stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Bad church day for me yesterday. I hate to be whiney but I guess I'll risk in getting this out. We had a joint RS/Priesthood on yesterdays fifth Sunday. Our Bishop taught. I think as given instruction from the Stake President he spoke about OW and the fiasco that has been on topic around here as late. Fine and great. Last week I took some of his thunder because I intentionally brought it up as part of the lesson last week. I heard after our elder's quorum the bishop wanted to broach the subject the following week--it was said to me he was particularly uncomfortable with it. Great. I had looked forward to his thoughts. As it is, I'm seen as "other" in my ward already--outside the pale of TBM. People expect me to view it all differently, I guess. Anyway, yesterday's class started out with the bishop making the case that OW, without being completely forthcoming with who he was talking about, is apostate, of the devil, is to be feared. I objected, we need not fear such organizations. If we hold truth and if OW is wrong it should come out in reasoned dialogue. Individuals are to make their own choices, but if we fear and treat them as unworthy of comment unwilling to understand where they are coming from then we've already lost. "But they've lead people away", was the refrain. "Then we better polish up our reasoning, and be able to address the issues appropriately, and convincingly make our case". Comments abounded trying to refute my point, an echo chamber of insular fearful comments persisted. We finally moved on. "The Church can't be wrong, or else this is all a hoax", said the bishop. "How is that?" I thought. The Church has been wrong in the past. We all know the 1949 1st Presidency Message http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/ So the Church was wrong, because we've had another official message which clearly told us the message delivered by the Church in 1949 was wrong, hogwash. That though we were assured the Church is correct, we know now they were working with less information and made assumptions that they declared as coming from God. I did not want to bother the meeting anymore, so my thoughts remained inside. The crowd agreed with the dichotomy as comments chimed in approvingly. The resolve to oppose "outside" influence rang again and again. I wanted to chime in and say a few things on that, but I did not. The bishop raised an issue of being persecuted. Months ago he told RS, my wife told me, that he was persecuted by his brother being called a bigot for his position on SSM. I can't help but think how silly it is to play the persecution card. Conversation halts, progress ends as soon as one side feels picked on (and now I should reference Kate Kelly as an example of that). soon the idea that equality has value was mocked, drenching each comment, seemingly. "There is something rather positive in all of this. In March 2013 OW was launched. In April 2013 a woman was first allowed/invited to pray in conference. Sometime back in 80s women were allowed to speak in conference. All through time women have been treated as not worth listening too. Not an actual voice in society, but we've made some progress here and this presents us with a great opportunity to evaluate whether where we are is where we really want to be." Says I. Or something similar. A lady whom my wife is friends with but is aware of my wife and I's differing approach to these ideas sat on the side of the meeting room with her baby staring at me. My wife was subbing in primary so she missed all the fireworks I caused. Instead of discussing, I realized my mistake, the mistake I've made before. Do not counter the prevailing narrative unless you're willing to accept the consequences. I almost always try and stay quiet and play more along the party line. But the comments that attitudes were eating me up. So I said things. I didn't say all that I wanted to say at all. All I tried to do was spark thought, a little. The meeting ended with the bishop telling us its okay to ask questions, but don't do so by trying to get people convinced of your side, if your reasoning takes you in a different direction than the way he thinks. He said outside voices are distracting and we need to stick strictly with the message we get from the leaders of our church. If we start to listen to outside voices we can get confused. If we get confused then we may get lost, joining the ranks of those who oppose the works of God. eh./..whatever, lost opportunity, in my mind. Another recurring event that tells me I don't really fit in well. So I ask, is it healthy for us to play the persecution card on things like this? Is it useful for us to view outside influence as evil and the only good source for us to know and follow will inevitably come from the top of the Church? Is there really not room to discuss the role of women and their positioning in the Church?
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 I think there are numerous ways to disagree without becoming disagreeable. 1
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 I think there are numerous ways to disagree without becoming disagreeable. I read your reply and thought, "well I agree". But wondering if you are saying I am becoming disagreeable? I might be, I guess. But I did try to take great care not to and have done so in the past when I comment.
awyatt Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Depends on how you define "persecution." If someone disagrees with me, am I persecuted based on that disagreement? Probably not. Take it up a notch, though. If that person, in disagreeing, labels me a bigot as a way to lash out or as a way to discount the validity of my opinion, or to stop others from listening, is that persecution? Perhaps. If the person says I am mentally unstable and should not be listened to, is that persecution? When is the "persecution" line crossed? And, once it is crossed, is it valid for the persecuted person to note that the line was crossed? Is doing so "playing a card" that is somehow inappropriate to be "played?" -Allen 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 I read your reply and thought, "well I agree". But wondering if you are saying I am becoming disagreeable? I might be, I guess. But I did try to take great care not to and have done so in the past when I comment. From what you said I don't believe you were being disagreeable. I know that there are some few within the Church that any question is perceived as an attack on the Church. Which is really sad. That being said there are ways to effect change in the Church. OW way obviously isn't that way.
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 Depends on how you define "persecution." If someone disagrees with me, am I persecuted based on that disagreement? Probably not. Take it up a notch, though. If that person, in disagreeing, labels me a bigot as a way to lash out or as a way to discount the validity of my opinion, or to stop others from listening, is that persecution? Perhaps. If the person says I am mentally unstable and should not be listened to, is that persecution? When is the "persecution" line crossed? And, once it is crossed, is it valid for the persecuted person to note that the line was crossed? Is doing so "playing a card" that is somehow inappropriate to be "played?" -Allen In my mind, even if name-calling is used from one side to discount the validity of the other's opinion, I'm not sure the cry of persecution helps. If genuinely persecuted there is no need to cry out persecution it will be plainly seen.
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 In my mind, even if name-calling is used from one side to discount the validity of the other's opinion, I'm not sure the cry of persecution helps. If genuinely persecuted there is no need to cry out persecution it will be plainly seen. It's a bit of a mixed bag. Every cry of persecution of course is not persecution. OTOH it isn't always obvious either.
awyatt Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 What do you feel qualifies as "genuine persecution?"
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) It's a bit of a mixed bag. Every cry of persecution of course is not persecution. OTOH it isn't always obvious either. In the case that was vaguely referenced in the OP, my bishop seemed to proudly claim he was persecuted for Christ because he boldly told his brother he believed SSM should not be made legal. his brother in his reasoning concluded my bishop was a bigot. Seems misapplied to me and perhaps not very helpful to the rest of the ward. its not as if his brother didn't give him a hug later that night as they departed or something. likewise if anyone wishes to think the Church or we are persecuted by OW or the media for our stance of women not being ordained to the priesthood, then I'd say that seems to misrepresent what is persecuted. It tends to, it seems to me, put us in an insular mindset. Evil is lurking out there ready to come down on us if we bravely proclaim our position. Sadly that just seems to be nothing more than a failure to grasp onto reality. Edited June 30, 2014 by stemelbow
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 What do you feel qualifies as "genuine persecution?" I think any number of things could be called persecution. But one friend or brother calling another a bigot doesn't seem to qualify.
