A More Enduring Faith through a Partial Disillusionment

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The church faced immediate and wide spread feedback on this, none of which was supportive. 

I would be shocked if they didn’t receive quite a bit feedback that was supportive.  I heard a lot of immediate support for it myself, some of which I agreed with, some I didn’t.  I remember one article written by a woman brought up in a polygamous family who had been ostracized after having been baptized a Saint, her father and many siblings refused to talk to her for years. Others interacted, but saw her as betraying the family.  She was positive about the policy, believing it would decrease conflicts between parents and children and other family members like she had experienced.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, gav said:

 

Perhaps I am not getting what you are trying to say, but how do you think to have a kingdom without its administration, this side of the millenium? and even during the millenium. It almost seems like you are calling for the family without parents.

All parents get stuff wrong but there is still no better institution than the family for raising kids and that requires a certain respect for fallible parents for the family to function. Even then many children are disillusioned with their parents in their teens and 20's until they gain experience and learn a little humility. Perhaps that is the phase that those who become disillusioned with church leadership and history find themselves in. Do the parents suddenly rewrite the past so that their children have a newfound respect for them in later years or does something change in the child's perspective as they get older?

Disillusionment in my mind is a maturity issue.

I have not seen anything like this from Pogi at all.

But Utah LDS culture is not my LDS culture; for me testimony is about going directly to God to over rule leaders if necessary.

I would never surrender my God given right to go to the Lord even if I felt that the prophet was misguiding the church.  Testimony first has simply GOT to govern our lives. Period.

No man will ever come between the Lord and my testimony.

I can't conceive of such a thing

CFR, and I will follow up.

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I would be shocked if they didn’t receive quite a bit feedback that was supportive.  I heard a lot of immediate support for it myself, some of which I agreed with, some I didn’t.  I remember one article written by a woman brought up in a polygamous family who had been ostracized after having been baptized a Saint, her father and many siblings refused to talk to her for years. Others interacted, but saw her as betraying the family.  She was positive about the policy, believing it would decrease conflicts between parents and children and other family members like she had experienced.

The church leaders were wrong in pushing prop 8, also wrong to put the policy out in the first place. The church leaders caused harm by speaking of LGBTQ in conference with such horrific statements all through the years. The church leaders could have held onto it's beliefs about the standards it wanted members to live w/o calling the LGBTQ out. They could have gone about their business without saying a word, they of course could still speak about chastity before marriage and kept it all in place. The LGBTQ world would understand and know the guidelines. So much devastation was caused by the church leaders, I won't mention the worst of all. This and a few others like polygamy...still seeing the horrible fruit of that one with child brides being sex trafficked to this day etc. The blacks and the priesthood ban, and some other problematic talks in conference that haven't helped. I wish it had been more like Fred Rogers style honestly, or Christlike too. 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Tacenda

[CV75]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem with that then is one ends up treating a major hemorrhage with a band aid as we watch wards shrink weekly.   People need to know right NOW that it is fully rational to believe in God and religion even if YOUR God and YOUR religion differ from others.   Picking the "best" religion is a different question than seeing all religious people  as laughable knuckle-dragging weirdos.

Aren't you starting small by trying to get anyone (one by one through your efforts on this board, for example) to adopt this view, before trying to get everyone at once to see that the "best" religion is the one that that, in this thread, provides the spiritual delight that surpasses any sense of disappointment in religious leaders?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

But Zion doesn’t magically appear, it will be built on at least the remains of other cultures and it will exist within a government setting at least until Christ comes (or government collapses and we are therefore in the middle of a global disaster).  Just as happened when the gospel was restored, converts brought in their cultures, their bigotry, their misunderstandings of scripture, etc and imported it into the new church’s culture…some of these effects we are still dealing with (antiCatholic attitudes for example where some members still believe the Great and Abominable is the RCC and the fact we are working with Catholic Charities offend them and I have even seen the Church’s participation with Catholics, Muslims, etc used as evidence the Church is going astray).

You appear to be talking about the end result while Pogi is thinking about how to get there…at least I don’t see how church councils are going to be able to deal with business disputes and such between members or law enforcement, etc. At this point any attempt at a Zion community will be a hybrid at best even if the community tries to isolate itself as it will still be within a nation’s borders.

I'm talking about helping individuals resolve faith crisis due to disappointment in leaders' mistakes through personal example and councils rather than reengineering a presumed Church cultural flaw that fosters it.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't have the time or energy to respond to everything you have said.  But it is clear that you fundamentally misunderstand me if you think that I don't love and am not devoted to the Church.  "C'mon" smac, that is completely unfair.  Why would you even say that?

I didn't say it.  I said that Bushman and Hales are.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

What member hasn't "sown some discord" in the membership by holding up a standard?  As I stated, by simply holding up a light one will sow some discord.  So please don't take my quotes out of context.   I am not seeking to sew discord.  I have made plainly clear that I want to avoid that but am simply acknowledging the reality that such things are probably unavoidable - no matter what standard you hold up.  I am no different from you.  You seem to sow plenty of discord around here.  

Fair enough.  I apologize.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

And yet you post threads that exemplify exactly what I am talking about with members leaving because the leaders aren't perfect or because they church history isn't spotless.  Seriously, how do you not see it?  

Not see what?

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church created this illusion, and now it is dealing with the fallout and consequences of its unsustainable nature.  20-30 years ago, Bushman would have been disciplined for trying to publish what he has published today.  That is our history.  Yes, it is changing and that is refreshing, but don't pretend like the church doesn't have a long way to go to fix the damage that this illusion has created.

I am not saying that the Church can't improve.  It certainly can.  

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Great.  What about the others who were raised by the culture I speak of and DO have unrealistic expectations.  Just stand by and let them fall?  Or, can we be more active like Bushman and assist them to maintain faith and have a more realistic expectation.  

Yes, we can do that.  But I don't think we "assist them to maintain faith and have a more realistic expectation" by taking the Kelly/Reel/Young approach of publicly criticizing the Brethren.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, you bring up "cancel culture" etc. insinuating that is me.  Knock it off.  Are you intentionally misaligning me after everything I have said?

Pogi, you came here and posted some thoughts and asked for feedback.  Some of what you say comes across as adversarial.  Against the Church and its leaders.  If I am wrong about that, then I stand corrected and apologize.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I again ask you these two questions:

When you speak with black people about Martin Luther King, Jr., do you insist on perpetually "acknowledging" (for fear of "ignoring" and "tucking" away) his dissertation plagiarism, his purported "45 extramarital lovers," how he once apparently “'looked on, laughed and offered advice' to a peer who was raping a woman," etc.?

When you speak with people from India about Mahatma Gandhi, you you insist on pointing out that he was "notorious for sleeping with other women ... {who} either married, extremely young, or both," his mistreatment of his wife, his fairly overt racism against Africans, his advocacy of Jews committing mass genocide, and so on?

You seem to be intentionally misreading me at this point.  I clearly explained my intentions and what healthy criticism means to me.  

You have not.  I have no idea what it is you are planning to do and say.  I have repeatedly asked that you move beyond vague allusions and give some examples of what you have in mind by way of "healthy criticism."

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I clearly stated that I am not out to look for wrong or accentuate it.  

You also "clearly stated" that you are "okay with" being characterized as pushing "grass-roots activism for change."

That sounds like politicking.  Like what Kate Kelly and Sam Young did.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I probably could have used a better word that "highlight" in speaking of our leaders human side, I didn't use that word to mean I want to go around and highlight look for and highlight mistakes.  

Okay.  It came across that way, but I accept your clarification.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I meant that in the way that Bushman is highlighting the more realistic human nature of religion in his writings.  This helps prevent unrealistic expectations.

The Hales have done similarly important work vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's polygamy.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

 

Publicly speaking against the Brethren, however, is not one of them.  Frankly, it is not our job.  The Brethren can (and do) correct each other, and again, we already have tons of critics, apostates, etc. who are all too willing to point out GA's flaws, mistakes, errors, etc.

I admire the desire to improve the Church, but I think you are running a real risk in trying to do this by resorting to "activism," "vocally disagree{ing}," "sowing some discord," etc., and doing these things by what will either start with or end up as publicly criticizing and finding fault with the Brethren.

 

What is wrong with finding fault with the brethren, exactly?  

Have you read Elder Oaks' article?  I've referenced it several times.  it does into quite a bit of detail.  One piece:

Quote

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)
...

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

We have plenty of examples of people who take such matters public.  Who want to use pressure tactics against the leaders of the Church.  Who want to foment adverse public opinion against the Church and its leaders in order to affect "change" in the Church.  

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thank you for demonstrating the culture I speak of.

I have done nothing of the sort.  Again, I think most observant Latter-day Saints avoid publicly criticizing the Brethren not because they live in a "culture of fear," but rather out of love, out of a desire to sustain and support, and so on.  

Then-Elder Oaks gives some very good counsel on how to address disagreements with leaders of the Church.  Publicly speaking against or criticizing them is not the way to go, not for those under covenant.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Bushman publicly aired "roughness" of Joseph Smith and his human fallibilities.  I find that refreshing.  

So do I.

Bushman has also commended the Church for reconstructing the narrative about our history.  I recently summarized things here:

Quote

So to sum up, Bushman - who seems to have started the whole "reconstruct the dominant narrative" thing back in 2016 - has stated that

1. the rumors that he had renounced his faith in the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel are false,
2. he remains "on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations,."
3. "the Church was lying {about its history}" claim being bandied about is "not a fair judgment,"
4. his "dominant narrative" comment is being inaccurately construed as him admitting that he has lost confidence in the basic history of the Church,
5. what he had meant was that some errors had crept into our popularized accounts of the early history of the Church, and that these errors should be straightened out,
6. the entirety of the Church, "from top to bottom," has needed to "reconstruct" our historical narrative so as to "adjust to the findings of our historians," and
7. the Church has done what he had been proposing, that it has produced a "reconstructed narrative" of the history of the Church by publishing Saints, the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and so on.

Based on this, I must respectfully disagree somewhat with your comment that "{w}here the improvements are really needed are in Church," and that "unless the average member goes looking for the scholarship the problem of an uninformed membership remains."  I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history.  The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online.  Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative:

• Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting)
• Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants)
• Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants")
• Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers")
• Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes)
• First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision)
• Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church)
• Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items)
• Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.)
• Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally)
• Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world)
• At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women")
• The First Fifty Years of Relief Society
• Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society")

Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more:

• The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents")
• Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world)
• Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry)
• The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.)
• Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.")
• Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.")
• Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum)
• Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources)
• Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.")
• Church Historic Sites

Way back in the 1990s, I returned from my mission and found that my dad had purchased "LDS Infobases," a collection of Church history/doctrine publications and materials originally published in 1993 (with perhaps other iterations published earlier than that).  I was amazed at having access to something like 1,800 books on these discs, all searchable!  Back then individual members really did have to go "looking for scholarship," but for the last many decades there has been a huge improvement in readily-available resources, including various free resources published by the Church which - as Bushman put it - "reconstruct" and improve past recitations of our history.

