Well-behaved Women: Valuing Rebellion?
The whole Obedience thing is an issue for me. It’s not that I fancy myself a rebel. In fact rebellion terrifies me. I’m a product of my culture, I’ve had those weekly Sunday school lessons on the value of obedience, it stuck. I’ve never been attracted to bad boys, I’ve never worn leather pants, I’ve never even wanted to go to a wild party, I squirm at the prospect of being seen as disloyal or disaffected or disanything.
And yet despite my good-girl inclinations, I’m (obviously) not the submit and don’t question type. (Also I get very itchy fingers in the presence of do not touch signs.) I still don’t like to think of this blog as rebellious really, or at least it stays in safe acceptable (and necessary) rebellionish parameters.
But despite my personal discomfort with rebellion and rebels, I need to learn to value rebels more, I definitely think this is true of Mormon culture. As I’ve been reading Freedom’s Daughters I’ve been struck again and again by how truly deeply rebellious these women were. I mean seriously, Ida B. Wells bit a police officer, and kicked and screamed and generally acted like crazy hoyden as police officers dragged her out of “ladies” car and white folks applauded the abuse.
Of course it’s easy to look back now and say, well, they were fighting a deeply worthy cause, of course rebellion is justified under those circumstance.
Besides the obvious . . . that this was not viewed as a noble endeavor at the time, I think that attitude also serves to dismiss the idea that rebellion might have some fundemental value for its own sake. An idea that is in all truth antithetical to my highly socialized Mormon thought pathways. Rebellion, good. Just not possible?
Right?
Ever since I read the Salon Article Beyonce Knowles, Freedom Fighter, I’ve been mulling this whole rebellion as a virtue idea over in my head. How perfect is it that African-American culture in all its rebellious anti-establishment glory is subtly and irrevocably a driving force for goodness and freedom in the world? I mean, all those rebellious Russian kids who listened to that wild Jazz music in underground clubs weren’t necessarily involved in a noble endevor, but they were pretty effectively undermining an oppressive communist regime. All those crazy Muslim girls wearing leather pants under their burkas while bopping to Beyonce aren’t fighting for social justice, but their refusal to submit and obey may (I hope) help lead to social justice nonetheless.
I’m not necessarily saying that we should all spend our lives thumbing our nose at authority (problematic to heirarchical patriarchical Mormons, to say the least), and it seems to me that leather pants have got to be both hot and binding. I’m not even sure how one would best live the virtuously rebellious (giggle) life. But don’t you think it’s somehow imbalanced and dishonest to always be adulating the virtues of obedience, and never the virtues of rebellion?
The US was founded through rebellion. The LDS church was founded through rebellion. For the life of me, I can’t work out where this idea came from that obediance is somehow more righteous than rebellion.
Today is International Women’s Day. (Okay, tomorrow is International Women’s Day there.) On today of all days, I celebrate rebellious women who thumbed their nose and continue to thumb their nose at authority to protect the rights of women everywhere.
Comment by Quimby — March 7, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Quimby: Amen. You pretty much said what I was going to. I’ve spent many hours trying to reconcile the idea that the American Revolution was God’s will to make it possible for the Church to be born and the idea that we should obey the law of the land. Is there no room for civil disobedience or outright revolution against tyrants?
Comment by Jonathan Blake — March 7, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
I was always a good girl, but recently have felt a spirit of rebellion rising within myself. And I think it is exactly what I need to feel and do right now.
I suppose the paradox of it is that if rebellion were sanctioned or preached as a virtue, then it wouldn’t be rebellion, would it?
Comment by AmyB — March 7, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Rebellion can be good if it brings about good ends. Obedience can be good if it brings about good ends. Rebellion when obedience is called for is detrimental. Obedience when rebellion is called for is detrimental. Neither obedience nor rebellion are virtuous in and of themselves. It always depends upon what or whom one is obeying or rebelling against. Willful rebellion against God is never good. Obedience to God is always good.
Comment by Tom — March 7, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Yes, Tom, exactly. How can we talk about the virtues of rebellion and obedience if we don’t talk about what they are obeying or rebelling against? Rebellion/obedience doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Comment by Rusty — March 7, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
WAit! There is thinking involved? I’m afraid I haven’t had that Sunday school lesson in a very long time.
Comment by fMhLisa — March 7, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
A friend of mine calls her CTR ring her “choose to rebel” symbol. Some people raise their eyebrows, but she always counters that we should always be rebelling against any and all evil in the world. It is right to rebel, she says.
My college graduation speaker ended her commencement address with the words “rebel, rebel, rebel” after rattling off a number of statistics about women’s oppression throughout the world, concluding that women’s oppression is not “coincidence, it’s policy.”
Man, I loved her. =)
Comment by Marie — March 7, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Tom - The problem arises when someone claims that to rebel against what they are saying is to rebel against God. The European kings used this logic for centuries - “I’m God’s appointed ruler; hence you must obey me.” I would argue that blind obedience is equally dangerous (or awfully close to being equally dangerous) to wilfully rebelling against God.
Comment by Quimby — March 7, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
You do realize that now we’re going to have to start a pool to buy you some leather pants, right?
Comment by Janet — March 7, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
Sure, that’s a problem. Good thing we have the Spirit to help us discern whose claims to trust.
Comment by Tom — March 7, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
fMhLisa–thanks for articulating something I’ve been thinking about for awhile. Quimby and Jonathan Blake, I agree as well. Sometimes I feel like I should rebel against the rhetoric that (however inadvertantly) keeps women from gaining equal status in the church, but my mentors always tell me that rebellion doesn’t really accomplish anything–yet they’re always the first ones to tell me that even Christ was a rebel of sorts when put into the cultural context of his time. Go figure. And even if I did decide to rebel, I don’t know what form it would take. I just know that sometimes it seems right.
Comment by Lessie — March 7, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
WAit! There is thinking involved? I’m afraid I haven’t had that Sunday school lesson in a very long time.
Are you implying that in your experience blind obedience is upheld as the ideal in the Church? That hasn’t been my experience. To the contrary, one of the things I like most about the Mormon understanding of things is that each individual has access to guidance directly from God and we are taught to seek personal confirmation of the things we’re taught.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 12:11 am
Quimby said, “you are bullied either into submission or into tears. Blind obedience to these four men and their backwards ideas is enforced by the vocal majority, and of course they justify it by saying they know God’s will better than you do, so if you disagree with them, you’re rebelling against God.”
Lisa said, “WAit! There is thinking involved? I’m afraid I haven’t had that Sunday school lesson in a very long time.”
You gals are being hyperbolic, right? “Bullied into submission/tears”, “blind obedience”, “know God’s will better than you do”, the implication that we shouldn’t think? Come now. I’ve been in the Church for 30 years now and I’ve rarely, RARELY come across anyone even remotely close to having these kinds of attitudes, and that’s not without a heavy dose of nuance. I have never known a member of the church that believes “blind” obedience is the answer. Maybe I’ve just been extremely lucky to have somehow eluded all of these people in the 16 wards I’ve been a part of and the hundreds (thousands?) of members that I’ve gotten to know.
Comment by Rusty — March 8, 2007 @ 12:13 am
I don’t mean to be contrary, but inspite of the dozens of times I’ve heard teachers, apostles, etc. say that we should question and find out for ourselves, they immediately back pedal if someone does it sincerely–especially if that person feels something different from what they are teaching. They’re really quick to dismiss that as wishful thinking on the person’s part, not personal revelation.
Comment by Lessie — March 8, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Rusty, I was actually being a bit glib in my first comment. Of course there is a lot of nuance, and rarely is it a cut and dry as my snappy little throw away comment suggests. But still, while my ward is no where near the extreme of Quimbys, I too feel a weight to keep silent at church (at least partially of my own construction I’m sure).
However, really more to the point I was trying to make is just the general distrust and comfortable vilification of rebels that is practiced in Mormon culture. We get all kinds of great stories about a guy willing to dump his girlfriend because she’s disobediantly sporting an extra stud (in her ear)(horrors), but where are the great stories about the gyrrl who very wisely drives away smug self-righteous uncommuniticative prig-boys by testing him with multiple hoopage (in her ear). I personally think the second story holds a better life lesson, but when am I going to hear that one in Sunday school?
Comment by fMhLisa — March 8, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Lessie: They’re really quick to dismiss that as wishful thinking on the person’s part, not personal revelation.
Well, the Church can’t exactly embrace or celebrate every claim to personal revelation. Some people really are confused. Whenever two parties have mutually exclusive views of the truth, at least one of them is wrong, and it’s usually the other person. I can definitely understand how being part of a Church in which most people, or at least the people with power, come to conclusions that are incompatible with one’s own can be difficult. That’s life, I guess.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 1:02 am
As one who lives in an admittedly strange ward, I have to concur with Lessie. I am hopeful, however, that this is one of my ward’s many strange quirks, and it is not representative of the church as a whole; but in my ward, if you happen to disagree with any one of about four High Priests - even if you have scriptures and prophetic teaching to back you up - you are bullied either into submission or into tears. Blind obedience to these four men and their backwards ideas is enforced by the vocal majority, and of course they justify it by saying they know God’s will better than you do, so if you disagree with them, you’re rebelling against God.
Comment by Quimby — March 8, 2007 @ 1:07 am
You really really need to watch Iron Jawed Angels. The part of history so often overlooked, womens’ battles to win the right to vote. Some things need rebelling against. Racism, sexism, elitism are just a few of my personal ‘isms I am working on rebelling against!
Comment by Jo — March 8, 2007 @ 1:09 am
Yep, and you’ve got American and other Socialists, Russian Bolsheviks (October Revolution, anyone?), and the Soviet Union to thank for it.
Comment by Peter — March 8, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Well, the Church can’t exactly embrace or celebrate every claim to personal revelation.
But it seems more than a little disingenuous to embrace and celebrate claims to personal revelation when they conveniently support the party line, and then reject as “wishful thinking” the claims that inconveniently lead people to different conclusions.
I several times had versions of this problem as a missionary when we encouraged investigators to put “Moroni’s promise” to the test, to pray about the Book of Mormon — and, having done so, they a few of them came back with the answer that the book is not the word of God.
Now that wasn’t the answer I got, and it wasn’t the answer that I thought they ought to get. But I had to respect that answer, or else the entire enterprise became meaningless.
Comment by obi-wan — March 8, 2007 @ 2:01 am
But it seems more than a little disingenuous to embrace and celebrate claims to personal revelation when they conveniently support the party line, and then reject as “wishful thinking” the claims that inconveniently lead people to different conclusions.
Do you embrace claims to revelation that are contrary to your own beliefs (your own “party line”)? If I claim to know from God that polygamy should be reinstituted, are you going to embrace and celebrate my claim to revelation?
You can call it “the party line” or “the official position of Church leadership” or “God’s word” or whatever, but to embrace and celebrate individuals’ claims to revelation that are incompatible with and contrary to official Church doctrine and policy would be to undermine the very foundation of the Church: revelation from Christ to prophets and apostles. There are churches that embrace each person’s individualized truth. The Church of Jesus Christ isn’t, and never has been, one of them.
For the record, I don’t endorse rejecting as “wishful thinking” anyone’s sincere beliefs and I don’t think the general Church leadership does either. Respectful disagreement seems to be the ideal.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 2:58 am
Reading through this thread reminds me of the “opposition in all things” truth. We can appreciate both. We need both obedience and rebellion. At different times in our life we will rebel. At other times we will be obedient. We will learn and hopefully make ourselves and others better through the process.
With regards to blind obedience, is their a difference between acting with faith and blind obedience? Is it fair to label someone who appears to be acting in blind obedience when it may be possible that they are being obedient because they are rebelling against their human tendancies?
Comment by Nutty — March 8, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Tom said:
Tom - if only things were this black and white! We all know that we have no authority to receive personal revelation for the entirety of the Church, but as many have said, one of the beauties of Mormonism is that we are supposedly granted personal revelation in our own lives. We’re not talking about claiming a revelation that polygamy should be reinstated or that women should be ordained. We’re talking about receiving witness that we should date that non-member, or hold off on having children, or pursue a career while our children our young, or have our husbands stay home, etc etc etc.
All of these things are absolutely within our “jusrisdiction” for receiving personal revelation, and yet because they wander outside the lines of general counsel, all of these decisions are met with distrust or derided as “wishful thinking” no matter how often we explain that we (and/or our families) prayed about and received witness that we are okay to “rebel” against the norm in these instances.
Comment by EmilyS — March 8, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
You can call it “the party line” or “the official position of Church leadership” or “God’s word” or whatever, but to embrace and celebrate individuals’ claims to revelation that are incompatible with and contrary to official Church doctrine and policy would be to undermine the very foundation of the Church: revelation from Christ to prophets and apostles. There are churches that embrace each person’s individualized truth. The Church of Jesus Christ isn’t, and never has been, one of them.
But since that revelation is coming through humans, it is necessarily imperfect. This is evidenced by the fact that in the Church’s short history, numerous apostles and prophets have contradicted one another.
To illustrate: It’s now standard practice to teach that Adam and Heavenly Father are separate beings, but there was a time when that assertion contradicted what the President of the Church was teaching. Brigham Young taught that acceptance or rejection of the Adam-God doctrine “will either seal the damnation or salvation of [men]” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, April 9, 1852). Men like Orson Pratt were vocal in their opposition to the doctrine, and Brigham Young responded that it would “destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, March 11, 1856). Yet, in a matter of decades, the Church had abandoned the doctrine that Orson Hyde was rebelling against.
So how do we view Orson Hyde? As a near-apostate? I mean, he directly contradicted the President of the Church, who was claiming revelation from God, right? But his view of Adam and God was more in line with what the modern Church teaches than Brigham’s view. In the context of modern Mormonism, he would be considered more correct than President Young. While he was considered a rebel at the time, it seems that history has vindicated him.
So what are we to do if we find our conscience in opposition to what the present authorities are teaching about some issue? Force ourselves to accept something with which we disagree? I don’t think that’s the way to go. I mean, can we safely assume that, in another 25, 50, or 100 years, General Authorities will still be teaching the same thing? If Church history is any indication, then the answer is no. Today’s heresies might be tomorrow’s doctrines.
As for myself, I’ll stick with my own intuition, spiritual experiences, and conscience.
Comment by Steve M. — March 8, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Tom:
I think you forgot the step where you’re supposed to study it out and come to your own conclusions before seeking revelation. Otherwise personal revelation doesn’t really constitute “thinking”.
Honest questions (not rhetorical): What do you do when your personal revelation contradicts the official doctrines of the Church? Has this never happened to you?
Nephi the First is a perfect example of this scenario. What did Nephi do in 1 Nephi 4? This prophet rebelled against official church doctrine (thou shalt not kill) in order to follow his personal revelation (thou shalt kill Laban).
I get the impression that they tried to in the early history, but realized that it would lead to chaos. At least initially, everyone’s revelation was equally valid until it became apparent that not all revelation was compatible. If Joseph was to retain control, he had to create a hierarchy of revelation. Giving up on the egalitarian ideal of a nation of prophets was an institutional expedient. In order to survive, the Church must fight against the divisive force of personal revelation.
Currently, members use the official Church position as a benchmark against which they measure their personal thoughts and revelations. If Nephi and Joseph Smith had stuck to the official doctrine of their day, the Nephites wouldn’t have the Brass Plates and Mormonism would have never gotten off the ground.
Comment by Jonathan Blake — March 8, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
It seems to me that many of us worry far too much about what others think.
Comment by SilverRain — March 8, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
EmilyS: We’re talking about receiving witness that we should date that non-member, or hold off on having children, or pursue a career while our children our young, or have our husbands stay home, etc etc etc.
Is that what we’re talking about? That’s easy. It doesn’t matter what others think. If they want to judge your personal decisions and deride you for making them, that’s their problem. Nobody’s accountable to anyone but God in those instances.
The Church will continue to teach ideals that not everyone can live up to or that aren’t optimal under all circumstances. Failure to conform is always met with suspicion. But who cares? Should the Church stop teaching ideals or giving general counsel?
Anyways, I don’t think we’re only talking about personal decisions. A lot of folks feel that they have a better understanding than Church leadership of what Churchwide doctrine and policy should be.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
So what are we to do if we find our conscience in opposition to what the present authorities are teaching about some issue? Force ourselves to accept something with which we disagree?
I don’t know. I’m trying to imagine myself in that situation. Depending on how strongly I disagreed and how certain I was that the leadership was wrong, I hope I would have the courage to not claim to sustain the leadership and communicate my reasons why and let the consequence follow, whether it be shunning or church discipline or whatever.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t follow our conscience. I’m saying we shouldn’t expect the Church or Church members to embrace our rebellion when their consciences and personal understanding are contrary to our own.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Tom - You’re right that we’re not only talking about personal decisions, but that was my understanding what Lessie meant when she said she felt that others treated her personal revelations as “wishful thinking.” I’ve encounted that sort of attitude a lot myself, both in my life and on the blog, and while it doesn’t particularly trouble me, I don’t see how openly (or backbitingly) distrusting others to make the right decisions in their own lives promotes any sort of Church family, Zion-like feeling, perfection of the Saints, communitas, or any other way we’d like to describe what we’re supposed to build for each other in the Church.
Should the Church stop teaching ideals or giving general counsel? No, I don’t think so, but I do think there ought to be much more emphasis on the fact that exceptions to general counsel DO exist, and that it’s OKAY, and many more official stances like the one the Church has adopted regarding family planning - it’s up to the couple/family/individual involved. Hands off. The Church tries to teach us correct principles, but it (and by this I also mean the members at large) needs to do a much better job of trusting us to govern ourselves.
Comment by EmilyS — March 8, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Jonathan Blake: I think you forgot the step where you’re supposed to study it out and come to your own conclusions before seeking revelation. Otherwise personal revelation doesn’t really constitute “thinking”.
I didn’t forget. I just wasn’t complete.
Honest questions (not rhetorical): What do you do when your personal revelation contradicts the official doctrines of the Church? Has this never happened to you?
If my personal revelation was contrary to official doctrines of the Church, depending on how certain I was and how important the contradiction, again, I would hope that I would have the courage to conform to what I felt God wanted of me. If that kind of thing happens to you enough, there would have to come a point when you just have to conclude that the Church is not sanctioned by God and then act accordingly, no?
Has this happened to me? I dunno. I don’t have a testimony through personal revelation of every doctrine and policy of the Church. I’m sure that there are some things that aren’t exactly in line with God’s will. To claim otherwise would be to claim infallibility, and I don’t believe any man or institution led by men, even inspired ones, is perfect. Are there specific aspects of Church doctrine and policy that I know to be wrong? No.
I get the impression that they tried to in the early history, but realized that it would lead to chaos. At least initially, everyone’s revelation was equally valid until it became apparent that not all revelation was compatible. If Joseph was to retain control, he had to create a hierarchy of revelation. Giving up on the egalitarian ideal of a nation of prophets was an institutional expedient. In order to survive, the Church must fight against the divisive force of personal revelation.
Sounds right to me. The Church as an institution has to have certain practices and structures in order for it to be able to accomplish its mission. Christ instituted a structure and an order with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the purposes of perfecting of the saints and coming to a unity of faith.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
For what it’s worth, on rare occasions GAs do point out that they are only teaching general principles, and that personal exceptions and interpretations are up to the individual. For instance, Elder Oaks once said:
“As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules…. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.” (”Dating Versus Hanging Out,” June 2006 Ensign).
Comment by Steve M. — March 8, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
On the general topic of conformity and rebellion, it occurs to me that the Church does value and celebrate non-conformity. How many stories do we hear about individual Mormons firmly holding to their own personal standards in a sea of people who have different standards? That’s non-conformity.
The Church itself is still non-conformist in a lot of ways. As the broader society, and even the broader religious community, becomes more permissive and liberal, the Church of Jesus Christ does not conform. You’ll love this one, FMHLisa: in the midst of a society that is increasingly suspicious of churches that bar women and gays from the clergy, the Church of Jesus Christ is stridently rebellious.
Most of us are conformists and non-conformists at the same time. In Church I pretty much blend in with the crowd; in my East Coast highfalutin’ academic science department I’m the believing, breeding, teetotaling, conservative rebel.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
My take on rebellion in the Church is that I would love to be able to take my concerns in a very civil way to my hierarchical leader and say, for example (and this is only an example and not to be used as a threadjack or a basis for a personal attack on my righteousness), “Bishop, it would mean a lot to me to be able to go up in the circle when my husband is blessing my baby and hold her. I am not trying to usurp the priesthood, but I would like to be a meaningful part of this ordinance.” Unfortunately, in many of the wards I have been in if you happen to disagree with any one of about four High Priests - even if you have scriptures and prophetic teaching to back you up - you are bullied either into submission or into tears. Blind obedience to these four men and their backwards ideas is enforced by the vocal majority, and of course they justify it by saying they know God’s will better than you do, so if you disagree with them, you’re rebelling against God.
Quimby’s ward is not so different from the ones I have attended. And I find it very sad to say that even in the cases when I have felt a spiritual prompting to push the envelope, I have not rebelled, because I value my Church membership and I am scared.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — March 8, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
And…? To say that nothing good can arise out of questionable political systems is about as useful as saying nothing bad can arise out of ‘unquestionable’ religions.
I’m a rebel at heart, always have been. I’ve found that the beginnings of wisdom are learning when to rebel, and when not to. I no longer have to see any and all authority or rules as a reason to go the other way. I’ve also learned that things worth doing can be accomplished within the system, and while following the rules to a certain extent as well.
On the other hand, I believe that rebellion has been a force for good in my life, and I’ve gotten a lot further by following my own path than I would have through perhaps stricter obedience (of course, what else would I say?). That same rebellious spirit has helped me improve life in probably small but meaningful ways for other people as well. At any rate, I believe strongly in not losing touch with your own inner voice, in the midst of being surrounded by intense, demanding external voices, or peer pressure, or a culture that sometimes values conformity perhaps a bit too much.
Comment by RE — March 8, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Tom, I have to give a wry smile to your #32 comment. Because, of course, you’re right. Rebellion and obedience are so relevant to your culture and your own understanding of that culture. For example, so many of the women who rebelled did so because they saw aspects of their culture that seemed to call for equality between the sexes but that weren’t realized. Just as blacks saw that the constitution purported the equality of all men and yet realized that they were’nt included in that. It seems that historically, leaders have insisted on women’s being human, and held them accountable to the laws that these leaders make, and then either claim they are inferior or deprive them of the education and experience that would make them fully able to be accountable to these laws. Indeed, that has happened between the sexes and the different races for millennia. So yes, while the church does encourage rebellion against the outside world, they don’t really encourage it among their own ranks–but who does? And that’s the crux of the problem, I suppose.
Comment by Lessie — March 8, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
I’m not sure it’s as much about rebellion in general as it is about integrity. The examples you list, Lisa, are the ones where someone demonstrates integrity despite social pressures.
There are lots of ways to do this. I think the idea of “rebellion” is the establishment’s way of framing (spinning) a situation where the disobedient hold on to their integrity.
As long as we think of standing up against unrighteous priesthood holders as “rebellious” and not as “integrity” we will not find many women who will do it.
I was amazed to read a book on marriage that defined integrity in a way I wasn’t familiar with as I learned the purple YW’s value. It’s staying strong in what you believe, not caving in to someone else.
Otherwise, rebelling just to be different, that has little value to me. Rebelling to be who I am, that has integrity.
Comment by Jessawhy — March 8, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
I have found that the wards in Utah are significantly different the wards in the East. I have lived in Utah for three years while attending school out here. Never have I heard that women HAVE to stay at home and where blind obedience opinions are so tolerant. I had an old boss tell me that the family proclamation tells us that women have to stay at home. This is not true. The Family Proclamation tells us that a women’s primary role is as a mother and a wife, as it says about men as well (except that their primary role is as a husband and father). To the person that can show me in the family proclamation where it says, “women should always stay at home despite what they feel is right for them” I will give a $100 to.
I am so sick of these Utah opinions from people that are false. Thank goodness that the gospel is true, because if I was going off of what the majority of mormons in Utah say, I’d have left the church a long time ago.
The truth is this. The church cannot deny you a recommend based on your personal feelings and decisions about staying at home v. working and other similar issues. As long as you’re following the main commandments, in my opinion that’s what matters. The Lord loves us and will no matter what our opinions are regarding these things. We’re not unworthy of his love just because we may rebel against some indoctrinated falsities in the culture of Mormonism.
Comment by Rebecca — March 8, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
“…if you happen to disagree with any one of about four [women] - even if you have scriptures and prophetic teaching to back you up - you are bullied either into submission or into tears. Blind obedience to these four [women] and their backwards ideas is enforced by the vocal majority, and of course they justify it by saying they know God’s will better than you do…”
Yup, sounds just like the treatment given to dissenting comments at FMH.
Quimby and BiV, until the bishop tells you that the ward is his personal sandbox and that you ought to leave, you are being treated better than a lot of people have been around here.
Comment by Ann On — March 8, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
(again not me - Rebecca - who blogs at fmh)
Comment by Rebecca — March 8, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
To this conversation I add the following link. Its a summation of LDS teachings on the stay at home mom issue. The Members in Utah described above are on sound doctrinal footing.
Enjoy and vent……..
http://www.aros.net/~srg17/blog/gender%20roles.htm
Comment by bbell — March 8, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Of interest to this thread:
http://www.uvsc.edu/phil/religiousstudies/
Comment by anon — March 8, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Bored,
Your bishop has no authority whatsoever to allow you to participate in the blessing of your baby. Every time our bishop is blamed for something he has nothing to do with, my heart sinks. His job is difficult enough without those in the congregation unnecessarily “rebelling” against him in their minds/hearts.
Comment by Rusty — March 8, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Rusty,
I can certainly understand why your heart might sink–but it would be helpful to everyone (beleaguered bishops included) if we all knew who had authority to decide what. But as you might know, most of us don’t have access to the The Handbook and only have recourse to our Bishops when we have questions and/or concerns. And we’ve all heard stories about Bishops allowing such things….
Comment by EmilyS — March 8, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Holding the baby while inside the circle is hardly ‘participating’ in any meaningful priesthood sort of way.
[And, FWIW, I can remember when non-member fathers had a ‘father’s privledge’ to actually be in such circles. But that is a topic for another day . . .]
Comment by Not Ophelia — March 8, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
I’m having a hard time getting my head around this question. Being obedient and submissive is what christianity is all about. We must be able to willingly submit to God’s will for us. Finding out what that will is, and then submitting to it, is the ultimate test of living a Christ-like life. So obedience is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rebellion against God has no place in the heart of a Latter-Day Saint.
Living such a life may be easier for men to figure out than women. Men do not have the historical cultural construct of being legally required to be submissive and obedient or the cultural remnants of being valued when submissive and obedient. As women, having that history makes it more difficult to sort out whether we are being obedient to God or just being obedient.
Comment by ducks — March 8, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
It actually doesn’t say anything in The Handbook about mothers or non-member fathers participating in the blessing. The Handbook is incredibly vague on who can and can’t participate in a baby’s blessing. My Bishop (who is a great guy) took the issue to our Stake President, who said that his understanding is that mothers and non-member fathers are allowed to participate if circumstances dictate it. On the other hand, when my parents asked their Bishop, he said it was a no-no and not allowed under any circumstances.
Sorry to add to the thread-jack.
Comment by Quimby — March 8, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
I really love the way Jessawhy framed her answer in terms of integrity.
Tom’s point - that the church encourages rebellion - really isn’t the case. More and more, we are not even told to be “not of the world”. There is this push to be accepted, particularly by the religious right (who, despite our alliance with them in the 1970s and 1980s, still don’t like or accept us), and those of us who find ourselves outside of this very narrowly defined sphere of conservatism are immediately seen as outcasts in church circles. The US has to be just about the only place in the world where being right-wing would be considered “rebelling” - and don’t read that as a statement that the US is left of centre, because it’s not (the US is almost radically right of centre); read it as a statement that the far right in the US is so deluded and has such a huge persecution complex, they see a devil behind ever Democrat.
Comment by Quimby — March 8, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Obviously I would love to talk about this (in another thread) but I used the example as a practice in the Church that is vague and not spelled out in the handbook and might reasonably be an issue one might _discuss_ with one’s bishop. Personally, I would hold less “rebellion in my heart” if we could have that civil conversation with my views being equally as important as his; and where the final decision would reflect more equality.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — March 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
bbell - your link has a tone distinctly different from any I have heard from a general authority. The “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude of the writer about mothers working outside the home does not sound Christ-like to me. I now quote from a document that has a much more Christ-like tone, maybe you recognize it.
“Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.”
That leaves plenty of room for “individual adaptation” for families to be guided not only by prophets speaking to an audience of millions but by the Holy Ghost speaking to the circumstances of one. The “other circumstances” in my family was the preservation of my sanity. I have felt fully supported in my choice to work outside the home not only by the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, but numerous Christ-like individuals within the church. I have not spent a minute wondering whether my sisters in the gospel should or should not be working outside the home as I believe they are competent to decide whether “individual adaptation” may be needed in the lives of their families, a belief I am confident President Hinckley shares or it wouldn’t be in the proclamation.
I guess whether someone is a rebel or not can be completely within the judgment of some who worry more about how “obedient” others are than they worry about their own “obedience.” Judgmental people paint people like me as rebels when I personally feel completely obedient to both the prophet and the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.
Comment by ducks — March 8, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
bbell - I obviously agree with ducks. Are you from Utah and were you offended by what I said? If so I apologize, and I didn’t mean to generalize all of Utah men and women, but usually the more outspoken ones who unwelcomingly give their opinion to me. Go to my blog for more info on how I feel about this issue - friendwithcharacter.blogspot.com. So obviously, if you felt the need to tell me what I should do with my life, I would tell you to shove it, as you personally can’t get personal revelation for me or my family. However, as long as you don’t tell me how I should live my life (which you are on the line right now), you are of course welcome to discuss any opinions that you might have and me be obliged to listen to you politely.
Hope that clears that up.
Comment by Rebecca (not the fhm blogger) — March 8, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Ducks,
I actually thought that the speakers AKA Presidents Benson, Faust etc etc were pretty adamant in their words. Ignore the Gary guy and focus on the quotes.
Essentially what I take from the quotes is that the SAHM model is the ideal. GA’s teach ideals and let us as members sort out how we handle it.
Based on our doctrinally supported see(D&C section 83 used in conference by GBH last year) and our cultural expectations it is indeed an act of rebellion to a small degree for married LDS women with small children to work outside the home.
