Is Faithful Dissent Possible?

[HappyJackWagon]

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

And of course he famously opposed Brigham Young's teachings about Adam/God doctrine.

His opposition signaled, at the very least, to other members that they could think for themselves and accept everything a leader says.

 

The Pratt's are great examples of faithful dissent / loyal opposition.

[KevinG]

After voicing his opinions what did Orson Pratt do when told no?

[HappyJackWagon]

After voicing his opinions what did Orson Pratt do when told no?

 

On Adam/God there was a great deal of contention and continuing disagreement even to the point of dueling talks for and against it in conference. But I don't know the rest of the story. Did the Pratts eventually accept these doctrines? After a week? A month? A year? I'd love to hear it.

[KevinG]

On Adam/God there was a great deal of contention and continuing disagreement even to the point of dueling talks for and against it in conference. But I don't know the rest of the story. Did the Pratts eventually accept these doctrines? After a week? A month? A year? I'd love to hear it.

 

Do... not think, or accept...

 

What did the Pratt's do regarding the church and its leadership.

 

This is a key to understanding the House of Order that is the Lords.

Edited November 19, 2015 by KevinG

[Steve-o]

Do... not think, or accept...

 

What did the Pratt's do regarding the church and its leadership.

 

This is a key to understanding the House of Order that is the Lords.

I don't know what happened. How was this resolved with the Pratts?

[KevinG]

I don't know what happened. How was this resolved with the Pratts?

 

Despite being censured on some of his writings, he continued to serve as historian and scribe for the church until his death.

 

Despite having differences with at times Joseph, and at other times Brigham, he continued to sustain the brethren and function in his capacity as an Apostle.

 

It must take great faith to receive sanctions and censures we disagree with, and yet continue as a faithful member in our works.

 

That is the key.

[Meadowchik]

Despite being censured on some of his writings, he continued to serve as historian and scribe for the church until his death.

 

Despite having differences with at times Joseph, and at other times Brigham, he continued to sustain the brethren and function in his capacity as an Apostle.

 

It must take great faith to receive sanctions and censures we disagree with, and yet continue as a faithful member in our works.

 

That is the key.

 

Why must this be?  Pondering that question gave me an answer in terms of an analogy: the Church is like a group of hikers on the way up a mountain.  They don't want to lose anyone, so the leads up front cannot go too fast.  They have to stop and slow down, even, while those bringing up the rear catch up. The result of this pace and this need to adhere together is so that we can remain one body, continuing to edify and sustain each other.

[Steve-o]

Why must this be?  Pondering that question gave me an answer in terms of an analogy: the Church is like a group of hikers on the way up a mountain.  They don't want to lose anyone, so the leads up front cannot go too fast.  They have to stop and slow down, even, while those bringing up the rear catch up. The result of this pace and this need to adhere together is so that we can remain one body, continuing to edify and sustain each other.

Does this mean that sometimes individuals will be ahead of the church and its leaders. And even though the individuals may be right they are wrong because they are not staying in their place?

 

That makes sense in a way but is also a little disturbing.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Actually, Bill Reel's comments during that panel discussion have not "been totally erased from history," and even FairMormon has not deleted his name from the list of panelists.  I don't know why his comments were deleted from the transcript (though it does say there that it was edited for content).  Anyone interested can find his comments within that panel at  http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/liveblogging-the-fair-conference-part-2/ .

 

I don't know why you would conclude from this one instance of stupidity that there is a conspiracy to hide history (that isn't even possible), nor that the entire group of people who voluntarily help out with FairMormon are all now guilty of having deleted his comments.  So it is difficult to figure out why you would distrust an entire "group of apologists/scholars/historians" for just this reason, Tacenda.

[KevinG]

Does this mean that sometimes individuals will be ahead of the church and its leaders. And even though the individuals may be right they are wrong because they are not staying in their place?

 

That makes sense in a way but is also a little disturbing.

 

Yes.  Individuals can receive revelation that precedes the general authorities having it.  Yet the Lord's house is a house of order.  How do we keep the balance.  Joseph gave us a lesson:

 

When he was teaching the brethren about the coming endowment he said: "Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves; be watchful and prayerful, and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day. "

 

Glenn Pace shared a wonderful analogy in October 1992 General Conference:

 

"Many of us take the blessings of the gospel for granted. It is as if we are passengers on the train of the Church, which has been moving forward gradually and methodically. Sometimes we have looked out the window and thought, “That looks kind of fun out there. This train is so restrictive.” So we have jumped off and gone and played in the woods for a while. Sooner or later we find it isn’t as much fun as Lucifer makes it appear or we get critically injured, so we work our way back to the tracks and see the train ahead. With a determined sprint we catch up to it, breathlessly wipe the perspiration from our forehead, and thank the Lord for repentance.

