Dissent- Another Attempt To Discuss.

[CV75]

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.

In identifying a consistent method for “dissent within the Church,” I don’t see Smith’s and Young’s approaches as contradictions in method, only in outcome—the dissenting position was either rejected or accepted. The method in each case was that dissent was brought up, addressed and resolved by those with the keys to do so. I believe the same basic dynamics are in place today, based on my understanding of how priesthood councils work in situations where there is disagreement among the participants. The same keys operate today. An alternative method that is still dependent on the same keys would be difficult to find and would still yield variable outcomes.

[The Nehor]

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

I did not mean the "man up" comment to be aimed at you but at dissenters in general.

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

There is a difference between doctrinal discussions and arguments and conspiracies to remove the prophet. Orson Pratt never actively worked to undermine the authority and credibility of Brigham Young or sought to remove him. A key distinction.

[wenglund]

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.

I am sorry, but this makes little sense to me on a number of levels. Is this something men are permitted to do? And, even assuming that your daughters or other females in the Church have been given the gift of tongues, I don't see how their using that gift during fast and testimony meeting will somehow increase their ability to communicate with or through the Spirit than at other times or via the conventional method in bearing one's testimony, or how it will somehow enhance their relationship with the Savior? Please explain.

Or maybe they could act as witnesses for baptisms.

How would their acting as witnesses for baptism better enable them to become like Christ than other non-witness baptismal attendees?

Or maybe mothers could hold their daughters during baby blessings.

Again, how would this better enable them to become like Christ than those who remain in the audience?

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).

Again, how will this better enable your daughters to become like Christ? Could you give some examples of what more sensitivity to gender roles would look like across the Church curriculum? And, could you explain the relevance of gender roles and responsibilities in a lesson that is specific to the Priesthood?

How about including the Relief Society in Church disciplinary councils.

How will this better enable your daughters to become like Christ?

Sorry, I am not seeing it.

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

Yet, it is in discussions of particular issues that we gain clarity, if nothing more than through testing whether or what changes may appropriate. Thus far, in terms of the intent and purpose of the Church, I am not seeing a need for change.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

I am not seeing a need for change.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your post demonstrates why discussing specifics at this point of the discussion is difficult. Using feminists as a way to identify the institutional need for change; it is obvious that there are some women in the Church who think the status quo is perfect, there are some women who find the status quo unsatisfying. It is my opinion that we need to develop a methodology for change within the Church that allows us to entertain ideas for improvement and decide whether they carry depth or weight.

Once a mechanism for dissent is identified then we can begin to vet certain ideas that are worthy of serious consideration. My examples were just nonsense I pulled out of thin air. Correction, I pulled them out of the liberal progressive cultural Internet Mormon collective.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I don't know why I didn't do this earlier, but in addition to Bowman's stuff I have been using Greg Prince's "Manifesto" talk as a place to start. Feel free to pick Prince apart.

"In a word: plenty. Let me elaborate.

• One: own your religion, don’t borrow it. If you are to make it work for yourselves, and especially if you wish to make an impact on the larger Church, you have to read, think, and write deeply for the rest of your lives. Google will not get you there, and neither will the blogs.
  
• Second, pay your dues, and stay in those pews. The Church is as much yours as it was Edwin Woolley’s.
  
• 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]
  
• Next, Christ-centered boredom—which is not always Christ centered in this Church—is killing the vitality of the Church and driving untold thousands away, many of them youth who represent our best hope for the future. Reform of curriculum and retooling of worship services should be in the forefront of your minds.
  
• 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.
  
• Next, individualize your religion, and then be an example to others who need and individualized approach outside the mainstream.
  
• Next, 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.
  
• Next, extend the reach of Mormonism by integrating yourselves into the larger world. Far too many Mormons pay attention to part of Jesus’s directive—that of being “not of the world”—but they ignore totally his demand that they be “in the world.” [John 15:19] Don’t be afraid to join with others whose faiths are different, and even with other different religious traditions. You will find that you give up nothing by joining with others, and indeed, you sharpen your own identity in the process. If we preach Mormonism by action instead of words, those who see those good works and want to be part of them are likely to join and stay, as opposed to the 9 out of 10 converts who currently join only to leave.*
  
• 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.
  

