"ProgMormons"

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).

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

It is pretty simple. One of Mr. Alinsky focuses was for organizing people who lived in slum lord apartments to get better living conditions. Do you really believe that if the Church was a slum lord no one should object, let alone help those people?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is pretty simple. One of Mr. Alinsky focuses was for organizing people who lived in slum lord apartments to get better living conditions.

But that's just one of his "focuses," right?  Moreover, Alinsky's theories have been used in many, many different contexts, far more than landlord/tenant disputes.  My thought is that some "progressive" members of the Church have decided to apply Alinsky's theories against the Church in order to affect change within it.  

Quote

Do you really believe that if the Church was a slum lord no one should object, let alone help those people?

I have no idea how to answer this question.  I don't even know what it means.  And it appears calculated to offend rather than to further the discussion.  So I'll refrain from substantively addressing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I would go further than that and say that the Church leaders would be doing a disservice to the membership -- and to Jesus Christ -- by not restricting time, place and manner of such input. Such failure puts the Church in peril of falling into the hands of those who ought not have possession of it. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

Do you have some scriptural examples where people found this spiritually healthy space? The problem with using the living is that their outcome (whether they come across as being closer to or further from discipleship) isn’t a done deal or ratified with the gravitas of cannon!

For example, I think Sariah comes close, if we consider her complaining a step or more away from becoming demanding (or from the more damaging behavior of murmuring, but even one who murmurs can repent, like Lehi did). Some might say complaining against a prophet is not spiritually healthy, but she was spiritually healthy enough to repent, as did Lehi from his murmuring against God. They both seem to have cut their grievances and griping undertones short of demanding change and were true and faithful to their covenants in the end. But I’m sure there must be better examples.

As with Sariah and Lehi, I think one necessary criterion for this spiritually healthy (or sufficiently healthy) space would be that they are shown to have remained in the covenant and with the covenant people. Another would be that they do not express feelings and perceptions in terms of actual instances that infer that reparation is in order.

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's just one of his "focuses," right?  Moreover, Alinsky's theories have been used in many, many different contexts, far more than landlord/tenant disputes.  My thought is that some "progressive" members of the Church have decided to apply Alinsky's theories against the Church in order to affect change within it.  

I have no idea how to answer this question.  I don't even know what it means.  And it appears calculated to offend rather than to further the discussion.  So I'll refrain from substantively addressing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

WOW Such a newsflash that some misuse the words and ideas of another to promote their own agenda.

You do know what a slum lord is don't you?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

And there in is the problem.  

Also if God is really there and God really speaks through historically only a select few it seems a pretty sloppy system.  Additionally it puts God as the biggest flip flipper of all time considering all the conflicting and changing things God is allegedly saying from time immortal to all those who claim God is talking to them. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

WOW Such a newsflash that some misuse the words and ideas of another to promote their own agenda.

You do know what a slum lord is don't you?

As if a patently offensive comparison between the LDS Church an "a slum lord" isn't sufficient, now you're questioning my intelligence.  Wow, indeed.

I don't think substantive discussion between us is in the cards today.  So I'll withdraw from further efforts and let you have the last word (if you want it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And there in is the problem.

Also if God is really there and God really speaks through historically only a select few it seems a pretty sloppy system.  Additionally it puts God as the biggest flip flipper of all time considering all the conflicting and changing things God is allegedly saying from time immortal to all those who claim God is talking to them.

That's why religion is a subject of faith, never of proof.
If a person is unwilling or unable to accept anything on faith religion may not be the best choice for them.  They'll be pretty miserable never being able to prove anything.

All that can be proven is if something is consistent within a religion or is inconsistent.  The inconsistent can be rejected if we believe God is eternal.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's why religion is a subject of faith, never of proof.
If a person is unwilling or unable to accept anything on faith religion may not be the best choice for them.  They'll be pretty miserable never being able to prove anything.

All that can be proven is if something is consistent within a religion or is inconsistent.  The inconsistent can be rejected if we believe God is eternal.

