On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just have this to say and then I will refrain from this thread further.  But I would like to let Smac and Calm know..though I highly respect your positions and convictions on all of this, that I, as a mother, and grandmother of my deceased sister's grandkids, that I am ever so grateful for my children.  Inspite of losing a father in their teens, they have been the best examples of courage and undefeated strength to their friends, family, and to Mom.  They have directed their lives to helping others..and their constant concern for me is the biggest blessing my husband gave me.  They were not raised in the church as others were.  That being said, I did or would not ever let 15 men take away their agency, their conscience and integrity.  I am most grateful for that.  I  did not let the church raise my children..so they are free to love others non inclusively with love and service the Savior taught.

I think you fundamentally misrepresent and unnecessarily slander the Brethren when you accuse them of taking away the agency/conscience/integrity of your children (or even of trying or wanting to).  You can make your position known without insulting ours.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it.

My opinion is he is talking about two different things, first is the how of change.  That will only come through God revealing he wants it changed.  Then President Hinckley points out that women in the Church aren't pushing for a change and are happy.

He is not suggesting that agitation leads to change but rather lack of a revelation to change has not led to agitation as many would expect.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why do you complain about absence of documentation when you know perfectly well to what I refer?

For one thing, I don't know perfectly well what you refer to. I only have a vague awareness. I want to be sure I'm on the same page.

For another thing, the documentation is necessary so that I and others can examine what he actually said and analyze whether or not you are characterizing it accurately.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion is he is talking about two different things, first is the how of change.  That will only come through God revealing he wants it changed.  Then President Hinckley points out that women in the Church aren't pushing for a change and are happy.

He is not suggesting that agitation leads to change but rather lack of a revelation to change has not led to agitation as many would expect.

Thank you.

This is precisely how I read it as well. And this is why I required documentation for consig's allegation.

[Mystery Meat]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just have this to say and then I will refrain from this thread further.  But I would like to let Smac and Calm know..though I highly respect your positions and convictions on all of this, that I, as a mother, and grandmother of my deceased sister's grandkids, that I am ever so grateful for my children.  Inspite of losing a father in their teens, they have been the best examples of courage and undefeated strength to their friends, family, and to Mom.  They have directed their lives to helping others..and their constant concern for me is the biggest blessing my husband gave me.  They were not raised in the church as others were.  That being said, I did or would not ever let 15 men take away their agency, their conscience and integrity.  I am most grateful for that.  I  did not let the church raise my children..so they are free to love others non inclusively with love and service the Savior taught.

And yet us active TBMs are accused of being self righteous and holier than thou...

Maybe one day I can be as enlightened as you.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion is he is talking about two different things, first is the how of change.  That will only come through God revealing he wants it changed.  Then President Hinckley points out that women in the Church aren't pushing for a change and are happy.

He is not suggesting that agitation leads to change but rather lack of a revelation to change has not led to agitation as many would expect.

I agree, Calm.  I think he was trying to reiterate that women members, for the most part, weren't concerned.  But that certainly doesn't suggest if women were more concerned, which they probably are now more than they were 20 years ago, there might be more reason for him and the rest of the leaders to re-evaluate.  In other words the question or issue brought to the leaders has to come from somewhere. 

I say this just because I find the top down approach  as a cause to some potential problems.  We need to be a part of it all, else we aren't getting out of this quite what we put in. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm more about talking about ideas.  If one is free to speak his/her mind openly without repercussion then we're better off in the long run.  If people are told they are faithless or critics because they disagree with a certain proposition made by another, we're worse off. 

There is, of course, the third option, which would be to follow the counsel given many times by the Brethren, including this article by Elder Oaks.  Have you read this article?  What are your thoughts on the counsel given in it (summarized here)?

Quote

If I were alive in 1970 and spoke openly about disagreeing with the Church's policy and doctrine concern black people, I possibly would have been disciplined.  But in the end, what did that matter if it was a good thing for the Church to change?  

Elder Oaks addresses that issue.

More to the point, it "matters" because we are under covenant to not do what you are suggesting.  I don't think we can advocate improving the way we understand one aspect of the Restored Gospel by going about violating another aspect of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, Calm.  I think he was trying to reiterate that women members, for the most part, weren't concerned.  But that certainly doesn't suggest if women were more concerned, which they probably are now more than they were 20 years ago, there might be more reason for him and the rest of the leaders to re-evaluate.  In other words the question or issue brought to the leaders has to come from somewhere. 

