Is Faithful Dissent Possible?

[Meadowchik]

Kristine wrote a beautiful piece about this which was posted a few years back and is currently reposed at By Common Consent. Her final paragraph concludes:

"And yet I believe this slow, excruciating (and I mean exactly that word–note the etymological kinship with crucifixion, the resonance with the crosses we must take up) process of governing and being governed by persuasion and longsuffering is the tragic price of the freedom that is ultimately redemptive, the gift of a God who demands that we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, both individually and collectively. Our love of God and our love of each other are ultimately meaningless without the opposing possibility that we will disappoint and fail and hurt each other, sometimes terribly. If the scriptures are to be believed, or at least taken seriously, we have to grapple with a model of criticism that proceeds by submission, that insists that the meek will inherit the earth, and that the bonds of love are stronger than death." (Exit, Voice & Loyalty: Mormons Can’t Vote with Their Feet, BCC link)

Please go and read the entire thing, it is not long but is worth it.

So, I believe that this reminds me of the work of Christ. His walking with us is mirrored in His walk for us to Calvary. So must be our walk in the Church composed of imperfect people. This isn't necessarily a call-out to those disappointed by Church policy or doctrine, though it applies. This can also apply to any of us suffering or having difficulty seeking Christ's path as we seek to become one among the Saints. This can apply to those experiencing strife with other members, misunderstanding, contention, and even mistreatment. Because of enduring through pain we can also experience profound joy in the mercy, forgiveness, and joy of the Saints.

We walk with Christ as we walk with the Saints, and we can know that He's already walked this way before.

Thoughts?

Note: The title should read "Is Faithful Dissent Possible?"

I am such a dork :/

Edited November 12, 2015 by Meadowchik

[KevinG]

A few years back I was in a difficult financial and personal situation. The economic crash resulted in a layoff and I chose to our myself into volunteer work while I tried to find temporary or full time work. In Priesthood the lesson was based on a talk from an Apostle that taught we should redouble our efforts. I took it hard and felt real anger. That anger burned for quite some time as I complained to God about my situation and the lack of success despite my efforts to serve. It was not until I realized I was on my way to backbiting and personal apostasy that I started to pray again for understanding, as opposed to complaining. The Holy Spirit comforted me, my confidence returned, and I was sustained through a long trial. (That's the digest version)

Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG

[Meadowchik]

A few years back I was in a difficult financial and personal situation. The economic crash resulted in a layoff and I chose to our myself into volunteer work while I tried to find temporary or full time work. In Priesthood the lesson was based on a talk from an Apostle that taught we should redouble our efforts. I took it hard and felt real anger. That anger burned for quite some time as I complained to God about my situation and the lack of success despite my efforts to serve. It was not until I realized I was on my way to backbiting and personal apostasy that I started to pray again for understanding, as opposed to complaining. The Holy Spirit comforted me, my confidence returned, and I was sustained through a long trial. (That's the digest version)

 

My dad has a saying about the Gospel path being ultimately easier, but not easy. You reminded me.

 

Thanks for the example!

[CV75]

Thoughts?

I don’t think it is any more possible than having faith and fear can coexist in our hearts at the same time (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/you-know-enough?lang=eng), or in the same mind at the same time (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/be-an-example-and-a-light?lang=eng). I think that on one hand these truths pertain to the particular subjects contained within that heart and mind so that someone may struggle with faith on one point but not on another. However, faith in Christ overrides all struggles with faith on any subject, and allows us to press forward with the light of those things in which we have faith, if we choose.

Edited November 12, 2015 by CV75

[Kevin Christensen]

There is a huge difference between Abraham asking God whether the decision to destroy Sodom was a good idea, considering if, as Abraham suggested, there might be a given number of righteous there, and Peter telling Jesus that no, Jesus was emphatically NOT going to be crucified because that could only be wrong and meaningless and certainly not what Peter envisioned as God's will.  There is a difference between asking whether a thing is so, or should be so, and telling God exactly what should or should not be.

 

Kuhn observes that paradigm choice always involves deciding "Which problems are most significant to have solved," and Alma observes that even after we have "tasted this light" our knowledge is not perfect.  It's always good advice that the things that matter most should not be at the mercy of the things that matter the least.

 

Jesus has a convervsation with a man who says, "Lord, I believe... help thou mine unbelief."

