Reform Mormonism? The Future Splintering Of The Church?

[carbon dioxide]

All agreed.  But they didn't ask a question for the company president.  They asked an ecclesiastical question for the Prophet.  Telling them to stay off Temple Square was not an answer to that inquiry.

Perhaps they should find a better vehicle to ask questions instead of through protest and drawing attention to themselves by the media.  I don't think they deserved a direct answer by the manner of which they acted.  The priesthood operates exactly the opposite on how they acted.

Edited February 25, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

Perhaps they should find a better vehicle to ask questions instead of through protest and drawing attention to themselves by the media. I don't think they deserved a direct answer by the manner of which they acted. The priesthood operates exactly the opposite on how they acted.

I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. I also think the leaders have structured things in such a way that there isn't really method to interact with the prophet. So, for better or worse, they came up with one.

[Stone holm]

I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. I also think the leaders have structured things in such a way that there isn't really method to interact with the prophet. So, for better or worse, they came up with one.

In many ways the Prophets have become insulated from dialogue with any particular individual, and also from groups who may be demanding reform. In some ways it is discourteous and rude to try and communicate in this manner. I can understand that viewpoint. I can also understand that a person who truly believes God is on their side on an issue is unlikely to be deterred by social etiquette, one way or the other they are going to try to deliver their message.

[KevinG]

There are always going to be those who insist on having their case escalated to a higher authority when they are told no at the local level. Kind of like the unhappy customer who demands the see the manager.

What Saints forget is the authority with the keys to counsel and receive revelation in our Church is the local authority. The press or bloggers have less authority than the local Relief Society second counselor.

[JLHPROF]

Kind of like the unhappy customer who demands the see the manager.

 

As a long time manager I can tell you that doesn't always get you anywhere.  If a staff member refuses to break a policy to make you happy, the manager will likely back them up.

And even if you convince  the manager to give you what you want, any expectation of negative repercussions against the staff member is probably not going to happen.  If anything the manager will compliment the staff member for following policy and getting them involved (and maybe have a laugh about the entitled attitude of the customer).

 

Funny how that fits with

 

There are always going to be those who insist on having their case escalated to a higher authority when they are told no at the local level.

 

Even in law, more often than not a higher court upholds a lower court decision.  Overturning it usually requires a big error by the lower court....

 

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

 Scott is also right, in that it is perfectly reasonable to view their statement as a fair and faithful representation of President Monson's views -- if for no other reason that, if they get it wrong, they'll have to issue a correction or retraction fairly quickly . ...

Which was the point I started out with but on which I have encountered continual resistance.

[Storm Rider]

In many ways the Prophets have become insulated from dialogue with any particular individual, and also from groups who may be demanding reform. In some ways it is discourteous and rude to try and communicate in this manner. I can understand that viewpoint. I can also understand that a person who truly believes God is on their side on an issue is unlikely to be deterred by social etiquette, one way or the other they are going to try to deliver their message.

 

I really don't know how are what you expect the prophet to do to "communicate" better with everyone that has a personal beef or a personal vision about how the Church should be.  When you get past a few hundred members you have already outgrown the one on one communication you are pushing.  

 

So, if the Church was doing what you think it should be doing, what would it look like?

[Stone holm]

Storm Rider, I agree that the Prophet does not have the time to respond individually to everyone who has a personal beef or vision.  Do you consider OW to be just one person trying to communicate with the Prophet?  From what I am seeing out here, that really doesn't seem to be a very good description.  So we are in kind of a Catch 22 here.  On the one hand, the Prophet does not have the time to personally respond to every individual who has a beef or a vision, on the other hand, when a group gets organized to present a beef or vision to the Prophet then they are accused of gathering up a following and threatened with excommunication. 

 

Sounds to me like a good recipe to create a leadership echo chamber where the leaders only hear their views parroted back to them -- I think that was once referred to as "group think"....but could be wrong.

[rodheadlee]

Storm Rider, I agree that the Prophet does not have the time to respond individually to everyone who has a personal beef or vision.  Do you consider OW to be just one person trying to communicate with the Prophet?  From what I am seeing out here, that really doesn't seem to be a very good description.  So we are in kind of a Catch 22 here.  On the one hand, the Prophet does not have the time to personally respond to every individual who has a beef or a vision, on the other hand, when a group gets organized to present a beef or vision to the Prophet then they are accused of gathering up a following and threatened with excommunication. 