While on the train we can see the world and some of our own members outside laughing and having a great time. They taunt us and coax us to get off. Some throw logs and rocks on the tracks to try and derail it. Other members run alongside the tracks, and while they may never go play in the woods, they just can’t seem to get on the train. Others try to run ahead and too often take the wrong turn.

I would propose that the luxury of getting on and off the train as we please is fading. The speed of the train is increasing. The woods are getting much too dangerous, and the fog and darkness are moving in."

It is not for us as individual members to go about declaring doctrine or changes in policy, even if we think we know better.  For the Lord is moving His people together.  If our leaders err (and being human they will) the sin is upon their heads of they don't repent.  However it is up to us to sustain them, through action and sometimes counsel, to help us all move together towards our Salvation in Christ.

[HappyJackWagon]

Steve-o

 

Does this mean that sometimes individuals will be ahead of the church and its leaders. And even though the individuals may be right they are wrong because they are not staying in their place?

 

Yes.  Individuals can receive revelation that precedes the general authorities having it.  Yet the Lord's house is a house of order.  How do we keep the balance.  Joseph gave us a lesson:

 

 

So it's possible that those who pushed for the church to accept blacks into the priesthood and temple were right, but ahead of their time.

 

Similarly, those who advocate for social change in the church today could be ahead of their time even if in the end they end up being right.

[Mystery Meat]

So it's possible that those who pushed for the church to accept blacks into the priesthood and temple were right, but ahead of their time.

 

Similarly, those who advocate for social change in the church today could be ahead of their time even if in the end they end up being right.

 

Maybe, but it is always wrong to be outspoken and vocal critic of the Lord's anointed, even if doctrine/policy later changes to the point the critic was advocating for.

[KevinG]

So it's possible that those who pushed for the church to accept blacks into the priesthood and temple were right, but ahead of their time.

Similarly, those who advocate for social change in the church today could be ahead of their time even if in the end they end up being right.

Yes. But in the Lord's House the order in which we learn and progress together is as important as what we know.

Counseling with one another and sustaining one another is as critical for our eternal progression as having the "right" answer and winning an argument.

[Tacenda]

Actually, Bill Reel's comments during that panel discussion have not "been totally erased from history," and even FairMormon has not deleted his name from the list of panelists.  I don't know why his comments were deleted from the transcript (though it does say there that it was edited for content).  Anyone interested can find his comments within that panel at  http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/liveblogging-the-fair-conference-part-2/ .

 

I don't know why you would conclude from this one instance of stupidity that there is a conspiracy to hide history (that isn't even possible), nor that the entire group of people who voluntarily help out with FairMormon are all now guilty of having deleted his comments.  So it is difficult to figure out why you would distrust an entire "group of apologists/scholars/historians" for just this reason, Tacenda.

 

 

I see that on this site the transcript seems to still be around, I apologise. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/liveblogging-the-fair-conference-part-2/

 

Just not on this site:  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-the-loss-and-rekindling-of-faith

 

I wonder why one is left up but the other deleted.  Hmmm....

Edited November 20, 2015 by Tacenda

[Coreyb]

On Adam/God there was a great deal of contention and continuing disagreement even to the point of dueling talks for and against it in conference. But I don't know the rest of the story. Did the Pratts eventually accept these doctrines? After a week? A month? A year? I'd love to hear it.

I dont know about Parley ( who I assume you are referring to when you say Pratts) , he died early in 1857 and was often away from headquarters where Brigham's new doctrines were being promulgated. Orson Pratt to my knowledge never accepted Adam God or any other doctrine he had opposed. People talk about Adam God, but there was a long list including God progressing eternally in knowledge, God the individual being the object of our worship rather than the divine attributes of God, the nature of eternal intelligences/intelligence, The Gods existing eternally (he believed there was a first God who made himself into a God and then produced other Gods), inherited cursings ( i. e. priesthood ban), The reorganization of the First Presidency without an explicit revelation commanding it, and many parts of Joseph Smiths history as related by Lucy Mack in her book. He felt it was trustworthy history and Brigham Young did not. Orson did retract public statements and make public and private apologies to his leaders, but from all anyone can tell (that I know of) he never changed his beliefs.

[Coreyb]

Do... not think, or accept...

 

What did the Pratt's do regarding the church and its leadership.

 

This is a key to understanding the House of Order that is the Lords.

During Brigham's administration Orson was never excommunicated, never apostatized, served missions, wrote and taught vigorously, was never dropped from his position in the quorum but was demoted to a lower seniority rank years later for his falling out with Joseph in Nauvoo over Josephs alleged, attempted affair with Pratt's wife Sarah. He outlived Brigham and sustained John Taylor as president of the twelve.

[thatjimguy]

This is worth a look. I am slightly amazed this came from the LDS cheerleader website. It is quite the good read.

 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/gospel-doctrine/what-if-i-disagree-with-the-prophet/

[Robert F. Smith]

This is worth a look. I am slightly amazed this came from the LDS cheerleader website. It is quite the good read.