Comment by bbell — March 8, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Ducks -
You couldn’t have said it better. I think I may have offended a mormon from Utah (bbell) for which I apologize, I didn’t mean to generalize all of the women and men in Utah. There are many on solid ground. However, the one’s described in my post, in my opinion, are not.
There are reasons also besides financial security that women work. Think about this: What if we told all men that they should only study business? That no matter what their personal preferences are, that they may only work in the business place and may not pursue anything beyond a business, office job. Where would we be?
Women are not created to be cookie cutters of each other. While some women LOVE being housewives and mothers, others dislike it and go crazy being with their children all day long. There are actual studies that women who work at least part time outside of the home are better mothers. Gee, I wonder why.
Just as we can’t expect men to all have the same 9-5 office job, we can’t expect women to all have an innate desire to be mothers and housewives. Women should be excited to grow and shouldn’t let anyone else tell them how to live their lives. Where I grew up on the East Coast, many women with children worked full-time - ironically the only women I knew who got divorced had been homemakers who cracked under these pressures from their husbands and their own opinions about who they should be.
Finally, I don’t care what one person does and what another person doesn’t do with their lives. I simply ask for the same courtesy and really don’t want someone’s own opinions getting mixed up with true doctrine. This practice seems way too abundant in Utah. I have my own personal opinions regarding the matter, but I’m certainly not going to judge another person regardless of what I think. I don’t condemn people for being homosexual, for being adulterers, for being immodest, etc. This judgemental thinking has got to stop. I know it’s hard, because it’s something that I have had to work at too. Does anyone have any idea of where to start educating others on where to keep their mouths shut?
Comment by Rebecca (not the fhm blogger) — March 8, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Quimby: Tom’s point - that the church encourages rebellion - really isn’t the case.
You miss my point. You’re right that the Church leadership doesn’t encourage rebellion or non-conformity for their own sake. That would be stupid. But we celebrate and embrace rebellion and non-conformity in the right circumstances. The teenager who refuses to watch a bad movie that all her friends are watching, or the business man who refuses to participate in a toast or who drinks milk so it doesn’t look like he’s drinking alcohol even though conforming and fitting in might be to his professional benefit, are models of Mormon non-conformity. Those examples aren’t rebellion because they don’t really involve direct defiance of authority, but I can imagine scenarios in which outright rebellion would be called for according to standards and principles taught by the Church. Daniel’s defiance of the King’s order not to pray is one example of outright rebellion that is often held up as virtuous.
Comment by Tom — March 8, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
bbell,
I’m still curious as to how it is an act of rebellion to work outside the home when my “circumstances” warrant “individual adaptation” and the proclamation provides for it. Indeed, I don’t read anything in the other statements in the link that makes me uncomfortable with my family’s decision. I don’t disagree that the SAHM model is the ideal for most families. I just disagree that the prophet would call me disobedient or a “rebel” for working out my own individual life within the confines of prophetic counsel. The link you provided certainly editorializes that there is no room for “individual adaptation.” Perhaps the writer of your link is the real rebel for refusing to acknowledge the words of the proclamation when they don’t perfectly mesh with his/her idea of gender roles.
To work outside the home may be an act of rebellion within cultural confines, something I have little patience with or regard for, but D&C 83 provides no support for the argument that women should not work outside the home. It does state that men have an obligation to provide maintenance for their wives and children. It does not follow that because women work outside the home that their husbands do not provide their maintenance and support.
I will always resist aruments that Mormon culture dictates certain behavior . Following cultural dictates is just a poor substitute for learning the gospel and living by the influence of the Holy Ghost.
Comment by ducks — March 8, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Alright, Tom, but I don’t think the examples of a teenager not watching a bad movie or a businessman not toasting with alcohol are really rebelling, and the example of Daniel’s defiance is old. During the Civil Rights movement, members were actually told over the pulpit not to participate. During the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era, members were actually told over the pulpit not to participate. My mom wanted to go to an anti-war demonstration and her bishop told her she couldn’t have a temple recommend if she did. It varies largely according to your actual physical location within the church, but in many places, support of the pro-environmental or anti-war movements is seen as subversive and contrary to church teachings. When I wanted to talk about civil disobedience in Sunday School, I was told it was contrary to the teachings of the gospel; but without civil disobedience we wouldn’t even have the gospel. This notion that we are to obey the law of the land is often interpreted so strictly, we are taught not to question the law of the land. In my opinion - and remember I am a radical bleeding-heart commie leftie liberal - that is downright dangerous.
Comment by Quimby — March 8, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
There’s really a need for an entire thread on Mormonism’s shard quandry with the Pelagiun heresy. Tom and obi-wan and Emily and others are hitting upon such an question: if we all have access to revelation and we don’t all agree, who gets to decide who is wrong?
In our church, the institutional authorities do. And hey–in light of the quandry, we do need someone with “say so.” Still, the authorities can be, and have even admitted to being, wrong in the past. So what if you remain convinced that you’re right, the authorities tell you you’re wrong, and your integrity is thus split two ways: on the one hand you value the institutional integrity of the church and admit its need for structural mechanisms of cohesion; on the other, you respect the integrity of your own conscience even though you know that you, too, can be wrong.
Nasty little situation to be stuck in. You wind up rebelling against something you highly value, either way. Bleargh.
bbell’s comment (#48) about “small rebellions” does make me think, though, that there’s nothing rebellious at all about receiving individual revelation which directs contrary to general council. I don’t think general council is ever meant to apply to every single situation or individual (except, you know, don’t kill people and stuff). I can support general council and still believe in the integrity of someone’s inspiration that it doesn’t fit their particular situation–so long as you’re not breaking essential commandments. (Ah, but then there’s the “what’s essential question and we’re back to square one!) In fact, even the prophet says that–and as it applies to working women, even. I’m not sure everything we label as “rebellion” really counts as such. I mean, the prophet doesn’t expect us to resemble The Borg.
Star Trek allusion. Nerd Me.
Comment by Janet — March 8, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Quimby (51) and Jonathan (2) and others bring up an excellent point. If the 12th article of faith had been delivered prior to the American Revolution, wouldn’t that rebellious act have been contrary to God’s will as proclaimed in this scripture?
That, and I just wanna chime in and thank Quimby for being her “radical bleeding-heart commie leftie liberal” self — dangerous perhaps, but very refreshing!
Comment by Rich — March 8, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Janet,
I like your depiction of the complexity of integrity. Maybe that’s why rebelling is so hard. Because we are essentially doing it all the time. Mostly, I think we rebell against our own conscience, in the scenario you described, which makes that seem more like internal defeat, an implosion of sorts. So, the rebellion against the institutional authorities is more of an external conflict, an explosion, which is why I think we see it as a classic form of rebellion.
I do like thinking of them both as rebellion. That is very insightful.
(but, it doesn’t make it any easier to decide which way to go in situations like that. . . )
Comment by Jessawhy — March 8, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Rich–you gotta love Quimby’s combination of rebellion WITH the bleeding heart, eh? That’s what makes her so delightful!!
Comment by janet — March 8, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
My mother-in-law told me recently that her father was a card-carrying member of the Communist party back in the 1950s. (Seriously.) Ever since then I’ve been teasing my husband about being the Red in my bed.
Comment by Quimby — March 8, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
This post and the comments make me think of some writing advice I read: “Learn the rules like a master so you can break them like an artist.” In context of this discussion, it’s important to look closely at the rules/doctrine/guidelines and why (or even if, as some have alluded to) they are in place BEFORE you rebel, and be willing to deal with the fallout, even it you’re not quite prepared for it. In a gospel context, some doctrines/rules are very abstract or have no “reason” attached to their existence, which makes rebellion (if it can be called that) against them both harder AND easier.