Regarding your comment about "the problem of an uninformed membership," I agree that this is still with us.  But the scriptural mandate that we seek “out of the best books words of wisdom” and “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118) has been with us since 1832 or so.  Past generations of church members might have understandably lacked the means and resources to extensively study the history of the Church (and this still may be the case for members who  live in other parts of the world and do not yet have access to these resources). However, in 2022, the average English-speaking Latter-day Saint with Internet access doesn't have much of an excuse to remain "uninformed" about the history and doctrines of the Church, particularly given the Church's efforts to augment the Scriptures with feely-available "best books" such as the foregoing resources (as well as various other efforts by members of the Church, such as FARMS, FAIR, Interpreter, hundreds of individual authors, etc.).

I credit the Church for these efforts.

Do you ("credit the Church for these efforts")?  If not, why not?

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not suggesting anything other than a willingness to accept that and speak about it openly and honestly in a fair-balanced and holistic perspective, couched in the good.

Okay.  Your rhetoric doesn't sound so benign.

"Grass-roots activism..."

"{H}ighlighting the human side of religion..." (which, as I have previously noted, sure comes across badly).

"Sowing some discord..."  (I seldom fall prey to this, I think.  I am generally in a fairly consistent defensive posture relative to the Church.  I have no interested in "sowing some discord" by pitting its members against its leaders, by publicly speaking against or criticizing its leaders, etc.).

You also appeared to advocate "vocally disagree{ing}" with the Brethren.  I construed that as public disagreement.  Public criticism.  Public opposition.  Like what Kate Kelly and Sam Young and Bill Reel did.  If you say you are not going to emulate them, then fine.  But I hope you can understand how your comments can give such an impression.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

We NEED to know that they are HUMAN!!!  

We already know that.

I acknowledge that there are some who harbor implicit expectations of perfection for past and present leaders of the Church.  I'm not particularly interested in allocating blame for it.  And I'm really not convinced that this state of affairs can be remedied by utilizing adversarial pressure tactics to publicly criticize the Brethren.  

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

By suggesting that we should find or vocalize fault with the brethren is to strengthen the culture that causes so much disillusionment today.  You are NOT helping.  You are hurting a more resilient faith in the gospel.   

I have suggested nothing of the sort (I'm assuming you meant to say that I am "suggesting that we should {not} find or vocalize fault with the brethren").

Again, Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Again, from Elder Oaks: "Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

You have no problem generally acknowledging imperfection, but the second that someone actually verbalizes a specific fault - then the pitchforks come out.  

"Pitchforks."  Hyperbole, much?

Again, I have no idea what it is you are planning to do and say.  "Verbalizes a specific fault" means . . . what?  I have repeatedly asked that you move beyond vague allusions and give some examples of what you have in mind by way of "healthy criticism."

Again, I suspect you will start out with good intentions, but you will end up like Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and many others who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize the Brethren.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about changing doctrine or even policy through grass-roots measures.  I am talking about the things we do have dominion over like the culture we project and influence on others.

Yes, well.  Your now deliberate vagueness about what you intend to do, coupled with your politicized rhetoric about "sowing some discord," "grass-roots activism for change," furthering the interests of people who want to "vocally disagree" with the Brethren, "highlighting the human side of religion" (which, in the context of publicly criticizing the leaders of the Church, sure comes across as what you deny you will be doing: "highlight{ing} mistakes and imperfections in the church and our leaders"), does not inspire confidence.  All this highminded stuff about "the culture" is increasingly coming across as a pretext to preemptively justify publicly criticizing the leaders of the Church, dwelling on their flaws, defining them by their flaws.

Not that any of this matters much.  You asked for feedback, and now you have it.  Proceed as you see fit.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I specifically stated that I want to couch healthy criticism in the good of the brethren and through faith-PROMOTIMG measures. 

You have presented nothing "specific" at all.  You have not given a single example of what you have in mind.

And what you have said has far more echoes of Bill Reel than Richard Bushman.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is nothing coercive or political about what I am speaking of.  

Look at Sam Young and Kate Kelly and tell me there was nothing "coercive" in their rhetoric/tactics.

What you are proposing sure sounds "political."  Kate Kelly readily admitted that she was importing "political" strategies, messaging, etc. into what she was trying to do with Ordain Women.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

"grass-roots" simply means not top down.  

Right.  But coupled with risible rhetoric about "sowing some discord" (against . . . whom?), "vocally disagree{ing}" (with . . . whom?), "activism" (against . . . what?), "holding up a light" (which comes across as code for publicly criticizing the Brethren), perhaps you can see why I am concerned.

Not that any of this matters.  I have no stewardship or jurisdiction over you.  Again, you asked for feedback, and now you have it.  Proceed as you see fit.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do we seriously have to be spoon fed everything by the brethren,

I have suggesting nothing like this.

What you are describing about your plans is A) pretty vague, B) devoid of examples (despite repeated requests for some), C) coming across as fairly similar to what Sam Young, Bill Reel, and Kate Kelly have done, and D) strongly cautioned against by Elder Oaks and many others.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

or should we be anxiously engaged in good from a grass-roots level?  

What you are describing doesn't sound like "be{ing} anxiously engaged in good."

Richard Bushman and the Hales have largely succeeded in their efforts because they have been candid yet circumspect, honest but not condemnatory.  They have worked to do what Mormon 9:31 exhorts.

Note that I say they have "largely succeeded."  Richard L. Bushman's 2016 comments about "reconstructing" the "narrative" about the Church have created significant problems, requiring repeated clarifications and explanations (see, e.g., here).  In October 2019, I emailed Dr. Bushman to notify him that Kay Burningham, a former member of the Church and an attorney, had quoted Dr. Bushman in legal documents in the Gaddy lawsuit against the Church (initially sent through a common acquaintance, then forwarded directly to Dr. Bushman) :

Quote

I don't know if you are aware, but the Church has recently been named as the defendant in a federal lawsuit filed in Salt Lake by a former member of the Church (Laura Gaddy).  The attorney representing Ms. Gaddy is Kay Burningham, the author of a 2011 book, An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism (in other words, she has an axe to grind with the Church).  The lawsuit is an attempt to create a class action against the Church based on a theory of "fraud," with the "fraud" being many of the foundational narrative elements taught in the Church (such as the First Vision, the translation of The Book of Mormon, and the translation of The Book of Abraham).

 

The Church retained counsel, which filed a Motion to Dismiss based primarily on the "Church Autonomy Doctrine" (also called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine).  The gist of this is that secular courts are prohibited by the First Amendment from adjudicating claims or disputes pertaining to religious doctrines and beliefs.  Ms. Burningham hopes to circumvent this by arguing that they are not challenging the Church's doctrines/beliefs, but are instead challenging as false the Church's "factual" narrative pertaining to the First Vision, etc.  

 

Yesterday Ms. Burningham filed a response to the Church's Motion to Dismiss.  She starts the motion by quoting "a prominent Columbia professor, considered the foremost scholar regarding Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith."  That scholar, the brief states, is "Richard L. Bauman," who is quoted as saying "that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative," and that "[t]he dominant narrative is not true; it can't be sustained."

 

I'm not sure how significant this is, but I thought Dr. Bushman might want to know about how his 2016 remark is being (mis)characterized in the above-referenced lawsuit.  For your convenience, I have attached the Complaint, the Church's Motion to to Dismiss, and the plaintiff's response to the Motion (in which Dr. Bushman is quoted on page 6).

He responded, in part: "Those  words of mine being cited in the case against the church have plagued me since I uttered them.  John Dehlin picked them up triumphantly and broadcast them all over the web.  Dan drew them to my attention and I sent him a correction.  It looks like I should do the same again."

Dr. Bushman had, I think, moved heaven and earth to be circumspect in his treatment of the "narrative," and yet look at how much mileage John Dehlin and others have gotten out of a single statement in a single presentation by him:

MormonStories: "RICHARD BUSHMAN ADMITS MORMON LEADERS MISLED MEMBERS WITH A FALSE NARRATIVE"

Invisible Cubit: 

Quote

“The Dominant Church Narrative Is Not True”

This, according to Dr. Richard Bushman. I have many friends who have left the church because they, also, have found out what Bushman knows. More friends are on the fence. “The dominant church narrative is NOT TRUE.”
...

Thank you, Richard Bushman, for validating what so many of us already know! “The dominant narrative is not true!”

We have been taught, and are still teaching, things that are untrue. Untrue = false. Teaching a known falsehood = lying.  Either way, unwittingly teaching falsehoods or lying, neither should an integral part of the “only true and living church.”

Plonial Mormon:

Quote

On June 12, 2016, Richard Bushman was posed the following question during a fireside talk with a small group of people...
...
This answer was met with glee among the ex-Mormon memerati of the Internet. Jonathan Streeter, whose name will be immortalized in ignominy as the eponymous culprit behind Streetergate, dutifully clipped the damning soundbite and offered the following notation, “Respected LDS Historian Richard Bushman acknowledges that the dominant orthodox church history narrative which is taught to investigators is false and that the church is in the process of changing to adapt.” The ex-Mormon podcaster Bill Reel used the clip in a rambling post about how “the story Mormonism has told about itself is not holding up to scholarship and critical thinking.” The denizens of the wretched hive of scum and villainy known as the ex-Mormon subreddit latched onto the clip. So too, predictably, did John Dehlin and Jeremy Runnells. Even William Lane Craig used the quote to score sectarian points against his religious rivals.

DiscussMormonism:

Quote

In the most recent episode of MS, John Dehlin gets personal and rips into Richard Bushman with a litany of questions holding Bushman accountable and almost responsible for failing to take a more active roll in getting LDS Inc. to be more transparent and honest with its founding narrative.

Dehlin quotes the now famous Bushman quote where in he says that the traditional founding narrative is not sustainable and that the church is holding off being more truthful to protect the grandmothers in Sanpete county at the expense of their grandchildren who are exiting the church in mass.
(Link to full quote) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K06ysskTUS4

It's an interesting rant but to be honest I was quite surprised. I mean, what does Dehlin expect Bushman to do exactly. He's already stated that the current narrative is not sustainable and it's not like Bushman has the power to make policy changes.

I sense that Dehlin expects Bushman to make a crash and burn move and use up all clout he may have to exact change in the church...I just found the podcast somewhat bizarre but still very entertaining if only in a..."that will only happen in an Alternative Universe"...kind of way.

Neal Rappleye (back in 2016, prior to Bushman's clarifications, I think) :

Quote

As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important scholar or historical figure, with the essay prompt asking something along the lines of (a) what do you think this means, and (b) do you agree or disagree, why or why not?

 

In these tests, (a) always came with (b) because (b) is utterly unintelligible without (a). Before a person can agree or disagree, and understand why they do or do not agree, they have to make sense of what is being said. And not everyone is going to make sense of it the same way. For a teacher grading (b), it is hard to tell just what the student is actually agreeing or disagreeing with without first getting (a) from the student. It involves contextualizing, and contextualizing is an act of creation that we all engage in as we read, whether we know it or not.

 

Some contextualize differently than others. Some contextualize well while others do not. Generally, those who are unconscious of how they are interpreting (think the meaning is “obvious”) are not contextualizing well, and are likely importing context from their own background, assumptions, and understanding without even knowing it. But even among those who are good at creating contexts within which to interpret statements, there are disagreements.

 

For me, in trying to make sense of Bushmen’s recent comments, I am looking for other things he has said that might help me understand what he means by the “dominant narrative” and it being “not true” and needing to be “reconstructed” and “absorb” new information.