Faith is always the answer when there is little to no evidence.

 

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Faith is always the answer when there is little to no evidence.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Gray]

On 7/28/2016 at 4:44 PM, waveslider said:

So what are you trying to say? That protests are works?

Absolutely. Consider your position applied to other areas in life.

"When we petition for healing of illnesses it should be on our knees, in prayer to the one who's plan we are trying to follow. If God doesn't heal us, then it means we need to re-evaluate if our petition isn't in conflict with God's plan. No need to faithlessly seek medical help."

"When we want to go about feeding the poor, it should be on our knees, in prayer to the one who's plan we are trying to follow. If God doesn't feed them miraculously, then it means we need to re-evaluate if our petition isn't in conflict with God's plan. No need to faithlessly provide food to the poor. The Lord is in charge."

Faith without works is truly dead.

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 . . . 

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.

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):

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.  

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

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.  

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

It's interesting that you don't thinking Kelly, et. al. should treat the church as a political construct but then you compare it to a business, the military, and Utah's legal system.  The Church, as the kingdom of God (or striving for) on earth, is unique.

My response to Oaks 5 points when applied to an individual member of the church who believes change is needed:

1.  Overlook the difference - amounts to keeping one's thoughts to themselves.

2.  Reserve judgment and postpone action - also, amounts to keeping one's thoughts to themselves

3.  Take it up with the leader - In this application that cannot be done... so this isn't a possibility.

4.  Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct the problem - Again, in this application it cannot be done.

5.  Pray for resolution - Their only real option for change.

Given this, it is no surprise to me that Kelly, Viegas-Haws, and Pearson have sought other ways to work toward the changes they believe are needed.

[BlueDreams]

On July 28, 2016 at 6:51 PM, 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 know if this has been brought up. But this is oversimplified as to my concerns. 

There are some changes that are largely just basic in nature and do not have any doctrinal support and are largely cultural or custom oriented. Such as music we play at church and how. Or garment cuts. Or pants v dresses for women. Or uniform dress shirts for men. These I still wouldn't demand or push but I wouldn't have a problem raising awareness or make suggestions. 

Then there are questions or expectations that veer into doctrinal areas. Such as gay marriage or female ordination. These are fundamental changes that wouldn't just change of simple policy. Again these we can discuss, raise concern and arguments for or against, etc. I find even a small scripture in alma 2:5 about "wonderful contentions" as one way you could somewhat defend such. Discourse isn't bad in and of itself. But these are doctrinal changes. I haven't seen a convincing argument that it would be mere policy change. And for that you would need word from the Lord from his prophets IMHO. Bringing awareness to a concern isn't a problem though. I had no problem with Kelly, for example, until it became apparent that the organization in her hands was moving toward push/demands oriented methods.

In either case I have a problem with demands. I find it antithetical to the purpose of creating Zion (being of one heart and mind) and demand and semi-forcing of change or the adoption of specific beliefs doesn't work. It doesn't fully work in the world as much as we'd like to believe it's the best method. Pushed change can lead to reactive social resistance and pushback. It can also mean that certain attitudes don't actually change though there is structural overarching differences. You can see this a lot in developing area in particular. Many practices, such as female circumcision, are against the law Yet they're still happening and you get phenomena where the second generation reinstates it. In the u.s. You can see it with civil rights, abortion, etc. political victories were able to garner a certain amount of change, by there are still attitudes, beliefs, customs, and motions to pick at these that hinder and can even reverse the progress seen.

The other problem with demands is that it creates tunnel vision and can remove dialogue. This isolated people from discourse. It can also harbor greater divisions. It is also switching one dogma for another in assumption that their way is better...and can also mean brushing away legitimate concerns. 

in doctrinal concerns i do think there are scriptures that should at least make us cautious as to how we push such as Ephesians 4. To me, several of the issues in the BoM could be described as groups pushing their expectations of what was good or true on the people. Not necessarily discussing it or holding individual/group beliefs. But pushing said expectations onto another. And asserting that their way is right.

