How Does The Church Work?

[Ahab]

True, but reasonable suggestions usually get better play.

True. Just think, if it hadn't bothered Emma to clean up after men who spit out tobacco juice onto the floors and if Emma hadn't felt free to vent her feelings to Joseph then Joseph might never have thought about asking God how he felt about that and might not have ever received what we now call the Word of Wisdom and men might still be spitting out tobacco juice onto floors, and drinking beer and whiskey, when getting together without it bothering them and without it ever occurring to any one of them that our Lord didn't think that was wise.

[thesometimesaint]

True. Just think, if it hadn't bothered Emma to clean up after men who spit out tobacco juice onto the floors and if Emma hadn't felt free to vent her feelings to Joseph then Joseph might never have thought about asking God how he felt about that and might not have ever received what we now call the Word of Wisdom and men might still be spitting out tobacco juice onto floors, and drinking beer and whiskey, when getting together without it bothering them and without it ever occurring to any one of them that our Lord didn't think that was wise.

 

Behind every great man's idea is a great woman.

[Ahab]

Behind every great man's idea is a great woman.

And yet some women still have some bad ideas sometimes and leaders of the Church are under no obligation to make them binding for everyone in the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

And yet some women still have some bad ideas sometimes and leaders of the Church are under no obligation to make them binding for everyone in the Church.

 

Obviously.

[Ahab]

Obviously.

The whole thing about how the Church works is obvious and yet some people don't get it.

Go figure.

[Buckeye]

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?

 

Hey stemelbow,

 

I don't have a panacea, but hopefully I can offer some help.  First, know that even in the most tight-collared corner of Utah county there is a range of beliefs.  They may not always be spoken outloud, but they exist.  So unless you're advocating animal sacrifice, odds are pretty good that your views are not yours alone. 

 

Second, in my experience the people who react the most violently are those who are scared and/or hurt themselves.  They don't dislike you personally but they haven't found a way to deal with the dischord and so treat you as enemy.  They shoot the messenger.  It's kind of how a person who is drowing will push a rescuer under the water in an attempt to save themselves.  They don't really hate the rescuer, but they can't think of anything besides their panic to live.  Add to that analogy dozens of people drowning and that is what happens in some GD classes and some corners of FB.

 

Third, you'll rarely make any progress (and often make enemies) if you go straight for a conclusion.  So saying "I think the prophet taught false doctrine" or "I think God approves of gay marriage" is not the way to go.  What works better are objective facts and personal experience that runs counter to the narrative.  So you can say "In 1949 the FP taught curse of cain was doctrine and now it is disavowed."  Leave it there and if people ask for help as to how to bridge the disconnect offer how you deal with that fact and still keep your testimony.  Or if the issue is SSM you could say "I know several gay friends who are really good parents.  They're just like my sister and her husband who have adopted because they couldn't conceive.  All of these people sacrifice their lives for their kids and are examples to me as to the type of parent I wish to be."  Again, there's nothing much to fight over there.  You're just offering facts and personal judgments.

 

Finally, tone matters a lot.  I find it much better to present a counter-factual and ask "how do you account for that" than to say "you're so wrong."  So for example, if someone says "our bodies are temples and you would never put graffiti on a temple," you could mildly say "well, actually most all of our temples are covered in artwork - from beautifully painted creation rooms to sunstones, moonstones, starstones, and even the big dipper on the SL Temple ... how do you account for that in saying that bodies are temples?  If bodies really are temples, and temples have a sunstones chisteled into them, why would it be wrong to have a sunstone tattoo?" 

 

Just some thoughts.  Final thought - the Holy Ghost goes to bed at midnight.  And he never goes onto FB.  He tried a few times, but everyone kept unfriending him.  Just sayin'.

[ELF1024]

 

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?

 

I do not believe I have ever said that Sister Kelly, (and yes, I do still refer to her as Sister Kelly), is in any way demonic or evil. I do not think that resorting to calling people you disagree with "evil" is particularly helpful.

 

I do believe that Sister Kelly is mistaken. That said, verbally catapulting her off into Outer Darkness is not going to encourage her to be open to errors in her beliefs or is it likely to bring forth humility from her or anyone else.

 

Sister Kelly, is in the unfortunate position of having a throng of admirers. Who are rooting for her to continue what she is doing. One of the hardest things for a sinner to do, is to give up the friends, and places that were associated with the sin they are guilty of. For an alcoholic, it is vital that they give up the drinking buddies, and the bars they used to frequent if they are to make progress towards being sober.

 

Yes, sure... you can site that Uncle Bob was a drunk for 50 years, and one day he just stopped, kept his drinking buddies, and went to bars... but just drank water and became the designated driver... I'm sure that there are out-liars... but for the most part, I do believe that what I said was true, and it was the specific prescription given by Spencer W. Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness". (A book that I am very familiar with as I had to read it many times as both a youth and an adult)

 

As to your second question, I do not believe that the Church has a monopoly on Goodness and Light. However, each instance would need to be taken and weighted on it's own. Initially, there may have been some good in what Sister Kelly was attempting. However, IMHO, when she began to dictate terms to the Prophet... she became an Apostate and was wrong.