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) In the case that was vaguely referenced in the OP, my bishop seemed to proudly claim he was persecuted for Christ because he boldly told his brother he believed SSM should not be made legal. his brother in his reasoning concluded my bishop was a bigot. Seems misapplied to me and perhaps not very helpful to the rest of the ward. its not as if his brother didn't give him a hug later that night as they departed or something.likewise if anyone wishes to think the Church or we are persecuted by OW or the media for our stance of women not being ordained to the priesthood, then I'd say that seems to misrepresent what is persecuted. It tends to, it seems to me, put us in an insular mindset. Evil is lurking out there ready to come down on us if we bravely proclaim our position. Sadly that just seems to be nothing more than a failure to grasp onto reality. Both were wrong. There is a big difference between supporting SSM, and organizing public demonstrations against the Church; and simply not finding any legally consistent means to outlaw it, and calling that person a bigot. There is no reason to become disagreeable, even if they hugged later. We mortals seem to be better at asking for forgiveness than we are a asking for permission. I sure don't feel persecuted by OW, or the media, though I do definitely do have my disagreements with both. Edited June 30, 2014 by thesometimesaint
CV75 Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 So I ask, is it healthy for us to play the persecution card on things like this? Is it useful for us to view outside influence as evil and the only good source for us to know and follow will inevitably come from the top of the Church? Is there really not room to discuss the role of women and their positioning in the Church?Playing the persecution card, to me, means that one is exploiting how they were treated for political advantage. I think feeling persecuted could be justified, in which case something should be done about it; it is unhealthy when persecution is perceived where none exists and cannot be resolved. A healthy person communicating with an unhealthy person can hopefully contribute to resolution. I think discerning evil is a gift, but evil (like persecution) should not be exploited but corrected. I don't think the Lord's servants play the "good card" but convey the truth and let the it speak for itself. I think this is why they are so plain in their language and message. I think the discussing (and better acknowledging) the role and position of women in the Church has been going on for many years.
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 Both were wrong. There is a big difference between supporting SSM, and organizing public demonstrations against the Church; and simply not finding any legally consistent means to outlaw it, and calling that person a bigot. There is no reason to become disagreeable, even if they hugged later. We mortals seem to be better at asking for forgiveness than we are a asking for permission. I sure don't feel persecuted by OW, or the media, though I do definitely do have my disagreements with both. Same here. I agree.
Ahab Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Bottom line: Our Church leaders are the people the other members of the Church should follow, rather than the other members, or worse yet non-members, trying to lead the leaders. There is one exception, however, and that is that our Lord, who is not even a member of his own Church, may lead the leaders as well as the other members of his Church.Without that one exception that's how every other organization on Earth operates, and if anyone doesn't like it they are free to leave the organization. 1
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 Bottom line: Our Church leaders are the people the other members of the Church should follow, rather than the other members, or worse yet non-members, trying to lead the leaders. There is one exception, however, and that is that our Lord, who is not even a member of his own Church, may lead the leaders as well as the other members of his Church. Without that one exception that's how every other organization on Earth operates, and if anyone doesn't like it they are free to leave the organization. I'm struggling trying to figure out what you mean. Care to explain a bit more? Are you suggesting that the Church itself can't be influenced positively by an outside source, even other than Christ? Seems unlikely. Are you suggesting we as members can't find truth and goodness to embrace that is outside the Church or directly from Christ? Also seems untrue.
Storm Rider Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 I try to take this down to my level; goodness knows that is the lowest common denominator. Do I have to enter a debate with the devil to know that I am right about a moral choice or any choice? Seems like, based on your assumptions, that I should be able to intellectually defend all my thoughts, beliefs, and actions based upon overwhelming intellectual prowess or at worst sophistry. In many ways I agree that we should be instruction and training professional apologists and philosophers in order to respond to the onslaught of demands for change. However, in that world where does the Spirit play a role? Is the direction of the Spirit ever enough for an individual? Getting back to the professional apologist; what would be the difference between the Church and the Catholic Church if we began to instruct and train these apologists and philosophers? What do you think we forfeit if going down that path is the chosen path? I believe in education; I believe in science; I believe that both faith and reason have a role to play in our lives. However, I have never felt compelled or sensed a need to argue with the devil. I learned a long time ago that he was much more sophisticated than I was and the best course of action was to just follow the Spirit.