Comment by Idahospud — March 9, 2007 @ 12:45 am
OOoh, I love your ideas, Kaimi! Wicked or no, very very funny. And truth be told, Lisa would look fabulous in leather pants.
Comment by Janet — March 9, 2007 @ 12:52 am
I’m afraid the lawn mower dance can only be properly performed in paint-splattered sweatpant cut-offs that smell slightly of gasoline.
Comment by fMhLisa — March 9, 2007 @ 1:00 am
what is up with these these time stamp comments? Is it posting the comments according to the time zone of each individual commentor or something?
Comment by fMhLisa — March 9, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Lisa,
Something else is haywire, too…I keep getting a message that I’m posting every 15 seconds, and I may be in a vocal mode tonite, but I’m certainly not that quick at posting!
Comment by m&m — March 9, 2007 @ 1:21 am
Janet (9),
Yes, we need to.
And you should present them to her, at the Exponent retreat where she’s the guest of honor. And then make her do the lawn mower dance in them. And take pictures. And blog it — so that it can never be forgotten.
Haha. I am truly a wicked person.
Okay — I’m in for five bucks.
(and let’s see if I can get the fonzie emoticon to work at FMH).
Comment by Kaimi — March 9, 2007 @ 1:30 am
Ack ack! time is out of joint! And apparently the “slow down, cowboy” function is castigating everyone as well!
I think the internet likes to play with the already befuddled minds of insomniacs, the evil little supposed non-entity
Comment by Janet — March 9, 2007 @ 1:35 am
Rebel enough and you’ll go to hell, but for some hell is the path way to heaven. Perhaps Alma and the sons of Mosiah were foreordained to break the mold of just following the leader. Think of the fruit that came forth after they encounter the horrors of hell and the voice of an angel. Can you drink of that cup? The truth is few can survive those types of encounters and live to tell the tale. The safe way for the majority is to follow a trusted leader and avoid the endless pit falls of out right rebellion of the truth which others have paid the price for you to see. Follow the threads down the path into the greater light and maybe than you will know what I mean.
Comment by Emm's Son — March 9, 2007 @ 1:58 am
My favorite story of a Mormon woman rebelling is told by my Grandmother about her Mother, who campaigned in Utah for women to get the vote, and when they did, she went out and cut her long, long hair. Everyone in the ward was completely shocked–not that she was so actively campaigning for women’s rights, but that she had cut her hair, which they considered improper for a good Mormon woman to do. I wanted to be exactly like her.
“The virtues of rebellion…” I like that phrase.
Comment by Day — March 9, 2007 @ 2:30 am
There are conquences either way you go.
Comment by Lucy Stern — March 9, 2007 @ 5:21 am
Kaimi, just to make it perfectly clear– Rocky Mountain Retreat is not officially connected to Exponent, at all. Some of us attend both retreats, and probably a lot of the attendees have been subscribers, and Ex II gave us some help in getting started, but I don’t want anyone to get the impression that we’re the same organization.
Comment by Paula — March 9, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
“Besides this we have our living prophet, for whom I am grateful, and I hope to follow after him all the days of my life. I know that when I don’t follow him I am wrong, and I know that when I do I am right, even if I don’t agree with him. To those who only follow him when they do agree with him he is not a prophet unto them.” - Elder Richard L. Evans, Conference Report, October 1940, Second Day—Morning Meeting, p.61
Comment by Aaron Shafovaloff — March 9, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Aaron,
Black-and-white prooftexting statements are already annoying enough when they come from orthodox church members.
Somehow, they become even more annoying when they’re posted as stand-alone comments by an evangelical blogger whose admitted goal is to tear down Mormon beliefs.
Come on, what do you want us to do with your quote — gasp in horror and say, “oh my lands, fmh Lisa must be a Jehovah’s Witness in disguise?”
Comment by Kaimi — March 9, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
I’m coming late to this discussion…..
If Nephi and Joseph Smith had stuck to the official doctrine of their day, the Nephites wouldn’t have the Brass Plates and Mormonism would have never gotten off the ground.
Hmmmm. I am not convinced this kind of logic holds water. The Spirit had to really convince Nephi that this situation was indeed placed before him by God. He was contrite and fearful about doing what was wrong, not willfully and readily going against a commandment at the first blush of revelation (even when he seemed to know it was revelation!). He had to basically be pounded over the head to go against what he had been taught was the right thing to do. He also never changed his position about prophetic counsel in a general sense. (I think that might be an interesting yardstick: does an exception make me want to disregard more counsel, or do I really see it as an exception and approach it humbly and with fear and trembling (a desire to be right in the sight of God) — never dismissing the rule in a general sense privately or publicly, and anxiously accepting the rule elsewhere in my life?
I don’t think the Joseph Smith model holds water either as a model for us (in terms of rebellion) because he had no loyalty nor covenants nor sustaining of anyone that would tie him to any sort of way of thinking or living, which from the get-go makes us different. His job was to overcome the apostasy — also a huge difference, as none of us is in that situation. He brought order and truth and light and authority back to a world that was lacking in those things. The apostasy is now over, though, and we don’t need to challenge the system to find God. Generally speaking, we need to follow what God inspired him to create, and that includes the Lord speaking to us through His prophets, as a rule.
THAT SAID, I think what sometimes we forget is that part of why we have guidelines and commandments and all of that is so that we can exercise our agency and learn good from evil from our own choices and the experiences that result. (That whole 2 Ne. ch 2 thing of needing opposition so we have choices and chances to act.) So, of course, personal revelation should be considered in all of this, and personal choices should be respected. But, again, I think how we we approach such situations matters a lot. Do we ponder our choices and humbly consider that our guts or brains may be wrong sometimes, even with the best of intentions? Are we like Nephi, seeking to be absolutely sure that what we think we are receiving is what God wants us to do, always respecting and underscoring the commandments that have been received through the prophets (recognizing that there are few exceptions)?
Other questions I would pose: Is one’s ‘conscience’ or sense of things always trustworthy/infallible? Is there a place where we might benefit from humbly following something even when it doesn’t make sense to us or necessarily fall into our frame of reference? Will we ask to see if God’s will trumps conscience? (I wonder if sometimes we stop at what feels like our conscience and don’t really seek God’s will.)
In the end, I think, too that it is important to remember the Atonement in all of this. If our hearts are in the right place, He can fix any goofs that we make. So, ultimately, the question I think is most relevant of all is: Where is my heart? Am I desiring to do what is right and doing my best with what I know and feel and have searched and pondered and prayed about? Am I humbly seeking to follow prophetic counsel in the course of my life? If the answer is yes, I think we should trust in the Lord’s ability to make up the difference if we end up making a mistake. And that will be even more effectual, I think, when we humbly realize that sometimes we will goof and are willing to change when we do realize that. Obedience really is a process in a way, not usually something we can check off a list. And I think we are more likely to manage that process with less error with prophetic guidance as the general yardstick.
Sorry for the long comment.
Comment by m&m — March 9, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
m&m: I can see your point, but I still believe the examples are appropriate. In the end, regardless of the specifics of each situation, Joseph and Nephi rebelled against the orthodoxy of their time. They followed their own convictions against the common wisdom. You point out that Joseph’s job was to overcome the apostacy and that we don’t share that job with him. That doesn’t say that we will never have a time when we are required to stand up in the strength of our internal compasses against the orthodoxies of our time.
Only the rebellious ever effected change. What conventions will we be called to change?
At the last Relief Society birthday dinner, the Bishop was asked to speak about families. He told the Sisters about when he and his wife brought their first baby home from the hospital. The baby started to cry inconsolably. The Bishop (not a bishop at the time) did his best to comfort the child but the baby wouldn’t be comforted. In desperation, they called his mother who came over immediately, the Bishop’s father in tow. Within minutes, she had the baby calm. The Bishop’s father turned to him and said “Don’t ever try to comfort that child again. That is not your place. Your role is to provide for your family and serve in the Church. Caring for the children is your wife’s job.”
