On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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. 

 

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Relief Society: Begun in Nauvoo by Emma Smith and others. The Prophet Joseph Smith endorsed their efforts but said he had something even greater in mind. Eventually, after the exodus from Nauvoo to Utah, female Relief Societies were established Church wide under the direction of President Brigham Young.

Sunday School: Started by Richard Ballantyne in his ward in pioneer-era Salt Lake City. He modeled it somewhat on Protestant Sunday schools with which he had been familiar in England, where he was converted to the Church. Other units of the Church, inspired by the success of Brother Ballantyne's efforts, started local Sunday schools. This became a movement and eventually, a Church-wide "union" (the Deseret Sunday School Union), under general Church leadership. Begun initially for children, Sunday Schools in the Church eventually offered adult classes as well.

Young Men: From the Wikipedia entry:
 

Quote

 

The first official youth association of the church—the Young Gentlemen’s and Young Ladies’ Relief Society—was formally organized by Nauvoo youth on the advice of church founder Joseph Smith in March 1843 after having several informal meetings since late January of that year under the supervision of apostle Heber C. Kimball.^[1] In 1854, apostle Lorenzo Snow organized the Polysophical Society and encouraged young Latter-day Saints to join. In 1875, LDS Church president Brigham Young organized the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association (YMMIA) and intended that it act as a male equivalent of the Young Ladies' Cooperative Retrenchment Association, which was renamed the Young Ladies' National Mutual Improvement Association in 1877. The purpose was to "help young men develop their gifts, to stand up and speak, and to bear testimony".^{[citation needed]}

A central committee of the YMMIA, led by Junius F. Wells, was formed in 1876 to oversee the organization, conduct missionary work, and issue general instructions. A YMMIA general superintendency (later renamed general presidency) was formed by LDS Church president John Taylor in 1880.

 

Young Women: See above. Initially formed to serve the daughters of Brigham Young and named the Young Ladies Cooperative Retrenchment Association. From another Wikipedia entry:
 

Quote

 

The Young Women organization of the church was founded by LDS Church president Brigham Young in 1869 as the Young Ladies' Department of the Cooperative Retrenchment Association. At the organization's founding, Young set out his vision for the young women of the church:

"I desire them to retrench from extravagance in dress, in eating and even in speech. The time has come when the sisters must agree ... to set an example worthy of imitation before the people of the world .... There is need for the young daughters of Israel to get a living testimony of the truth .... We are about to organize a retrenchment Association, which I want you all to join, and I want you to vote to retrench in ... everything that is not good and beautiful, not to make yourselves unhappy, but to live so you may be truly happy in this life and in the life to come."^[4]

From 1869 to 1880, the new Young Women organization functioned at the local ward level, without a general presidency. In 1871, the organization was renamed the Young Ladies' Retrenchment Association, or YL for short. In 1877, the organization's name was again changed to the Young Ladies' National Mutual Improvement Association (abbreviated YLNMIA) as a companion organization to the church's Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association, which had been founded in 1875.

On June 19, 1880, the first general presidency of the YLNMIA with church-wide authority was organized under the direction of LDS Church president John Taylor, with Elmina Shepard Taylor as the first general president. In 1904, the name of the YLNMIA was shorted to the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Association (abbreviated YLMIA) and in 1934 it was changed to the Young Women's Mutual Improvement Association, or YWMIA.

 

Primary: First organized by Aurelia Spencer Rogers in Farmington, Utah, in 1878 and adopted Church wide in 1880.

As can be seen, while some of the above originated with grassroots movements, none of the above, to use your words, involved "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, or 'agitations,' protests against the Church, etc."

Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Asked and answered, but the only specific example given in the links is this: In 1970 there was a revision to IRS regulations that limit the eligibility for tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminate based on race.  Theoretically, the way the priesthood ban effected how BYU was run could have resulted in BYU loosing its tax-exempt status, in the same was that Bob Jones University did in 1983.  Some critics claim that a motivational factor in lifting the ban was to protect BYU's tax exempt status from this.

This is very different than what you say the point of the thread actually is; changing policy for tax purposes is different than changing policy because of "outside pressure upon the leadership of the Church."

Edited January 13, 2016 by Analytics

[Russell C McGregor]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

I'm somewhat surprised that you are unaware of this, given that it is the rationale behind the attempts by agitators and renegades to pressure the brethren into accepting wickedness.