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 I try to take this down to my level; goodness knows that is the lowest common denominator. Do I have to enter a debate with the devil to know that I am right about a moral choice or any choice? Seems like, based on your assumptions, that I should be able to intellectually defend all my thoughts, beliefs, and actions based upon overwhelming intellectual prowess or at worst sophistry. In many ways I agree that we should be instruction and training professional apologists and philosophers in order to respond to the onslaught of demands for change. However, in that world where does the Spirit play a role? Is the direction of the Spirit ever enough for an individual? Getting back to the professional apologist; what would be the difference between the Church and the Catholic Church if we began to instruct and train these apologists and philosophers? What do you think we forfeit if going down that path is the chosen path? I believe in education; I believe in science; I believe that both faith and reason have a role to play in our lives. However, I have never felt compelled or sensed a need to argue with the devil. I learned a long time ago that he was much more sophisticated than I was and the best course of action was to just follow the Spirit. Who are you identifying as the devil? I'm saying we should be able to present a reasoned defense at times and an open discussion at times...to each other. Not the devil.
Ahab Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) I'm struggling trying to figure out what you mean. Care to explain a bit more? Are you suggesting that the Church itself can't be influenced positively by an outside source, even other than Christ? Seems unlikely.Depends on what you think of as "influence". Anyone either in or outside the Church organization should feel free to give their opinion or share their thoughts with Church leaders and members, but at the bottom line the Church leaders are the ones who should make the final decision in regards to leading the Church, whether including or not including Christ as a leader. Just like in any other organization.Are you suggesting we as members can't find truth and goodness to embrace that is outside the Church or directly from Christ? Also seems untrue.Whatever you find the leaders of the Church should be recognized and regarded and supported as the leaders of the Church, since they are the people who are put in place as the leaders of the Church. You could maybe suggest that they change their mind about what they are doing if you don't like what they're doing, but if they refuse your suggestion you should still realize and regard them as the leaders and support them as the leaders, each within their own stewardship, rather than raising a ruckus or demanding that they do what you want them to do as if they should follow your lead as if you are their leader. Unless, of course, you are their leader. Edited June 30, 2014 by Ahab 1
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 Depends on what you think of as "influence". Anyone either in or outside the Church organization should feel free to give their opinion or share their thoughts with Church leaders and members, but at the bottom line the Church leaders are the ones who should make the final decision in regards to leading the Church, whether including or not including Christ as a leader. Just like in any other organization. Whatever you find the leaders of the Church should be recognized and regarded and supported as the leaders of the Church, since they are the people who are put in place as the leaders of the Church. You could maybe suggest that they change their mind about what they are doing if you don't like what they're doing, but if they refuse your suggestion you should still realize and regard them as the leaders and support them as the leaders, each within their own stewardship, rather than raising a ruckus or demanding that they do what you want them to do as if they should follow your lead as if you are their leader. Unless, of course, you are their leader. I agree for the most part. 1
Tacenda Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) I've been in a few GD classes over the years when it takes one person to get the group mentality to make them feel they don't want to stick out or be different and just shut up, meaning you stemelbow! But proud that you had the nerves of steel to say something in a thoughtful way apparently. I've been in classes where someone will contradict the teacher in a slight way if they feel it wrong and you could cut the tension in the air with a knife. Personally I don't believe Sis Isom when she says we can discuss in class our differences with each other. Not a chance for now, IMO. Hopefully it will get better. The majority of my FB friends are neighbors and people in my ward and family. You should have seen the backlash against OW that entailed on those FB pages. If you felt different then these ladies you wouldn't want it out for fear you'd lose a lot of friends/family. Why has it come to this? To me, scary doesn't even come close to what it has become. The church isn't the large tent that Uchtdorf seemed to have wanted, and I'm not a big proponent of OW, but very much a proponent of people speaking with ease of feeling that the church could gain with some changes, because it happens all the time in the church. Edited July 1, 2014 by Tacenda
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Depends on what you think of as "influence". Anyone either in or outside the Church organization should feel free to give their opinion or share their thoughts with Church leaders and members, but at the bottom line the Church leaders are the ones who should make the final decision in regards to leading the Church, whether including or not including Christ as a leader. Just like in any other organization.Whatever you find the leaders of the Church should be recognized and regarded and supported as the leaders of the Church, since they are the people who are put in place as the leaders of the Church. You could maybe suggest that they change their mind about what they are doing if you don't like what they're doing, but if they refuse your suggestion you should still realize and regard them as the leaders and support them as the leaders, each within their own stewardship, rather than raising a ruckus or demanding that they do what you want them to do as if they should follow your lead as if you are their leader. Unless, of course, you are their leader. I am reasonably sure that Emma asked more than once to get Joseph to ask God about cleaning those spittoons. I am so reasonably sure that it was the faithful Saints in Brazil that helped motivate the change in Priesthood eligibility in 1978.
