"ProgMormons"

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. Fusing Politics w/ Religious Belief is Dangerous: I think there is danger in fusing religious belief with political ideology.  The former can and should inform the latter, but there are always going to be some incompatibilities between them.  So the two need to be kept somewhat separate.

2. The Church is Not a Political Construct: I think there is danger in Latter-day Saints treating the LDS Church as a political construct.  That is, that the leaders are somehow elected by the membership of the Church, that they are "answerable" to us in the sense of developing and promulgating teachings and practices that should conform to the expectations of self-selected agitators within the Church.  There is also quite a bit of encouragement of "factionalization," with agitators working to divvy up the body of the Church, and then pitting the subgroupings against each other (gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, socioeconomic condition, etc.).  Consequently, some members feel at liberty to seize upon these tactics and rhetoric, which are normally used to pressure / coerce political leaders into taking a particular course of action, and deploy them against the Church and its leaders.  This tendency is destructive, divisive, and inappropriate.  See, e.g., Elder Oaks' remarks here.

3. Some "ProgMormons" Treat the Church as a Political Construct: I think the foregoing tendency - deploying politically-derived tactics and rhetoric in and against the Church and its leaders and members - is very off-putting to most active Latter-day Saints - including some (many?) "progressive" ones.  Kate Kelly is a good example of someone who views the Church in this way.  So is Julienna Viegas-Haws.  And more recently, Carol Lynn Pearson.  

I am open to correction on this, but my general sense is that so-called "Progressive Mormons" are more susceptible to this sort of thing.  (NOTE: I should note here that Latter-day Saints with other-than-"progressive" ideologies also create problems in the Church when they inject their politics into Church settings.)

4. Political Ideology Should Not Predominate Over Religious Principles: I think there is danger in letting the political ideology predominate over religious principles and beliefs.  As noted above, there is no political party or platform or ideology that perfectly meshes with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This has never happened, and it never will, not until "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess {at Judgment Day that Jesus Christ is our Lord}."  (Mosiah 27:31).  So we all make compromises and accommodations.  We look for political candidates, parties, and ideologies that hew most closely to those principles we deem important.  The Church reminds us every election cycle that all political parties have principles consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that we each should use prayer and research to study each individual candidate and issue and reach decisions relating thereto.

Nevertheless, political ideology should not dictate our religious views and decisions.  That is, some of us look at what trends are politically (and socially) popular with our peers, and then let that popularity have greater influence over us than the scriptures, the counsel of modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit.  I think this is a mistake, as our moral code will be better when it is based on principles revealed to us from God through prophets and through personal revelation.  This will keep us well-grounded amidst the storms of varied opinions and ideologies.  In other words, faith should predominate.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

In contrast, letting popular social/political trends and ideologies determine our moral code will, I think, not work well for us.  There are too many conflicting and contradictory ideas being thrown into the mix.  Too many secret combinations.  Too many notions which sound nice superficially, but which in reality are corruptions and perversions.  So a person whose moral code is determined by the prevailing sociopolitical trends of the day is going to have a hard time, perhaps even to the point of abandoning the Restored Gospel.  "But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they."  (Mormon 5:18).

5. Some "ProgMormons" Let Political Ideologies Dictate Their Moral Code (and So Do Some Conservatives):  I think the foregoing tendency (letting political/popular ideologies and trends predominate over prophetic/apostolic counsel and the Spirit) is a problem for some "Progressive" Latter-day Saints.  I also think this is not a problem restricted to the "Progressives" among us, as I see plenty of politically "conservative" Latter-day Saints (and members with other political inclinations as well) doing the same thing.

6. We All Need Wiggle Room: At the end of the day, in terms of holding religious and political points of view, there will always be issues about which reasonable minds can disagree as to both spheres.  We need to give each other some substantial elbow room to allow for principled and respectful disagreement, while remaining brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting post, as always, Smac.  My thoughts/responses:

1.  Totally agree... bad idea to fuse politics and religious beliefs.  Should be avoided.  

2.  Also agree.

3.  I think what you see as "treating the church as a political construct" can be alternatively viewed as the belief that the Brethren might need prompting or a catalyst in order to seek revelation on a particular item.  And, a view that some things are just policy and change can be instigated by letting the Brethen know that said change could be needed.  It's not necessarily a faithless approach.