To me demanding is the opposite pole of insisting that no discourse should happen. They both shut down true dialogue, understanding, growth, and knowledge. And they both can block the Spirt.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited July 30, 2016 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting that you don't thinking Kelly, et. al. should treat the church as a political construct but then you compare it to a business, the military, and Utah's legal system.  

None of which are political constructs.  None of which are compatible with the sorts of tactics and rhetoric under discussion here (when utilized by members of those groups).

Quote

The Church, as the kingdom of God (or striving for) on earth, is unique.

My response to Oaks 5 points when applied to an individual member of the church who believes change is needed:

1.  Overlook the difference - amounts to keeping one's thoughts to themselves.

Yep.  As hard as it may seem for some, sometimes keeping one's yap shut is the right thing to do.  Give the other person some space.  Space to figure out that they might be wrong.  And give yourself some space to figure out you might be wrong.  If you insist on verbalizing every single difference you have with everyone else, you'll have a tough time.  And if everyone in that group feels the same way, if everyone insists on giving voice to every complaint and grievance that anyone feels ever, well . . . group cohesion won't really last very long.

So yes, there are times when an individual in a group can and should keep a complaint to himself.  My wife and I have occasionally talked about this concept, and we both find that we have pretty good filters in place for communicating with each other.  If I have a complaint or criticism against my wife, I pretty much always refrain from voicing it in the moment.  I wait and keep the thought to myself.  Nine times out of ten, I find that the complaint or criticism was not warranted, or that it was petty, or that there are reasons why it was better left unsaid.  My wife does the same thing.  We overlook differences that can/should be overlooked.  We keep them to ourselves.  And our marriage - our group - is better for it. 

Quote

2.  Reserve judgment and postpone action - also, amounts to keeping one's thoughts to themselves

"Postpone action" does not mean "never take any action, ever."  As noted above, more often than not I keep complaints and criticisms regarding my wife to myself.  However, there are times - one of ten (if that) - that a disagreement or complaint needs to be aired and sorted out.  But I almost never do it "in the moment."  I reserve judgment and postpone action until I feel more confident that voicing the complaint is warranted.  And I wait until there is a better time and place for the airing of the thing.  Again, our marriage - our group - is better for it.  

Quote

3.  Take it up with the leader - In this application that cannot be done... so this isn't a possibility.

I'll have to disagree with you here.  A person who has a grievance against the institutional Church is supposed to address that grievance to his/her local priesthood leader.  This grievance can then be passed up to the higher echelons of the Church as appropriate.  

If a person has an unsolicited idea as to making a change to the institutional Church - a la Kate Kelly (female ordination) or Carol Lynn Pearson (disavowal of polygamy as a revealed doctrine) - they could use this same process.  This process will probably not yield the preferred "institutional change" sought, but that's not going to be surprising when the change is radical, or where it presumptuous, or where it seeks to disregard the will of God and replace it with the preferences of a self-selected few (again, Kelly and Pearson are good examples of this).

Quote

4.  Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct the problem - Again, in this application it cannot be done.

Yes, it can.  I think the vast majority of grievances and suggestions for "change" in the Church can and should be heard and addressed at the local level.  If someone thinks they have an idea that should be deployed across the entirety of the Church, well, that's fine.  But start locally and work your way up.

Quote

5.  Pray for resolution - Their only real option for change.

If by "change" you mean radical change, as in "Hey, God, I don't like the doctrine of polygamy, so I'd rather have Your Church disavow it and for You to repent in having them teach it," then yes, I think that's the only "real option."

The discounting of the power of prayer stems from a point of view that the Church is something other than what it claims to be.  That it is like a political entity to be cajoled and pressured and coerced.

However, if prayer is considered from a position of faith, of humility, of patience . . . well, there's a lot of power in it.  