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 I've been in a few GD classes over the years when it takes one person to get the group mentality to make them feel they don't want to stick out or be different and just shut up, meaning you! But proud that you had the nerves of steel to say something in a thoughtful way apparently. I've been in classes where someone will contradict the teacher in a slight way if they feel it wrong and you could cut the tension in the air with a knife. Personally I don't believe Sis Isom when she says we can discuss in class our differences with each other. Not a chance for now, IMO. Hopefully it will get better. The majority of my FB friends are neighbors and people in my ward and family. You should have seen the backlash against OW that entailed on those FB pages. If you felt different then these ladies you wouldn't want it out for fear you'd lose a lot of friends/family. Why has it come to this? To me, scary doesn't even close to what it has become. The church isn't the large tent that Uchtdorf seemed to have wanted, and I'm not a big proponent of OW, but very much a proponent of people speaking with ease of feeling that the church could gain with some changes, because it happens all the time in the church. I've never felt the least bit inhibited from stating my opinions in Sunday School. Though it is getting better slowly, Gospel Doctrine class has long been known as Gospel Rumor class.
stemelbow Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 I've been in a few GD classes over the years when it takes one person to get the group mentality to make them feel they don't want to stick out or be different and just shut up, meaning you stemelbow! But proud that you had the nerves of steel to say something in a thoughtful way apparently. I've been in classes where someone will contradict the teacher in a slight way if they feel it wrong and you could cut the tension in the air with a knife. Personally I don't believe Sis Isom when she says we can discuss in class our differences with each other. Not a chance for now, IMO. Hopefully it will get better. The majority of my FB friends are neighbors and people in my ward and family. You should have seen the backlash against OW that entailed on those FB pages. If you felt different then these ladies you wouldn't want it out for fear you'd lose a lot of friends/family. Why has it come to this? To me, scary doesn't even close to what it has become. The church isn't the large tent that Uchtdorf seemed to have wanted, and I'm not a big proponent of OW, but very much a proponent of people speaking with ease of feeling that the church could gain with some changes, because it happens all the time in the church. Yep. And in a lot of ways it's fine. The echo chamber is on full throttle when hot button topics like this are brought up. No one, it seems, wants to hear from a different from. I get that and mostly I stay quiet and let them have it. But yesterday hit me just right and I chimed in, albeit very subdued and respectfully, at least as I saw it. But it really does make me feel like I don't belong. There's an established view. I rarely if ever seem to be on board with the echoes. Not my place to upset it. I'm just me. So do I not belong? Should I be elsewhere and leave them all to it?
Ahab Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 I am reasonably sure that Emma asked more than once to get Joseph to ask God about cleaning those spittoons. I am so reasonably sure that it was the faithful Saints in Brazil that helped motivate the change in Priesthood eligibility in 1978.The crux of the issue is the fact that the leaders of the Church are within their rights to either accept or reject any idea from anyone who is not their leader while they are duty bound to follow their leader, or leaders. Members who are not leaders can at best only make suggestions.
thesometimesaint Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 The crux of the issue is the fact that the leaders of the Church are within their rights to either accept or reject any idea from anyone who is not their leader while they are duty bound to follow their leader, or leaders. Members who are not leaders can at best only make suggestions. True, but reasonable suggestions usually get better play.
Recommended Posts