4.  I agree... I think it is a struggle for many people (from all religions) to avoid mixing their religious beliefs with political ideologies.

5.  I don't disagree with this but I think we need to be careful on how we view it.  Often times I am told that my support of certain positions is a result of political correctness, ideology, or societal trends when in fact, my support of certain positions is actually driven by my faith and religious beliefs.

6.  Amen.  Except for those who disagree with me.  They deserve NO wiggle room.

[smac97]

Just now, rockpond said:

3.  I think what you see as "treating the church as a political construct" can be alternatively viewed as the belief that the Brethren might need prompting or a catalyst in order to seek revelation on a particular item.  

The time, place, and manner of the behavior intended as a "prompting or a catalyst" matter.  A lot.  Hence my reference to three people who, I think, went far beyond wanting to merely "prompt" the Brethren to seek revelation.  

There are healthy and appropriate ways to seek change in the Church (see this article by Elder Oaks), and then there are unhealthy and inappropriate ways.  It is this latter set of which I speak, and which I think consist of tactics and rhetoric imported from political thinkers.  These are directly or indirectly influenced, I think, by Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and similar sociopolitical concepts.  See, for example, this post where I outline the apparently utilization of Alinskyite tactics by Julienna Viegas-Haws (and others, to be sure) vis-à-vis the infamous 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  BTW, I'm not the first one to note the apparent use of Alinskyite theory by agitators against the Church - see, e.g., here (comments section) and here (same).  

I remain of the opinion that such tactics and rhetoric are divisive and destructive and not appropriately used in or against the Church (this is hardly surprising, given the interesting person to whom Alinsky's book is dedicated).

Perhaps I should clarify that I mean that there are people who treat the Church like a political construct (not literally as one).  Does that help?

Quote

And, a view that some things are just policy and change can be instigated by letting the Brethen know that said change could be needed.  It's not necessarily a faithless approach.

I wasn't really thinking of "a faithless approach."  I was thinking more along the lines of propriety of feedback to the Brethren in terms of time, place, and manner.  I was also thinking of the points made by Elder Oaks in his article.

I think there are people who agitate against the Church and who honestly feel that they are doing so from a position of faithfulness.  I concede that.  I just disagree with them about their tactics and rhetoric.

Quote

5.  I don't disagree with this but I think we need to be careful on how we view it.  Often times I am told that my support of certain positions is a result of political correctness, ideology, or societal trends when in fact, my support of certain positions is actually driven by my faith and religious beliefs.

I respect that.  Frankly, I get irritated with people who disagree with me presume to tell me what my motivations are.  As if they know me better than i know myself simply because they've read something I wrote online.  As if I were too dense or deluded to be cognizant of my own motivations, such that I need some stranger to point them out to me.  It sounds like you've had similar experiences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The time, place, and manner of the behavior intended as a "prompting or a catalyst" matter.  A lot.  Hence my reference to three people who, I think, went far beyond wanting to merely "prompt" the Brethren to seek revelation.  

There are healthy and appropriate ways to seek change in the Church (see this article by Elder Oaks), and then there are unhealthy and inappropriate ways.  It is this latter set of which I speak, and which I think consist of tactics and rhetoric imported from political thinkers.  These are directly or indirectly influenced, I think, by Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and similar sociopolitical concepts.  See, for example, this post where I outline the apparently utilization of Alinskyite tactics by Julienna Viegas-Haws (and others, to be sure) vis-à-vis the infamous 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  BTW, I'm not the first one to note the apparent use of Alinskyite theory by agitators against the Church - see, e.g., here (comments section) and here (same).  

I remain of the opinion that such tactics and rhetoric are divisive and destructive and not appropriately used in or against the Church (this is hardly surprising, given the interesting person to whom Alinsky's book is dedicated).

Perhaps I should clarify that I mean that there are people who treat the Church like a political construct (not literally as one).  Does that help?

I wasn't really thinking of "a faithless approach."  I was thinking more along the lines of propriety of feedback to the Brethren in terms of time, place, and manner.  I was also thinking of the points made by Elder Oaks in his article.