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

Kristine wrote a beautiful piece about this which was posted a few years back and is currently reposed at By Common Consent. Her final paragraph concludes:

"And yet I believe this slow, excruciating (and I mean exactly that word–note the etymological kinship with crucifixion, the resonance with the crosses we must take up) process of governing and being governed by persuasion and longsuffering is the tragic price of the freedom that is ultimately redemptive, the gift of a God who demands that we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, both individually and collectively. Our love of God and our love of each other are ultimately meaningless without the opposing possibility that we will disappoint and fail and hurt each other, sometimes terribly. If the scriptures are to be believed, or at least taken seriously, we have to grapple with a model of criticism that proceeds by submission, that insists that the meek will inherit the earth, and that the bonds of love are stronger than death." (Exit, Voice & Loyalty: Mormons Can’t Vote with Their Feet, BCC link)

Please go and read the entire thing, it is not long but is worth it.

So, I believe that this reminds me of the work of Christ. His walking with us is mirrored in His walk for us to Calvary. So must be our walk in the Church composed of imperfect people. This isn't necessarily a call-out to those disappointed by Church policy or doctrine, though it applies. This can also apply to any of us suffering or having difficulty seeking Christ's path as we seek to become one among the Saints. This can apply to those experiencing strife with other members, misunderstanding, contention, and even mistreatment. Because of enduring through pain we can also experience profound joy in the mercy, forgiveness, and joy of the Saints.

We walk with Christ as we walk with the Saints, and we can know that He's already walked this way before.

Thoughts?

The title should read "Is Faithful Dissent Possible?"

I am such a dork :/

 

I think she has a good point.  We are ruled by our imperfect emotions a lot, and we tend to feel something first and then go about trying to order our world so that the feeling fits into it (if that makes any sense).  We're not good at being uncomfortable.

[Meadowchik]

I think she has a good point.  We are ruled by our imperfect emotions a lot, and we tend to feel something first and then go about trying to order our world so that the feeling fits into it (if that makes any sense).  We're not good at being uncomfortable.

 

And the tidied nature of the way we can see The Plan of Salvation, revelatory as I believe it is, may also be attractive to the orderly, comfortable side of our natures. Yet we shouldn't depend too absolutely on everything "just so" as far as we understand it.  Sometimes one has to allow the absence of understanding to sit a while until we've worked and learned and found understanding, rather than trying to force together puzzle pieces.

 

The discomfort, in other words, can come at many different levels.

[Ares]

Title changed at creator's request.

[churchistrue]

It's a great question.  What is appropriate and what is not?  I guess we know Kate Kelly and John Dehlin's approach was not appropriate.  

 

If you believe Jesus Christ directs this church and each and every move the brethren make are exactly as if Jesus Christ himself did it, then there is no room for dissent.  But I don't think that's what the brethren teach or want us to believe.  So, obviously there is some space for saying "I don't like that, can you reconsider that?"  How do you that appropriately?

[Calm]

And the tidied nature of the way we can see The Plan of Salvation, revelatory as I believe it is, may also be attractive to the orderly, comfortable side of our natures. Yet we shouldn't depend too absolutely on everything "just so" as far as we understand it. Sometimes one has to allow the absence of understanding to sit a while until we've worked and learned and found understanding, rather than trying to force together puzzle pieces.

The discomfort, in other words, can come at many different levels.

One of the commonly used selling points is that the Church's doctrine makes so much sense. Like you say, everything is tidy (at least to a certain degree).

The life that we are going through, otoh, tends to be very, very messy.

Matching the two up...belief of what should be and belief of what is...doesn't always work well. How one approaches the difference makes all the difference. Focusing on the ideal solely will just leave too many people distraught. Focusing on the imbalances has its own problems...too varied and individualistic for me to think listing is helpful at this point.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Calm

[CV75]

Note: The title should read "Is Faithful Dissent Possible?"

What do you mean by "dissent" as is it active or passive; public or internal? That might change my original post!

[CV75]

It's a great question.  What is appropriate and what is not?  I guess we know Kate Kelly and John Dehlin's approach was not appropriate.  

 

If you believe Jesus Christ directs this church and each and every move the brethren make are exactly as if Jesus Christ himself did it, then there is no room for dissent.  But I don't think that's what the brethren teach or want us to believe.  So, obviously there is some space for saying "I don't like that, can you reconsider that?"  How do you that appropriately?

I think that the council process is designed for creating space for discussion of various points of view and differences of opinion, And even to express reasoned disagreement and objection with an eye toward good-faith resolution.

[KevinG]

I have faithfully dissented.  I told the Bishop from time to time that I felt a policy should change, or that a practice should be adjusted for the betterment of our ward and its members.  Then I added.  However, in bringing this to your attention I will now sustain any decision you make on the matter.