Quote

Given this, it is no surprise to me that Kelly, Viegas-Haws, and Pearson have sought other ways to work toward the changes they believe are needed.

I quite agree with you.  Prayer is just so déclassé, so provincial when it comes to our self-appointed betters.  From their point of view, prayer is not part of the equation because God is not part of the equation.  They think of the Church as something more like a political construct, and not as what it claims to be.  Prayer?  Meh.  Prayer is for rubes.  Hence we get the tactics and rhetoric under discussion.  Protests.  Trespasses.  Attempts to embarrass/coerce the Church.  Pressure tactics.  Vilification of the Brethren.  Accusations.  "Social justice" activism weaponized against the Church and its leaders.

Alinsky, wherever you are, take a bow!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 30, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

As if a patently offensive comparison between the LDS Church an "a slum lord" isn't sufficient, now you're questioning my intelligence.  Wow, indeed.

I don't think substantive discussion between us is in the cards today.  So I'll withdraw from further efforts and let you have the last word (if you want it).

Thanks,

-Smac

Is there something about the word "if" you don't understand?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Is there something about the word "if" you don't understand?

Right.  "If."

So you'd be totally fine with someone comparing you to, say, a pornographer, or a wifebeater, or drug dealer, as long as the comparison included the word "if"?

I doubt it.  I think you would find the comparison inherently offensive.  As calculated to offend.

And you'd be right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[James Tunney]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

None of which are political constructs.  None of which are compatible with the sorts of tactics and rhetoric under discussion here (when utilized by members of those groups).

Yep.  As hard as it may seem for some, sometimes keeping one's yap shut is the right thing to do.  Give the other person some space.  Space to figure out that they might be wrong.  And give yourself some space to figure out you might be wrong.  If you insist on verbalizing every single difference you have with everyone else, you'll have a tough time.  And if everyone in that group feels the same way, if everyone insists on giving voice to every complaint and grievance that anyone feels ever, well . . . group cohesion won't really last very long.

So yes, there are times when an individual in a group can and should keep a complaint to himself.  My wife and I have occasionally talked about this concept, and we both find that we have pretty good filters in place for communicating with each other.  If I have a complaint or criticism against my wife, I pretty much always refrain from voicing it in the moment.  I wait and keep the thought to myself.  Nine times out of ten, I find that the complaint or criticism was not warranted, or that it was petty, or that there are reasons why it was better left unsaid.  My wife does the same thing.  We overlook differences that can/should be overlooked.  We keep them to ourselves.  And our marriage - our group - is better for it. 

"Postpone action" does not mean "never take any action, ever."  As noted above, more often than not I keep complaints and criticisms regarding my wife to myself.  However, there are times - one of ten (if that) - that a disagreement or complaint needs to be aired and sorted out.  But I almost never do it "in the moment."  I reserve judgment and postpone action until I feel more confident that voicing the complaint is warranted.  And I wait until there is a better time and place for the airing of the thing.  Again, our marriage - our group - is better for it.  

I'll have to disagree with you here.  A person who has a grievance against the institutional Church is supposed to address that grievance to his/her local priesthood leader.  This grievance can then be passed up to the higher echelons of the Church as appropriate.  

If a person has an unsolicited idea as to making a change to the institutional Church - a la Kate Kelly (female ordination) or Carol Lynn Pearson (disavowal of polygamy as a revealed doctrine) - they could use this same process.  This process will probably not yield the preferred "institutional change" sought, but that's not going to be surprising when the change is radical, or where it presumptuous, or where it seeks to disregard the will of God and replace it with the preferences of a self-selected few (again, Kelly and Pearson are good examples of this).

Yes, it can.  I think the vast majority of grievances and suggestions for "change" in the Church can and should be heard and addressed at the local level.  If someone thinks they have an idea that should be deployed across the entirety of the Church, well, that's fine.  But start locally and work your way up.

If by "change" you mean radical change, as in "Hey, God, I don't like the doctrine of polygamy, so I'd rather have Your Church disavow it and for You to repent in having them teach it," then yes, I think that's the only "real option."