I think there are people who agitate against the Church and who honestly feel that they are doing so from a position of faithfulness.  I concede that.  I just disagree with them about their tactics and rhetoric.

I respect that.  Frankly, I get irritated with people who disagree with me presume to tell me what my motivations are.  As if they know me better than i know myself simply because they've read something I wrote online.  As if I were too dense or deluded to be cognizant of my own motivations, such that I need some stranger to point them out to me.  It sounds like you've had similar experiences.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it is unfair to apply Alinsky's Rules for Radicals here when the "rules" are so broad that they tend to apply to any effort for change.  I feel like the "Alinsky slur" is tossed, all too often, at anyone that disagrees.  I don't think that Kelly, Viegas-Haws, or Pearson have or are treating the church like a political construct.  I see why you believe that but I think their efforts are driven by good, faithful intentions with the exception of Kelly as she approached her excommunication and after her excommunication.

But, I'll read the Oaks article on criticism.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I've never understood why it's so important for members to keep their views to themselves. If everyone just silently goes along "facing the right way" there's not a lot of incentive for anything to change. And I wonder how public is too public. As I noted, my friend (among others) was pretty outspoken in classes and seminars at BYU. Is that acceptable? How about if she had attended a pro-choice rally or OW protest? Where does one draw the line?

Believe what you want but keep your mouth shut.  Otherwise you risk the boot out the door.

What a way to live.    

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Believe what you want but keep your mouth shut.  Otherwise you risk the boot out the door.

What a way to live.    

I think the belief that the majority of members operate from is that any change needs to be initiated by the Lord.  I see almost nothing in our history or scripture to support such a conclusion.  But it does seem to be a prevailing belief... which is why expressing a desire for change will often get one labeled as an ark-steadier or apostate. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Believe what you want but keep your mouth shut.  Otherwise you risk the boot out the door.

What a way to live.    

That's the way of existence.  Not that you can't believe what you want, but that following authority and their rules matters, even if you disagree.

Look at the pre-earth descriptions of the presence of God.  Or the Garden of Eden.
And the results of rebellious ideas.

Edited July 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the belief that the majority of members operate from is that any change needs to be initiated by the Lord.  I see almost nothing in our history or scripture to support such a conclusion.  But it does seem to be a prevailing belief... which is why expressing a desire for change will often get one labeled as an ark-steadier or apostate. 

I don't have a problem with a person expressing desire to change.  It is when they take their desire to the next step and demand change that is a problem.

Edited July 29, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's the way of existence.  Not that you can't believe what you want, but that following authority and their rules matters, even if you disagree.

Look at the pre-earth descriptions of the presence of God.  Or the Garden of Eden.
And the results of rebellious ideas.

It is only the way of existence when you surrender to someone else's agenda.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't have a problem with a person expressing desire to change.  It is when they take their desire to the next step and demand change that is a problem.

So if someone demands change it's a problem... Because?

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is only the way of existence when you surrender to someone else's agenda.

If that person is God (and you are sure for yourself that it is) then that is no problem.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So if someone demands change it's a problem... Because?

Because to demand in this context reflects the spirit of contention and not the spirit of charity as used in councils.

 

de·mand

dəˈmand/

noun

1.

an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right.

 

verb

1.

ask authoritatively or brusquely.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So if someone demands change it's a problem... Because?

Depends on what they are asking to change.
Demanding things of eternity and God change is wrong.
Demanding things of man change is ok.
Knowing which things are which is a challenge.

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because to demand in this context reflects the spirit of contention and not the spirit of charity as used in councils.

 

 

 

de·mand

 

dəˈmand/

 

noun

 

1.

 

an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right.

 

 

 

verb

 

1.

 

ask authoritatively or brusquely.

 

What if the individual has no access to the councils that control that which they feel needs to change?

Also, is there any space between a desire (kept to themselves) and making demands, in which a faithful Latter-day Saint who feels change is needed can stand?

 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends on what they are asking to change.
Demanding things of eternity and God change is wrong.
Demanding things of man change is ok.
Knowing which things are which is a challenge.

l agree with that.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think it is unfair to apply Alinsky's Rules for Radicals here when the "rules" are so broad that they tend to apply to any effort for change.  