I say this just because I find the top down approach  as a cause to some potential problems.  We need to be a part of it all, else we aren't getting out of this quite what we put in. 

What you describe is contrary to the Lord's programme and his order of things. But we have had this conversation before.

[smac97]

.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

And yet us active TBMs are accused of being self righteous and holier than thou...

Maybe one day I can be as enlightened as you.

Please, let us not say things like this.  This is a challenging enough topic to discuss without throwing snide insults into the mix.

Let us all try to be more civil and courteous (and yes, that includes me).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just have this to say and then I will refrain from this thread further.  But I would like to let Smac and Calm know..though I highly respect your positions and convictions on all of this, that I, as a mother, and grandmother of my deceased sister's grandkids, that I am ever so grateful for my children.  Inspite of losing a father in their teens, they have been the best examples of courage and undefeated strength to their friends, family, and to Mom.  They have directed their lives to helping others..and their constant concern for me is the biggest blessing my husband gave me.  They were not raised in the church as others were.  That being said, I did or would not ever let 15 men take away their agency, their conscience and integrity.  I am most grateful for that.  I  did not let the church raise my children..so they are free to love others non inclusively with love and service the Savior taught.

I would urge you to read (or re-read, if you have already done so), the post that smac made on the first page of this thread, the one that begins "To this I would add ...".

He makes a solid case about the inconsistency of accusing the Brethren of wrongdoing while doing so oneself by rising up to publicly find fault with them.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is a rather common mantra these days among critics of the Church of Jesus Christ that the Church leaders succumbed to public pressure in lifting the priesthood restriction in 1978.

It is?  Who is out there saying that?

[smac97]

.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I just have this to say and then I will refrain from this thread further.  But I would like to let Smac and Calm know..though I highly respect your positions and convictions on all of this, that I, as a mother, and grandmother of my deceased sister's grandkids, that I am ever so grateful for my children.  Inspite of losing a father in their teens, they have been the best examples of courage and undefeated strength to their friends, family, and to Mom.  They have directed their lives to helping others..and their constant concern for me is the biggest blessing my husband gave me.  They were not raised in the church as others were.  That being said, I did or would not ever let 15 men take away their agency, their conscience and integrity.  I am most grateful for that.  I  did not let the church raise my children..so they are free to love others non inclusively with love and service the Savior taught.

Not really feeling much respect given I have made it clear in my posts that I have gratefully chosen to have the Church, including the leadership of the top quorums to help me raise my children...a choice you state is me letting others take away their agency, conscience, integrity and ability to love and serve noninclusively.

Personally I think it is respecting a person's agency the most when you don't ignore the differences, pretend that choice has no consequence (as long as it is an individual or family making that choice) for a community, including its ability to serve those making the choices, and instead just apply a one size treats all just fine approach.  I highly doubt that is what you do for your children.  Why then should the Church do it for those who are its children?

I find the unequal treatment---individuals should be able to demand acceptance and treatment from the Church solely based on their personal desires while it is inappropriate for the Church to place any demand on the individual for that acceptance as a covenanted member (as opposed to someone they love and care for) quite unwise and unrealistic in meeting people's needs and creating an environment for growth.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion is he is talking about two different things, first is the how of change.  That will only come through God revealing he wants it changed.  Then President Hinckley points out that women in the Church aren't pushing for a change and are happy.

He is not suggesting that agitation leads to change but rather lack of a revelation to change has not led to agitation as many would expect.

The Brethren have never recommended that the Saints agitate against the Church.  In contrast, there is a considerable body of teachings about sustaining the Lord's anointed, not speaking evil of them, and about the appropriate mechanisms for expressing concerns in matters of Church doctrine and governance.

A person suggesting that President Hinckley was recommending "agitation" or anything like it is abusing his sources.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

As I understand it, every auxiliary in the church started up as an initiative from lay members of the church. Cutting off that source of revelation is a recipe for stagnation. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree, Calm.  I think he was trying to reiterate that women members, for the most part, weren't concerned.  But that certainly doesn't suggest if women were more concerned, which they probably are now more than they were 20 years ago, there might be more reason for him and the rest of the leaders to re-evaluate.  In other words the question or issue brought to the leaders has to come from somewhere. 

I say this just because I find the top down approach  as a cause to some potential problems.  We need to be a part of it all, else we aren't getting out of this quite what we put in. 

I don't have a problem with many grassroots efforts to help change along, so I am not suggesting that Pres. Hinckley is rejecting all such efforts.  I find it merely inappropriate to use this comment to suggest that Pres. Hinckley was promoting agitation as a proper mode of change.