The discounting of the power of prayer stems from a point of view that the Church is something other than what it claims to be.  That it is like a political entity to be cajoled and pressured and coerced.

However, if prayer is considered from a position of faith, of humility, of patience . . . well, there's a lot of power in it.  

I quite agree with you.  Prayer is just so déclassé, so provincial when it comes to our self-appointed betters.  From their point of view, prayer is not part of the equation because God is not part of the equation.  They think of the Church as something more like a political construct, and not as what it claims to be.  Prayer?  Meh.  Prayer is for rubes.  Hence we get the tactics and rhetoric under discussion.  Protests.  Trespasses.  Attempts to embarrass/coerce the Church.  Pressure tactics.  Vilification of the Brethren.  Accusations.  "Social justice" activism weaponized against the Church and its leaders.

Alinsky, wherever you are, take a bow!

Thanks,

-Smac

I think for someone who wants to change the church, there needs to be pressure from without.  From polygamy to the priesthood ban to changes in the youth curriculum to deal with problematic history, all these changes were reactions to force from without.  So, protests or actions where the outside media is involved are the only way to get enough pressure to change.  Prayer is insignificant and useless as it doesn't work.  You may not like the fact that the church appears to be a man-made construct when it comes to the change issue, however, mere prayer would not have changed the priesthood ban.  The essay on the ban basically implies that God was never behind the ban in the first place.  So how would prayer have helped to change the brethren from their misguided policy?  Refusing to engage BYU in sports, media pressure, and protests seemed to do the trick on that issue.

[smac97]

Hmm.  I seem to be getting a bit too blunt in this thread.  I'm taking a break.  Peace out, yo!

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  "If."

So you'd be totally fine with someone comparing you to, say, a pornographer, or a wifebeater, or drug dealer, as long as the comparison included the word "if"?

I doubt it.  I think you would find the comparison inherently offensive.  As calculated to offend.

And you'd be right.

Thanks,

-Smac

No problem for me. I've been called worse, by better.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting that you don't thinking Kelly, et. al. should treat the church as a political construct but then you compare it to a business, the military, and Utah's legal system.  The Church, as the kingdom of God (or striving for) on earth, is unique.

My response to Oaks 5 points when applied to an individual member of the church who believes change is needed:

1.  Overlook the difference - amounts to keeping one's thoughts to themselves.

2.  Reserve judgment and postpone action - also, amounts to keeping one's thoughts to themselves

3.  Take it up with the leader - In this application that cannot be done... so this isn't a possibility.

4.  Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct the problem - Again, in this application it cannot be done.

5.  Pray for resolution - Their only real option for change.

Given this, it is no surprise to me that Kelly, Viegas-Haws, and Pearson have sought other ways to work toward the changes they believe are needed.

This summary of Elder Oak’s remarks in the “Criticism” article have to do with personal differences with a leader, and I find they also work well for any interpersonal issue with just about anyone. The other three individuals you mention have issues with doctrine, practice and/or policy. Assuming they have not been demanding, insistent, peremptory, brusque, displaying unrighteous dominion or illegitimate authority, or assuming rights they do not have, of the most publicly recognizable approaches they have taken to work toward change in these areas, which modus operandi have the support of scripture?

And what to the scriptures teach about what to do if we have an issue with doctrine, practice and/or policy?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/28/2016 at 10:57 AM, 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?