 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/gospel-doctrine/what-if-i-disagree-with-the-prophet/

I am not at all amazed.  It is correct doctrine and certainly needs to be repeated as often as possible -- given widespread ignorance both within and without the LDS faith.

Thanks, Jim.

[Meadowchik]

Yes. Individuals can receive revelation that precedes the general authorities having it. Yet the Lord's house is a house of order. How do we keep the balance. Joseph gave us a lesson:

When he was teaching the brethren about the coming endowment he said: "Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves; be watchful and prayerful, and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day. "

Glenn Pace shared a wonderful analogy in October 1992 General Conference:

"Many of us take the blessings of the gospel for granted. It is as if we are passengers on the train of the Church, which has been moving forward gradually and methodically. Sometimes we have looked out the window and thought, “That looks kind of fun out there. This train is so restrictive.” So we have jumped off and gone and played in the woods for a while. Sooner or later we find it isn’t as much fun as Lucifer makes it appear or we get critically injured, so we work our way back to the tracks and see the train ahead. With a determined sprint we catch up to it, breathlessly wipe the perspiration from our forehead, and thank the Lord for repentance.

While on the train we can see the world and some of our own members outside laughing and having a great time. They taunt us and coax us to get off. Some throw logs and rocks on the tracks to try and derail it. Other members run alongside the tracks, and while they may never go play in the woods, they just can’t seem to get on the train. Others try to run ahead and too often take the wrong turn.

I would propose that the luxury of getting on and off the train as we please is fading. The speed of the train is increasing. The woods are getting much too dangerous, and the fog and darkness are moving in."

It is not for us as individual members to go about declaring doctrine or changes in policy, even if we think we know better. For the Lord is moving His people together. If our leaders err (and being human they will) the sin is upon their heads of they don't repent. However it is up to us to sustain them, through action and sometimes counsel, to help us all move together towards our Salvation in Christ.

Also, hindsight for the now is not a luxury in the now. So, when speculating that a current idea might be the future adopted course, one must also remember that in the future, that idea might be among those discarded to history.

It seems to me that the glue that holds the Saints together is a mutual commitment to Christ and His Spirit and authority as manifested in the mantle of the prophet.

[HappyJackWagon]

Maybe, but it is always wrong to be outspoken and vocal critic of the Lord's anointed, even if doctrine/policy later changes to the point the critic was advocating for.

What many fail to realize is that being a vocal critic of a policy is not the same thing as being a vocal critic of the Lord's anointed. Disagreement does not equal disloyalty.

[Mystery Meat]

What many fail to realize is that being a vocal critic of a policy is not the same thing as being a vocal critic of the Lord's anointed. Disagreement does not equal disloyalty.

 

That's fair, but when you start calling in to question their discipleship (as was done recently with the handbook) you are no longer just disagreeing with the policy.

[HappyJackWagon]

That's fair, but when you start calling in to question their discipleship (as was done recently with the handbook) you are no longer just disagreeing with the policy.

I can only speak for myself but I agree that "discipleship" shouldn't be in question. I think "judgment" is fair game, but that is quite different.

[Steve-o]

That's fair, but when you start calling in to question their discipleship (as was done recently with the handbook) you are no longer just disagreeing with the policy.

I agree but I'm not seeing many people questioning discipleship. Except for the most extreme/hostile, I think most are criticizing the policy, not the leaders. I do see that assumed infallibility is being questioned but that's probably a good thing. Would some people be so strident by calling into question the discipleship of leaders at all if fallibility were generally excepted. The few times I can think of the criticism going that far is when someone is trying to provide evidence of fallibility and being rebuffed so they take it a step farther. It's kind of a vicious cycle of becoming more strident when the easier position is rejected. I hope that makes sense.

[Zakuska]

Yes.  Individuals can receive revelation that precedes the general authorities having it.  Yet the Lord's house is a house of order.  How do we keep the balance.  Joseph gave us a lesson:

 

When he was teaching the brethren about the coming endowment he said: "Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves; be watchful and prayerful, and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day. "

Sounds to me rather than teaching us a lesson, Bro. Joseph was pulling a Paul of Tarsus.

1 Cor 14:34

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

I mean really... does any man... even the Lords anointed leader on the earth have the authority or the power to restrain the spirit of the living God when he wants to speak?

Number 11

24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD. And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tent.

25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it.

26 Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the Spirit rested on them. They were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp.

27 And a young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, “My lord Moses, stop them.”

29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!”

30 And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

Josuha told the Lords anointed leader to make them shut up... and what was dear leaders response?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[Teancum]

Maybe, but it is always wrong to be outspoken and vocal critic of the Lord's anointed, even if doctrine/policy later changes to the point the critic was advocating for.

 

 

I honestly wonder why we have this idea that the LDS leaders are above the criticism and scrutiny that every other leader in any other large organization is subject to.  Why do LDS Prophets and apostles deserve a pass from well thought out and respectfully delivered critique?