 

Sounds to me like a good recipe to create a leadership echo chamber where the leaders only hear their views parroted back to them -- I think that was once referred to as "group think"....but could be wrong.

Well, I think you are wrong. We are not talking about a minor policy change, we are talking about a major doctrinal change. Christ is fully capable of making sure whether or not the Prophet or the Apostles  hear His organizational plans for the Church and whether or not they include the AP & MP for women. People seem to forget that Christ is the head of this Church and the information of policy and doctrine flows from the top down. He is fully capable of hearing the prayers of the OW movement.

[sheilauk]

Storm Rider, I agree that the Prophet does not have the time to respond individually to everyone who has a personal beef or vision.  Do you consider OW to be just one person trying to communicate with the Prophet?  From what I am seeing out here, that really doesn't seem to be a very good description.  So we are in kind of a Catch 22 here.  On the one hand, the Prophet does not have the time to personally respond to every individual who has a beef or a vision, on the other hand, when a group gets organized to present a beef or vision to the Prophet then they are accused of gathering up a following and threatened with excommunication. 

 

Sounds to me like a good recipe to create a leadership echo chamber where the leaders only hear their views parroted back to them -- I think that was once referred to as "group think"....but could be wrong.

though MWS and other groups and women appear to have been able to meet with the Quorum/First Presidency....

[slamarwi]

Progressive is a relative term, a recently retired Supreme Court Justice who was appointed as a conservative was offended by the fact that when he retired he was considered a liberal, even though his legal stances had not changed. I tend to use progressive as the opposite of regressive.

 

That is certainly one definition. However, politically speaking, progressive would be considered the opposite of conservative. (Think abortion, taxes, ssm, recreational drug use, etc.)

Edited February 28, 2015 by slamarwi

[slamarwi]

though MWS and other groups and women appear to have been able to meet with the Quorum/First Presidency....

 

Agreed.

 

And allow me to add that when an individual or group attempts to communicate their opinion, garner public support, and vilify the church leadership using the media; a response via a public relations team is the most likely reaction.

 

And seriously, who in their right mind believes that the Public Affairs Department is releasing information they haven't been specifically directed to send? (I'd love to see a poll)

Edited February 28, 2015 by slamarwi

[Robert F. Smith]

As a long time manager I can tell you that doesn't always get you anywhere.  If a staff member refuses to break a policy to make you happy, the manager will likely back them up.

And even if you convince  the manager to give you what you want, any expectation of negative repercussions against the staff member is probably not going to happen.  If anything the manager will compliment the staff member for following policy and getting them involved (and maybe have a laugh about the entitled attitude of the customer).

.......................................................................   

My experience is somewhat different.

And, of course, it does depend very much on what the complaint or recommendation is.

 

I have found that managers are quite often very interested and cooperative, and I have worked for such managers as well.  Moreover, I have always made it a policy to listen attentively to complaints and to respond intelligently (if possible), although I have also had to be firm and even disagreeable at times.

 

I do remember an occasion long ago, however, when our supervisor came to us and told us:  "You guys got beefed!!  Keep up the good work!!"

[canard78]

This captures beautifully and succinctly what I have been trying to explain about a segment of what might be called progressive Mormons. It is not all that contradictory, and I suspect it is very common outside the United States.

From experience (and again, I can only offer anecdotal evidence) this attitude is also common among active, faithful LDS in Europe; particularly those in their teens, 20s and 30s.

While few of them are advocating for gay marriage in church or to be given place in the law of chastity, there are also very few who oppose gay civil unions.

It is considered near bigotry to oppose gay marriage these days in UK. The very few who do are being pushed towards association with the marginal and extreme groups. Even the Conservative party (equivalent of your Republicans) are mostly advocates for gay marriage.

How many years after cultural acceptance of civil equality for blacks did it take for the church to also offer religious equality? I would imagine that Mormons first accepted the equal place of blacks in society and law long before the idea of blacks having equal place in the church was acceptable.

Documents like the letter of Elder Delbert Stapley to George Romney stand as a good example of the gradual evolution of attitudes to minority issues.

[mfbukowski]

The silly thing is that all of the apostates would have every thing they are arguing for with the previously splintered Community of Christ.  Don't we have enough variety of fundamentalist and liberal branches of theology to choose from already?

Better just to remain LDS without defined doctrine and believe whatever you like. 