B. H. Roberts, J. Golden Kimball, and Hugh Nibley were all notoriously outspoken, but no one ever called their status as members into question. I have always thought that the Lord wants us to be thoughtful and kind to one another, but never quiescent in the face of injustice.  We always need to ask What Would Jesus Do, or Say?  On the one hand, we need to be humble and gentle with those who are innocent, yet, on the other hand, we may need to be a thunderbolt to the liar.  How do we negotiate those two poles?  Is diplomacy called for in every instance?  Is it wisdom at times to just keep our mouths shut?  Perhaps all of those.  The LDS Church is not, after all, just some Sunday go-to-meetin organization, but poses as the very Kingdom of God on Earth, tasked with preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  We need a little more gravitas in our priesthood, and perhaps a little less go-along-to-get-along attitude at every turn.  Even at that, not everyone will be satisfied, but we may find some improvement among the official "Saints of God."  As it is, I am very impressed by my fellow Saints.  They mostly more than meet my expectations of humility, ready acts of service, and excellent leadership qualities.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if this has been brought up. But this is oversimplified as to my concerns. 

There are some changes that are largely just basic in nature and do not have any doctrinal support and are largely cultural or custom oriented. Such as music we play at church and how. Or garment cuts. Or pants v dresses for women. Or uniform dress shirts for men. These I still wouldn't demand or push but I wouldn't have a problem raising awareness or make suggestions. 

Then there are questions or expectations that veer into doctrinal areas. Such as gay marriage or female ordination. These are fundamental changes that wouldn't just change of simple policy. Again these we can discuss, raise concern and arguments for or against, etc. I find even a small scripture in alma 2:5 about "wonderful contentions" as one way you could somewhat defend such. Discourse isn't bad in and of itself. But these are doctrinal changes. I haven't seen a convincing argument that it would be mere policy change. And for that you would need word from the Lord from his prophets IMHO. Bringing awareness to a concern isn't a problem though. I had no problem with Kelly, for example, until it became apparent that the organization in her hands was moving toward push/demands oriented methods.

In either case I have a problem with demands. I find it antithetical to the purpose of creating Zion (being of one heart and mind) and demand and semi-forcing of change or the adoption of specific beliefs doesn't work. It doesn't fully work in the world as much as we'd like to believe it's the best method. Pushed change can lead to reactive social resistance and pushback. It can also mean that certain attitudes don't actually change though there is structural overarching differences. You can see this a lot in developing area in particular. Many practices, such as female circumcision, are against the law Yet they're still happening and you get phenomena where the second generation reinstates it. In the u.s. You can see it with civil rights, abortion, etc. political victories were able to garner a certain amount of change, by there are still attitudes, beliefs, customs, and motions to pick at these that hinder and can even reverse the progress seen.

The other problem with demands is that it creates tunnel vision and can remove dialogue. This isolated people from discourse. It can also harbor greater divisions. It is also switching one dogma for another in assumption that their way is better...and can also mean brushing away legitimate concerns. 

in doctrinal concerns i do think there are scriptures that should at least make us cautious as to how we push such as Ephesians 4. To me, several of the issues in the BoM could be described as groups pushing their expectations of what was good or true on the people. Not necessarily discussing it or holding individual/group beliefs. But pushing said expectations onto another. And asserting that their way is right.

To me demanding is the opposite pole of insisting that no discourse should happen. They both shut down true dialogue, understanding, growth, and knowledge. And they both can block the Spirt.

 

with luv,

BD

I agree with that assessment except that I'm not sure about your conclusions that gay marriage and female ordination are doctrinal vs matters of policy.  For a long time, the race-based temple and priesthood ban was thought to be doctrinal until Pres. McKay said it was a matter of policy. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

None of which are political constructs.  None of which are compatible with the sorts of tactics and rhetoric under discussion here (when utilized by members of those groups).

Yep.  As hard as it may seem for some, sometimes keeping one's yap shut is the right thing to do.  Give the other person some space.  Space to figure out that they might be wrong.  And give yourself some space to figure out you might be wrong.  If you insist on verbalizing every single difference you have with everyone else, you'll have a tough time.  And if everyone in that group feels the same way, if everyone insists on giving voice to every complaint and grievance that anyone feels ever, well . . . group cohesion won't really last very long.