 

As to your third, I do believe that there is room to discuss the role of women and their positioning in the Church. However, that needs to be done with seriousness and with humility and patience. IMHO, some complaints that I have seen on this board as so called examples of inequality are making mountains out of molehills and are purposefully looking for offense where none was intended or merited.

 

I do believe that there is some legitimate wrongdoing on behalf of the men. However, I also do not see that as part of the doctrine or policies of the church... but as individual bad actors. (I'm absolutely sure I'm about to be stoned by a rabid pack of angry feminists for saying so...)

 

It took the Church at least 20 years of discussions at the General Authority level before the injustice done to people of color was completely fixed by the 1978 revelation. (Reference)

 

Yes, I know that in the early days of the Church that some women gave Priesthood blessings. I am also aware that during the same time period that Joseph Smith Jr was sealed to several women... who had living husbands at the time.

 

Mistakes have been made. If women giving blessings was a mistake or not, I do not know. It is not done today. That may say that it was a mistake that has since been fixed, or it may be like the Priesthood and Black Men, and has yet to be fixed.

 

If it is a mistake, it will be fixed in the Lord's time. While I do not believe that it something that will ever change, I am willing to admit that I could very well be mistaken. And if at such time it is revealed that it was a mistake, (and likely laid at Brother Brigham's feet, again) then I will humble myself before the Lord and accept the change.

 

However, until that point, I see no reason to change what up to 95% of the women in the church do not view as broken.

Edited June 30, 2014 by ELF1024

[rodheadlee]

Yeah because the church admitted one mistake now everything somebody doesn't agree with is deemed a mistake. No SSM, no problem it's probably a mistake. Ordain women no problem it's a mistake that they weren't ordained when Jesus Christ and JS organized the Church. How often is this sentiment going to be used?

Edited June 30, 2014 by rodheadlee

[stemelbow]

Yeah because the church admitted one mistake now everything somebody doesn't agree with is deemed a mistake. No SSM, no problem it's probably a mistake. Ordain women no problem it's a mistake that they weren't ordained when Jesus Christ and JS organized the Church. How often is this sentiment going to be used?

As often as the sentiment that the Church will not err and to disagree, or even question it, is to side with satan and against God. I don't know anyone who is saying everything someone disagrees with is a mistake. This is how it all was presented to the class on Sunday, essentially:

If you disagree with the church on anything you can bet you're wrong. God only works through His chosen leaders and they will not make a mistake. God will not tolerate any sort of outside pressure upon the Church to have any validity or truth. If you listen at all to an outside source and feel confused even getting questions about certain policies or doctrines you have been lead by Satan and are on a bad path, a path created because you simply don't understand the truth and Satan himself, if you choose to ask the questions, will surely snag you and drag you down.

The class received it very well. The problem is we can't put on the Church the idea of inerrancy. it simply doesn't work. And God should not be limited to working only through His Church or the leaders of His Church. He can talk to some random, seeming, person in Indonesia or Siberia if He wants and put upon others the task of getting His Church inline. It's up to Him not us.

Edited July 1, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

Hey stemelbow,

 

I don't have a panacea, but hopefully I can offer some help.  First, know that even in the most tight-collared corner of Utah county there is a range of beliefs.  They may not always be spoken outloud, but they exist.  So unless you're advocating animal sacrifice, odds are pretty good that your views are not yours alone. 

 

Second, in my experience the people who react the most violently are those who are scared and/or hurt themselves.  They don't dislike you personally but they haven't found a way to deal with the dischord and so treat you as enemy.  They shoot the messenger.  It's kind of how a person who is drowing will push a rescuer under the water in an attempt to save themselves.  They don't really hate the rescuer, but they can't think of anything besides their panic to live.  Add to that analogy dozens of people drowning and that is what happens in some GD classes and some corners of FB.

 

Third, you'll rarely make any progress (and often make enemies) if you go straight for a conclusion.  So saying "I think the prophet taught false doctrine" or "I think God approves of gay marriage" is not the way to go.  What works better are objective facts and personal experience that runs counter to the narrative.  So you can say "In 1949 the FP taught curse of cain was doctrine and now it is disavowed."  Leave it there and if people ask for help as to how to bridge the disconnect offer how you deal with that fact and still keep your testimony.  Or if the issue is SSM you could say "I know several gay friends who are really good parents.  They're just like my sister and her husband who have adopted because they couldn't conceive.  All of these people sacrifice their lives for their kids and are examples to me as to the type of parent I wish to be."  Again, there's nothing much to fight over there.  You're just offering facts and personal judgments.

