Is Faithful Dissent Possible?

[Zakuska]

It seems to me that we as faithful members of the church have forgotten what it actually means to "sustain our leaders". We tend to fall into the trap of believing every word that comes out of our leaders mouths or is penned down in a handbook of instructions or spoken over the pulpit is the will of God by fiat. Because it came from a Leader it must have come from God, right? (D&C 1:38)

It also seems us modern LDS get lackadaisical in our approach to our faith and simply start auto responding and agreeing with everything a General Authority says without engaging our brains and our hearts to find out if its right or not.

The prophet Brigham Young once taught this from the Pulpit of the Tabernacle during General Conference in Salt Lake city...

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

Journal of Discourses, 9ː150

Brigham Young’s fears were soon realized just a few short years later when a few overzealous members blindly followed their leaders and didn't question whether what their leaders were saying was from God or not and sadly, we now have a bloody page in the history books of the Church known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Brigham young taught a very important truth in that discourse in the tabernacle that day. He said, "and weaken that influence they[the members] could give to their leaders". Sustaining leaders is much more than just agreeing with everything they say as the Word of God and deciding to blindly follow it. Sustaining our Leaders is also "influencing" them when the Holy Ghost prompts. It's about keeping them on the straight and narrow just as much as it is them influencing us in the same way. Sustaining leaders is working together with them and not simply following their "Dictates" through laziness. It's our duty as Members of the Lords kingdom to raise a dissenting voice when the Holy Ghost prompts us to do so.

So yes I think faithful dissent is very possible and is actually our sacred duty in following the Lord and his servants.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[Tony Frank]

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

 

It is clear from what you wrote that you would excuse yourself from having a testimony and following the prophet by asking that a policy be reconsidered.

 

One does not "get a testimony" by asking leaders to reconsider a policy.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is clear from what you wrote that you would excuse yourself from having a testimony and following the prophet by asking that a policy be reconsidered.

 

One does not "get a testimony" by asking leaders to reconsider a policy.

Actually, the Brethren have instituted some excellent programs due to good members making suggestions for change.  My best friend made the suggestion which resulted in the Perpetual Education Fund, which two LDS Prophets have said was inspired.  Indeed, LDS education is now being broadened in ways which were unimaginable only a couple years ago.

 

This is a dynamic church, Tony, not a static church, and that's the way the Lord wants it.  Come on, get on board the soul train, we're bound for glory . . .  Don't get left behind.

[Tony Frank]

It seems to me that we as faithful members of the church have forgotten what it actually means to "sustain our leaders". We tend to fall into the trap of believing every word that comes out of our leaders mouths or is penned down in a handbook of instructions or spoken over the pulpit is the will of God by fiat. Because it came from a Leader it must have come from God, right? (D&C 1:38)

It also seems us modern LDS get lackadaisical in our approach to our faith and simply start auto responding and agreeing with everything a General Authority says without engaging our brains and our hearts to find out if its right or not.

The prophet Brigham Young once taught this from the Pulpit of the Tabernacle during General Conference in Salt Lake city...

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

Journal of Discourses, 9ː150

Brigham Young’s fears were soon realized just a few short years later when a few overzealous members blindly followed their leaders and didn't question whether what their leaders were saying was from God or not and sadly, we now have a bloody page in the history books of the Church known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Brigham young taught a very important truth in that discourse in the tabernacle that day. He said, "and weaken that influence they[the members] could give to their leaders". Sustaining leaders is much more than just agreeing with everything they say as the Word of God and deciding to blindly follow it. Sustaining our Leaders is also "influencing" them when the Holy Ghost prompts. It's about keeping them on the straight and narrow just as much as it is them influencing us in the same way. Sustaining leaders is working together with them and not simply following their "Dictates" through laziness. It's our duty as Members of the Lords kingdom to raise a dissenting voice when the Holy Ghost prompts us to do so.

So yes I think faithful dissent is very possible and is actually our sacred duty in following the Lord and his servants.

 

Brigham Young exhorted the saints to pray and gain a testimony that Jesus Christ leads His Church through His Chosen and anointed servants. it amazes me how you can take that to mean he wanted members to keep the leaders "on the straight and narrow."

 

Read  his words again. Brigham Young wanted the saints to gain a testimony that he and the brethren were being led by Jesus Christ Himself. His fear was that the saints would simply trust in the leaders while having no testimony that the leaders were being led by Jesus Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

Brigham Young exhorted the saints to pray and gain a testimony that Jesus Christ leads His Church through His Chosen and anointed servants. it amazes me how you can take that to mean he wanted members to keep the leaders "on the straight and narrow."

 

Read  his words again. Brigham Young wanted the saints to gain a testimony that he and the brethren were being led by Jesus Christ Himself. His fear was that the saints would simply trust in the leaders while having no testimony that the leaders were being led by Jesus Christ.