I don't think Alinsky created his "Rules" per se.  Rather, he organized pre-existing tactics and rhetoric into a structured format.

Perhaps you are right to say that I should not directly invoke Rules for Radicals. Then again, I'm not sure I drew a one-to-one correlative.  Rather I said: "There are {un}healthy and {in}appropriate ways to seek change in the Church . . .  which I think consist of tactics and rhetoric imported from political thinkers . . . directly or indirectly influenced . . . {by} Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and similar sociopolitical concepts."

Quote

I feel like the "Alinsky slur" is tossed, all too often, at anyone that disagrees.  

I can't speak to that.  I didn't just "toss" it out there as a "slur."  I went to some length to explain what I saw as a deployment of Alinskyite principles in a specific situation.  For what it's worth, I don't think Alinsky is the fount of all things politically "progressive."  But I think it's hard to deny that his philosophy has had a profound influence on the tactics and rhetoric of "social justice" and similar "progressive" activists in our day.

Quote

I don't think that Kelly, Viegas-Haws, or Pearson have or are treating the church like a political construct.  

I think reasonable minds can disagree about that, at least as to the latter two.  Kate Kelly's rhetoric and tactics seem to be profoundly political.  She has publicly admitted that the tactics she used against the Church were based on "social activism":

Quote

The group's founder acknowledges that the language of social activism is unfamiliar to most Mormon women, but she believes it is useful to borrow vocabulary and tactics from activist efforts.

"Part of what we are doing is new in every conceivable way," Kelly says, "For women to take direct action and communicate their message with their bodies and showing up in the tradition of social movements is 100 percent new."

It is, she says, "revolutionary."

Where did Kate Kelly get her "vocabulary and tactics?"  Which "activist efforts?"  What sort of "social activism" is she referencing here?

Alynskyite, I think.  See also here ("Those who feel John and Kate should be disciplined generally object to their tactics, which are straight out of the liberal playbook..."), here ("The main criticism that OW faced prior to the discussions was that their approach was wrong, borrowing too much in aesthetics and approach from the secular world of political organizing..."), here ("So, time for Sister Kelly to flipping clarify what the fetch she thought she was doing by arranging a protest ... The Brethren do not decide doctrine via political pressure, but by the spirit of revelation."), and here ("Church leaders do not want to change basic doctrines or practices in response to what they see as attempts {by Kate Kelly and her group} to publically embarrass the Church over its basic doctrines and practices.").

Julienna Viegas-Haws has likewise used the "vocabulary" of politically "progressive" activism in her assessment of the Church.  See here ("One would think that because the leaders claim such proximity to Christ, they would be in the forefront of social justice issues. But it hasn't been the case...Many members wish the LDS Church were leading the cause for social justice...").

Carol Lynn Pearson has recently published a book in which she uses the purported results of a sham Facebook poll as the basis for her public demand that the LDS Church abandon a doctrine she does not like (polygamy).  Her use of media coverage adverse to the Church, public demands against the Church, efforts to embarrass and coerce the Church, etc. seem quite similar to those utilized by Kate Kelly.  If Kate Kelly's "vocabulary and tactics" are - by her own admission - derived from "activist efforts" and "social activism", then it does not seem much of a stretch to think that Carol Lynn Pearson is going to that same well.

The very label "Progressive" (as in "Progressive Mormon") is an overtly political one.

Quote

I see why you believe that but I think their efforts are driven by good, faithful intentions with the exception of Kelly as she approached her excommunication and after her excommunication.

I'm not sure this is an either/or situation.  I am fine with believing that these folks (including Kate Kelly, at least at the beginning of her efforts) could be "driven by good, faithful intentions" and that the the tactics and rhetoric they have used to act on those intentions have been derived from political activist theories (including those influenced by, or derived to some extent from, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals).

Quote

But, I'll read the Oaks article on criticism.