I was shocked to hear my wife relate this story, but it explains a lot about the Bishop, his long hours at church away from his family, his very close reliance on the rules. This kind of Mormon cultural bigotry deserves to be soundly rejected. I wish for the sake of the Bishop’s wife and children that he had stood up defiantly to his father and in the best spirit of rebellion said “Get thee behind me Satan!” or some other, choicer words. But he didn’t and he is who he is, trying to pass this foolishness off as wisdom. I hope that the Sisters of the ward are rebellious enough to ignore the Bishop’s advice.
The wise know when to follow and when to rebel. The brave aren’t afraid to do either.
Comment by Jonathan Blake — March 10, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
That is a sad story, Jonathan, but I am not sure that it’s right to discount everything an imperfect bishop says. After all, they are all imperfect.
I also disagree that only the rebellious can effect change. There are many ways change can be brought about. I also don’t see that being “called to change” something in the church is likely.
That doesn’t say that we will never have a time when we are required to stand up in the strength of our internal compasses against the orthodoxies of our time.
Well, I think sometimes as members of the church we are asked to do this “in the world.”
I think there is a pretty strong argument for following the order that JS revealed as that has been maintained through those who have authority to change things. The best kind of change will happen when the Sprit is the initiator, and when things work in the way the Lord has established. Radical change such as what JS brought about is just not likely for any of us, IMO. And I am highly skeptical of anyone who thinks it is somehow their job to change the church from the bottom up. I’m all for a letter or two through appropriate means, if one has some thought that just won’t go away. There is a time and place for feedback. (My professional background is in organizational change, so I’m not opposed to this in concept and I give feedback to my local leaders quite freely). But more often than not in the church, we are asked to humbly follow. “Come follow me” the Savior says. He invites us to change the world (’Be the salt that can change the world — as we hold up the light of the gospel’) and to change ourselves. But I don’t hear Him inviting us to rebel against the leaders He has called to lead us. I don’t see him advocating that in any way. Again, there might be a time and place for orderly feedback if we think something is inappropriate, but it will be a hard sell to convince me that rebellion in the church against leaders is ever “wise.”
Comment by m&m — March 10, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
I heard in the late 30s there was a Branch President or Bishop in Germany who foresaw the evil in Hitler and complained to SLC that he in good conscience couldn’t support him as the leader of Germany. He was told as a leader of the church he had to honor and obey the law of his land and follow the 12th Articles of Faith. He continued to argue his point with SLC and was later X. Maybe somebody out there can shed some light on this story whether it is true or false.
Comment by Emm's Son — March 11, 2007 @ 1:11 am
Who was brave enough or crazy enough or rebellious enough to offer a invocation prayer at a BYU graduation in the 60s that went something like this?
And what happened to him? And why would he pray something like that?
Comment by Old Charley — March 11, 2007 @ 3:10 am
m&m - you are one of my hero(in)es.
Comment by SilverRain — March 11, 2007 @ 8:33 am
m&m #76:
How can someone who works in organisational behaviour seem to be denying the fact that most organisational change does in fact come about from the changing needs/desires of those at “the bottom”? Actually, as it’s your profession, and based on what you said, I think you don’t deny this fact? Rather, you believe the church as an organisation should not respond to pressures for change that other organisations have had to react to? And/or that the “rank-and-file” should not in fact be feeling/applying these pressures?
Comment by RE — March 11, 2007 @ 10:03 am
I’m not sure if the question is rhetorical or not, but it was Hugh Nibley, and he explained why he said that here
If the point is that Nibley was something of a faithful rebel, it’s a good point, although he was always sort of passive-aggresive about it.
Comment by obi-wan — March 11, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Thank you obi-wan. Have you ever read his book on Zion where he tells the story about the Hotel Utah and how the church got it to make a profit?
Comment by Old Charley — March 11, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
How can someone who works in organisational behaviour seem to be denying the fact that most organisational change does in fact come about from the changing needs/desires of those at “the bottom”? Actually, as it’s your profession, and based on what you said, I think you don’t deny this fact?
I’m not denying that the needs of the grass roots can influence what change happens. I think you may be missing my point.
In my study (e.g., I researched a wrote on the topic of bottom-up vs. top-down change in grad school) and experience I have seen that even in “the world” bottom-up change is rare and usually not tremendously effective. Most successful change in organizations needs to happen from top-down driven efforts in order to happen and to stick. It comes as a result of big-picture understanding, a clear vision, and strategy that usually come with leadership positions. Of course, successful change considers and is sensitive to the needs of “the bottom” but is not usually driven, led or initiated by the bottom.
Even if it were different in the business world, my point is that in the church, change for the church happens from the top-down by design. Revelation has an order. If we receive personal revelation, its limits are personal. We can receive revelation within our stewardships, not outside them. In its essence, revelation isn’t a bottom-up process. The Lord doesn’t say, “Go tell the prophets what to pray about” or “what they say is easily dismissable.” He says, “whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.”
I believe our leaders are very plugged into key issues. I don’t believe they seek or receive revelation in a vacuum. They visit with members and leaders all over the world. They ask questions. They receive input. They seek to know and understand what happens “in the trenches” of the church and in life. And most importantly, they have authority, and are called of God to lead, inspire and declare truth for the church. I believe we can trust them wholeheartedly.
Again, if we ever have ideas we want to share, we can do so within the prescribed order. But if change doesn’t happen, I think it’s best to let it go and trust the leadership and adjust our positions to match theirs, not wait for them to “get it” or change perspective or position to match ours. No matter how good we think our guts or understanding are, we aren’t in a position to really know what is right for the Lord’s work at large. In addition, I believe prophets can help us fine tune our consciences and minds and hearts as we test their words in faith, thus helping us make better decisions for our personal lives than we could make on our own.
Comment by m&m — March 11, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
79
SilverRain, just wanted to say that I have appreciated so many of your comments (so much so that I visited and commented at your blog).
Comment by m&m — March 11, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
I haven’t been following the discussion lately, but am obnoxiously going to chime in on the issue of trickle-down revelation.
I agree that formal institutional change in the church comes from the top and probably needs to, at least with the way our mechanisms are set up. BUT that shouldn’t deter members from fervently praying about issues which concern them, and praying that those concerns might also be on the GA’s radar. I think it’s a common assumption that this happened with the 1978 revelation regarding race and priesthood. As M&M says, leaders meet with church members. When you have an opportunity to voice concerns in such a meeting, I’d wager you have a responsibility to do so. Honoring our leaders means helping them, and that entails honesty in struggle as well as faith.
I would think anyone praying that the institutional leaders receive further light and knowledge regarding, say, Heavenly Mother would remain within their stewardship–we SHOULD pray both for individual revelation as well as further light for our church as a whole, should we not? That’s a different sort of grass roots effort, but certainly one within the bounds of organizational stewardship.
Will the same issues matter a great deal to me as the GAs? Not necessarily. So I’m willing to believe God would offer me solace and even knowledge which isn’t “general”–if He did so, however, it wouldn’t be my stewardship to preach that knowledge as church doctrine. The balance between individual revelation and institutional policy needn’t be so difficult to parse. Or else hey, I’m just having a mellow Sunday.
Comment by Janet — March 11, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
I like Jonathon’s line here and thought it worthy of repeating. Following is hard; so is speaking up. Both need to be done. God requires both of all us.
If a bishop told me the incredibly stupid advice Jon relates, I’d feel obligated to speak up and politely disagree, pointing out that the fellow’s idea contradicted the teachings of Jesus, the prophet, etc. That’s rebellion against one leaders’ advice, perhaps, but out faithfullness to higher things.