You clearly did not read the Brigham Young quote, Tony:

 

". . . they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way." 

 

Maybe you prefer to live on borrowed light, but Brother Brigham challenges you to find out "whether they are led by" God, not (as you suggest) to simply get a testimony that Jesus leads the Church through his chosen servants.  An active inquiry, Tony, not a passive acceptance of the status quo.

 

We don't avoid Mountain Meadows Massacres by passively accepting orders from local leaders.  God wants members who are able to think for themselves.  And to pray on their own.  God gains nothing from sycophantic "yes" men.  There is no glory in that, except for Satan.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[HappyJackWagon]

Faithful dissent is not only possible, it's necessary. The belief that our leaders can know everything and be aware of every situation, every possible consequence, is unfair to them. The principle of common consent is canonized for a reason.  When assent or sustaining can be freely given it allows greater buy-in and strength within a community. When an individual feels they have a good reason to dissent they should follow their conscience and the spirit which informs them.

 

If it is proposed that we sustain the bishopric as they call a man into the primary, but we know the man had a history of child abuse, it is our duty to dissent and inform the leadership why we dissent. The bishopric is likely unaware of the situation and may change their mind. If I were a leader I would hope someone would dissent and let me know why.

 

If it is proposed that we sustain a bishop who we know has condoned physical abuse within his home, would it not be our duty to make the leadership aware of our dissent? Should we ignore our conscience in favor of agreeing with our leaders in their ignorance?

 

If we learn of a policy that will alienate multiple children and their families within the ward or stake and our conscience and the spirit tells us it is a harmful policy, should we remain quiet so we can be agreeable, or should we dissent to try to help the church live up to its full potential?

 

It is wisdom that the church is set up on a system of giving assent and dissent. It allows for the possibility that there are reasons dissent would be warranted and even necessary. It is designed to help leaders see past their blind spots. If leaders think they know everything or have thought of every possible outcome and therefore are not open to any dissent or discussion, then hubris will be the downfall.

 

Faithful dissent is necessary!

[The Nehor]

No.

[Mystery Meat]

I will say that the faithful dissent is not the same thing as vocal opposition.

[stemelbow]

I will say that the faithful dissent is not the same thing as vocal opposition.

That's a very good point. It most certainly is not. But dissent may require, at some point, an attempt to articulate one's reasoning to others.

[Gray]

If you feel the church is doing something wrong, you should feel duty-bound to make that known (politely). No organization can long survive without faithful dissent. And no individual can grow spiritually when they stifle their conscience in favor of obedience. 

[Gray]

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.

 

That's a great quote

[Zakuska]

That's a very good point. It most certainly is not. But dissent may require, at some point, an attempt to articulate one's reasoning to others.

 

Didn't you get the memo?  The first thing a leader gets when called into their new position is their mind reading apparati. So they can read their subjects minds to discern the will of God.

 

Now where did I put that tin-foil hat?!

 

Actually, the Brethren have instituted some excellent programs due to good members making suggestions for change.  My best friend made the suggestion which resulted in the Perpetual Education Fund, which two LDS Prophets have said was inspired.  Indeed, LDS education is now being broadened in ways which were unimaginable only a couple years ago.

 

This is a dynamic church, Tony, not a static church, and that's the way the Lord wants it.  Come on, get on board the soul train, we're bound for glory . . .  Don't get left behind.

Theres an example of this right in the Scriptures. Number 11:26 God prophecied and directed the church by some one other than the "anointed" man Incharge.

They where voices in the wilderness.

But how can this be? God would never give a revelation to guide his church by anyone other than his anointed "dear leader", Would he?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

Didn't you get the memo?  The first thing a leader gets when called into their new position is their mind reading apparati. So they can read their subjects mind to discern the will of God.

Indeed, because the way to find the Will of God is to turn first to those ever so holy dissenters and bask in their wisdom.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

But how can this be? God would never give a revelation to guide his church by anyone other than his anointed "dear leader", Would he?

They have a "dear leader' in North Korea . . .

[volgadon]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTK77-MWcAAczON.jpg

[The Nehor]

They have a "dear leader' in North Korea . . .

I preferred "glorious leader".

[carbon dioxide]

sustain "to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure."  Dictionary.com

 

If we sustain our leaders, we promise to support and help them out.  We don't have to agree with everything they do.  We might have to try and correct them if they are wrong but we don't turn our backs on them.  We don't throw them under the bus when they do or say something we don't like.  Also if we do try to correct them, we must make sure that we are doing everything we should be doing as well.  It is hypocritical to correct the Brethren in what they do if we are not doing our callings as best we can.  If one is not reading the scriptures on a regular basis, not praying ect, one is not really in a position to correct another when they are doing the basic stuff.