Sounds good.  I would be interested in your assessment.  For those who are accustomed to viewing the Church as being more like a political construct than what the Church actually claims to be, the article by Elder Oaks could be a bit hard to hear.  But if the reader predicates the article on the position taken by Elder Oaks (that the Church is what it claims to be, and is qualitatively different from secular governments, corporations, etc.), then the article makes quite a bit of sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Alinsky created his "Rules" per se.  Rather, he organized pre-existing tactics and rhetoric into a structured format.

Perhaps you are right to say that I should not directly invoke Rules for Radicals. Then again, I'm not sure I drew a one-to-one correlative.  Rather I said: "There are {un}healthy and {in}appropriate ways to seek change in the Church . . .  which I think consist of tactics and rhetoric imported from political thinkers . . . directly or indirectly influenced . . . Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and similar sociopolitical concepts."

I can't speak to that.  I didn't just "toss" it out there as a "slur."  I went to some length to explain what I saw as a deployment of Alinskyite principles in a specific situation.  For what it's worth, I don't think Alinsky is the fount of all things politically "progressive."  But I think it's hard to deny that his philosophy has had a profound influence on the tactics and rhetoric of "social justice" and similar "progressive" activists in our day.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about that, at least as to the latter two.  Kate Kelly's rhetoric and tactics seem to be profoundly political.  She has publicly admitted that the tactics she used against the Church were based on "social activism":

Where did Kate Kelly get her "vocabulary and tactics?"  Which "activist efforts?"  What sort of "social activism" is she referencing here?

Alynskyite, I think.  See also here ("Those who feel John and Kate should be disciplined generally object to their tactics, which are straight out of the liberal playbook..."), here ("The main criticism that OW faced prior to the discussions was that their approach was wrong, borrowing too much in aesthetics and approach from the secular world of political organizing..."), here ("So, time for Sister Kelly to flipping clarify what the fetch she thought she was doing by arranging a protest ... The Brethren do not decide doctrine via political pressure, but by the spirit of revelation."), and here ("Church leaders do not want to change basic doctrines or practices in response to what they see as attempts {by Kate Kelly and her group} to publically embarrass the Church over its basic doctrines and practices.").

Julienna Viegas-Haws is on record as using the "vocabulary" of political activism in her assessment of the Church.  See here ("One would think that because the leaders claim such proximity to Christ, they would be in the forefront of social justice issues. But it hasn't been the case...Many members wish the LDS Church were leading the cause for social justice...").

Carol Lynn Pearson has recently published a book in which she uses the purported results of a sham Facebook poll as the basis for her public demand that the LDS Church abandon a doctrine she does not like (polygamy).  Her use of media coverage adverse to the Church, public demands against the Church, efforts to embarrass and coerce the Church, etc. seem quite similar to those utilized by Kate Kelly.  If Kate Kelly's "vocabulary and tactics" are - by her own admission - derived from "activist efforts" and "social activism", then it does not seem much of a stretch to think that Carol Lynn Pearson is going to that same well.

The very label "Progressive" (as in "Progressive Mormon") is an overtly political one.

I'm not sure this is an either/or situation.  I am fine with believing that these folks "are driven by good, faithful intentions" and that the the tactics and rhetoric they have used to act on those intentions have been derived from political activist theories (including those influenced by, or derived to some extent from, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals).

Sounds good.  I would be interested in your assessment.  For those who are accustomed to viewing the Church as being more like a political construct than what the Church actually claims to be, the article by Elder Oaks could be a bit hard to hear.  But if the reader predicates the article on the position taken by Elder Oaks (that the Church is what it claims to be, and is qualitatively different from secular governments, corporations, etc.), then the article makes quite a bit of sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

In reading your post here, I see where some of our differences are coming from.  You seem to link activism and attempts at social justice to be inherently political.  I don't make that connection and don't see a need for them to be connected.

I read the Oaks article this morning.  At the end he offers his methods to seek change when one sees a need.  Unfortunately, in the case of changes desired within the institutional church, they mostly amount to keeping one's thoughts on change to themselves.  The only exception is writing a letter to the general authorities in SLC which we have now been told not to do.  And, when done, seems to often result in the letter being sent back to one's stake president.  So really, there are no options for seeking change in the institutional Church.  You can pray and keep your thoughts to yourself.  

