faiths and institutions?

Lets say the Church allows them the opportunity speak in tongues during fast and testimony meeting as a means of enhancing their ability to communicate with the Spirit thereby enhancing their relationship with the Savior. Or maybe they could act as witnesses for baptisms. Or maybe mothers could hold their daughters during baby blessings. Or maybe we could change curriculum to be more sensitive to gender roles and responsibilities (Gospel principles lesson on the Priesthood is a good example). I don't know....there could be lots of changes. How about including the Relief Society in Church disciplinary councils. I don't know. There's a million possibilities and probably less than a few of them are worthy of support.

Like I've said in other posts, I'm not as interested in discussing particular issues as I am in discussing methodologies for change.

Since your daughters are also daughters of God (4 out of billions), do you think God is any less concerned than you about providing the best for his millions of daughters, and may even know better than you what may be best for them? Do you not trust that he has and will instruct his chosen leaders what reasonably may be best for all his children?

I answered this one already in my other post.

What is interesting about our modern culture, though not so much in the Church, is that it is boys that seem to be shortchanged these days rather than girls. One need but look at the disproportional drop-out rates and the percentage of women to men attending college to get a sense for what I am suggesting.

I disagree.

Big UP!

Lamanite