 

I look at his remarks about seer stones less than a year ago, where he compared them to an iPhone, and clearly articulated his belief that seer stones really worked and Joseph Smith really used them to receive real messages from God and translate real ancient records. I remember John Dehlin specifically being shocked to find out that Bushman was not really on the same page as he was. Remembering that leads me to suspect that others now are misreading him here, just as many had misunderstood where he really stood before his seer stone/iPhone comments last year.

Jeremy Runnells used it in his CES letter.

Do you think your proposed course of action might create similar impressions and misunderstandings?  I mean, you haven't even started, yet look at what is happening in this thread.  

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can't believe you are accusing me of being coercive.  Your judgments of me are really pitiful.  This is the resistance I was expecting, so I guess it is not surprising.  

What you are describing (vaguely, with no examples) comes across as being similar to what Kate Kelly, Sam Young, etc. did.  And they were attempting to coerce.

If that's not you, fine.  I'm pointing out what it looks like.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

You continue to speak in broad terms, and not give examples of what you have in mind.

I don't know what I have in mind.  I am asking for suggestions.  I have a broad vision without specifics.  

Well, perhaps you should come back when you have "specifics."  If you can craft a plan that 

You are "asking for suggestions," and I am obliging you.  I suggest that you are playing with fire, that you have good intentions now, but that so did Kate Kelly and Bill Reel and Sam Young when they started out, that you are using risible terminology, and that you really ought to give Elder Oaks' 1987 talk some serious consideration.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am trying to help the brethren by creating more realistic expectations of them.  Why do you insinuate that I am not keeping the covenants, obeying the commandments, etc?

I'm not insinuating that. I acknowledge your current good intentions.  I'm cautioning that this is where you might end up.

I encourage you to look at Sam Young, Kate Kelly and Bill Reel as cautionary tales. 

I encourage you to consider the experience of Richard L. Bushman, whose spoken-with-the-best-of-intentions remarks have "plagued {him} since {he} uttered them."

I encourage you to read Elder Oaks' article and other sources, to err on the side of caution, and find ways to build up and strengthen the Church and its "culture" that are less susceptible to the pitfalls I have noted here.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Look, I hope I'm misunderstanding you. 

You are.  Despite several attempts to clarify and prove my faithfulness to this gospel, you continue to misalign me with fault-finders.  I think I made it PRETTY DARN CLEAR that is NOT ME.  So pleas stop going there.

I applaud any attempt to strengthen and build up the Church, including efforts to improve its "culture" and community.  But your risible terminology, vagueness, and apparent (though now denied) intention to publicly criticize the Brethren has given me real concern.  

• This: "Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that."
• And this: "It is the silencing and shaming of those who vocally disagree..."
• And this: "So, the dilemma is that I am trying to tear down the illusion of perfection by highlighting the human side of religion (which shouldn't really be troubling, but it is for many)."
• And this: "I don't know how to move forward towards what I believe is a healthier culture and faith without sewing some discord."
• And this: "I would love to avoid cultural competition, enmity and critical/judgmental attitudes, but changing a dominant, damaging culture within a faith does not come without the price of resistance, competition, enmity, judgement."
• And this: "Sometimes the Lord requires struggle and division before oneness can be achieved.  The very act of holding up a light creates division and tension, even within the membership of the church."

These sound less like Bushman/Hales, and more like Kelly/Reel/Young.

I appreciate that you have corrected this impression, but the that's the impression I got.

For pete's sake, you don't even know what you are going to say yet ("I don't know what I have in mind.  I am asking for suggestions.  I have a broad vision without specifics"), and yet you are giving the impression of intending to take an adversarial posture against the Brethren.  

You asked for "suggestions."  I am giving you some.

You said you are "okay with" being seen as pushing "grass-roots activism for change in the church."

You have some sort of inchoate plan to "tear down the illusion of perfection by highlighting the human side of religion," which comes across as code for "publicly criticizing the Brethren."

You speaking of wanting to create "struggle and division" in the Church by "holding up a light" (which, again, comes across as code for "publicly criticizing the Brethren").

You admit that you expect to foment "resistance, competition, enmity, judgement" in the Church.

This all sounds pretty grim.  

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems that most faithful members on here seem to get what I am saying and seem to understand how it could serve to strengthen faith.  Why do you view me with such suspicion?  

I've explained this a few ways and a few times.  Risible terminology (which sounds like things Kate Kelly would say).  Vagueness.  Your mixed messaging about publicly criticizing the Brethren (stuff like "What is wrong with finding fault with the brethren, exactly?" seems to imply that you intend to, well, find fault with the Brethren, publicly).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

My faith endures but it has transitioned from a theistic faith to a core faith in goodness that is will bring me happiness.

I think what has helped me, interestingly enough--because it is similar to the Mormon concept of a broken heart and contrite spirit-- is by trying to be aware of my mistakes and weaknesses thereby not being stuck in a state of defensiveness. 

Alongside that as well is on the other hand, which is learning to respect my own personhood which includes boundaries when others don't respect it. Which is similar to the YW value of individual worth.

These two things enable me to be an accountable actioner for good. Pretty neat.

[mfbukowski]

Oh my gosh.

Talk about holding back the Susquehanna river...

[pogi]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I didn't say it.  I said that Bushman and Hales are.

After explaining that I want to do this like Bushman and Hales, this is what you said smac.  And it was pretty low:

Quote

C'mon, Pogi. 

I have read and listened to Bushman, the Hales, and many others who speak candidly about the flaws and errors of the Church and its leaders, and have come away with appreciation because it is pretty clear that they love and are devoted to the Church. 

 You insinuated that my approach can't be like Bushman or Hales because they clearly love and are devoted to the church.  What does that say about me, smac?   That kind of BS is below you smac.  This is the unsafe environment and culture that I am speaking of.   Toxic!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fair enough.  I apologize.

After reading the rest of your attack piece, I don't buy it.  If you apology was sincere you wouldn't continue to use this quote later in your post to paint me as an adversary of the brethren and the church.  If you had any idea of the regard and esteem I have for these men, you would apologize and mean it.  You would see that your narrative you are attempting to shame/warn me with is really trash. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not saying that the Church can't improve.  It certainly can.  

Just don't be specific in how, because then you would be a fault-finder, right?   I am not even talking about changing the "church" per se.  I am talking about influencing a culture within the church that I experience as hurtful and dangerous to faith. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, we can do that.  But I don't think we "assist them to maintain faith and have a more realistic expectation" by taking the Kelly/Reel/Young approach of publicly criticizing the Brethren.

Why would you say this?  I have never suggested such an approach.  More shaming and maligning of my intentions and creating an unsafe environment.  I have clarified multiple times how I am not like them.  You continue to push a false narrative about me.  It is very shaming, uncomfortable, hurtful, and untrue. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pogi, you came here and posted some thoughts and asked for feedback.  Some of what you say comes across as adversarial.  Against the Church and its leaders.  If I am wrong about that, then I stand corrected and apologize.

You keep saying that you apologize misjudging me and assuming the worst, but then a few lines later you dig in deeper with this:

"Again, I suspect you will start out with good intentions, but you will end up like Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and many others who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize the Brethren."

You might as well try and convince me that I am a duck, or will become one.   It is clear what you really think of me smac, which is really, really disturbing considering that I haven't even said specifically how I want to approach the problem in the culture that I see and am asking for suggestions on how to do it in a way that is preserving of faith and reducing of tension and division as much as absolutely possible.  

So insulting! 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have no idea what it is you are planning to do and say. 

And yet you seem to pretend to know and judge me and assume that I am going to "end up like Bill Reel, etc.  Classy!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have repeatedly asked that you move beyond vague allusions and give some examples of what you have in mind by way of "healthy criticism."

I defined healthy criticism for you already.  But you seem to intent to only look for and highlight fault in me.  "Fault-find" much, smac???  You can't even acknowledge the context of my words.   You keep posting the same cherry picked quotes out of context, telling me that you apologize for misreading me, admit that you don't understand my intentions, and yet continue to post these quotes as evidence that I am an adversary.  Knock it off!  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You also "clearly stated" that you are "okay with" being characterized as pushing "grass-roots activism for change."

I am ok with it.  That is not how I would define what I am doing.  I already noted that I used that verbiage foreseeing how others would judge me and not how I see myself.  I want to influence a healthier culture in the church.  Period.  Call it what you want.  But don't pretend like I am trying to be like Kate Kelly etc. who were applying activism to change doctrine and policy etc.  But I will not deny that I want to be actively and even anxiously engaged in a good cause.  Some will judge that as activism, and in a way it is.  It is also not a top-down approach.  It is very grass roots level of influence on local culture.  So, I suppose it fits if you look past the political "rhetoric" of it.  The brethren are not against grass roots influence for good change in culture.  But you seem to have a problem with it for some reason. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  It came across that way, but I accept your clarification.

BS. You don't accept my clarification.  You are being disingenuous here.   Again you conclude by acknowledging your suspicion that I will end up like Bill Reel etc, and continue to use these words as weapons against me.   You can't let yourself accept my clarification. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Hales have done similarly important work vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's polygamy.

So it is ok when these people "highlight the more realistic human nature of religion".  But when I use that same language to describe my intentions, you use  it as evidence that I intend to adversarial.   Cute!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

We have plenty of examples of people who take such matters public.  Who want to use pressure tactics against the leaders of the Church.  Who want to foment adverse public opinion against the Church and its leaders in order to affect "change" in the Church.  

Clearly not what I am suggesting.  I have explained myself enough now that it seems clear to everyone but you that I am not wanting to use "pressure tactics against the leaders of the Church" to illicit change.   You are really working hard to paint me in the worst possible light possible.  Quite disturbing.  Hurtful.  Shaming.  Quite the unsafe and unhealthy environment you are creating for me.  I don't appreciate it.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Then-Elder Oaks gives some very good counsel on how to address disagreements with leaders of the Church.  Publicly speaking against or criticizing them is not the way to go, not for those under covenant.

So it is ok for Bushman to be critical of their faults and fallibilities, but no one else can?  Got it!   Again, I am not out to look for fault or demean or shame the brethren, or illicit change to policy or doctrine.  I am out to influence a healthier more open culture which feels safe to express their feelings about perceived faults.   But, I don't suspect you are ever going to believe me on that.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Bushman has also commended the Church for reconstructing the narrative about our history.  I recently summarized things here:

Do you ("credit the Church for these efforts")?  If not, why not?

What??? I have no clue why you think I wouldn't commend the Church for their efforts.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Your rhetoric doesn't sound so benign.

Please read the post where I emphasized the context of my words.   Look, if I had a bunch of money and time with editors to publish my thoughts in a book (like Bushman), my off-the-cuff remarks would be more polished and carefully worded and would sound a lot like Bushman.  I think the context is undeniable though.  you don't seem to want to highlight those parts of what I said though.  Why is that exactly?  Why do you cherry-pick a few words and ignore the rest of what I have said?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Grass-roots activism..."

Already explained that.  You are taking it out of context. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{H}ighlighting the human side of religion..." (which, as I have previously noted, sure comes across badly).