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The time, place, and manner of the behavior intended as a "prompting or a catalyst" matter.  A lot.  Hence my reference to three people who, I think, went far beyond wanting to merely "prompt" the Brethren to seek revelation.  

There are healthy and appropriate ways to seek change in the Church (see this article by Elder Oaks), and then there are unhealthy and inappropriate ways.  It is this latter set of which I speak, and which I think consist of tactics and rhetoric imported from political thinkers.  These are directly or indirectly influenced, I think, by Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and similar sociopolitical concepts.  See, for example, this post where I outline the apparently utilization of Alinskyite tactics by Julienna Viegas-Haws (and others, to be sure) vis-à-vis the infamous 1945 Ward Teacher's Message.  BTW, I'm not the first one to note the apparent use of Alinskyite theory by agitators against the Church - see, e.g., here (comments section) and here (same).  

I remain of the opinion that such tactics and rhetoric are divisive and destructive and not appropriately used in or against the Church (this is hardly surprising, given the interesting person to whom Alinsky's book is dedicated).

Perhaps I should clarify that I mean that there are people who treat the Church like a political construct (not literally as one).  Does that help?

I wasn't really thinking of "a faithless approach."  I was thinking more along the lines of propriety of feedback to the Brethren in terms of time, place, and manner.  I was also thinking of the points made by Elder Oaks in his article.

I think there are people who agitate against the Church and who honestly feel that they are doing so from a position of faithfulness.  I concede that.  I just disagree with them about their tactics and rhetoric.

I respect that.  Frankly, I get irritated with people who disagree with me presume to tell me what my motivations are.  As if they know me better than i know myself simply because they've read something I wrote online.  As if I were too dense or deluded to be cognizant of my own motivations, such that I need some stranger to point them out to me.  It sounds like you've had similar experiences.

Thanks,

-Smac

You do your own arguments a great disservice by referencing Saul Alinsky.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What if the individual has no access to the councils that control that which they feel needs to change?

Also, is there any space between a desire (kept to themselves) and making demands, in which a faithful Latter-day Saint who feels change is needed can stand?

 

Answering the second question first, I think a spiritually healthy space between a desire and doing a contentious thing with or related to that desire is maintained by self-mastery and temperance (discipleship). That informs the first question; if someone does not serve on a decision-making council, he can manage his feelings on a subject without feeling or acting contentious.

[carbon dioxide]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In reading your post here, I see where some of our differences are coming from.  You seem to link activism and attempts at social justice to be inherently political.  I don't make that connection and don't see a need for them to be connected.

I read the Oaks article this morning.  At the end he offers his methods to seek change when one sees a need.  Unfortunately, in the case of changes desired within the institutional church, they mostly amount to keeping one's thoughts on change to themselves.  The only exception is writing a letter to the general authorities in SLC which we have now been told not to do.  And, when done, seems to often result in the letter being sent back to one's stake president.  So really, there are no options for seeking change in the institutional Church.  You can pray and keep your thoughts to yourself.  

If the Lord wants change in the Church, he will initiate it in some way.  Pretty much every member could find some aspect of the Church they would like to change but they forget that perhaps there are many members in the Church who find those issues to be not important and don't want a change.  One group wants to impose change on another group that does not want change.  So in an effort to make one group happy, another group will not be happy.  Since it will be almost impossible to make everyone happy, the Church should not try.  The Kingdom of God is not a democracy.  The spirit world and Celestial Kingdom are not democracies.  We have prophets for a reason.  If we want to reject the structure for an system of various groups of members organizing and fighting for their pet issues of change, I guess we can do that but the results will not be pretty.

Edited July 29, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Answering the second question first, I think a spiritually healthy space between a desire and doing a contentious thing with or related to that desire is maintained by self-mastery and temperance (discipleship). That informs the first question; if someone does not serve on a decision-making council, he can manage his feelings on a subject without feeling or acting contentious.

Okay.  I think Viegas-Haws and Pearson are good examples of that.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Lord wants change in the Church, he will initiate it in some way.  Pretty much every member could find some aspect of the Church they would like to change but they forget that perhaps there are many members in the Church who find those issues to be not important and don't want a change.  One group wants to impose change on another group that does not want change.  So in an effort to make one group happy, another group will not be happy.  Since it will be almost impossible to make everyone happy, the Church should not try.  The Kingdom of God is not a democracy.  The spirit world and Celestial Kingdom are not democracies.  We have prophets for a reason.  If we want to reject the structure for an system of various groups of members organizing and fighting for their pet issues of change, I guess we can do that but the results will not be pretty.

I don't see it as a democracy either.  But I also believe there are valid reasons to speak up (within certain parameters) when change is needed.  The idea that we should just keep silent and let our leaders and prophets operate in a vacuum doesn't fit well with how I see our doctrine and how I've experienced the operation of the church.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In reading your post here, I see where some of our differences are coming from.  You seem to link activism and attempts at social justice to be inherently political.  I don't make that connection and don't see a need for them to be connected.

Again, I guess we'll have to let reasonable minds disagree.  "Social justice" is an inherently politically partisan term and concept.  And by that I mean "partisan on the 'progressive' end of the political spectrum."  

I am willing to accept the contention that "social justice" is (or started out as) a broad, apolitical concept that manifests in varying societies in varying ways (not unlike how "The Golden Rule" is not an exclusively Christian concept).  However, at present the phrase has been co-opted by political "progressives" to mean something much more specific, much more "political."  I think it is no accident that in the Wikipedia article describing modern "Social Justice Movements," there is a sidebar right next to it about . . . wait for it . . . 

Quote

Part of a series on
Progressivism
Ideas
Idea of Progress Scientific progress Social progress Economic development Technological change Linear history
History
Enlightenment Industrial Revolution Modernity
Politics portal

So with respect (and I really mean that), I don't think it's me that has "{characterized} activism and attempts at social justice to be inherently political."  "Social justice" is, or has become, a code word for political progressivism.

Quote

I read the Oaks article this morning.  At the end he offers his methods to seek change when one sees a need.  Unfortunately, in the case of changes desired within the institutional church, they mostly amount to keeping one's thoughts on change to themselves.  

Well, no.  I don't think that's a fair assessment.  He outlines five "remedies" available to church members, only one of which could be described as "keeping one's thoughts on change to themselves" (emphases added):

Quote

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well.

...

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.).   This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication.

...

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure...

...

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.  A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

Again,  if the reader predicates the article on the position taken by Elder Oaks (that the Church is what it claims to be, and is qualitatively different from secular governments, corporations, etc.), then the article makes quite a bit of sense.

The tactics and rhetoric of "social justice" are inherently adversarial and divisive.  This means they won't work in many contexts, both in terms of the LDS Church and also many other situations.  

Quote

The only exception is writing a letter to the general authorities in SLC which we have now been told not to do.  

I don't think that's an accurate characterization.  See above.

Quote

And, when done, seems to often result in the letter being sent back to one's stake president.  

Well, yes.  The organization of the Church is there for a purpose.  It is patently unreasonable to suggest that any of the 15 millions members of the Church are at liberty to utterly disregard their bishop and stake president and Area Authority Seventy and so on, and skip right to the apex of Church leadership with questions and concerns or proposals for "institutional" change within the Church.  That makes no sense.  At all.  In any organization.  

If Steve the supervisor at the Wal-Mart in American Fork has a proposal to improve customer sales, he wouldn't get to make an appointment with Doug McMillon (the President and CEO).  That doesn't mean that Steve's idea is DOA, just that he should send it through organizational channels.  That is the way of things.  That makes sense.

If I, as an attorney in Utah, dislike one of the "Rules of Civil Procedure" which govern in civil litigation in the state courts, I am not at liberty to call the Utah Supreme Court (which promulgates these rules) and demand an appointment during which I will lay out my grievance and propose a change to the particular rule.  That is not to say that attorneys are utterly without recourse in addressing such issues, just that they are required to use processes other than leapfrogging to the very top of the org chart.