 

That is the key.  Not blindly following, not pretending no dissent or issues exist.  But having the faith that our leaders, once informed, will make inspired decisions as representatives of the Lord, and aligning our willingness to support and make those decisions successful for all involved.  For bonus points we should remember that the Lord's timetable is not ours.

 

Who knows Dehlin or Kate Kelley may be absolutely right about the future direction of church policy.  However they have chosen to push their agendas rather than share their counsel and sustain the brethren.

 

This is what caused the separation, not the relative validity of their ideas.

Edited November 12, 2015 by KevinG

[Meadowchik]

Title changed at creator's request.

Thank you, Ares!

Phew, I feel much better

[Meadowchik]

I don’t think it is any more possible than having faith and fear can coexist in our hearts at the same time (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/you-know-enough?lang=eng), or in the same mind at the same time (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/be-an-example-and-a-light?lang=eng). I think that on one hand these truths pertain to the particular subjects contained within that heart and mind so that someone may struggle with faith on one point but not on another. However, faith in Christ overrides all struggles with faith on any subject, and allows us to press forward with the light of those things in which we have faith, if we choose.

I'm so sorry to flub the title.

Dissent is basically disagreement with the Church. It's pretty broad in scope, but can it ever be faithful?

If yes, how so?

Read the article if you can. The writing is fabulous.

[rockpond]

I'm so sorry to flub the title.

Dissent is basically disagreement with the Church. It's pretty broad in scope, but can it ever be faithful?

If yes, how so?

Read the article if you can. The writing is fabulous.

 

I would say, yes, dissent can absolutely be faithful.  Otherwise, we'd be saying you have to always agree or you are not faithful.  I don't think that lines up well with our teachings.

 

Thanks for sharing the article.  I love Kristine Haglund's writings.  Here's my favorite quote from her:

 

Our religious certainties ought to be troubled by our encounters with our fellow human beings; no theological abstraction should matter to us more than the pains and joys of our brothers and sisters.

 

I think it applies both to this thread and current policy issue dominating social media right now.

[Calm]

I disagree with the current policy on sealing of women. I think it should be identical to what is done after death, as in a woman can be sealed after she dies to a man she cannot be sealed to while living.

I am waiting hopefully that this will be changed soon. But if it isn't, I also know the pain and suffering that people have experienced because they must deal with the consequences of that policy will be healed through the atonement, even for those women who have lived without a companion for much of their lives because men wanted to be sealed to their wives.

I think the difference between faithful and unfaithful dissent is how you are willing to live with not getting the change that you want.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Calm

[bluebell]

I disagree with the current policy on sealing of women. I think it should be identical to what is done after death, as in a woman can be sealed after she dies to a man she cannot be sealed to while living.

I am waiting hopefully that this will be changed soon. But if it isn't, I also know the pain and suffering that people have experienced because they must deal with the consequences of that policy will be healed through the atonement, even for those women who have lived without a companion for much of their lives because men wanted to be sealed to their wives.

I think the difference between faithful and unfaithful dissent is how you are willing to live with not getting the change that you want.

 

What Cal said.

[Robert F. Smith]

I disagree with the current policy on sealing of women. I think it should be identical to what is done after death, as in a woman can be sealed after she dies to a man she cannot be sealed to while living.

I am waiting hopefully that this will be changed soon. But if it isn't, I also know the pain and suffering that people have experienced because they must deal with the consequences of that policy will be healed through the atonement, even for those women who have lived without a companion for much of their lives because men wanted to be sealed to their wives.

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

It isn't clear to me what you are saying here, Cal.  Probably just my ignorance displaying itself, but who are these "women who have lived without a companion for much of their lives because men wanted to be sealed to their wives"?   I am sure that you are not calling for a reintroduction of live polygyny.

[churchistrue]

Relating back to John Dehlin and Kate Kelly.  How far could have they gone without getting exed?  Or even disciplined at all?  Or get asked to stop?  I know the goal is not to see how far you can get away with something, but it might be the goal to understand the church's position on what is acceptable and what is not.

[CV75]

I'm so sorry to flub the title.

Dissent is basically disagreement with the Church. It's pretty broad in scope, but can it ever be faithful?

If yes, how so?

Read the article if you can. The writing is fabulous.