 

Finally, tone matters a lot.  I find it much better to present a counter-factual and ask "how do you account for that" than to say "you're so wrong."  So for example, if someone says "our bodies are temples and you would never put graffiti on a temple," you could mildly say "well, actually most all of our temples are covered in artwork - from beautifully painted creation rooms to sunstones, moonstones, starstones, and even the big dipper on the SL Temple ... how do you account for that in saying that bodies are temples?  If bodies really are temples, and temples have a sunstones chisteled into them, why would it be wrong to have a sunstone tattoo?" 

 

Just some thoughts.  Final thought - the Holy Ghost goes to bed at midnight.  And he never goes onto FB.  He tried a few times, but everyone kept unfriending him.  Just sayin'.

Thanks for the thoughts and advice.

[stemelbow]

As to your third, I do believe that there is room to discuss the role of women and their positioning in the Church. However, that needs to be done with seriousness and with humility and patience. IMHO, some complaints that I have seen on this board as so called examples of inequality are making mountains out of molehills and are purposefully looking for offense where none was intended or merited.

It is not an easy topic at all. It can get ugly. But it's interesting to get into because it really challenges me.

 

I do believe that there is some legitimate wrongdoing on behalf of the men. However, I also do not see that as part of the doctrine or policies of the church... but as individual bad actors. (I'm absolutely sure I'm about to be stoned by a rabid pack of angry feminists for saying so...)

 

It took the Church at least 20 years of discussions at the General Authority level before the injustice done to people of color was completely fixed by the 1978 revelation. (Reference)

But it's also possible that it didn't have to take as long as it did. Its also possible the ban itself never should have been put in place. We just make our assumptions on these things and run with it, because it's easier. Because it's less confusing and comfortable. What about truth and principle? It seems to be thrown out the window in hopes that people learn to stay in line. Sadly staying in line only works if we can ensure the line is taking us in the right direction. We can't ensure that because we already know mistakes have been made. So its fair to question. It's fair to challenge.

 

If it is a mistake, it will be fixed in the Lord's time.

Reminds me of the story of the man in the water, coldly proclaiming the Lord will save him as a boat is offered. Perhaps he's trying to fix it. We simply are so insular and closed up, we're missing that which is right in front of our noses.

While I do not believe that it something that will ever change, I am willing to admit that I could very well be mistaken. And if at such time it is revealed that it was a mistake, (and likely laid at Brother Brigham's feet, again) then I will humble myself before the Lord and accept the change.

 

However, until that point, I see no reason to change what up to 95% of the women in the church do not view as broken.

The point could be 20 years from now, and may not need be that long. With that said, I don't now that ordaining women is the answer. It might not be. But that doesn't mean there is no room to challenge our assumptions here.

[Senator]

Stem,

 

Recently it has been suggested that these conversations need to be taking place amoungst ourselves, in a safe place.  In your meeting it appears that an opportunity was lost to do just that.  By the way the meeting was arranged and the subject matter approached, it appears the Bishop was not interested in discussion but rather wanted a pulpit.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Senator

[stemelbow]

Stem,

 

Recently it has been suggested that these conversations need to be taking place amoungst ourselves, in a safe place.  In your meeting appears that an opportunity was lost to do just that.  By the way the meeting was arranged an the subject matter approached, it appears the Bishop was not interested in discussion but rather wanted a pulpit.

Thanks. I agree. I

[thesometimesaint]

There is an old(Not True) saying that Roman Catholic Church teaches the Pope is infallible, and no Roman Catholic believes it; and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the Prophet is fallible, and no LDS believes it.

[ELF1024]

But it's also possible that it didn't have to take as long as it did. Its also possible the ban itself never should have been put in place. We just make our assumptions on these things and run with it, because it's easier. Because it's less confusing and comfortable. What about truth and principle? It seems to be thrown out the window in hopes that people learn to stay in line. Sadly staying in line only works if we can ensure the line is taking us in the right direction. We can't ensure that because we already know mistakes have been made. So its fair to question. It's fair to challenge.

 

We are human, and mistakes are made. However, that doesn't mean that we stop having faith.

 

Is it so broken that it is going to effect our Eternal Salvation? Likely not. So we ask the questions, respectfully, and we have faith that the GA's will work it out one way or the other.

 

Does it require the GA's to report to us on every prayer and every meeting? I think not.

 

 

 

Reminds me of the story of the man in the water, coldly proclaiming the Lord will save him as a boat is offered. Perhaps he's trying to fix it. We simply are so insular and closed up, we're missing that which is right in front of our noses.

 

Yes, I would reccomend you get on the boat... which is why it is good to ask the questions... However, you still have faith that the boat is sound and won't sink before you get to shore.

 

I have faith that the GA's are prayfully considering it. There is not much more I can do about OW.

 

However, I do have a moral responsibility to be more aware of my own offensive actions towards the female of the species and to understand that I do not always communicate clearly and I am very likely mis-intrepreted by those who are far more sensitive to offense than I.

 

I can only fix myself, the Lord will fix the Church if it is in error.

Edited July 1, 2014 by ELF1024