Richard Winters was an Army officer in the 101st Airborne Division in Europe during World War II.  He became more well-known when HBO produced a mini-series called "Band of Brothers" which recounts some of the experiences he and his fellow soldiers encountered.  Winters started out as a Second Lieutenant (the lowest officer rank - "O1"), but by the end of the war was a Major (O4) and a battalion commander.  By any reckoning, he had an amazing record of military service.  But what if he had come up with an idea for prosecuting the war against the Germans?  As a battalion commander, look where here was on an Org Chart:

In other words, he was the battalion commander, but above him was the brigade commander, then a division commander, then a corps commander, then an "army" commander.  Then there are the political divisions above that:

This structure was a bit different during World War II (there was a "War Department"), but you get the idea.

Now, getting back to Major Winters.  If he had formulated a strategy for defeating the German Army (at a macro level), would he have hopped a flight to Washington DC and demanded a meeting with FDR?  Or perhaps General Catlett Marshall (Army Chief of Staff) or Henry L. Stimson (Secretary of War)?  Or would it make more sense to submit the plan to his brigade commander, then a division commander, then a corps commander, and so on?

Yes, the bureaucratic process can be a hassle, but can it not also be a benefit?  Is it possible that Major Winters' idea had already been presented and considered?  Might these interim leaders also have some value in terms of refining and improving Major Winters' idea?  Might Major Winters have lacked appreciation of factors beyond his purview which, when considered, made his idea impractical / inappropriate / dangerous / reckless?  

Any large organization has to have a maintain a coherent structure if it is going to survive.  Disregarding that structure, especially on a regular basis (as you seem to want, given that you seem to take exception to the notion of individuals taking their concerns or suggestions for "institutional" change to their local leaders first), would be problematic in many ways.  

Quote

So really, there are no options for seeking change in the institutional Church.  You can pray and keep your thoughts to yourself.

The options for an one of 15 millions members to "{seek} change in the institutional Church" are limited, yes (not as limited as you say, tho).  But I don't get your point.  The same can be said for an individual in any large organization.  Moreover, the LDS Church differentiates itself in form and function from most other organizations.  It claims to be governed by revelation from God.  And such revelation is not passed out willy-nilly, but is purportedly given to the Presiding High Priest (at least as to matters that pertain to significant "change in the institutional Church").  So "institutional change" is not supposed to originate with one person agitating against the priesthood leadership which the Lord has established for His Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

You do your own arguments a great disservice by referencing Saul Alinsky.

How so?  I thought it rather uncontroversial that his influence on "progressivism" has been extensive.  For example, in his book, "Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics: Styles of Engagement among Grassroots Activists," author Stephen Hart observes (emphasis added).

Quote

Most people involved in any kind of community organizing today regard Saul Alinsky (1909-72) as its mordern originator.  Alinsky's work and thinking came out of and sought to developt the American tradition of radical democracy . . . {including} populism, working-class republicanism, the New Left of the 1960s and 70s, and many American versions of socialism.  It has been drawn upon by most progressive movements in this country...

Are we not speaking of "progressive movements" pertaining to the LDS Church?  Are you suggesting that when Kate Kelly, who has publicly admitted that she "borrow{s} vocabulary and tactics from activist efforts", has not been influenced at all by Alinskyite theory?  Not even indirectly?

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Lord wants change in the Church, he will initiate it in some way.  Pretty much every member could find some aspect of the Church they would like to change but they forget that perhaps there are many members in the Church who find those issues to be not important and don't want a change.  One group wants to impose change on another group that does not want change.  So in an effort to make one group happy, another group will not be happy.  Since it will be almost impossible to make everyone happy, the Church should not try.  The Kingdom of God is not a democracy.  The spirit world and Celestial Kingdom are not democracies.  We have prophets for a reason.  If we want to reject the structure for an system of various groups of members organizing and fighting for their pet issues of change, I guess we can do that but the results will not be pretty.

The Church has never been a democracy, but without input from the membership it becomes closer to a blind/deaf dictatorship.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Church has never been a democracy, but without input from the membership it becomes closer to a blind/deaf dictatorship.

Nobody is disputing that.  Rather, the issue is the time and place and manner of that "input from the membership."

I submit that there are some members of the Church who are using inappropriate tactics and rhetoric to provide "input" to the Church.  I further submit that some of this "input" is more properly characterized as "demands for institutional and doctrinal changes in the Church to suit the personal preferences of a self-selected few."

Thanks,

-Smac