Yet, you praise Bushman for doing the same thing.  That is the exact same verbaige that I used when you said "The Hales have done similarly important work vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's polygamy."  Hell, you even call it "important work".  You clearly have a bias against me for some reason.  Why you call such work "important" when they do it, but it is adversarial rhetoric when I say that work needs to be continued?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You also appeared to advocate "vocally disagree{ing}" with the Brethren.  I construed that as public disagreement.  Public criticism.  Public opposition.  Like what Kate Kelly and Sam Young and Bill Reel did.  If you say you are not going to emulate them, then fine.  But I hope you can understand how your comments can give such an impression.

How are Bushman and Hales writings not public criticism?  Again, I already defined "healthy criticism" for you.  That is how I am using the word, but you don't seem to want to believe me.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that there are some who harbor implicit expectations of perfection for past and present leaders of the Church.  I'm not particularly interested in allocating blame for it.  And I'm really not convinced that this state of affairs can be remedied by utilizing adversarial pressure tactics to publicly criticize the Brethren.  

There it is again, "adversarial pressure tactics".  That is not a fair assessment of me.  I am tired of defending myself against you.  I have clarified enough.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have suggested nothing of the sort (I'm assuming you meant to say that I am "suggesting that we should {not} find or vocalize fault with the brethren").

I edited this way before you responded.  Yes, you are suggesting that we should not find or vocalize fault with the brethren.  Despite giving Bushman, et al. a pass.  You seem determined to disbelieve me when I say that I want to emulate their tone and demeanor.   Again, you shouldn't compare my words here to the carefully constructed language in their books.  That is not a fair comparison.  But you SHOULD believe me when I say that is my intent.  Bu you refuse to and instead highlight the "rhetoric" taken out of context, apologize for doing so, then post the same rhetoric out of context again and again and again.  Sigh! 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Who said anything about condemning anyone?  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, from Elder Oaks: "Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

Who said anything of "evil speaking"?  I wouldn't call Bushman's efforts "evil speaking", would you?  One can be fairly critical in a healthy way that is not of the "evil speaking" spirit.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Pitchforks."  Hyperbole, much?

No, not really.  That is honestly what it feels like.  To announce that  you think that I am going to end up like Bill Reel and Kate Kelly, etc. is really, really, really really, really, REALLY, nasty and pitchfork of you.   To suggest that my "rhetoric" is "coercive" etc. is WAY out of line.  Talk about using nasty and adversarial rhetoric!   Nothing of the sort has come out of my mouth.  Not fair.  Pitchforks pocking the hell out of me. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I have no idea what it is you are planning to do and say. 

Then perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions that I am going to end up like Bill Reel etc..  That seems fair doesn't it?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Verbalizes a specific fault" means . . . what?  I have repeatedly asked that you move beyond vague allusions and give some examples of what you have in mind by way of "healthy criticism."

I don't have specifics.  Let that sink deep down into your soul.   I am not out to FIND FAULT.  I don't come with a list of grievances prepared to shame the brethren.  I JUST WANT TO CREATE A HEALTHY CULTURE IN THE CHURCH WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT ATTACKED LIKE I AM BEING ATTACKED AND SHAMED NOW FOR EXPRESSING THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING FAULTS IN THE CHURCH.   I don't have any faults to point out.  But I want to feel safe to express my feelings about any future faults I might see.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I suspect you will start out with good intentions, but you will end up like Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and many others who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize the Brethren.

And I suspect you are are being unfairly judgmental.  Cancel pogi! 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, well.  Your now deliberate vagueness about what you intend to do, coupled with your politicized rhetoric about "sowing some discord," "grass-roots activism for change," furthering the interests of people who want to "vocally disagree" with the Brethren, "highlighting the human side of religion" (which, in the context of publicly criticizing the leaders of the Church, sure comes across as what you deny you will be doing: "highlight{ing} mistakes and imperfections in the church and our leaders"), does not inspire confidence.  All this highminded stuff about "the culture" is increasingly coming across as a pretext to preemptively justify publicly criticizing the leaders of the Church, dwelling on their flaws, defining them by their flaws.

Now I am being "high-minded" too?  Why do I continue to feel like you are trying to cancel me?  Pitchfork jabs!  Take pogi down! Yes, I am intentional in my vagueness because I DONT HAVE  A PLAN for the 100th time!!!  I am asking for suggestions on how we can improve a culture to be more safe and healthy.  All the "rhetoric" you keep highlighting has been explained and placed in context.  It is not as you make it seem.  But I don't suspect you will ever believe me.  I am either confused or a liar.  Is there any other conclusion that I can come to?  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You have presented nothing "specific" at all.  You have not given a single example of what you have in mind.

This really seems to bother you doesn't it.  Read the OP!!! 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And what you have said has far more echoes of Bill Reel than Richard Bushman.

Nope.  You are twisting it that way.  Read the context of these words, they are not as you are painting them.  Bill Reel would NEVER say what I have said about the church and wanting to highlight the good and strengthen faith, etc. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Look at Sam Young and Kate Kelly and tell me there was nothing "coercive" in their rhetoric/tactics.

There clearly was.  Now please look at my words and tell me with a straight face that there is something coercive.   You have accused me of being coercive several times.  Knock it off. Not fair.  I have not even remotely implied that I want to be coercive about anything.   I suspect you will point to "grass-roots activism", but I have already explained the context and you need to accept that and let it go.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What you are proposing sure sounds "political."  Kate Kelly readily admitted that she was importing "political" strategies, messaging, etc. into what she was trying to do with Ordain Women.

It sound nothing like Kate Kelly. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  But coupled with risible rhetoric about "sowing some discord" (against . . . whom?), "vocally disagree{ing}" (with . . . whom?), "activism" (against . . . what?), "holding up a light" (which comes across as code for publicly criticizing the Brethren), perhaps you can see why I am concerned.

Why do you apologize and then continue to interject the same judgment that you apologized for?  That is not cool, smac.   You seem very disingenuous in your apology.  You seem more bent to smear me for some unknown reason. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What you are describing about your plans is A) pretty vague, B) devoid of examples (despite repeated requests for some), C) coming across as fairly similar to what Sam Young, Bill Reel, and Kate Kelly have done, and D) strongly cautioned against by Elder Oaks and many others.

Here we go again!  Dude, you could save yourself a lot of time and make your posts MUCH more readable and less taxing to respond to if yo quit saying the same things over and over and over and over again in the same post.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What you are describing doesn't sound like "be{ing} anxiously engaged in good."

Read the context.  Yes it does. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Richard Bushman and the Hales have largely succeeded in their efforts because they have been candid yet circumspect, honest but not condemnatory.  They have worked to do what Mormon 9:31 exhorts.

Where have I suggested any approach other than this? Where?  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Note that I say they have "largely succeeded."  Richard L. Bushman's 2016 comments about "reconstructing" the "narrative" about the Church have created significant problems, requiring repeated clarifications and explanations (see, e.g., here).  In October 2019, I emailed Dr. Bushman to notify him that Kay Burningham, a former member of the Church and an attorney, had quoted Dr. Bushman in legal documents in the Gaddy lawsuit against the Church (initially sent through a common acquaintance, then forwarded directly to Dr. Bushman) :

He responded, in part: "Those  words of mine being cited in the case against the church have plagued me since I uttered them.  John Dehlin picked them up triumphantly and broadcast them all over the web.  Dan drew them to my attention and I sent him a correction.  It looks like I should do the same again."

Dr. Bushman had, I think, moved heaven and earth to be circumspect in his treatment of the "narrative," and yet look at how much mileage John Dehlin and others have gotten out of a single statement in a single presentation by him:

MormonStories: "RICHARD BUSHMAN ADMITS MORMON LEADERS MISLED MEMBERS WITH A FALSE NARRATIVE"

Invisible Cubit: 

Plonial Mormon:

DiscussMormonism:

Neal Rappleye (back in 2016, prior to Bushman's clarifications, I think) :

Jeremy Runnells used it in his CES letter.

Do you think your proposed course of action might create similar impressions and misunderstandings?  I mean, you haven't even started, yet look at what is happening in this thread.  

What you are describing (vaguely, with no examples) comes across as being similar to what Kate Kelly, Sam Young, etc. did.  And they were attempting to coerce.

If that's not you, fine.  I'm pointing out what it looks like.

Well, perhaps you should come back when you have "specifics."  If you can craft a plan that 

You are "asking for suggestions," and I am obliging you.  I suggest that you are playing with fire, that you have good intentions now, but that so did Kate Kelly and Bill Reel and Sam Young when they started out, that you are using risible terminology, and that you really ought to give Elder Oaks' 1987 talk some serious consideration.

I'm not insinuating that. I acknowledge your current good intentions.  I'm cautioning that this is where you might end up.

I encourage you to look at Sam Young, Kate Kelly and Bill Reel as cautionary tales. 

I encourage you to consider the experience of Richard L. Bushman, whose spoken-with-the-best-of-intentions remarks have "plagued {him} since {he} uttered them."

I encourage you to read Elder Oaks' article and other sources, to err on the side of caution, and find ways to build up and strengthen the Church and its "culture" that are less susceptible to the pitfalls I have noted here.

I applaud any attempt to strengthen and build up the Church, including efforts to improve its "culture" and community.  But your risible terminology, vagueness, and apparent (though now denied) intention to publicly criticize the Brethren has given me real concern.  

• This: "Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that."
• And this: "It is the silencing and shaming of those who vocally disagree..."
• And this: "So, the dilemma is that I am trying to tear down the illusion of perfection by highlighting the human side of religion (which shouldn't really be troubling, but it is for many)."
• And this: "I don't know how to move forward towards what I believe is a healthier culture and faith without sewing some discord."
• And this: "I would love to avoid cultural competition, enmity and critical/judgmental attitudes, but changing a dominant, damaging culture within a faith does not come without the price of resistance, competition, enmity, judgement."
• And this: "Sometimes the Lord requires struggle and division before oneness can be achieved.  The very act of holding up a light creates division and tension, even within the membership of the church."

These sound less like Bushman/Hales, and more like Kelly/Reel/Young.

I appreciate that you have corrected this impression, but the that's the impression I got.

For pete's sake, you don't even know what you are going to say yet ("I don't know what I have in mind.  I am asking for suggestions.  I have a broad vision without specifics"), and yet you are giving the impression of intending to take an adversarial posture against the Brethren.  

You asked for "suggestions."  I am giving you some.

You said you are "okay with" being seen as pushing "grass-roots activism for change in the church."

You have some sort of inchoate plan to "tear down the illusion of perfection by highlighting the human side of religion," which comes across as code for "publicly criticizing the Brethren."

You speaking of wanting to create "struggle and division" in the Church by "holding up a light" (which, again, comes across as code for "publicly criticizing the Brethren").

You admit that you expect to foment "resistance, competition, enmity, judgement" in the Church.

This all sounds pretty grim.  

I've explained this a few ways and a few times.  Risible terminology (which sounds like things Kate Kelly would say).  Vagueness.  Your mixed messaging about publicly criticizing the Brethren (stuff like "What is wrong with finding fault with the brethren, exactly?" seems to imply that you intend to, well, find fault with the Brethren, publicly).

Thanks,

-Smac

I give up with the rest.  And you sound pretty "grim" smac, in your assessment of me.   You sound pretty grim.   It is not ok to fault-find church leaders and use nasty rhetoric against them like "high-minded, coercive, adversarial, political, etc. etc. etc., but you know what smac, it is also not ok to do the same towards other faithful, covenant, dedicated, church members who only want to strengthen the faith of others against disillusionment.   I feel discouraged already.  I suppose that is what you wanted.  Good job, you win!   It is not safe in this kind of culture.   

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by pogi

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

After explaining that I want to do this like Bushman and Hales, this is what you said smac.  And it was pretty low:

 You insinuated that my approach can't be like Bushman or Hales because they clearly love and are devoted to the church.  That kind of BS is below you smac.  This is the unsafe environment and culture that I am speaking of.   Toxic!

After reading the rest of your attack piece, I don't buy it.  If you apology was sincere you wouldn't continue to use this quote later in your post to paint me as an adversary of the brethren and the church.  If you had any idea of the regard and esteem I have for these men, you would apologize and mean it.  You would see that your narrative you are attempting to shame/warn me with is really trash. 

Just don't be specific in how, because then you would be a fault-finder, right?   I am not even talking about changing the "church" per se.  I am talking about influencing a culture within the church that I experience as hurtful and dangerous to faith. 

Why would you say this?  I have never suggested such an approach.  More shaming and maligning of my intentions and creating an unsafe environment.  I have clarified multiple times how I am not like them.  You continue to push a false narrative about me.  It is very shaming, uncomfortable, hurtful, and untrue. 

You keep saying that you apologize misjudging me and assuming the worst, but then a few lines later you dig in deeper with this:

"Again, I suspect you will start out with good intentions, but you will end up like Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and many others who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize the Brethren."

You might as well try and convince me that I am a duck, or will become one.   It is clear what you really think of me smac, which is really, really disturbing considering that I haven't even said specifically how I want to approach the problem in the culture that I see and am asking for suggestions on how to do it in a way that is preserving of faith and reducing of tension and division as much as absolutely possible.  

So insulting! 

And yet you seem to pretend to know and judge me and assume that I am going to "end up like Bill Reel, etc.  Classy!

I defined healthy criticism for you already.  But you seem to intent to only look for and highlight fault in me.  "Fault-find" much, smac???  You can't even acknowledge the context of my words.   You keep posting the same cherry picked quotes out of context, telling me that you apologize for misreading me, admit that you don't understand my intentions, and yet continue to post these quotes as evidence that I am an adversary.  Knock it off!  

I am ok with it.  That is not how I would define what I am doing.  I already noted that I used that verbiage foreseeing how others would judge me and not how I see myself.  I want to influence a healthier culture in the church.  Period.  Call it what you want.  But don't pretend like I am trying to be like Kate Kelly etc. who were applying activism to change doctrine and policy etc.  But I will not deny that I want to be actively and even anxiously engaged in a good cause.  Some will judge that as activism, and in a way it is.  It is also not a top-down approach.  It is very grass roots level of influence on local culture.  So, I suppose it fits if you look past the political "rhetoric" of it.  The brethren are not against grass roots influence for good change in culture.  But you seem to have a problem with it for some reason. 

BS. You don't accept my clarification.  You are being disingenuous here.   Again you conclude by acknowledging your suspicion that I will end up like Bill Reel etc, and continue to use these words as weapons against me.   You can't let yourself accept my clarification. 

So it is ok when these people "highlight the more realistic human nature of religion".  But when I use that same language to describe my intentions, you use  it as evidence that I intend to adversarial.   Cute!

Clearly not what I am suggesting.  I have explained myself enough now that it seems clear to everyone but you that I am not wanting to use "pressure tactics against the leaders of the Church" to illicit change.   You are really working hard to paint me in the worst possible light possible.  Quite disturbing.  Hurtful.  Shaming.  Quite the unsafe and unhealthy environment you are creating for me.  I don't appreciate it.  

So it is ok for Bushman to be critical of their faults and fallibilities, but no one else can?  Got it!   Again, I am not out to look for fault or demean or shame the brethren, or illicit change to policy or doctrine.  I am out to influence a healthier more open culture which feels safe to express their feelings about perceived faults.   But, I don't suspect you are ever going to believe me on that.  

What??? I have no clue why you think I wouldn't commend the Church for their efforts.  

Please read the post where I emphasized the context of my words.   Look, if I had a bunch of money and time with editors to publish my thoughts in a book (like Bushman), my off-the-cuff remarks would be more polished and carefully worded and would sound a lot like Bushman.  I think the context is undeniable though.  you don't seem to want to highlight those parts of what I said though.  Why is that exactly?  Why do you cherry-pick a few words and ignore the rest of what I have said?

Already explained that.  You are taking it out of context. 

Yet, you praise Bushman for doing the same thing.  That is the exact same verbaige that I used when you said "The Hales have done similarly important work vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's polygamy."  Hell, you even call it "important work".  You clearly have a bias against me for some reason.  Why you call such work "important" when they do it, but it is adversarial rhetoric when I say that work needs to be continued?

How are Bushman and Hales writings not public criticism?  Again, I already defined "healthy criticism" for you.  That is how I am using the word, but you don't seem to want to believe me.

There it is again, "adversarial pressure tactics".  That is not a fair assessment of me.  I am tired of defending myself against you.  I have clarified enough.  

I edited this way before you responded.  Yes, you are suggesting that we should not find or vocalize fault with the brethren.  Despite giving Bushman, et al. a pass.  You seem determined to disbelieve me when I say that I want to emulate their tone and demeanor.   Again, you shouldn't compare my words here to the carefully constructed language in their books.  That is not a fair comparison.  But you SHOULD believe me when I say that is my intent.  Bu you refuse to and instead highlight the "rhetoric" taken out of context, apologize for doing so, then post the same rhetoric out of context again and again and again.  Sigh! 

Who said anything about condemning anyone?  

Who said anything of "evil speaking"?  I wouldn't call Bushman's efforts "evil speaking", would you?  One can be fairly critical in a healthy way that is not of the "evil speaking" spirit.  

No, not really.  That is honestly what it feels like.  To announce that  you think that I am going to end up like Bill Reel and Kate Kelly, etc. is really, really, really really, really, REALLY, nasty and pitchfork of you.   To suggest that my "rhetoric" is "coercive" etc. is WAY out of line.  Talk about using nasty and adversarial rhetoric!   Nothing of the sort has come out of my mouth.  Not fair.  Pitchforks pocking the hell out of me. 

Then perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions that I am going to end up like Bill Reel etc..  That seems fair doesn't it?

I don't have specifics.  Let that sink deep down into your soul.   I am not out to FIND FAULT.  I don't come with a list of grievances prepared to shame the brethren.  I JUST WANT TO CREATE A HEALTHY CULTURE IN THE CHURCH WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT ATTACKED LIKE I AM BEING ATTACKED AND SHAMED NOW FOR EXPRESSING THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING FAULTS IN THE CHURCH.   I don't have any faults to point out.  But I want to feel safe to express my feelings about any future faults I might see.  

And I suspect you are are being unfairly judgmental.  Cancel pogi! 

Now I am being "high-minded" too?  Why do I continue to feel like you are trying to cancel me?  Pitchfork jabs!  Take pogi down! Yes, I am intentional in my vagueness because I DONT HAVE  A PLAN for the 100th time!!!  I am asking for suggestions on how we can improve a culture to be more safe and healthy.  All the "rhetoric" you keep highlighting has been explained and placed in context.  It is not as you make it seem.  But I don't suspect you will ever believe me.  I am either confused or a liar.  Is there any other conclusion that I can come to?  

This really seems to bother you doesn't it.  Read the OP!!! 

Nope.  You are twisting it that way.  Read the context of these words, they are not as you are painting them.  Bill Reel would NEVER say what I have said about the church and wanting to highlight the good and strengthen faith, etc. 

There clearly was.  Now please look at my words and tell me with a straight face that there is something coercive.   You have accused me of being coercive several times.  Knock it off. Not fair.  I have not even remotely implied that I want to be coercive about anything.   I suspect you will point to "grass-roots activism", but I have already explained the context and you need to accept that and let it go.  

It sound nothing like Kate Kelly. 

Why do you apologize and then continue to interject the same judgment that you apologized for?  That is not cool, smac.   You seem very disingenuous in your apology.  You seem more bent to smear me for some unknown reason. 

Here we go again!  Dude, you could save yourself a lot of time and make your posts MUCH more readable and less taxing to respond to if yo quit saying the same things over and over and over and over again in the same post.  

Read the context.  Yes it does. 

Where have I suggested any approach other than this? Where?  

I give up with the rest.  You sound pretty grim smac.   You sound pretty grim.  I feel discouraged already.  So toxic.  So sad.  

I sort of see where  Smac is coming from because the people he mentioned were all faithful at one time, and Bushman was where you are several years ago. I went to a Mormonstories get together where he and his wife Claudia spoke. He had the very intentions you have. But since then he's holding off, IMO. I think he feels like he better not take the road or he could go to the place where Dehlin, Reel, and others have gone, and I'll bet he loves the church too much to go there, because it's very much a disillusionment that will come back to bite you.

But sure love that you care for the members that have the faith crisis. For me, I often wonder had I stopped at learning of Joseph living polygamy I'd still be all in. Sometimes think the church shouldn't even mention doubt or why members doubt in talks, it's just a crack to what's behind the door of wart filled history. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

After explaining that I want to do this like Bushman and Hales, this is what you said smac.  And it was pretty low:

 You insinuated that my approach can't be like Bushman or Hales because they clearly love and are devoted to the church.  That kind of BS is below you smac.  This is the unsafe environment and culture that I am speaking of.   Toxic!

We're speaking in broad and vague terms.  I am describing how what you are proposing comes across.  Take it for what it's worth, or else disregard it.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

After reading the rest of your attack piece, I don't buy it.  If you apology was sincere you wouldn't continue to use this quote later in your post to paint me as an adversary of the brethren and the church.  If you had any idea of the regard and esteem I have for these men, you would apologize and mean it.  You would see that your narrative you are attempting to shame/warn me with is really trash. 

Again, I am describing how some of what your saying comes across.

I apologize for giving offense.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I am not saying that the Church can't improve.  It certainly can.  

Just don't be specific in how, because then you would be a fault-finder, right?  

Not necessarily.  I have made a number of suggestions over the years as to how the Church can improve, including some fairly specific things.

One thing I have not done, and will not do, is publicly speak against or criticize the Brethren.  I just don't think that's what they or the Lord want us to do.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not even talking about changing the "church" per se.  I am talking about influencing a culture within the church that I experience as hurtful and dangerous to faith. 

Sounds good, but I still don't know what "influencing a culture within the church" means, what it looks like, etc.

By way of example, I think a very important change in "culture" was to stop taking a "we'll just take care of this 'in house'" approach to allegations of abuse reported to bishops.  Most of society, including the Church, was just not handling such allegations well.  The Church took substantial and effective steps to stop it by introducing new policies and guidelines for bishops, creating the bishop's helpline, and so on.

There are a variety of examples of the Church changing and improving from "grass-roots" efforts, but "adversarial" ones, which often start with or end up involving publicly finding fault with the Brethren, can be problematic.  

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Yes, we can do that.  But I don't think we "assist them to maintain faith and have a more realistic expectation" by taking the Kelly/Reel/Young approach of publicly criticizing the Brethren.

Why would you say this?  I have never suggested such an approach.  More shaming and maligning of my intentions and creating an unsafe environment.  I have clarified multiple times how I am not like them.  You continue to push a false narrative about me.  It is very shaming, uncomfortable, hurtful, and untrue. 

You keep saying that you apologize misjudging me and assuming the worst, but then a few lines later you dig in deeper with this:

"Again, I suspect you will start out with good intentions, but you will end up like Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and many others who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize the Brethren."

You might as well try and convince me that I am a duck, or will become one.   It is clear what you really think of me smac, which is really, really disturbing considering that I haven't even said specifically how I want to approach the problem in the culture that I see and am asking for suggestions on how to do it in a way that is preserving of faith and reducing of tension and division as much as absolutely possible.  

So insulting! 

Some of what you have said comes across like what Kelly/Reel/Young said initially.

Again, you asked for suggestions.  I am providing some.  Take it or leave it.  I have no particular 

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

And yet you seem to pretend to know and judge me and assume that I am going to "end up like Bill Reel, etc.  Classy!

I'm not assuming that.  I'm expressing concern about it.  As a suggestion.  Which you requested.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I defined healthy criticism for you already.  But you seem to intent to only look for and highlight fault in me.  "Fault-find" much, smac???  You can't even acknowledge the context of my words.   You keep posting the same cherry picked quotes out of context, telling me that you apologize for misreading me, admit that you don't understand my intentions, and yet continue to post these quotes as evidence that I am an adversary.  Knock it off!  

You said:

Quote

There is healthy criticism and toxic criticism.  Unfortunately, there is a culture in our church that views any form of criticism as toxic.  I think that culture is what is toxic. 

For me, a healthy criticism = the analysis and judgment of both merits and faults.   Criticism is NOT just about finding faults (aka "fault-finding") it is also about giving honest assessment and acknowledgment of merits as well.  It is a holistic approach that doesn't overemphasize one or the other.   That is the difference between being holistically critical of the good and the bad and being a "fault-finder".  

I'm still not sure what this means.  I am concerned it will end up badly for you.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am ok with it.  That is not how I would define what I am doing.  I already noted that I used that verbiage foreseeing how others would judge me and not how I see myself.  I want to influence a healthier culture in the church.  Period.  Call it what you want.  But don't pretend like I am trying to be like Kate Kelly etc. who were applying activism to change doctrine and policy etc.

"Activism" to change "culture" which involves public criticism of the leaders of the Church could be a problem.  That is my concern.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

But I will not deny that I want to be actively and even anxiously engaged in a good cause.  Some will judge that as activism, and in a way it is.  It is also not a top-down approach.  It is very grass roots level of influence on local culture.  So, I suppose it fits if you look past the political "rhetoric" of it.  The brethren are not against grass roots influence for good change in culture.  But you seem to have a problem with it for some reason. 

I am concerned for your welfare.  I think you have good intentions, but the "activist"-style rhetoric and vagueness are a bit unsettling.

If you feel that A) you will utterly avoid the pitfalls encountered by Kelly / Reel / Young, and even by Bushman, and B) you feel that whatever you are planning to do does not contravene the principles set forth in Elder Oaks' 1987 article, then more power to you.  Proceed as you see fit.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Okay.  It came across that way, but I accept your clarification.

BS. You don't accept it.  Again you conclude by acknowledging your suspicion that I will end up like Bill Reel etc.   You can't let yourself believe me. 

Unless you have a TARDIS, you don't know where you will end up with your "activism."  I don't think Bill Reel knew, either (Kate Kelly, I think, had her departure planned from the outset, as I never bought into her narrative).

I am expressing concerns about what might happen in the future.  Look at what happened with Richard Bushman.  He was exceedingly circumspect and thoughtful, and yet many people have taken his remarks and used them to justify their departure from or hostility against the Church.  

I think there is substantial risk in publicly criticizing the Brethren.  If that is not what you are planning to do, then just ignore everything I have said.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

The Hales have done similarly important work vis-à-vis Joseph Smith's polygamy.

So it is ok when these people "highlight the more realistic human nature of religion".  But when I use that same language to describe my intentions, you use  it as evidence that I intend to adversarial.   Cute!

Not evidence.  I'm expressing concern about what might happen in the future.  That well-intentioned public "healthy" criticism (I still don't really know what this would look like) would end up badly.

If you think you can parse your words so carefully as to avoid any pitfalls, misunderstandings, etc., and if you feel you are substantially complying with Elder Oaks' counsel (as well as the sources he cites), the go do what you think is best.  

I apologize for having given offense.  My point has not been to impugn your motives, just to express concern about your methods, pitfalls, unintended consequences, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm talking about helping individuals resolve faith crisis due to disappointment in leaders' mistakes through personal example and councils rather than reengineering a presumed Church cultural flaw that fosters it.

Unless you can personally control councils not seeing how this would be effective until culture that leads to more incorrect uses of councils is altered.

Plus not if the person who is having a faith crisis is not attending a church council, can you explain how this can help resolve their disappointment?  Others talking about them when they are not present won’t have much impact.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless you can personally control councils not seeing how this would be effective until culture that leads to more incorrect uses of councils is altered.

Plus not if the person who is having a faith crisis is not attending a church council, can you explain how this can help resolve their disappointment?  Others talking about them when they are not present won’t have much impact.

Nothing is guaranteed until the final judgement, so it’s not really about controlling councils.

I’m seeing some back and forth of focus between individual and cultural roots of the problem. But councils can be had one-on-one for the individual having a faith crisis (preventative, interventional or restorative). Any local or general councils that see themselves as responsible for Church culture can address cultural issues contributing to setting members up for a faith crisis over leaders’ mistakes. I’m personally not seeing the Church culture causing that, but for those who do, this is a useful tool (plus their own example). I can see some family cultures being problematic, so family councils can be brought together for that, but the sacrifices are great: you may have to marry into one to have any influence!  

[Rain]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:35 PM, OGHoosier said:

I agree with you regarding the existential nature of the challenge. 

For my part, I've been helped by reengaging a lot more with the Old Testament. For starters, the Old Testament is itself an example of "troubling religious history" (Canaanite genocide anybody...yes, I know contemporary archaeology says it's unlikely to have actually played out like that, but its still in there).

I'm taking an archaeology and the bible class currently.  Learning the bolded above has helped me soooo much. Also, learning from elsewhere there is a lot of battle bravado in the bible has helped me. 

Strangely, what I have learned about the OT has left me more at peace with things like this than Come Follow Me because, at least in that section, CFM doesn't acknowledge the archaeology or the bravado, or translation etc but says something "we don't know all the reasons why God would command killing all these people". THAT has turned me upside down and I keep having to hope that somehow it is a mistake.

On 12/2/2022 at 1:35 PM, OGHoosier said:

But beyond that, I see a lot of examples in the Old Testament of disillusionment. Jonah, Job, Jeremiah? Are any of these characters depicted in an optimistic fashion? Are any of them perfect models (is Jonah even a good model at all)? What about David and Solomon? There's a lot of gritty, messy stuff in there - which is probably why we tend to keep that particular standard work at arm's length. 

And yet...nestled in there are the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah, which move me more than any writing since. There's the Law of Moses, which stood head and shoulders above its contemporaries in terms of moral virtue and vision. The seeds of a divine future are sown throughout the Old Testament, and we cannot forget that it was the only scripture which Jesus Christ Himself taught with. It seems to me that we have the Old Testament as a prototypal model for messy religious worldviews. Taking it seriously as a work of scripture has been the single most useful thing I have personally done to adapt to discipleship of the Information Hour. 

 

[Rain]

On 12/4/2022 at 9:17 AM, bluebell said:

So Ambrosia is correct when he posted that a lot of us our like Jonah.  A lot of us don't want the Lord to be merciful to our "enemies" but instead would want them to suffer for disagreeing with us.   

That is correct and it is all throughout the scripture.  While scripture does talk about being slow to anger etc it always comes out that the Lord's enemies and destroyed. If you listen at church, so many may not necessarily be thrilled about that, but are at least relieved.

And that always puts me in such a quandry, because while I too want the relief and hate the pain many are causing, I remember these casualties, not enemies, are my brothers and sisters and God's children.

[Rain]

On 12/4/2022 at 11:03 AM, CV75 said:

I guess the short answer is in the form of a question: what is wrong with the Zion culture?

Improvement and progress aren't only about changing what is wrong (good, better, best, etc.). There are no unfair laws in Zion. Church councils are better than government and non-profit mechanisms for establishing Zion and resolving problematic issues along the way.

 

I don't think that is necessarily true. I have seen a number of non profits pray and council together and are resolving problems that the church wasn't. They may not be church councils, but some of them certainly are Godly councils.

On 12/4/2022 at 11:03 AM, CV75 said:

I think Moroni's Promise follows an eternal principle: improvement is facilitated by identifying "how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men," not what is wrong with how merciful He hath been. So, instead of identifying the mistakes of Church leaders and mistakes imbedded in the Church culture (which differ from place to place, but I'm reading into the comments that "Utah" is the original culprit), I would suggest applying the revealed council process, not deciding what is wrong with it.

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't think that is necessarily true. I have seen a number of non profits pray and council together and are resolving problems that the church wasn't. They may not be church councils, but some of them certainly are Godly councils.

 

I love how Pres. Oaks talk from GC mentioned this over and over again.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We're speaking in broad and vague terms.  I am describing how what you are proposing comes across.  Take it for what it's worth, or else disregard it.

And I have clarified over and over and over again that you are not looking at the context of a few words that sound like adversarial "rhetoric" to you.   Why can't you accept my clarification?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am describing how some of what your saying comes across.

And I am describing how what you are saying is coming across.  Take it or leave it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not necessarily.  I have made a number of suggestions over the years as to how the Church can improve, including some fairly specific things.

One thing I have not done, and will not do, is publicly speak against or criticize the Brethren.  I just don't think that's what they or the Lord want us to do.

Again, how is what Bushman doing not a critical analysis of the merits and flaws of the church and leaders?  Where did I say I wanted to "criticize" them in the negative fault-finding way you are projecting on to me?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good, but I still don't know what "influencing a culture within the church" means, what it looks like, etc.

I don't either.  Thats why I am asking for suggestions.  All I cam doing is describing the problem I see and asking for ideas on to how to approach it in a way that is not damaging to faith and can avoid divisiveness and contention too the absolute extent possible.  I am literally asking for suggestions on how to avoid these things and you are accusing me of inciting them.  It is bewildering to me. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

By way of example, I think a very important change in "culture" was to stop taking a "we'll just take care of this 'in house'" approach to allegations of abuse reported to bishops.  Most of society, including the Church, was just not handling such allegations well.  The Church took substantial and effective steps to stop it by introducing new policies and guidelines for bishops, creating the bishop's helpline, and so on.

Yes, it is safe to mention these things after the church has corrected course.  I think it should be safe to express feelings even before the church corrects course.  Not in a fault-finding, navel gazing, demeaning way, of course, but simply as a transparent honesty of feelings in a safe environment without being attacked for doing so.  Without pointing the finger and comparing them to Bill Reel. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are a variety of examples of the Church changing and improving from "grass-roots" efforts, but "adversarial" ones, which often start with or end up involving publicly finding fault with the Brethren, can be problematic.  

Again, I have stated that my intention is to be the opposite of adversarial.  That should be clear by now.  In the OP I said this:

Quote

how does one address this, what they perceive to be an imminent threat to faith, without damaging faith in the process?  I perceive the illusion and the culture which sustains it as a threat to faith.   But we all know the (all too frequent these days) result of disillusionment as well.  So, how does one help others navigate a faithful-disillusionment into what I believe can only be a more enduring faith?  

Clearly, I am not wanting to be an adversary to anyone.

I also said this:

Quote

The point isn't oneness in and of itself.  It is to be one in Christ.  If a culture leads too many away from Christ, than we should not seek to be one in that culture, but to anxiously engaged in good work to increase oneness in Christ and hedge up our way against unnecessary pitfalls.  The point of the gospel is to lift others, to be an example, to be an influence for good. 

Lifting others, influence for good, one in Christ...hardly sounds adversarial to me.

This also:

Quote

All I can do is suggest that mistakes should not define a person or diminish from the good that they did.   I am not one who believes in dwelling on mistakes (although I do believe in acknowledging them - and that it is unhealthy not to) when I could be basking instead in the light.  I find the good that they did and taught to be too valuable to cast off because of their mistakes and possible sins with polygamy.  What they did in this specific issue you bring up is troubling to me, but what they have given me from the rest of their works and life is priceless.   I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And this:

Quote

 I do want to point out that it is not about exposing mistakes, for me.  I am not about finding and pointing out weaknesses and mistakes, but I am about being willing to discuss and acknowledge them as we see it without fear of being shunned or shamed by other members, and without being perceived in suspicion and warning.  Allowing oneself to acknowledge, heal, and move on - always looking forward towards the light and never getting entangled in the darkness of the mistakes.

And this:

Quote

I think it is important to couch them [faults/mistakes] in a more holistic context that includes the good.   Keep a holistic perspective and don't myopically focus on the mistakes.  Look forward towards the light, not backwards towards the darkness.  Acknowledge the wrong, but don't get entangled in it.

Why is it that you seem so intent to discredit these words?  I wasn't lying.  I am not confused.  That REALLY is what I believe and how I want to approach this.   I understand that you were confused by a few words I used off-the-cuff, and taken out of context.  But now that I have explained myself a dozen times, why won't you let it go?  Why do you still continue to insist that I "appear" to be "adversarial" in nature?  Do those words really look adversarial to you?  Fault-finding in nature"  Evil-speaking of the Lords anointed?   It sounds an awful lot like Bushman's approach to me.  But you don't want to allow yourself to see that for some reason that I can't explain. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some of what you have said comes across like what Kelly/Reel/Young said initially.

"Initially"?  If you truly believe that my intent and methods is/will be nothing like that of Kate Kelly, then why do you continue to express such concern that I will end up like her?  

Why do you keep focusing on those 4 or 5 phrases that were taken out of context and where I already clarified the meaning, and even suggested that I could have used different words in some instances to avoid confusion?   I think you are not being fair in your assessment of the holistic nature of my message and words and intended meaning.  You are fault-finding to the extreme and dismissing the good and clearly expressed and clarified (over and over and over again) intention of my words.  You are overemphasizing a few words that you are misunderstanding.  And you keep reposting them even after apologizing.  I don't understand it. I really don't. 

Here is what I said:

Quote

For me, a healthy criticism = the analysis and judgment of both merits and faults.   Criticism is NOT just about finding faults (aka "fault-finding") it is also about giving honest assessment and acknowledgment of merits as well.  It is a holistic approach that doesn't overemphasize one or the other.   That is the difference between being holistically critical of the good and the bad and being a "fault-finder".  

I expect a healthy criticism of me.  I don't think you are being fair with your criticism though.  You are criticizing and overemphasizing perceived faults, without considering the good which better contextualizes those words. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, you asked for suggestions.  I am providing some.  Take it or leave it.  I have no particular 

I don't see any suggestions.  I see attacks on me.  What have you suggested in answer to my OP?  All you have done is maligned me and my intent. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not assuming that.  I'm expressing concern about it.  As a suggestion.  Which you requested.

I already noted my own concerns in the OP.  Iam asking for advise in how to prevent those concerns from happening.  Instead you have framed ME as the problem and the scary evil villain that is the problem itself.   

You are "suspecting" it.  That is different that expressing concern.   

Quote

Again, I suspect you will start out with good intentions, but you will end up like Bill Reel, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and many others who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize the Brethren

You "suspect" that I will "end up like Bill Reel", etc.   That is just nasty!  That is not expressing concern at all.  It is a shaming assessment of what you suspect will become of me.   It is a hurtful assault on my character.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You said:

I'm still not sure what this means.  I am concerned it will end up badly for you.

If you don't understand what it means, why don't you just ask instead of "supposing" that it will end up badly for me.  To me, it clearly expresses Bushman's approach in his writings.  They are a healthy criticism of Joseph Smith which assess both the merits and faults.  It is clearly not fault-finding in nature.   How is this not clear?  Why is it confusing?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Activism" to change "culture" which involves public criticism of the leaders of the Church could be a problem.  That is my concern.

Why do you continue to take this out of context?  I explained what I meant by "activism".  I used it preemptively to describe how others might judge me, but that I wouldn't use that language to describe what I am doing.   So WHY WONT YOU ACCEPT THAT?  I said that I want to be "actively and even anxiously engaged in a good cause" at levels that I have influence.  That is the type of activism I am speaking of.  It is the type of activism that God expects and demands of us.  I don't intend to use "activism" in a way that has any political connotation.  But that is how I will be judged. That is all I was saying.  Will you let it go now?  Or will you continue to intentionally disregard my explanation"?

Public criticism" of leaders is not the point, nor the means I intend to use to accomplish my goals.   That is not the activism I aspire to.  But one can be critical in a healthy way, ala Bushman who gave a fair and balanced assessment of merits and faults.   In a way, that is a form public criticism, I suppose.  You are just focusing on the negative without considering the context and definition I supplied of healthy criticism.  

Honestly, my intent is not to criticize at all.   That is clearly not what the OP is about.  I am simply identifying a culture which makes it unsafe to express ANY fault that one might feel as a concern in the church or leaders.  That is not a healthy culture.  It is dangerous to faith.  It propagates this idea that the brethren are off-limits to ANY for of criticism, thus strengthening the illusion of perfection.  Yet, we see healthy criticism in the works of Bushman and you don't see a problem with it.  So, why are you automatically assuming the worst in me?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am concerned for your welfare.  I think you have good intentions, but the "activist"-style rhetoric and vagueness are a bit unsettling.

You are shaming me and maligning with a cloak of concern.  You are cancelling me.  That is how it appears and feels.  That is not how a concerned brother talks to another brother they are honestly concerned about.  "I suspect you will end up like Bill Reel".  Toxic shaming and shining culture. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you feel that A) you will utterly avoid the pitfalls encountered by Kelly / Reel / Young, and even by Bushman, and B) you feel that whatever you are planning to do does not contravene the principles set forth in Elder Oaks' 1987 article, then more power to you.  Proceed as you see fit.

I thought you said I was a "high minded", "coercive", "adversarial", "fault-finder", critic of the church, that you suppose will end up like Bill Reel?  Why would you do that if you are not sure how I really feel and include space for an "if" above?  Jump the gun on judgment a bit?  

You publicly defame me and express a complete lack of respect for anything that even appears that I might be looking at the brethren in a critical light?  Thank you for giving everyone a clear example of the culture that I am trying to define.   You are making Zion a very unsafe place.      

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Unless you have a TARDIS, you don't know where you will end up with your "activism."  I don't think Bill Reel knew, either (Kate Kelly, I think, had her departure planned from the outset, as I never bought into her narrative).

Do you even know what I am talking about?  Clearly not.   But that doesn't prevent you from attacking me. 

What "activism"?  (again, see above for context).  I am not an activist in the way you judge me.  This is not political activism with all of its antics.  This is being an influence to improve a culture in our church which is hurting faith in many.   I have always been an activist in the sense that I want to influence others for good - to uplift - to bring about Zioni where I stand - to be anxiously engaged in a good cause - to be a light on a hill.  But that is clearly not how YOU are using that word in this context, is it?  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am expressing concerns about what might happen in the future.  Look at what happened with Richard Bushman.  He was exceedingly circumspect and thoughtful, and yet many people have taken his remarks and used them to justify their departure from or hostility against the Church.  

I expressed the same concern in the OP.  See:

Quote

So, how does one help others navigate a faithful-disillusionment into what I believe can only be a more enduring faith?  

Some were disillusioned by his approach.  Others, had  a more profound and enduring faith because of it.  I was simply asking for advise on how to avoid this delicate but necessary disillusionment?   You yourself called it an "important work'.   I would love your input on that question.  I don't want to harm faith or demean or defame the brethren.   I expressed that oner and over and over.  I want to "highlight the good".  But I want people to feel safe to have and raise concerns without being attacked and viewed with paranoid suspicion (as I feel you have done here).   

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is substantial risk in publicly criticizing the Brethren.  If that is not what you are planning to do, then just ignore everything I have said.

That is not the plan.  I don't have a plan.  I have made that abundantly clear.  But, I do reserve the right to express concern of faults if any arise, and I am trying to make it safe for people to do so.   You may argue that it is a slippery slope.  Well, I have seen the results of the status quo, and it ain't working!!!!  There is a slop there.  I acknowledge that.  But as I said previously, we need to learn to navigate the unavoidable slopes of life.  We can 't pretend like there is no slop and expect everything to turn out fine.  No - people are FALLING because they thought they were walking on flat ground.  But the ground is not flat at on in reality.  We live on a slope.  Get used to it.  It is helpful to navigate when you can perceive of the slope in advance. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I apologize for having given offense.  My point has not been to impugn your motives, just to express concern about your methods, pitfalls, unintended consequences, etc.

What methods?  I haven't expressed any methods?  I am asking for advise.  I TOO am concerned about any potential pitfalls and unintended consequences.  That is the point of the OP!!! - To ask for advise in avoiding those.   I will accept your apology when you stop impugning motives, methods etc. on me.  When you stop telling me I am high-minded, coercive, adversarial, etc. and that you suspect that i will end up like Bill Reel, etc.  I don't trust that you are done though.  I take your apologies with a grain of salt after you continue to reoffend after apologizing.  I hope you are sincere this time though.  That is all I can say.  I am pretty offended and hurt.  That is the human in me coming out.  I truly don't feel safe with you. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

And I have clarified over and over and over again that you are not looking at the context of a few words that wound like adversarial "rhetoric" to you.   Why can't you accept my clarification.  

And I am describing how what you are saying is coming across.  Take it or leave it.

Again, how is what Bushman doing not a critical analysis of the merits and flaws of the church and leaders?  Where did I say I wanted to "criticize" them in the negative fault-finding way you are projecting on to me?

I don't either.  Thats why I am asking for suggestions.  All I cam doing is describing the problem I see and asking for ideas on to how to approach it in a way that is not damaging to faith and can avoid divisiveness and contention too the absolute extent possible.  I am literally asking for suggestions on how to avoid these things and you are accusing me of inciting them.  It is bewildering to me. 

Yes, it is safe to mention these things after the church has corrected course.  I think it should be safe to express feelings even before the church corrects course.  Not in a fault-finding, navel gazing, demeaning way, of course, but simply as a transparent honesty of feelings in a safe environment without being attacked for doing so.  Without pointing the finger and comparing them to Bill Reel. 

Again, I have stated that my intention is to be the opposite of adversarial.  That should be clear by now.  In the OP I said this:

Clearly, I am not wanting to be an adversary to anyone.

I also said this:

Lifting others, influence for good, one in Christ...hardly sounds adversarial to me.

This also:

And this:

And this:

Why is it that you seem so intent to discredit these words?  I wasn't lying.  I am not confused.  That REALLY is what I believe and how I want to approach this.   I understand that you were confused by a few words I used off-the-cuff, and taken out of context.  But now that I have explained myself a dozen times, why won't you let it go?  Why do you still continue to insist that I "appear" to be "adversarial" in nature?  Do those words really look adversarial to you?  Fault-finding in nature"  Evil-speaking of the Lords anointed?   It sounds an awful lot like Bushman's approach to me.  But you don't want to allow yourself to see that for some reason that I can't explain. 

Why do you keep focusing on those 4 or 5 phrases that were taken out of context and where I already clarified the meaning, and even suggested that I could have used different words in some instances to avoid confusion?   I think you are not being fair in your assessment of the holistic nature of my message and words and intended meaning.  You are fault-finding to the extreme and dismissing the good and clearly expressed and clarified (over and over and over again) intention of my words.  You are overemphasizing a few words that you are misunderstanding.  And you keep reposting them even after apologizing.  I don't understand it. I really don't. 

Here is what I said:

I expect a healthy criticism of me.  I don't think you are being fair with your criticism though.  You are criticizing and overemphasizing perceived faults, without considering the good which better contextualizes those words. 

I don't see any suggestions.  I see attacks on me.  What have you suggested in answer to my OP?  All you have done is maligned me and my intent. 

 

You are "suspecting" it.  That is different that expressing concern.   

You "suspect" that I will "end up like Bill Reel", etc.   That is just nasty!  That is not expressing concern at all.  It is a shaming assessment of what you suspect will become of me.   It is a hurtful assault on my character.

If you don't understand what it means, why don't you just ask instead of "supposing" that it will end up badly for me.  To me, it clearly expresses Bushman's approach in his writings.  They are a healthy criticism of Joseph Smith which assess both the merits and faults.  It is clearly not fault-finding in nature.   How is this not clear?  Why is it confusing?

Why do you continue to take this out of context?  I explained what I meant by "activism".  I used it preemptively to describe how others might judge me, but that I wouldn't use that language to describe what I am doing.   So WHY WONT YOU ACCEPT THAT?  I said that I want to be "actively and even anxiously engaged in a good cause" at levels that I have influence.  That is the type of activism I am speaking of.  It is the type of activism that God expects and demands of us.  I don't intend to use "activism" in a way that has any political connotation.  But that is how I will be judged. That is all I was saying.  Will you let it go now?  Or will you continue to intentionally disregard my explanation"?

Public criticism" of leaders is not the point, nor the means I intend to use to accomplish my goals.   That is not the activism I aspire to.  But one can be critical in a healthy way, ala Bushman who gave a fair and balanced assessment of merits and faults.   In a way, that is a form public criticism, I suppose.  You are just focusing on the negative without considering the context and definition I supplied of healthy criticism.  

Honestly, my intent is not to criticize at all.   That is clearly not what the OP is about.  I am simply identifying a culture which makes it unsafe to express ANY fault that one might feel as a concern in the church or leaders.  That is not a healthy culture.  It is dangerous to faith.  It propagates this idea that the brethren are off-limits to ANY for of criticism, thus strengthening the illusion of perfection.  Yet, we see healthy criticism in the works of Bushman and you don't see a problem with it.  So, why are you automatically assuming the worst in me?

You are shaming me and maligning with a cloak of concern.  You are cancelling me.  That is how it appears and feels.  That is not how a concerned brother talks to another brother they are honestly concerned about.  "I suspect you will end up like Bill Reel".  Toxic shaming and shining culture. 

I thought you said I was a "high minded", "coercive", "adversarial", "fault-finder", critic of the church, that you suppose will end up like Bill Reel?  Why would you do that if you are not sure how I really feel and include space for an "if" above?  Jump the gun on judgment a bit?  

You publicly defame me and express a complete lack of respect for anything that even appears that I might be looking at the brethren in a critical light?  Thank you for giving everyone a clear example of the culture that I am trying to define.   You are making Zion a very unsafe place.      

Do you even know what I am talking about?  Clearly not.   But that doesn't prevent you from attacking me. 

What "activism"?  (again, see above for context).  I am not an activist in the way you judge me.  This is not political activism with all of its antics.  This is being an influence to improve a culture in our church which is hurting faith in many.   I have always been an activist in the sense that I want to influence others for good - to uplift - to bring about Zioni where I stand - to be anxiously engaged in a good cause - to be a light on a hill.  But that is clearly not how YOU are using that word in this context, is it?  

I expressed the same concern in the OP.  See:

Some were disillusioned by his approach.  Others, had  a more profound and enduring faith because of it.  I was simply asking for advise on how to avoid this delicate but necessary disillusionment?   You yourself called it an "important work'.   I would love your input on that question.  I don't want to harm faith or demean or defame the brethren.   I expressed that oner and over and over.  I want to "highlight the good".  But I want people to feel safe to have and raise concerns without being attacked and viewed with paranoid suspicion (as I feel you have done here).   

That is not the plan.  I don't have a plan.  I have made that abundantly clear.  But, I do reserve the right to express concern of faults if any arise, and I am trying to make it safe for people to do so.   You may argue that it is a slippery slope.  Well, I have seen the results of the status quo, and it ain't working!!!!  There is a slop there.  I acknowledge that.  But as I said previously, we need to learn to navigate the unavoidable slopes of life.  We can 't pretend like there is no slop and expect everything to turn out fine.  No - people are FALLING because they thought they were walking on flat ground.  But the ground is not flat at on in reality.  We live on a slope.  Get used to it.  It is helpful to navigate when you can perceive of the slope in advance. 

What methods?  I haven't expressed any methods?  I am asking for advise.  I TOO am concerned about any potential pitfalls and unintended consequences.  That is the point of the OP!!! - To ask for advise in avoiding those.   I will accept your apology when you stop impugning motives, methods etc. on me.  When you stop telling me I am high-minded, coercive, adversarial, etc. and that you suspect that i will end up like Bill Reel, etc.  I don't trust that you are done though.  I take your apologies with a grain of salt after you continue to reoffend after apologizing.  I hope you are sincere this time though.  That is all I can say.  I am pretty offended and hurt.  That is the human in me coming out.  I truly don't feel safe with you. 

I appear to have utterly misread you.  I retract my comments in this thread and apologize.  Without reservation.

Thank you,

-Smac

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't think that is necessarily true. I have seen a number of non profits pray and council together and are resolving problems that the church wasn't. They may not be church councils, but some of them certainly are Godly councils.

 

Absolutely. The “light of Christ” is available to everyone, as are spiritual gifts and the power of the Holy Ghost; then the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who are baptized by fire; and then the endowment of power to those who make and keep temple covenants (this is according to our Church).

I think it would be great if any non-profit or government agency would help Church members with a faith crisis brought on by disappointment in Church leaders’ mistakes to choose to happily remain in the faith community.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But councils can be had one-on-one for the individual having a faith crisis (preventative, interventional or restorative).

Is that what we call councils though in the Church?  Church councils generally have a set of members based on their callings rather than their issues.

You seem to using a much broader definition of “church council” than I have seen before…which is fine, but confusing if I and others are using the typical one of organized, appointed leadership groups.  One would not typically define a visit by a minister to their ministee where they discussed what was going on in their lives as a “church council” while it appears that falls into the category of your label.  If not, please provide a more precise definition.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/church-councils?lang=eng

Quote

Councils help us seek the Lord’s will in unity and faith. Councils function in all levels of the Church, including general, area, stake, ward, quorum, and other leadership councils.

The purpose of Church councils is to seek and obtain divine revelation. Church councils are an environment where we can receive inspiration to make decisions, better serve individuals and families, and plan and coordinate the work of the Church.

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't either.  Thats why I am asking for suggestions.  All I cam doing is describing the problem I see and asking for ideas on to how to approach it in a way that is not damaging to faith and can avoid divisiveness and contention too the absolute extent possible.  I am literally asking for suggestions on how to avoid these things and you are accusing me of inciting them.  It is bewildering to me. 

Are personal good examples and working in Church councils acceptable suggestions?

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is that what we call councils though in the Church?  Church councils generally have a set of members based on their callings rather than their issues.

You seem to using a much broader definition of “church council” than I have seen before…which is fine, but confusing if I and others are using the typical one of organized, appointed groups.

There are all kinds of councils -- I won't search the Church materials for reference, but they are there (at least in the 90s!), and "council" is a prayerful counseling format to be used between a couple, friends, families, and then more officially in the Church from ministers and priesthood leaders to formal ward, stake and general councils. So, in dealing with an individual or a perceived group problem, a council (formal or informal) can be formed, and counseling together applied.

ETA:

Family Councils

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org › gospel-topics › fa...

Family councils help family members seek the Lord's will in unity and faith. In a family council, family members talk together, share feelings and ideas, and ...

To Sit in Council

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org › ensign › 2018/01

In recent months, general Church leaders have counseled together about strengthening Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society Sunday meetings. The result is a ...

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by CV75

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are personal good examples and working in Church councils acceptable suggestions?

Absolutely.  What if one is not in a position to participate in church councils?  

How does one help dispel the illusion without triggering a loss of faith?  As smac noted, even Bushman couldn't avoid that pitfall.  Yet, I think we would all agree that the work  he is doing is incredibly important.  What is an example of how "personal good example"  can help with that?  

How do we specifically influence the culture to be safe for people who express their open and honest concerns and feelings about the church or leadership without being attacked, or viewed with suspicion and harsh judgment?   I think that culture places the honest questioning soul in a defensive position, causing them to speak louder because they feel misunderstood and judged unfairly.  This can eventually result in a hardened critic, when they are placed on the defensive and attacked for their concerns in such a toxic way.   Any thoughts about what we can personally do to help influence change for good in these areas?

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are all kinds of councils -- I won't search the Church materials for reference, but they are there (at least in the 90s!), and "council" is a prayerful counseling format to be used between a couple, friends, families, and then more officially in the Church from ministers and priesthood leaders to formal ward, stake and general councils. So, in dealing with an individual or a perceived group problem, a council (formal or informal) can be formed, and counseling together applied.

ETA:

Family Councils

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org › gospel-topics › fa...

Family councils help family members seek the Lord's will in unity and faith. In a family council, family members talk together, share feelings and ideas, and ...

To Sit in Council

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org › ensign › 2018/01

In recent months, general Church leaders have counseled together about strengthening Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society Sunday meetings. The result is a ...

 

 

But a family council is not a church council.  And it would probably be best to avoid confusion to use the specific qualified council label or if meaning in general, specify that because most when they read “council” in the context of a Church related discussion will think of our official church councils and not more generic councils members and nonmembers hold with their families, businesses, charities, churches, etc.