So yes, there are times when an individual in a group can and should keep a complaint to himself.  My wife and I have occasionally talked about this concept, and we both find that we have pretty good filters in place for communicating with each other.  If I have a complaint or criticism against my wife, I pretty much always refrain from voicing it in the moment.  I wait and keep the thought to myself.  Nine times out of ten, I find that the complaint or criticism was not warranted, or that it was petty, or that there are reasons why it was better left unsaid.  My wife does the same thing.  We overlook differences that can/should be overlooked.  We keep them to ourselves.  And our marriage - our group - is better for it. 

"Postpone action" does not mean "never take any action, ever."  As noted above, more often than not I keep complaints and criticisms regarding my wife to myself.  However, there are times - one of ten (if that) - that a disagreement or complaint needs to be aired and sorted out.  But I almost never do it "in the moment."  I reserve judgment and postpone action until I feel more confident that voicing the complaint is warranted.  And I wait until there is a better time and place for the airing of the thing.  Again, our marriage - our group - is better for it.  

I'll have to disagree with you here.  A person who has a grievance against the institutional Church is supposed to address that grievance to his/her local priesthood leader.  This grievance can then be passed up to the higher echelons of the Church as appropriate.  

If a person has an unsolicited idea as to making a change to the institutional Church - a la Kate Kelly (female ordination) or Carol Lynn Pearson (disavowal of polygamy as a revealed doctrine) - they could use this same process.  This process will probably not yield the preferred "institutional change" sought, but that's not going to be surprising when the change is radical, or where it presumptuous, or where it seeks to disregard the will of God and replace it with the preferences of a self-selected few (again, Kelly and Pearson are good examples of this).

Yes, it can.  I think the vast majority of grievances and suggestions for "change" in the Church can and should be heard and addressed at the local level.  If someone thinks they have an idea that should be deployed across the entirety of the Church, well, that's fine.  But start locally and work your way up.

If by "change" you mean radical change, as in "Hey, God, I don't like the doctrine of polygamy, so I'd rather have Your Church disavow it and for You to repent in having them teach it," then yes, I think that's the only "real option."

The discounting of the power of prayer stems from a point of view that the Church is something other than what it claims to be.  That it is like a political entity to be cajoled and pressured and coerced.

However, if prayer is considered from a position of faith, of humility, of patience . . . well, there's a lot of power in it.  

I quite agree with you.  Prayer is just so déclassé, so provincial when it comes to our self-appointed betters.  From their point of view, prayer is not part of the equation because God is not part of the equation.  They think of the Church as something more like a political construct, and not as what it claims to be.  Prayer?  Meh.  Prayer is for rubes.  Hence we get the tactics and rhetoric under discussion.  Protests.  Trespasses.  Attempts to embarrass/coerce the Church.  Pressure tactics.  Vilification of the Brethren.  Accusations.  "Social justice" activism weaponized against the Church and its leaders.

Alinsky, wherever you are, take a bow!

Thanks,

-Smac

The sarcasm about prayer isn't needed.  I didn't discount prayer but I think you'll agree that the prevailing LDS sentiment isn't that one just prays for something but that one prays AND works toward the goal. 

Aside from that, I've said my peace on the matter.  I don't think any of the efforts by these sisters we've been discussing lead directly to change.  But I do believe that they can help change hearts and minds over time (where consistent with the Lord's will) which allows the Spirit to further distill upon the body of the church.  And that can lead to change (again, where consistent with the Lord's will... lest there be confusion about what I'm saying).

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This summary of Elder Oak’s remarks in the “Criticism” article have to do with personal differences with a leader, and I find they also work well for any interpersonal issue with just about anyone. The other three individuals you mention have issues with doctrine, practice and/or policy. Assuming they have not been demanding, insistent, peremptory, brusque, displaying unrighteous dominion or illegitimate authority, or assuming rights they do not have, of the most publicly recognizable approaches they have taken to work toward change in these areas, which modus operandi have the support of scripture?

 

And what to the scriptures teach about what to do if we have an issue with doctrine, practice and/or policy?

 

I'm not aware of anything in scripture to support or condemn their actions.