 

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where has this been cut off?

The idea that revelation comes only top-down is cutting it off. All part of the correlation movement. 

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Pressure is very different from protest or antagonism. Bottom-up revelation is a kind of pressure, but it's not antagonistic. 

Antagonism has the opposite of its intended effect, of course. Antagonism is not productive. 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Gray

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Asked and answered, but the only specific example given in the links is this: In 1970 there was a revision to IRS regulations that limit the eligibility for tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminate based on race.  Theoretically, the way the priesthood ban effected how BYU was run could have resulted in BYU loosing its tax-exempt status, in the same was that Bob Jones University did in 1983.

Rather a long bow to draw, given that BYU did not (and does not)  have any role in ordaining people to priesthood (or any other ecclesiastical) office.

And given that the decision was still five years away.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Some critics claim that a motivational factor in lifting the ban was to protect BYU's tax exempt status from this.

There is no limit to how clueless some critics can be.

 

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This is very different than what seemed to be originally implied: that critics are claiming that Spencer W. Kimball succumbed to the demands of protesters.

I've seen it for years. I find it incredible that you aren't aware of it.

 

[smac97]

.

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Everyone is valid.  But the church isn't raising the child.  On baby blessings.  Yes..they will go on record.  But now you have them on record..and missionaries aren't looking for new members..but for those who are members.  I know this doesn't make sense..but to me..this is one reason why the church has shot themselves in the foot.  They are declining potential members and yet sending out missionaries for converts..how does that make sense? 

Calm, a church, a people, can have valid input..but the parents and what they want to do..should trump all of that.  As a mother..though inactive, I saw that my kids were baptized and that my whole family participated.  It was what they wanted.  If I could go back now..it would be different.

t

The child's name does not appear by itself on the records of the Church.  That child's parents will be listed as heads of the household, and as long as that child's parents names are in the records of the Church (whether or not they are members), they will targets for conversion or reactivation by well-intentioned bishops, ward mission leaders, and elders quorum presidents. 

The problem, though, is that conversion or full reactivation (to temple-ready status) would require the dissolution of that happy home.  Can you begin to imagine the potential for hurt feelings and bad blood that this situation could engender?  Visits from these well-intentioned ward officers would be thick with tension as the unspoken implication of their mutually exclusive goals sits heavily between them.   Even a benign visit from a concerned home teacher could be interpreted as one more effort to break up that marriage.  And that's the best case scenario.  I can't even imagine the damage that could be done by a home teacher with more zeal than sense.

This is the inescapable conclusion of two doctrines:  repentance requires forsaking of sin and homosexual acts are sinful.  As long as the Church continues to teach such, any invitation from a home teacher to follow Christ carries with it the implied threat that the road of discipleship can only end in a break up of the marriage.  Best for the church to give these families the space they need to navigate their difficult situation and keep them off the radar of well-intentioned (and possibly over-zealous) local church leaders.    

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

The idea that revelation comes only top-down is cutting it off. All part of the correlation movement. 

CFR that the "correlation movement" limits revelation to being "top-down."

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Brethren can be notified of issues and concerns without individual members of the Church publicly speaking evil of the Brethren, or protesting on sacred ground, by stages publicity stunts, and so on.

Moreover, the Brethren have the Gift of Discernment.

 

When people ask about where was the gift of discernment on the Hoffman case, usually the defense is that it's not reasonable to expect the church leaders to just somehow magically know that Hoffman was a fraud and a dangerous man. I agree with that defense.

But then to turn around and say that the church leaders will somehow magically know about all the issues without being told, is equally unreasonable. And if that were true they wouldn't be conducting surveys and pilot programs. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The child's name does not appear by itself on the records of the Church.  That child's parents will be listed as heads of the household, and as long as that child's parents names are in the records of the Church (whether or not they are members), they will targets for conversion or reactivation by well-intentioned bishops, ward mission leaders, and elders quorum presidents. 

The problem, though, is that conversion or full reactivation (to temple-ready status) would require the dissolution of that happy home.  Can you begin to imagine the potential for hurt feelings and bad blood that this situation could engender?  Visits from these well-intentioned ward officers would be thick with tension as the unspoken implication of their mutually exclusive goals sits heavily between them.   Even a benign visit from a concerned home teacher could be interpreted as one more effort to break up that marriage.  And that's the best case scenario.  I can't even imagine the damage that could be done by a home teacher with more zeal than sense.