I think it is impossible to have a general agreement (allegiance) with the Church and a general lack faith in her. I think it is possible to struggle with agreement or allegiance on one or more specific points entailed in the Church while being on board with others. Any degree of struggle obviously calls for more faithfulness in order to endure and progress in our overall allegiance. The Lord can help us find that (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/11/saturday-morning-session/what-lack-i-yet?lang=eng)

 

Each person must decide whether he is faithful enough for the Lord’s approval and strive to expand faith. I think cultivating the spirit of charity (and not of contention) is the faithful route. Adding to that, I think the Lord designed the council approach (which needn’t be a formal structure) when it is needful to intentionally express disagreement. This approach is found in D&C 88:117-126.

[katherine the great]

A few years back I was in a difficult financial and personal situation. The economic crash resulted in a layoff and I chose to our myself into volunteer work while I tried to find temporary or full time work. In Priesthood the lesson was based on a talk from an Apostle that taught we should redouble our efforts. I took it hard and felt real anger. That anger burned for quite some time as I complained to God about my situation and the lack of success despite my efforts to serve. It was not until I realized I was on my way to backbiting and personal apostasy that I started to pray again for understanding, as opposed to complaining. The Holy Spirit comforted me, my confidence returned, and I was sustained through a long trial. (That's the digest version)

Thank you for sharing your story Kevin.  It is inspiring!  The older I get, the more I realize that life, by nature, really is not a linear experience and the same trial that may shatter the faith of one person might eventually strengthen the faith of another (and sometimes they are the same person).  

[Tony Frank]

Kristine wrote a beautiful piece about this which was posted a few years back and is currently reposed at By Common Consent. Her final paragraph concludes:

"And yet I believe this slow, excruciating (and I mean exactly that word–note the etymological kinship with crucifixion, the resonance with the crosses we must take up) process of governing and being governed by persuasion and longsuffering is the tragic price of the freedom that is ultimately redemptive, the gift of a God who demands that we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, both individually and collectively. Our love of God and our love of each other are ultimately meaningless without the opposing possibility that we will disappoint and fail and hurt each other, sometimes terribly. If the scriptures are to be believed, or at least taken seriously, we have to grapple with a model of criticism that proceeds by submission, that insists that the meek will inherit the earth, and that the bonds of love are stronger than death." (Exit, Voice & Loyalty: Mormons Can’t Vote with Their Feet, BCC link)

Please go and read the entire thing, it is not long but is worth it.

So, I believe that this reminds me of the work of Christ. His walking with us is mirrored in His walk for us to Calvary. So must be our walk in the Church composed of imperfect people. This isn't necessarily a call-out to those disappointed by Church policy or doctrine, though it applies. This can also apply to any of us suffering or having difficulty seeking Christ's path as we seek to become one among the Saints. This can apply to those experiencing strife with other members, misunderstanding, contention, and even mistreatment. Because of enduring through pain we can also experience profound joy in the mercy, forgiveness, and joy of the Saints.

We walk with Christ as we walk with the Saints, and we can know that He's already walked this way before.

Thoughts?

Note: The title should read "Is Faithful Dissent Possible?"

I am such a dork :/

 

Agency allows everyone to dissent from the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed by His appointed prophets. One cannot be faithful in dissenting, but they can be faithful in continuing to press forward with a steadfastness in Christ while waiting until He gives us an understanding of His truths, which must happen in order for someone to gain a testimony.

 

No one can know His eternal truths unless they are revealed by the Holy Ghost to be true, and His eternal truths will always be those that have been revealed by His chosen and anointed prophets.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Tony Frank

[carbon dioxide]

Does the church expect the members to be mindless robots that simply follow every decree that is stated?  NO.  They want us to get a testimony for ourselves.  That is the only thing that lasts.  Is it wrong for members in a righteous way ask the leaders to reconsider a policy that can be done better?  I think not

 

I believe the Church could have avoided all of this and maintained its standards by simply declaring that though gays have a right to marry by law, the Church will not recognize those marriages in accordance to the divine law.  So it will treat married gays the same as it will treat unmarried gays and heterosexuals living together.   It will treat the children of legally married gays the same as it would treat the children of unmarried gays and heterosexual couples.  I think membership would be perfectly fine with a policy where everyone under the same standard of conduct and expectations.  No single group is targeted out much more severely than another group for violating the same law which is chastity.

Edited November 13, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Avatar4321]

I suppose we need to define dissent, but I don't think faithful dissent is possible. I'd expect it as much as I would expect dry water. By its very nature, the concepts contradict.

That doesn't mean we will all agree on everything at the same time. Because not all of us have learned everything perfectly