Spencer Kimball kept a small plaque on his desk which simply read, “Do it.” One bit of Mormon humor that made the rounds during the ’70s was, “What do you get when you cross Spencer Kimball and Golden Kimball? ‘Do it, dammit.’”

*In a Q&A session immediately after the conference (56:51), Greg Prince explains his the “triangulation” he used to calculate this number. He explains, “We talked about this a little earlier in the back room. It is an accelerating process, and the accelerator is pushed in the wrong direction. A stake, by definition, is approximately 2,500 warm bodies. They don’t have to be active in the Church. There have to be enough of them active that they can adequately staff the ward and stake apparatus, ok? So every increase of 2,500—if you were at least hanging on to them so that you knew where they were and they acknowledged that they were LDS even if they weren’t showing up—that should give you one stake. In the 1990s, you had to have twice that number to get one stake. In the most recent decade, you have had to have four times that number to get one stake. And those numbers you can pull directly out of the Church Almanac. But they don’t know that; if they knew it, they probably wouldn’t publish them. But those are hard numbers to hide from, because all you need to do is take the total membership number and the delta of stakes since the previous year, and you’ve got it. … If you were identifying all of your converts so that you knew where they were, and they at least identified that they were LDS, you would get one out of every 2,500. Now you’re getting one out of every 10,000. So that tells you right off the bat that three-fourths of what you call ‘increase’ is gone—you can’t even find them—and then of the remaining one-fourth, half of that will be inactive. (Sorry, ‘less active’.) And when you consider that that delta in total membership includes baptism of children of record, who are more likely to stay, then it’s an easy triangulation to say we’re probably keeping one out of every ten converts as an active church member. That’s not a very good track record. I don’t know who would really be confronted with those numbers and claim victory.”

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

I don't know why I didn't do this earlier, but in addition to Bowman's stuff I have been using Greg Prince's "Manifesto" talk as a place to start. Feel free to pick Prince apart.

Aside from the absence of priesthood keys, and perhaps ratification by the Holy Ghost, each of these bullets represents what (at the very least) the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve are doing (only not to the satisfaction of the author), and (with only a coupe of key exceptions) what they encourage everyone to do withing the scope of their memership responsibilities:

own your religion …read, think, and write deeply for the rest of your lives*

your dues, and stay in those pews.*

Take seriously the saying of Jesus: “Be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves.” [Matthew 10:16]*

Reform of curriculum and retooling of worship services should be in the forefront of your minds.

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.**

individualize your religion, and then be an example to others who need and individualized approach outside the mainstream [“every Prophet has a theme”… “Elder So-and-so always talks about XYZ … “And I’m a Mormon”]*

inject your own flavor into your church experience… [see above; develop talents, keep journals]*

extend the reach of Mormonism by integrating yourselves into the larger world*

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.*

* From my experience, the general authorities seem to encourage this very much for each member. The rest (curriculum, meeting format, doctrinal pronouncements) require priesthood keys.

** For members, only on a personal and a Church-wide scale.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

This is how the Catholic Church thinks about Ecumenical Councils. The Councils are ultimately protected by the Holy Ghost from error, but that doesn't mean that the Bishops gathered in the Council can't individual disagree and argue with each other. Heck, in one council, St. Nicholas (good ol' Santa Claus) famously punches another Bishop, Arius, because of his heretical views! Yet both were working within their valid offices as Bishops in discussing the issue at hand.

Disagreement and dissent doesn't mean that God isn't present and protecting.

[CV75]

This is how the Catholic Church thinks about Ecumenical Councils. The Councils are ultimately protected by the Holy Ghost from error, but that doesn't mean that the Bishops gathered in the Council can't individual disagree and argue with each other. Heck, in one council, St. Nicholas (good ol' Santa Claus) famously punches another Bishop, Arius, because of his heretical views! Yet both were working within their valid offices as Bishops in discussing the issue at hand.

Disagreement and dissent doesn't mean that God isn't present and protecting.

Interesting--the LDS often refer to this as "the Lord will never permit [the] ...President of this Church to lead [us] astray."