I see a combination of saints working within boundaries in new ways creating new avenues of approach that is then at times incorporated by leadership more globally alongside top down direction (which is likely much more influenced by general membership than many think imo).  It is in my opinion a well integrated system with leaders coming up from the bottom so to speak and always remaining surrounded by the general membership within their families and wards and stakes.  Glitches happen of course since humans are involved, especially since leadership isn't evenly spread out over the global church, thus contact with some of the population is more limited and other forms of information outside face to face contact have to take a greater role.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is?  Who is out there saying that?

Roger Loomis (Analytics) asked me that. smac97 responded. See his response.

Besides, the point of my thread is that Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who eventually received the revelation to lift the priesthood ban, had absolutely no patience with those who were trying to apply outside public pressure upon the leadership of the Church. I can't help but wonder what he would think of what's going on today with the Ordain Women movement and the public faultfinding of Church leaders with regard to the gay rights advocacy movement.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I am quite grateful what I have gotten back from the Church is nowhere near to what I have put it.

I find it to be very much along the lines of tossing one gift in and receiving back a hundredfold.

[smac97]

Quote

As I understand it, every auxiliary in the church started up as an initiative from lay members of the church. Cutting off that source of revelation is a recipe for stagnation. 

Even if that's true (I'm not sure it is), surely you can differentiate between an "initiative" or proposal originating with local members and passed on up to the general authorities (a process which, I think, would not be faced with one whit of an objection by the folks on this board) and "agitation"-type techniques, speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, and so on?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I understand it, every auxiliary in the church started up as an initiative from lay members of the church. Cutting off that source of revelation is a recipe for stagnation. 

Where has this been cut off?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I understand it, every auxiliary in the church started up as an initiative from lay members of the church. Cutting off that source of revelation is a recipe for stagnation. 

Not at all the same thing.

These were individuals doing their best to meet local needs, they were not acting contrary to established counsel, and they definitely weren't doing it as protest, pressure or antagonism toward the general leadership of the Church.

 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't have a problem with many grassroots efforts to help change along, so I am not suggesting that Pres. Hinckley is rejecting all such efforts.  I find it merely inappropriate to use this comment to suggest that Pres. Hinckley was promoting agitation as a proper mode of change.

I see a combination of saints working within boundaries in new ways creating new avenues of approach that is then at times incorporated by leadership more globally alongside top down direction (which is likely much more influenced by general membership than many think imo).  It is in my opinion a well integrated system with leaders coming up from the bottom so to speak and always remaining surrounded by the general membership within their families and wards and stakes.  Glitches happen of course since humans are involved, especially since leadership isn't evenly spread out over the global church, thus contact with some of the population is more limited and other forms of information outside face to face contact have to take a greater role.

Some years ago the Twelve contacted some of the faculty members at The Kennedy Center at BYU and asked for input about what the Church should do with 85 or so acres it owns in a valley in Samoa.  Apparently the faculty members were encouraged to solicit proposals from former students, one of which was my brother.  My brother submitted a proposal, which the Church accepted and asked him to implement.  He then spent the next many years developing and implementing his proposal, and today it's called the Sauniatu Agriculatural Center.  My brother has also helped research and develop additional initiatives implemented by the Church, including "Bishop's Gardens," clean water programs, hygiene programs, revisions to the Perpetual Education Fund, and several more.

My brother works for the Church, but an integral component of his work in implementing these various programs is working with local members (in places like Samoa, New Guinea, Haiti, Kiribati, Tonga, etc.), who provide invaluable practical input about how these programs work, or don't work, or need change/improvement, etc.

Many good things are coming out of these programs.  Much of the success of these programs arises from local members giving proposals and feedback to the Church.  And precisely none of that feedback involves speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, or "agitations," or protests against the Church, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Social_pressure

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,533952,533952

http://mormonskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/06/revelations-in-lds-church.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm

https://C***.org/mormonism-and-the-negro

That's your support for Scott's claim that the a "rather common mantra" from critics is that the church yielded to public pressure?  Okay then.

Still looks like a strawman to me so I'll go ahead and bow out and let you guys continue discussing.

[smac97]

Quote

That's your support for Scott's claim that the a "rather common mantra" from critics is that the church yielded to public pressure?  Okay then.

Still looks like a strawman to me so I'll go ahead and bow out and let you guys continue discussing

Analytics asked for only one example.  I gave five.  And there are many, many more such examples available.  The secret to discovering them is to utilize a little-known online resource called . . . Google.

-Smac