[Storm Rider]

Better just to remain LDS without defined doctrine and believe whatever you like. 

 

Yup, that is a sure path to a a disciple of Christ.  What ever happened to straight is the way and narrow is the gate?  Strange how scripture goes out the door as the ego strengthens.  

 

If the objective is to be a true disciple of Christ the sincere pursuit of truth matters.  Truth draws us closer to God more quickly and effectively than believing in half truths.  

 

I do agree that it is a matter of personal choice; to free choose to follow even when the society rejects, ridicules, and demeans faith.  We with will choose to stand on a sure foundation of truth or not.  

[Avatar4321]

Yup, that is a sure path to a a disciple of Christ.  What ever happened to straight is the way and narrow is the gate?  Strange how scripture goes out the door as the ego strengthens.  

 

If the objective is to be a true disciple of Christ the sincere pursuit of truth matters.  Truth draws us closer to God more quickly and effectively than believing in half truths.  

 

I do agree that it is a matter of personal choice; to free choose to follow even when the society rejects, ridicules, and demeans faith.  We with will choose to stand on a sure foundation of truth or not.

I presume it's difficult for a society that denies truth exists to use truth to fine God.

[mfbukowski]

Yup, that is a sure path to a a disciple of Christ.  What ever happened to straight is the way and narrow is the gate?  Strange how scripture goes out the door as the ego strengthens.  

 

If the objective is to be a true disciple of Christ the sincere pursuit of truth matters.  Truth draws us closer to God more quickly and effectively than believing in half truths.  

 

I do agree that it is a matter of personal choice; to free choose to follow even when the society rejects, ridicules, and demeans faith.  We with will choose to stand on a sure foundation of truth or not.

Well that cuts both ways. Believe it or not I am squarely in the TBM camp, it's just that I actually understand that truth is about words, and they are pretty useless in describing how a true disciple needs to use them

[mfbukowski]

I presume it's difficult for a society that denies truth exists to use truth to fine God.

If you can tell me what the phrase "truth exists" even means, I will follow.

Yes we should always live by the golden rule and keep the commandments. If that proves "truth exists", I am with you. If you think truth is floating out there in some inaccessible realm, not so much.

[mfbukowski]

This captures beautifully and succinctly what I have been trying to explain about a segment of what might be called progressive Mormons. It is not all that contradictory, and I suspect it is very common outside the United States.

I wonder if you read what he actually said.

He said that members opposed gay marriage from a religious point of view.

I think very few in the U.S. are opposed to civil unions. What people do in their bedrooms is their business. Who people want to share their lives with is their business.

It becomes my business when I have to change my religion because of their beliefs. I will leave you alone as long as you leave me alone

[Stone holm]

I wonder if you read what he actually said.

He said that members opposed gay marriage from a religious point of view.

I think very few in the U.S. are opposed to civil unions. What people do in their bedrooms is their business. Who people want to share their lives with is their business.

It becomes my business when I have to change my religion because of their beliefs. I will leave you alone as long as you leave me alone

Actually, the Catholic and LDS Churches led the fight against Civil Unions in Vermont. I personally am opposed to SSM on religious grounds for myself and fellow Mormons, but am opposed to our legislating against other people who want to enter a SSM. I think that was the point being made. I think out here and probably overseas there are a large number of people who feel that way. Which is what leaving the other person alone is about, but unfortunately we didn't leave them alone so now we are reaping the whirlwind.

[NotaMormon]

I don't understand. If some people are that frustrated and disillusioned with the Mormon church, why are they still Mormon? If someone is willing to believe the Mormon church is corrupt in any way and needs to be reformed, what's stopping them from believeing it was never true in the first place?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't understand. If some people are that frustrated and disillusioned with the Mormon church, why are they still Mormon? If someone is willing to believe the Mormon church is corrupt in any way and needs to be reformed, what's stopping them from believeing it was never true in the first place?

I think I see where you're going with this. How about we cut to the chase?

[NotaMormon]

I think I see where you're going with this. How about we cut to the chase?

Okay, where am I going with it? What chase?

 

I'm just asking why someone would continue to believe in a faith system when they don't act like they believe in it. Is there something wrong with that question?

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, where am I going with it? What chase?

 

I'm just asking why someone would continue to believe in a faith system when they don't act like they believe in it. Is there something wrong with that question?

Yeah, I'm done here. Someone else can take your bait if they so choose.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd