Examples of the church being "progressive"

[MrShorty]

@BlueDreams You are correct, there are some very interesting changes that have occurred over the years in our priesthood and temple practices. I am not familiar with many of the details, so that could be a potential avenue for additional research.

[MrShorty]

@CV75 I'm not sure I follow how conservative can be progressive. The example you give of the Family Proclamation seems to me to be all conservative because, as you note, a big part of its purpose is to speak against the changes proposed by broader society and speak for the status quo.

Home centered-church supported approach to gospel study also seems mixed. For generations the church has been trying to get us to study the gospel individually and in our families. Come Follow Me and the "home centered-church supported" slogan was a new wrinkle in a longstanding tradition, but still seems like a part of broader, long standing tradition. I'm not sure I understand how it combats tribalism.

[MrShorty]

@Hamba Tuhan The examples you give of the two Native American tribes are interesting. For my purposes most interesting is how LDS treatment of Native Americans was progressive relative to the rest of the US. The Latter-day Saints were generally much more accepting of Native Americans (which is not to say that there wasn't friction or other issues) than broader US society.

[MrShorty]

As I have reviewed my responses, one thing I am seeing is that I am often talking about how "conservative" and "progressive" are relative to something (often broader US society). I think these relative comparisons are where things get most interesting. As some examples have noted, compared to ourselves 50, 100, 150 years ago, some of what we do today is quite progressive. At the same times, some of those same things that are progressive relative to our past selves are conservative relative to US or Canadian or European cultures. Not sure what it adds to the discussion, but I think the examples of how we are progressive or conservative relative to our past selves are less interesting than the examples of how we are/were conservative/progressive relative to broader cultures (usually US culture because much of our history takes place in an American context).

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@CV75 I'm not sure I follow how conservative can be progressive. The example you give of the Family Proclamation seems to me to be all conservative because, as you note, a big part of its purpose is to speak against the changes proposed by broader society and speak for the status quo.

Home centered-church supported approach to gospel study also seems mixed. For generations the church has been trying to get us to study the gospel individually and in our families. Come Follow Me and the "home centered-church supported" slogan was a new wrinkle in a longstanding tradition, but still seems like a part of broader, long standing tradition. I'm not sure I understand how it combats tribalism.

I think it is a matter of semantics and perspective.

Removing the timeline of changing social mores from consideration, the FP is conservative because it holds to eternal covenants, and also progressive because that is the nature of the covenants (both in terms of the progressive nature of the series and what they are intended to do for people). "Eternal" is both conservative and progressive, as in "new [progressive] and everlasting [conservative]".

Church - supported approach of individuals and families is very different from a tribe-directed approach of the same social units.

[smac97]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:53 AM, MrShorty said:

@smac97 and @CV75 While I expect that examples of personal progress could technically meet how I described the question, my main interest is in how the church as a group/institution changes, so I'm going to forego discussion of examples of personal progress.

That's fine.

Personally, I think the Church is supposed to facilitate individualized personal progress.  That's where the focus is, or ought to be.  As we improve individually, we are situated better to serve in and strengthen the Church "as a group/institution."  One of the hindrances we face is the notion that being part of a group allows us to "rest on the laurels" of the group, as opposed to being "anxiously engaged" to improve ourselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Stargazer]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:02 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

At least one Native American tribe (in Cache Valley, from memory) essentially disappeared post-conversion because of rampant ‘intermarriage’. 

Not unusual at all.

An important part of the old German empire was the kingdom of Prussia. The odd thing is that they weren't Prussian at all. The Old Prussians were a Baltic tribe that resisted efforts to Christianize them. But they were finally Christianized through conquest by the Teutonic Order around 1300. And they likewise disappeared post-conversion, probably due to intermarriage, though their conquerors continued to refer to themselves as Prussians. Even the old Prussian language disappeared, displaced by German. My late wife was descended from a branch of the Old Prussians. Her maiden name was Baltuttis, a Lithuanian-format name that indicated a Baltic people descent, though her father's family were proudly German.

One of my great great grandfathers married a Konkow* girl and they had seven children. My great grandfather married a Quebecois woman, and their son married a woman descended mostly from English settlers, and their son married a woman descended from German immigrants. So I am a mishmash of all that. And I am everyone's cousin!

* The Konkow were a Maidu tribe of Northern California. I identify with them, though there isn't anyone alive any longer who is 100% Konkow. I don't look at all American Indian, but I have cousins who still have that appearance. 

[smac97]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

@smac97 I think the idea of Chesterton's fences could be an interest aspect in this discussion. Depending on how the church approaches them, Chesterton's fences IMO tend to be one of those things that make us conservative, because we tend not to want to take down these fences until we (both leadership and members) are convinced that the reason for the fence is no longer "true."

Yep.

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

One subset of the topics I could see discussing are those where the church has dealt with Chesterton's fences and decided to keep them in place and when it has decided to take them down. As you say, this process might need time, which could explain why the church sometimes seems "slow" in making necessary changes.

Yes, that would be an interesting discussion.

In the main, the Church's mandates are spiritual and pragmatically temporal, as opposed to sociopolitical and cultural.  

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

For those unfamiliar with what a Chesterton fence is and don't want to search it. A Chesterton fence is a "fence" (real or metaphorical) that doesn't seem to have an immediate purpose. Even if we cannot see the purpose, the very existence of the fence suggests to us that someone at some point in time believed the fence was needed. Our challenge is to decide whether to leave the fence up to respect the unknown (to us) reasons for the fence, or take it down.

Yep.  See also here:

Quote

Chesterton's fence

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, in the chapter, "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'^[81]

Many, many fences have been torn down in recent years.

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

Of course, a part of avoiding being blown about by winds of doctrine is tied into that fear of making changes just because everyone else is changing.

Yes, the "winds of doctrine" can blow from every quarter.

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

Another aspect of our conservatism is a strong "us vs. the world" attitude.

I'm less sure about this.  The "versus" part.  

I don't think the Church is trying to foster adversarialness in the Saints, but rather a strong sense of community cohesion and purpose, and also being good neighbors with others not of our faith.

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

When "the world" makes a change, we have a tendency to view that change with suspicion because of our general suspicion of "the world."

I'm not sure we're that reflexively suspicious.  

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

IMO, this suspicion, at times, has caused us to hold on to our own false traditions so that we are slow to pick up on the good changes that "the [evil] world" is making.

Could you provide some illustrative examples?

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

I think many of your other examples, and the way you include the seeming "slowness" of the church's implementation I think highlights what I am hoping to get out of this overall discussion. For example, you mention the church's policies around abuse and abuse prevention. I think these can be somewhat mixed examples for my purposes because they both highlight how the church can be willing to change, but also highlight the church's conservatism as it tends to resist the change longer than others (longer than "the world").

I'll think about this.

On 12/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, MrShorty said:

BSA implemented two-deep leadership in the '90s, I believe (and, therefore, it became a part of the BSA adjacent programs in the church). However, the church did not adopt a broader two-deep leadership policy across all of its youth organizations until 2019. This is a progressive move in that it represents change, but a conservative move in that the change took longer than "worldly" organizations.

I think the "two-deep" leadership policy has been around for a while, but is not much more stringently enforced.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:37 AM, The Nehor said:

One of the problems with the Chesterton’s Fence bit is that it does seem to assume that the fence made sense at some point. Sometimes the original purpose for the fence was just stupid.

How is that a problem with the analogy?  Chesterton is not saying the fence can't be torn down, only that we use - to borrow some legal jargon - a "rebuttable presumption" that the fence was built for a purpose, and that we therefore ought to evaluate that purpose prior to deciding whether to tear it down.  Again from Wikipedia:

Quote

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'

Conservativism for the sake of itself doesn't do much for me.  But then, neither does "progressivism" for its own sake.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 15, 2022 by smac97

[MrShorty]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

One of the hindrances we face is the notion that being part of a group allows us to "rest on the laurels" of the group, as opposed to being "anxiously engaged" to improve ourselves.

I think you are correct here, and I think this is something the church has been trying to get us to do -- get us to be spiritually more self-reliant -- for a long time. The flip side of it are those that I come across who feel like they are taking their personal growth into their own hands, they are being diligent, thoughtful, and prayerful about their personal growth, and, as their "growth" takes them in progressive directions where they sense conflict between their personal growth and the traditional teachings and practices of the church, then feel like the church and its conservative nature are hindering their growth rather than facilitating it. Some of these people might say that the church's conservatism is preventing it from recognizing the error(s) in its traditions and growing with them, so they will become "cafeteria Mormons," choosing not to believe certain traditions. Or they may decide that there are so many ways that the church refuses to acknowledge its conservative errors, they feel like the church is no longer "out in front" where it can help facilitate their personal growth, so they leave the church altogether. I think these are types of people are who I had in mind when I put together the OP. Obviously, we will go round and round debating whether their alleged "growth" is really growth or not. My thought was that, if we could show people like that (people like me???) that the church knows how to be truly progressive -- recognizing the errors of its traditions and replacing them with new, better beliefs and practices, then they might be able to see that they aren't just ahead of the church because the church is always conservative.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Conservativism for the sake of itself doesn't do much for me.  But then, neither does "progressivism" for its own sake.

I think I can agree fairly solidly with this. For those like I describe above, the church seems to settle on conservatism for the sake of conservatism a lot more often than it settles for progressive for the sake of progressivism. As I noted in the OP, I think there are aspects of church governance that strongly predispose the church for conservatism for the sake of conservatism. My motivation in putting putting the OP to the group is to seek out examples where the church made changes -- maybe even for example where the church went so far as being progressive just for the sake of progressivism to counter the idea that the church is strongly predisposed towards conservative for the sake of conservatism.

[MrShorty]

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide some illustrative examples?

The contrasts that I saw between BSA and church youth protection was one example. As I noted in the OP, questions of race and priesthood figure prominently in my own thinking on this. As an example of the church ignoring the world's efforts to change, I notice that there is very little if any evidence that the church was reconsidering its beliefs and traditions about race, all while the rest of American society was embroiled in a difficult discussion about its beliefs and practices around race. Perhaps another example is whether or not same-sex couples ought to have a legal right to marry and enjoy the legal and societal benefits of legal marriage. For about 2 decades (1990ish to 2010ish), the church involved itself (sometimes fairly heavily as with Ca's prop 8 ) in fighting against that legal "redefinition." As I recall, there was often an appeal to "not letting the world redefine marriage." aspect to those calls for support of a traditional definition of marriage. 2010ish, it seems that the urgency began to fade, until Obergefell in 2015, when it seems that the church decided the legal battle was lost and it would focus on defending "religious freedom" so that churches would not be forced to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. Of course, in recent days, the church has officially supported legislation that solidifies this new legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples (I still cannot tell if we truly believe that same-sex couples ought to have the right to marry, or if it is just concession that the legal battle is lost).

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the "two-deep" leadership policy has been around for a while, but is not much more stringently enforced.

I may not fully know the history. As I experienced it, I recall talk of 2 deep leadership during the late '80s towards the end of my time as a participant in BSA. Two deep leadership seemed to only apply to BSA activities, but not to Sunday School classes or other non-BSA Sunday activities. After a time in student wards in the early '90s, when I got back into family wards, there was still talk of 2 deep leadership in BSA activities, but no talk or effort towards 2 deep leadership in Primary, Sunday School, Young Women, or other youth activities. I cannot say if this was the actual policy or, as you suggest, failure to implement/enforce an existing policy. Somewhere around 2000, there was a shift (I could not tell if this was a top down policy or a local leadership decision) that men could not serve in primary alone, but women could. I recall some talk about how this created an additional bias towards calling women into primary because of the extra requirement to call 2 men or 1 woman. As near as I could tell, that was the way my wards worked until 2019 when the church officially announced (as part of the disassociation with BSA) that 2 deep leadership applied to all leaders across all youth organizations. It would be interesting to see if my experience is in line with others experiences or if my wards were just not diligent about implementing and enforcing this kind of policy.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I think you are correct here, and I think this is something the church has been trying to get us to do -- get us to be spiritually more self-reliant -- for a long time. The flip side of it are those that I come across who feel like they are taking their personal growth into their own hands, they are being diligent, thoughtful, and prayerful about their personal growth, and, as their "growth" takes them in progressive directions where they sense conflict between their personal growth and the traditional teachings and practices of the church, then feel like the church and its conservative nature are hindering their growth rather than facilitating it. Some of these people might say that the church's conservatism is preventing it from recognizing the error(s) in its traditions and growing with them, so they will become "cafeteria Mormons," choosing not to believe certain traditions. Or they may decide that there are so many ways that the church refuses to acknowledge its conservative errors, they feel like the church is no longer "out in front" where it can help facilitate their personal growth, so they leave the church altogether. I think these are types of people are who I had in mind when I put together the OP. Obviously, we will go round and round debating whether their alleged "growth" is really growth or not. My thought was that, if we could show people like that (people like me???) that the church knows how to be truly progressive -- recognizing the errors of its traditions and replacing them with new, better beliefs and practices, then they might be able to see that they aren't just ahead of the church because the church is always conservative.

 

I think I can agree fairly solidly with this. For those like I describe above, the church seems to settle on conservatism for the sake of conservatism a lot more often than it settles for progressive for the sake of progressivism. As I noted in the OP, I think there are aspects of church governance that strongly predispose the church for conservatism for the sake of conservatism. My motivation in putting putting the OP to the group is to seek out examples where the church made changes -- maybe even for example where the church went so far as being progressive just for the sake of progressivism to counter the idea that the church is strongly predisposed towards conservative for the sake of conservatism.

I think one practical result of personal revelation according to Elder Renlund’s “ framework” (A Framework for Personal Revelation (churchofjesuschrist.org)) is the ability to handle perceived external conflicts with the Church by not “eternalizing” errors and tradition. By “eternalizing” I mean using them to define or identify oneself or the Church at an existential level and setting ourselves apart on that basis. The Lord’s timeline for our progress is usually very different (and more tolerant) than what we expect. Those who know by revelation that they are walking to the beat of a different drummer must also realize that they are thus called to be exemplarily patient with those who do not, which does not require validating that with which they disagree.

[2BizE]

The standard doctrine of the church is considered quite progressive compared with other Christian churches. Examples:

1) New scripture other than the Bible.

2) 6th Article of Faith: we believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church….apostles, prophets…

3) 9th Article of Faith: We believe all that God has revealed….that he will yet reveal many great and important things…”

These are just a few…there are many more.

Edited December 15, 2022 by 2BizE
Grammar

[smac97]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

One of the hindrances we face is the notion that being part of a group allows us to "rest on the laurels" of the group, as opposed to being "anxiously engaged" to improve ourselves.

I think you are correct here, and I think this is something the church has been trying to get us to do -- get us to be spiritually more self-reliant -- for a long time.

I agree.  Candidly, I have wondered if this is part of why the Church has not spent more of its accumulated resources.  It could do that, but then human nature and all its attendant frailties - including the "'resting on the laurels' of the group" thing - would kick in.  

This is not an idle concern.  There is very clear sociological data which shows that religious people donate far more to philanthropic efforts than other groups.  And I think they do so based on an individualized sense of convictions.  Conversely, it is my understanding that charitable giving in socialist countries is very anemic, much of which I think is attributable to thought processes along the lines of "I pay taxes, so it's the government's job to take care of the poor."  If charitable giving is the responsibility of "the group" and not the individual, then I think charitable giving generally suffers.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The flip side of it are those that I come across who feel like they are taking their personal growth into their own hands, they are being diligent, thoughtful, and prayerful about their personal growth, and, as their "growth" takes them in progressive directions where they sense conflict between their personal growth and the traditional teachings and practices of the church, then feel like the church and its conservative nature are hindering their growth rather than facilitating it.

I think this is happening in a very few spheres, mostly in matters of sexual ethics (LGBT issues), trans ideology, illegal immigration, "The Environment," the Gender Wars, and so on.

I think there are very loud voices that have influence over us.

I also think that it is possible that the voices can attempt to induce us into conflating popular sociopolitical trends, ideologies, objectives, etc. with what God wants us to do.  Not just overlap, mind you, but conflating the two together, or perhaps even altogether supplanting and replacing the latter (what God wants us to do) with the former (popular trends, etc.).

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Some of these people might say that the church's conservatism is preventing it from recognizing the error(s) in its traditions and growing with them, so they will become "cafeteria Mormons," choosing not to believe certain traditions.

I'm not sure that's an apt description of "Cafeteria Mormons," as I tend to think of them as people who reject doctrines they dislike, as opposed to "traditions."

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Or they may decide that there are so many ways that the church refuses to acknowledge its conservative errors, they feel like the church is no longer "out in front" where it can help facilitate their personal growth, so they leave the church altogether.

Yes, that can happen too.  By that point I think they will have largely forgotten what the Church is, what it is intended to be, what its mandates are, and so on.  They will have instead come to view the Church as merely one of many sociopolitical constructs, to be joined or abandoned at the sole discretion and preference of the individual.

This is, I think, why we make and are supposed to keep covenants.  To bind ourselves to a thing which we initially cherish and value, but about which we may later (or occasionally) come to file bored, ambivalent, disappointed, etc.

My relationship with the Church is, in some fairly fundamental ways, akin to my relationship with my wife.  I am in a covenant relationship with each of them.  I am not perfect, and neither are they.  Notwithstanding our respective flaws and shortcomings, we are nevertheless pretty decent people.  We are unified in our devotion to Jesus Christ.  We limit our expectations of perfection to the Savior, and allow each other some real wiggle room to mess up, clean up, and try again.  I strengthen them, and they strengthen me, so we are are better off together than severed from each other.  My relationship with them takes continuous effort and maintenance, lots of forgiveness and repentance, lots of hard work and use of time and resources, lots of patience.  

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think these are types of people are who I had in mind when I put together the OP. Obviously, we will go round and round debating whether their alleged "growth" is really growth or not. My thought was that, if we could show people like that (people like me???) that the church knows how to be truly progressive -- recognizing the errors of its traditions and replacing them with new, better beliefs and practices, then they might be able to see that they aren't just ahead of the church because the church is always conservative.

I think it may be more important to re-visit our expectations about what the Church is, what its mandates are, whether our expectations are reasonable, and so on.

Have you ever seen 2006's Amazing Grace?  It's a wonderful film about the efforts of William Wilberforce and others to abolish slavery in the British Empire.  In one scene William is playing poker with the Duke of Clarence, who runs out of money and tries to offer up a slave as part of the wager.  Wilberforce storms out and is followed by his friend, William Pitt (the future PM).  They have the following conversation:

• Pitt: You act as if you'd never seen slavery before.
• Wilberforce: For me it's like arsenic.  Each new tiny dose doubles the effect.
• Pitt: You're not afraid of Clarence.
• Wilberforce: Because he's the son of the king?
• Pitt: So, you want "bloody noses and cracked crowns"?
• Wilberforce: Shakespeare, Henry IV.
• Pitt:  A play about England changing.
• Wilberforce: As it will soon change.
• Pitt:  Only if we change it.  You don't believe you and I could change things?
• Wilberforce: I would change myself first.

"I would change myself first."  That, in my view, is a healthy way of thinking.  From Matthew 7:

Quote

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

I am very appreciative of the efforts of people like Richard L. Bushman, the Hales, Daniel Peterson et al (Interpreter), Scott Petersen et al (FAIR), Saints Unscripted, Book of Mormon Central, and others who are looking to strengthen and build up the Church in good and healthy ways.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Conservativism for the sake of itself doesn't do much for me.  But then, neither does "progressivism" for its own sake.

I think I can agree fairly solidly with this.

It is, I think, the essence of Chesterton's Fence.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

For those like I describe above, the church seems to settle on conservatism for the sake of conservatism a lot more often than it settles for progressive for the sake of progressivism.

The Church also seems to be making real efforts to do what Chesterton suggested.  We've seen all sorts of substantial changes in the last few years.  Not via "progressivism for the sake of progressivism," but rather by measured evaluations of the Status Quo.  Sometimes the fence is torn down or else substantially re-built (two-hour block, sisters praying in General Conference, changes to the temple), sometimes the fence is maintained but improved in some ways (treatment of LGBT issues, etc.).

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As I noted in the OP, I think there are aspects of church governance that strongly predispose the church for conservatism for the sake of conservatism.

I don't know about that.  The Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution built in some safety mechanisms so that substantially changing it would be intentionally difficult.  

I wonder if the Lord set things up - particularly as to matters of Church governance - so that substantial changes are also intentionally difficult.  Governance through consensus is difficult.  Unanimity in the 1P/Q12 is difficult.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

@CV75 I would say that this broader framework of revelation is a good context for the OP. If you zoom out from the specific conservative vs. progressive topic, I think you will find that this is a small part of the overall framework of revelation that Elder Renlund talks about. My hope is to specifically zoom in and look at how conservatism and progressivism fit into this framework. A discussion around the relationship between someone marching to the beat of a different drummer and the church would be an adjacent conversation to have.

[MrShorty]

@2BizE Those can be interesting examples of how we are progressive relative to broader (conservative?) Christianity. Interestingly, your comment brought to mind our restoration brothers in the Community of Christ. While they would mostly agree on the three points you mentioned, it is interesting how they have been more progressive than our Brighamite tradition, especially as it relates to #3 the 9th article of faith. While our D&C has remained largely unchanged for 100 years, and still contains almost exclusively sections revealed to Joseph Smith Jr., they have continued to add to their D&C over the years (I believe they are approaching 170 sections??), including revelation extending priesthood ordination to women (which was a difficult change because not everyone in their tradition thought it was the right thing to do).

[MrShorty]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it may be more important to re-visit our expectations about what the Church is, what its mandates are, whether our expectations are reasonable, and so on.

I agree that we need to have reasonable expectations about the church. I think part of my intent in the OP is to explore one expectation -- should we expect the church to always be conservative, maybe to be conservative to a fault. Reading into your statements about how the Lord may have set the church up so that change is inherently difficult (a parallel with the procedures built into the US Constitution that make it difficult to change it), perhaps you are saying one of our expectations ought to be that the church is just inherently conservative and does not adopt changes easily. Putting this into the "framework of revelation" that @CV75 mentioned, perhaps God sometimes values "stability and predictability" (conservatism) in His church more than He values truth and right? His ability to see over a long, eternal perspective, causes Him to prefer a slow, predictable, stable "ongoing restoration" over getting everything exactly right in the present?

What do we think? Are we getting to the point of conceding that God might prefer the stability of conservatism over the instability of progressivism? Are there still examples to put forward of the church being progressive that might provide some counter-examples to this conclusion that God wants it to be difficult for the church to change?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@CV75 I would say that this broader framework of revelation is a good context for the OP. If you zoom out from the specific conservative vs. progressive topic, I think you will find that this is a small part of the overall framework of revelation that Elder Renlund talks about. My hope is to specifically zoom in and look at how conservatism and progressivism fit into this framework. A discussion around the relationship between someone marching to the beat of a different drummer and the church would be an adjacent conversation to have.

I think conservatism and progressivism fit into this framework the same way that Meyers-Briggs and other similar personality/styles do. God communicates with us all, and no style is better than the other. I am sure there is, at some future state, a perfect balance of style and grace in our personalities, not that we all have the same fixed personality, but rather we all have the skill to enjoy and apply the right style for the purpose and task at hand. People with either orientation can pray and get an answer, and God will answer them in the best way suited to their needs. Sometimes our need is to be comforted, and sometimes to be amazed, and sometimes to be tested, or to seek repentance, etc.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that we need to have reasonable expectations about the church. I think part of my intent in the OP is to explore one expectation -- should we expect the church to always be conservative, maybe to be conservative to a fault. Reading into your statements about how the Lord may have set the church up so that change is inherently difficult (a parallel with the procedures built into the US Constitution that make it difficult to change it), perhaps you are saying one of our expectations ought to be that the church is just inherently conservative and does not adopt changes easily. Putting this into the "framework of revelation" that @CV75 mentioned, perhaps God sometimes values "stability and predictability" (conservatism) in His church more than He values truth and right? His ability to see over a long, eternal perspective, causes Him to prefer a slow, predictable, stable "ongoing restoration" over getting everything exactly right in the present?

What do we think? Are we getting to the point of conceding that God might prefer the stability of conservatism over the instability of progressivism? Are there still examples to put forward of the church being progressive that might provide some counter-examples to this conclusion that God wants it to be difficult for the church to change?

I would say that God puts truth and right first, and by design all agency-based growth, the path to truth and right, is slow. How long were we in the first estate? How long did it take to create Eden? How much stability was in the War in Heaven, or the Fall? Even Christ, who grew from grace to grace without any backsliding, took 33 years and even then, He couldn't bring everyone along, let alone anyone at the same pace, and His Church rapidly grew even as it completely destabilized within a few decades.

[MrShorty]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think conservatism and progressivism fit into this framework the same way that Meyers-Briggs and other similar personality/styles do. God communicates with us all, and no style is better than the other.

Assuming I understand what you are saying here, I would agree that neither conservatism nor progressivism are morally (or otherwise) superior. However, what I am seeing in part of @smac97's response is that God may have biased the church towards conservatism -- I would guess for reasons of stability and predictability, not because conservatism always results in the morally superior decision in all cases. This seems to be the same thing you are saying when you say that, "the path to truth and right is slow."

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Assuming I understand what you are saying here, I would agree that neither conservatism nor progressivism are morally (or otherwise) superior. However, what I am seeing in part of @smac97's response is that God may have biased the church towards conservatism -- I would guess for reasons of stability and predictability, not because conservatism always results in the morally superior decision in all cases.

"For reasons of stability and predictability," yes.  But more than that.  We have prophets and apostles, an open canon, continuing revelation, and so on.  I think these are conduits through which substantive change can and ought to flow.  Meanwhile, however, we can and ought to repose substantial trust that 

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."  (AoF 1:6.) This organization and structure is, I think, intended to both facilitate and constrain change.   Revelation should keep us innovating and improving, while also keeping us anchored to previously-revealed truths and principles.

We also "believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)  It is perhaps this verse, more than any other in scripture, that has allowed me to retain an accommodation for one of the more fervently-hoped-for "changes" in the Church: expanding the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage to include same-sex behaviors and relationships.  I am overwhelmingly persuaded that this will never happen, for a variety of reasons.  However, I maintain in my faith the allowance of a de minimis possibility of a contrary development.  

Meanwhile, I think the Church has much bigger fish to fry, much more vital mandates to fulfill and enlarge.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Assuming I understand what you are saying here, I would agree that neither conservatism nor progressivism are morally (or otherwise) superior. However, what I am seeing in part of @smac97's response is that God may have biased the church towards conservatism -- I would guess for reasons of stability and predictability, not because conservatism always results in the morally superior decision in all cases. This seems to be the same thing you are saying when you say that, "the path to truth and right is slow."

When I say “the path to truth and right is slow,” I am only referring to the temporal pace. Such a design is neither conservative nor progressive since change through either style can occur quickly or slowly. The Church is the Lord’s change agent for bringing the path of truth and right to His children and vice versa. Both orientations are reflected situationally, as when the Lord says such-and-such is expedient, or not, or no longer expedient. Sometimes we hear the message, “The Lord cometh quickly,” and sometimes, “It is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength,” but typically both simultaneously. I don’t take one message to be inherently progressive and the other inherently conservative.

[MrShorty]

On 12/17/2022 at 11:11 AM, smac97 said:

 Revelation should keep us innovating and improving, while also keeping us anchored to previously-revealed truths and principles.

In principle, I agree with this. Speaking for the (mostly hypothetical) person in the OP, such a person might suggest that we are biased towards staying anchored in previously-revealed truths and principles so that we are less able to innovate and improve. My hope for the OP was to generate some examples of this kind of innovation and improvement, and I think we have been partially successful, though I think the bias towards staying anchored in previously-revealed truths and principles still seems the rule.

Here I will note your assumption that existing truths and principles are "revealed." Bring back the idea of a Chesterton's fence, this can be a difficult part of removing one of these fences. Whether we understand the reason for a fence or not or whatever else might be said about the reasons for the fence, there is often the idea that "God put that fence there, so we can't take it down until God explicitly tells us to" present in the deliberation over keeping/removing the fence -- or even questioning whether God was the source for the fence. Another aspect that would seem to bias us towards a conservative approach.

I agree that the church organization out to both facilitate and constrain change. I can see how it constrains change. I guess I am still hoping to explore how it facilitates change.