This is the inescapable conclusion of two doctrines:  repentance requires forsaking of sin and homosexual acts are sinful.  As long as the Church continues to teach such, any invitation from a home teacher to follow Christ carries with it the implied threat that the road of discipleship can only end in a break up of the marriage.  Best for the church to give these families the space they need to navigate their difficult situation and keep them off the radar of well-intentioned (and possibly over-zealous) local church leaders.    

To me, this allows for what participation there is to remain as much as possible in the hands of the parents.  If they want the children involved, they can bring them and make explicit to the leaders how much involvement is desired without the teachers/leaders feeling they are not fulfilling their calling by pushing for more.  If involvement is not desired, there has been nothing done that would cause people to make a different assumption.

It is not an ideal solution, but in my view the best currently available that abides by both the doctrine of what it means to be a Saint and respect for a family that has chosen to live outside that doctrine to some extent.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

To me, this allows for what participation there is to remain as much as possible in the hands of the parents.  If they want the children involved, they can bring them and make explicit to the leaders how much involvement is desired without the teachers/leaders feeling they are not fulfilling their calling by pushing for more.  If involvement is not desired, there has been nothing done that would cause people to make a different assumption.

It is not an ideal solution, but in my view the best currently available that abides by both the doctrine of what it means to be a Saint and respect for a family that has chosen to live outside that doctrine to some extent.

While your approach is reasonable, it is not the only reasonable approach that could have been taken.  It doesn't take much effort to understand how Option A was a good-faith effort by the Church to give some necessary space to families headed by same-sex couples.  The existence of a reasonable Option B does not negate the thought, prayer, concern, and love that went into the selection of Option A.

[smac97]

Quote

The child's name does not appear by itself on the records of the Church.  That child's parents will be listed as heads of the household, and as long as that child's parents names are in the records of the Church (whether or not they are members), they will targets for conversion or reactivation by well-intentioned bishops, ward mission leaders, and elders quorum presidents. 

The problem, though, is that conversion or full reactivation (to temple-ready status) would require the dissolution of that happy home.  Can you begin to imagine the potential for hurt feelings and bad blood that this situation could engender?  Visits from these well-intentioned ward officers would be thick with tension as the unspoken implication of their mutually exclusive goals sits heavily between them.   Even a benign visit from a concerned home teacher could be interpreted as one more effort to break up that marriage.  And that's the best case scenario.  I can't even imagine the damage that could be done by a home teacher with more zeal than sense.

This is the inescapable conclusion of two doctrines:  repentance requires forsaking of sin and homosexual acts are sinful.  As long as the Church continues to teach such, any invitation from a home teacher to follow Christ carries with it the implied threat that the road of discipleship can only end in a break up of the marriage.  Best for the church to give these families the space they need to navigate their difficult situation and keep them off the radar of well-intentioned (and possibly over-zealous) local church leaders.   

This is one of the better summaries of the anticipated circumstances the Church will be facing in the immediate future now that same-sex marriages are legal, and also the ramifications that are not readily apparent to less-informed folks (and even, I think, many well-informed folks), but which was very likely identified and discussed by the Brethren.

Some church members have responded to recent developments with knee-jerk hostility, disrespect, and even evil-speaking against the Brethren over this issue.  It would have been better, I think, for these members to have kept their covenants, given the situation time to sort itself out, and perhaps give the Brethren some small benefit of the doubt.  I suspect that as time goes on the wisdom of the course of action taken by the Brethren, as difficult as it may presently be to understand, will become more apparent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

While your approach is reasonable, it is not the only reasonable approach that could have been taken.  It doesn't take much effort to understand how Option A was a good-faith effort by the Church to give some necessary space to families headed by same-sex couples.  The existence of a reasonable Option B does not negate the thought, prayer, concern, and love that went into the selection of Option A.

I am wondering if you understand me.  I believe the Church's position is the best one (is this Option A?).  While it does not allow same sex parents to permit their children to be baptise, it allows them to be the sole decision makers when it comes to attendance and level of involvement (up to the point where membersip is required to particiapte).  Teachers and leaders will not be torn (if they understand the policy correctly) to push for something that might be outside the parent's wishes as they might have erred in doing if the child was officially a member, they will be less likely to make wrong assumptions because if the child is there, it is because the parents are the ones pushing it, not church members.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

Pressure is very different from protest or antagonism. Bottom-up revelation is a kind of pressure, but it's not antagonistic. 

Antagonism has the opposite of its intended effect, of course. Antagonism is not productive. 

Pressure is a broad category that includes protest and antagonism.

And the general Church leadership taking notice of experimental measures that have occurred on a local level and adopting them Churchwide does not amount to pressure.

Finally, I think there's some lack of clarity on what you might mean by "bottom-up revelation."

If, by that, you mean people who have not been ordained to a general Church leaderhip position trying to tell the president and apostles how to run the Church, then, no, there is no place for that in the Church of Jesus Christ.

If, on the other hand, you have in mind people serving on Church councils or in local positions being inspired with (and even implementing) good ideas within their own areas of responsibility, and subsequently having leaders on a general level take notice of them and adapt or implement them Churchwide, I see no evidence that such a thing has  been "cut off" in our day and age.

On the contrary, I've seen Elder Ballard and others champion the council system in the church and thus encourage Church leaders on every level to "counsel with their councils."

[Stormin' Mormon]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am wondering if you understand me.  I believe the Church's position is the best one (is this Option A?).  While it does not allow same sex parents to permit their children to be baptise, it allows them to be the sole decision makers when it comes to attendance and level of involvement (up to the point where membersip is required to particiapte).  Teachers and leaders will not be torn (if they understand the policy correctly) to push for something that might be outside the parent's wishes as they might have erred in doing if the child was officially a member, they will be less likely to make wrong assumptions because if the child is there, it is because the parents are the ones pushing it, not church members.

Oops.  Sorry.  Re-read your post and now it says something completely different than what I thought it did a minute ago. Need to brush up on my reading skills.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Stormin' Mormon
clarification

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Why does every difference of opinion with you amount to "slandering the Brethren"?

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I have characterized it accurately.

It seems apologists are constantly playing semantics games to get words to mean something than their straightforward meaning.

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who is proposing this idea?

And how do you reconcile this idea with, say, my brother's experience as described previously (see here)?

Thanks,

-Smac

That's what I keep hearing on this board and from conference talks. Revelation for the church is the exclusive stewardship of the FP and 12 apostles.

It's nice that they're soliciting ideas for how to use land, but I'm not sure that's really what we're talking about here. 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Gray

[consiglieri]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that the "correlation movement" limits revelation to being "top-down."

 

I would add to that by saying that the "correlation movement" has killed revelation entirely.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's what I keep hearing on this board and from conference talks. Revelation for the church is the exclusive stewardship of the FP and 12 apostles.

That is the teaching of the Church, yes.

Quote

It's nice that they're soliciting ideas for how to use land, but I'm not sure that's really what we're talking about here. 

What are we talking about, then?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organization are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

I think God may agree to a change of something if the membership plead for it AND such a change does not violate eternal laws or would go against God's plans on how to accomplish things.  God however does not take polls on what to do or what direction he should follow.  God does not bend his will to make people happy.  We are to submit our will to God. 

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is one of the better summaries of the anticipated circumstances the Church will be facing in the immediate future now that same-sex marriages are legal, and also the ramifications that are not readily apparent to less-informed folks (and even, I think, many well-informed folks), but which was very likely identified and discussed by the Brethren.

Some church members have responded to recent developments with knee-jerk hostility, disrespect, and even evil-speaking against the Brethren over this issue.  It would have been better, I think, for these members to have kept their covenants, given the situation time to sort itself out, and perhaps give the Brethren some small benefit of the doubt.  I suspect that as time goes on the wisdom of the course of action taken by the Brethren, as difficult as it may presently be to understand, will become more apparent.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is indeed a good and plausible summary of potential consequences had the Church leaders not acted to put the updated policy in place.

Do you have a source for this, Smac?

Edited to add:

Ah, I seen now that it was Stormin' Mormon. Never mind.

I too commend it, Stormin' Mormon.

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I have characterized it accurately.

It seems apologists are constantly playing semantics games to get words to mean something than their straightforward meaning.

I think it has been clearly shown here that you have not characterized it accurately.

What you call a "straightforward meaning" is your own distortion.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is indeed a good and plausible summary of potential consequences had the Church leaders not acted to put the updated policy in place.

Do you have a source for this, Smac?

No.  It's a surmise, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smac