Valuable rebellion (as i’m sure others have noted) stems from allegiance to high principles rather than a desire to be cantankerous, after all. We all agree on that, yes?
Comment by Janet — March 11, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
#77, I think that this is what you mean, not exactly the details you gave, but probably you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener
Comment by Paula — March 12, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Forgot to finish that thought. (Daylight Savings Time is pretty brutal. ) The wikipedia article doesn’t have a lot about the church in it, but if I remember right, Hübener got no support from local church leaders, and was rebuked by them. I can’t remember if he was disciplined or not by them.
Comment by Paula — March 12, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Janet #86
Well, I certainly agree with this.
m&m #83:
Thanks for responding! I totally agree with you that change, particularly in traditional/hierarchical organisations, is almost never accomplished from bottom-up. I was speaking to the impetus for change coming from bottom-up, which is frequently the case. Then the trick becomes convincing the hierarchy (and others who benefit from the status quo) to make the change happen, or at least to support it, which in turn requires someone to make the strong business case and/or sugar-coat the change appropriately. Therein lies the trick that many a consultant’s career has been based on…and I doubt the church is hiring McKinsey anytime soon…
I think you made your case very well and clearly, I definitely understand your perspective now. I think where we’d likely differ is that I am not as convinced as you are that the men in charge really do understand all the issues (they may be aware of some of them though). Therefore, I would say agitation for change from “the bottom,” in this case, seems (to me) like a valid option. Not that it works, but hey - brick walls and me are well-acquainted.
Comment by RE — March 12, 2007 @ 8:45 am
Paula: Huebener’s bishop turned them in to the Nazi party. He lives in SLC now, oddly. I had the honor of meeting and hearing Schnibe (his friend who was sentenced to a camp rather than death) speak several times in college and his forgiveness and understanding pretty much make me weep.
They were kids, so I imagine that played some role in their not receiving much respect for what was perceived as facile teen rebellion; additionally, their bishop probably erroneously thought their youth might mitigate the harshness of their sentences. There’s both a book and a play about the three boys, but I’ll have to find the references and link them when I’m not running horrifically behind for the day! It’s a great story well worth reading.
Comment by Janet — March 12, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
BUT that shouldn’t deter members from fervently praying about issues which concern them, and praying that those concerns might also be on the GA’s radar.
I don’t necessarily think of this as rebellion, though. I guess it depends. It’s one thing to take concerns to God while still meekly following what we have been given. It’s another thing to vocally or behaviorally rebel against leaders’ teachings while so pryaing, no? Surely the Lord cares about the deep concerns of our soul at any level. Escalating to Him seems like the best option of all, especially because He can also help us ultimately know what to pray for! (I know for me how easy it is to end up praying for the wrong things. The scriptures tell us that “we know not what we should pray for as we ought.”)
I think it’s also important to pray for perspective and understanding of what we DO have even as we might desire more light and knowledge. I sometimes wonder if we are doing enough accepting and following what we already have to even qualify for more new revelation on the things that sometimes concern people. Not that we can’t pray for such things, but I think we should do all we can individually and as a church to be able to receive more (kind of in the spirit of 2 Ne. 28: 30).
If a bishop told me the incredibly stupid advice Jon relates, I’d feel obligated to speak up and politely disagree, pointing out that the fellow’s idea contradicted the teachings of Jesus, the prophet, etc. That’s rebellion against one leaders’ advice, perhaps, but out faithfullness to higher things.
I want to add that I think it’s all in how it’s done (which you hinted at, Janet). Do we do it privately as the Lord has counseled, or make it more a public issue, for example? Do we show respect for the calling even if we disagree with the person? Do we disagree on a specific issue but not disregard the person in his/her calling in general? Do we recognize when it’s time to just let an issue go rather than insisting that things happen the way we think they should? And are we willing to recognize/consider that sometimes we may be wrong? (This happened to me. A local leader did something I was very uncomfortable with, even upset about. I finally went to him and told him how I felt. I learned what he was thinking, and realized that I had wrongly judged his actions. He was trying to act in care and sensitivity. Sometimes we don’t understand what is underlying actions or counsel.) Part of my hesitancy to jump on the rebellion bandwagon is because I think sometimes we trust ourselves a little too much and the leaders not quite enough.
)
Comment by m&m — March 12, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
RE,
Thank you also for your response.
I think where we’d likely differ is that I am not as convinced as you are that the men in charge really do understand all the issues (they may be aware of some of them though).
I’ve always had that gut feeling that they are very aware. (Imagine how many letters they get!) Elder Holland’s recent talk sort of cemented that trust, though. To hear him testify (testify!) that our leaders are more profoundly in touch than any group of which he is aware was pretty stunning to me.
Not that it works, but hey - brick walls and me are well-acquainted. {grin}
Comment by m&m — March 12, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Thanks Janet, It’s been a long time since I read anything about Huebener, so I’m sure my memory is bad. You do mean the bishop lives in SLC? Because Huebener was executed. I think his friends both ended up in Utah.
Comment by Paula — March 12, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
M&M, I thought that the policy was to send letters that are sent to General Authorities back to the local authorities, such as a SP, without any response from the General Authority, or even being read. This has happened to two friends of mine, and I have heard it is policy. So rather hard to stay in touch that way, if you don’t even read your own mail.
Comment by Paula — March 12, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
94
Paula, your comment seems to suggest that the only way for leaders to stay in touch is to read every piece of mail!
(Seems Doesn’t that seem a bit restrictive?
My thoughts in response follow…. (Side note: The policy is that we should go through our local leaders. Anything I say should not be misread as encouragement to do otherwise.)
- I don’t know about letters that are sent to GAs being returned unread, but letters have been referred to, quoted and addressed in General Conference (as recently as the last one). So obviously not all letters are unread. (Maybe those came up through appropriate channels?)
- I know my local leaders have passed feedback up the chain. Just because we shouldn’t send stuff directly to the general level doesn’t mean it can’t get there. I believe the leaders care about what we think, but there has to be an order to it lest they get bogged down in responding to letters all day. (Really, imagine what it must be like to lead a church of millions of people!)
- General leaders meet with local leaders regularly. I can’t believe that they never pass on concerns.
- Just because we don’t hear concerns being addressed doesn’t mean they haven’t been heard or that our leadres aren’t aware of them. It might mean that that the time isn’t right or that we are barking up the wrong tree. (This last option rarely seems to be considered.)
- General leaders have their own ways they can get information without it needing to be sent in a letter. They have families, friends, ward members, and their own personal and professional networks, as well as the church networks. I don’t believe they sit in their offices and make decisions without serious consideration and seeking input. If Elder Holland has testified of their awareness and in-tune-ness, why question that?
-General leaders live and travel all over the world. They are not unaware of issues that are faced because many of them they live and experience and see the issues.
- General leaders have authority and stewardship that allows them to make decisions and even be guided about what deserves their time and attention. They don’t need everything to come “from the outside” or “from the bottom.” God knows all and can reveal what is necessary even if some letters go unread. This work is bigger than any of us.
Comment by m&m — March 12, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Mainly as a rhetorical question (because I read only the first 20 comments), if there’s blind obedience, do you guys think there’s such think as blind rebellion?
(I’m just playing around with the words here…)
Comment by a teenager — March 15, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
I don’t think that there is any earthly man that has the AUTHORITY to decide my salvation and how I work on my faith walk, but JESUS CHRIST. “All have sinned and fallen short to the glory of God”. I do not support any priesthood holder that assumes he can decide on my salvation.
Comment by handmaiden — March 20, 2007 @ 12:21 am
I love this discussion. I have been is Salt Lake for 2 years and prior to that, I did not know one thing about the LDS faith. It has been my impression (or perhaps the impression I was given), that Mormons do not dialogue like this. I am glad to see that I was misinformed.
Comment by Andrew — March 20, 2007 @ 12:55 am