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (President Wilford Woodruff, Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)”

[wenglund]

Is the intent behind formulating a mechanism for dissent to invert the hierarchal structure of the Church from top down to bottom up?

If so, then I question whether that would be an improvement or the opposite. In other words, I question whether doing so make the most sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Lamanite]

I don't think inverting the structure of the Church, especially its revelatory process is what we're talking about. I'm simply talking about the best way to effectuate change. What type of change? Non-doctrinal/theological issues to start with.

Again, I think language is the barrier. By using the word "dissent" I've immediately placed road blocks and barriers up that prevent a healthy discussion. I've self sabotaged my own efforts by using language that is threatening and inflammatory to many Mormons. If I would have just used "make changes" or something similar I would have gotten a lot farther. Even though suggesting the Church could use some improvements could be seen as a dissenting attitude or opinion.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[KevinG]

We have counsels, and human leaders who are open to discussion and questions. The revelation on race and priesthood is a shining example of how this is done within the structures the Lord has provided for order.

I am amazed that so many have bought into the anti-Mormon canard that we are led by a top down dictatorial leadership structure when most of the important decisions on implementing the church programs are held at a very local level and those leaders are subject to counsels and membership.

[CV75]

If I would have just used "make changes" or something similar I would have gotten a lot farther.

The purpose of the Gospel is for us to change into people who can live with God. The Church provides a key element in accomplishing this. The types of changes we need to make are deeply individual and personal. We are never called upon by the Spirit to change someone else, only ourselves, and then only invite others to do the same by coming unto Christ.

The best way to change the Church for the better, in my opinion, is for any or each individual to come closer and closer unto Christ, and receive grace for grace (“a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”), which would be the conversion process.

If someone assesses that the Church needs to change, he needs to first assess how he needs to change. I think this attitude is much like addressing the desire for someone else to change to suit one’s own preferences. All one can really do is change himself and then with the Spirit invite others to join him.

[wenglund]

I don't think inverting the structure of the Church, especially its revelatory process is what we're talking about. I'm simply talking about the best way to effectuate change. What type of change? Non-doctrinal/theological issues to start with.

Okay. However, who are you proposing to affect and make the changes to the non-doctrinal/theological church policies and procedures? If you think the general membership should affect the change, and then the Church leadership is to make the changes, then you have essentially described a bottom-up structure.

I am not sure this makes much sense. Have you ever tried to manage by committee? Can you imagine trying to decide on non-doctrinal changes in the Church with a committee of 13 million people?

Now, what clearly has worked is the top-down approach, where Christ, through his chosen leaders, affects desired changes, and members implement those changes in their individual lives. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Lamanite]

Okay. However, who are you proposing to affect and make the changes to the non-doctrinal/theological church policies and procedures? If you think the general membership should affect the change, and then the Church leadership is to make the changes, then you have essentially described a bottom-up structure.

I am not sure this makes much sense. Have you ever tried to manage by committee? Can you imagine trying to decide on non-doctrinal changes in the Church with a committee of 13 million people?

Now, what clearly has worked is the top-down approach, where Christ, through his chosen leaders, affects desired changes, and members implement those changes in their individual lives. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand what your saying. And your point is valid and in many cases demonstrably superior. But how can we make changes like, hanging new artwork in the foyer of our local Chapel? I understand why there are blue eyed Jesus' in many pieces of Christ centered art, but maybe I'd feel more comfortable with portraits of the Savior that have brown eyes. (Think West Africa) Do we really need to involve the Brethren in these issues? Does the local leadership have no autonomy at all? If not, that says very little of their ability to lead and teach by the Spirit. Not to mention how and when they use the keys of the Priesthood.

Just a weird example but it makes my point.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jaynee Doe]

Okay. However, who are you proposing to effect and make the changes to the non-doctrinal/theological church policies and procedures? If you think the general membership should effect the change, and then the Church leadership is to make the changes, then you have essentially described a bottom-up structure.

. . . .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

FIFY.

[cinepro]

I am amazed that so many have bought into the anti-Mormon canard that we are led by a top down dictatorial leadership structure when most of the important decisions on implementing the church programs are held at a very local level and those leaders are subject to counsels and membership.