[Robert F. Smith]

Leaders in general often need to be told the bad news about what they ought not to do.  Yet many of them surround themselves with obsequious, sycophantic yes-men.  I fully expect that President Monson has the benefit of frank and honest counsel from his two counselors when considering any sort of policy decision.

 

Decisions by LDS leaders must not be made recklessly, nor based on blind faith, but should take into account all available secular information, along with inspiration.  D&C 9:7-9,

 

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

[Meadowchik]

Something about dissent, of course it can range a spectrum from mild disagreement to hostile opposition. I have a story about the problem of hostility:

When I was little, my older brothers were still little and decided to build a raft and take it onto a pond. Once out, it sank. The younger of the two climbed onto the older and they started sinking. The older realised they would drown, so he sprung downwards deeper into the water and then swam to shore. Next, he grabbed a stick and helped my other brother to shore.

My dad recounts this story in his memoire (his life lessons from the Sermon at the Temple in the BOM) and uses it as an example of contention: in contentiousness each participant is lost in it; it is only by abandoning this accusing, hostile, combativeness that one can actually solve the problem and create a peaceful relationship.

My opinion is that anger does not directly solve differences or enlighten the way...at best it tells us about our own feelings. Therefore, anger and, by extension, accusation cannot tell how to properly respond to a problem.

Therefore a faithful dissent, be it between friends, spouses, citizens, and disciples of Christ, must lay aside anger and hold fast to the bond between them, along with complete fidelity to all one knows to be true. That is, if we want God guiding it.

[Steve-o]

Something about dissent, of course it can range a spectrum from mild disagreement to hostile opposition. I have a story about the problem of hostility:

When I was little, my older brothers were still little and decided to build a raft and take it onto a pond. Once out, it sank. The younger of the two climbed onto the older and they started sinking. The older realised they would drown, so he sprung downwards deeper into the water and then swam to shore. Next, he grabbed a stick and helped my other brother to shore.

My dad recounts this story in his memoire (his life lessons from the Sermon at the Temple in the BOM) and uses it as an example of contention: in contentiousness each participant is lost in it; it is only by abandoning this accusing, hostile, combativeness that one can actually solve the problem and create a peaceful relationship.

My opinion is that anger does not directly solve differences or enlighten the way...at best it tells us about our own feelings. Therefore, anger and, by extension, accusation cannot tell how to properly respond to a problem.

Therefore a faithful dissent, be it between friends, spouses, citizens, and disciples of Christ, must lay aside anger and hold fast to the bond between them, along with complete fidelity to all one knows to be true. That is, if we want God guiding it.

I agree. The problem is often in how things are said more than what is said. But I notice I get defensive pretty quickly when I feel I'm being judged so then I probably lash out more than I should and then they lash back and it's a viscious cycle.

[Buckeye]

Something about dissent, of course it can range a spectrum from mild disagreement to hostile opposition. I have a story about the problem of hostility:

When I was little, my older brothers were still little and decided to build a raft and take it onto a pond. Once out, it sank. The younger of the two climbed onto the older and they started sinking. The older realised they would drown, so he sprung downwards deeper into the water and then swam to shore. Next, he grabbed a stick and helped my other brother to shore.

My dad recounts this story in his memoire (his life lessons from the Sermon at the Temple in the BOM) and uses it as an example of contention: in contentiousness each participant is lost in it; it is only by abandoning this accusing, hostile, combativeness that one can actually solve the problem and create a peaceful relationship.

My opinion is that anger does not directly solve differences or enlighten the way...at best it tells us about our own feelings. Therefore, anger and, by extension, accusation cannot tell how to properly respond to a problem.

Therefore a faithful dissent, be it between friends, spouses, citizens, and disciples of Christ, must lay aside anger and hold fast to the bond between them, along with complete fidelity to all one knows to be true. That is, if we want God guiding it.

 

This is really good.

[Faithful]

The Bible says His yoke is easy for it is no longer that I who live but Christ lives in me by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is both the life of the Father and the Son as One Being in 3 Persons.

[Mars]

oh i'd say Faithful dissent is possible... 

[Tacenda]

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith

According to a FB post, Bill Reel's participation on this panel has been totally erased from history, deleted from this panel of guests. I guess FairMormon doesn't appreciate his kind of faithful dissent. Maybe ever since his very public outcry against the new church policy, unsure.

Is this how some historians/leaders might have hidden church history in the past? Very disappointed in the person or the people's decision to do this.

Whatever happened to telling the truth or not leaving truth out? I can't fully trust this group of apologists/scholars/historians any longer.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Tacenda

[Coreyb]

I believe faithful dissent is possible. Orson Pratt is my favorite example of an undeniably loyal Mormon who opposed the status quo. Time has vindicated his position on many points. I recently learned that he publicly opposed the priesthood ban as being contrary to the doctrine of the scriptures, and the legalization of negro slavery in Utah Territory. He gave a speech condemning it before the territorial legislature. I admire his courage and his loyalty