Now, what clearly has worked is the top-down approach, where Christ, through his chosen leaders, affects desired changes, and members implement those changes in their individual lives. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

Please expound if willing

Big UP!

Lamanite

[ed2276]

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

You keep writing of functional change in women's roles within the church in general terms. Please provide specific examples that you have in mind.

[ed2276]

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.

And who is to say that the dissidents' change is positive? Having women sit on disciplinary councils may subjectively be a positive to the dissident, whereas to the councils it is not in accord with the established priesthood function.

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.

So, we open up sacrament meeting change to the subjective. personal whims of each and every member? We enact change across the board at all levels of the church based on the pet peeve of an individual or group? It seems to me that rather than enhancing spiritual experience such dissent opens the door to chaos, contention, and loss of spirituality.

D&C 124:84 And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church; and he setteth up a ^agolden calf for the worship of my people.

It sounds to me like you want to set up a lot of golden calves in the name of "positive" dissent. But, such dissent, however positive you may think it is, opens the door to a spirit of dissent which is likely to become evil in nature.

[Lamanite]

Ed

Think Church Welfare

From Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The present-day system for helping the poor had its roots in the Great Depression of the 1930s, which hit urban Church members hardest. Though often struggling in the 1930s, farm-owning Latter-day Saints usually were self-sufficient, while city-dwellers deprived of employment were in the most serious straits. Stake presidents in urban areas contacted nearby farmers who faced prices so low that it was not profitable to harvest their crops. Arrangements were made so that idle urban members could harvest the crops in return for a share thereof. The produce thus obtained was stored in Church-controlled warehouse facilities and distributed according to need. Drawing upon that experience, Welfare farms were soon established under Church ownership in areas surrounding Mormon-populated cities. Other Church units undertook processing and manufacturing projects based on the rural produce. Bishop's storehouses were created for storage and distribution, and products were moved from location to location by a Church-sponsored transportation system.

Simply put. Local members and Stake presidents dissented from the current church system and implemented a new organized effort led by the Priesthood. The Church recognized the benefit of the institutional changes and implemented what was prudent into the Church.

So there's your precedent. (There are more BTW)

As far as an example.....I've listed examples before but maybe we could discuss a couple more.

1. Women have the opportunity to hold their infant while the child receives a name and a blessing by the Priesthood.

2. Involve a member of the Relief Society Presidency in any meeting where sexual/physical abuse has taken place.

Now, these ideas may have merit or they may suck royally. But the act of dissent is not necessarily bad. Especially if that dissent is carried out within the boundaries of a disciple of Christ and received by a Priesthood leader that is continually inspired by the Spirit.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Calm]

Dissent isn't just doing things differently, it is opposition to how things are done now. I don't see new programs that don't contradict or infringe upon old programs as "dissent" so I am unsure that one should call the welfare and primary movements "dissent" just because they started something new at a grassroots level.

[Lamanite]

Dissent isn't just doing things differently, it is opposition to how things are done now. I don't see new programs that don't contradict or infringe upon old programs as "dissent" so I am unsure that one should call the welfare and primary movements "dissent" just because they started something new at a grassroots level.

So if we started something new through a grassroots movement like allowing women to hold their child during a baby blessing that would be encouraging change rather than dissent?

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS- I hope the pain you go through typing me is worth helping a heretic. :-)

[Tacenda]

So if we started something new through a grassroots movement like allowing women to hold their child during a baby blessing that would be encouraging change rather than dissent?

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS- I hope the pain you go through typing me is worth helping a heretic. :-)

Would it be so wrong if a mother asked to hold her baby during the blessing or would that send an electrical current that would stop the priesthood power? I'm only halfway kidding.

[Calm]

So if we started something new through a grassroots movement like allowing women to hold their child during a baby blessing that would be encouraging change rather than dissent?

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS- I hope the pain you go through typing me is worth helping a heretic. :-)

As long as I keep it short, it's okay...I am too much of an addict to stay completely off.

I believe...could be wrong...that having a non priesthood holder hold a baby is actually against written policy, if so an attempt to change that would be defined in my view as dissent.

Edited October 11, 2012 by calmoriah