Faithful Dissidents: Being The Change You Desire
I’m all for peaceful activism, but we all know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a church of activists. At least not in the traditional sense.
I’ve been thinking about the role of “faithful dissidents” in the Church and whether being one is, in fact, a form of activism — the only kind that will ever possibly result in the change you desire.
I call myself The Faithful Dissident because I’m basically still a “faithful” Mormon in most ways, at least on the outside. I still go to church, pay a full tithe, keep the Word of Wisdom, though many could ask why. My “dissent” is very much on the inside: in my thoughts, feelings, and spirit. It’s also a virtually silent dissent — unless you count blogging. I’ve only discussed my true thoughts on the subject with half a handful of people face-to-face.
A common struggle that I’ve observed with other Mormons who think and feel like I do, is the feeling that any faithful perseverance in the Church will simply be in vain; that things never change and we’ll always be wrong on everything. Such feelings inevitably give way to apathy, anger, and, in some cases, even bitterness.
But are faithful dissidents underestimating the impact that they have on the Church? Even the angriest and most apathetic of dissidents have to admit that things have and do change in the Church, even if it can sometimes seem to come at a snail’s pace. And even the most puritan and orthodox of members have to admit that although God may be the same “yesterday, today, and forever,” that’s not the case with the Church. Change does come and it comes from within, not from without.
I think about my mother’s generation and those before her, where stay-at-home mothers were the norm (at least in the Church). I’m grateful that my mom was always home with us, but I’m more grateful that she chose to be at home with us. (At least I think she did). I think that those who chose to have a career had to endure a lot of guilt from fellow Church members. Now it seems that the majority of RS sisters (at least in the areas where I have been) work outside of the home. Some do it out of financial necessity, while many do it for personal fulfillment. Some mothers find that they have to get out of the house in order to maintain their sanity. And although I think it’s a stretch to say that LDS women are able to have a guilt-free career today, I think that leaders have softened their words on the subject over the years and my generation of LDS women has a slightly greater sense of freedom than our mothers’ generation.
If faithful LDS women had accepted that birth control was such an evil abomination, as earlier prophets proclaimed, would it be such an acceptable “personal decision” today among Mormon couples? Does God really look at birth control differently now than he did 50 years ago? I doubt it. But the Church sure does. (See Bored in Vernal’s very interesting “Evolution of Birth Control in the Mormon Church.”)
Most of you have probably read descriptions of the earliest garments that covered most of the body. Today, our garments are probably less than half of what early Mormons wore. What we wear today — even with our garments on — would have been considered immodest back then. Did God lower his standards on modesty, or did the Church learn to accept a more liberal clothing style among its members that changed with the times?
I often think of earlier black members who had to endure some pretty demeaning teachings about why they were who they were. Amazingly, some still joined the Church. As we see when we look back at history, not even something as powerful and revolutionary as the American black civil right’s movement was enough to bring change to the Church’s policy on race. It appears that the most powerful catalyst to change in the Church came from within: blacks defying the odds by joining a “white church” and wanting to attend the temple. Were it not for the dilemma of all the Brazilian members who were ineligible to attend the temple that was to be built in their own country simply because of the African blood flowing through their veins, would the priesthood ban have been lifted? Probably not — at least not then.
If homosexuals had never challenged the sentiment that they were choosing to be gay, or the fact that even just having a same sex attraction was at one time grounds for excommunication (see an excellent LDS gay history timeline on Dichotomy), would we see any openly-gay Mormons today, let alone those who attend the temple regularly?
Are all these changes truly founded in revelation? Are they simply coincidence? Or did they come about because of faithful dissidents who remained true to the Gospel, yet weren’t afraid to think outside of the box and even push the envelope a bit?
A commenter on my blog, Papa D, said something after one of my recent posts that really struck a chord with me. He said:
“When I lived in the Deep South, invariably a black investigator would join the Church, face intense pressure from family and friends for joining a “white church”, stay active for about 3-6 months then fade into inactivity - sometimes citing the fact that no other black people were joining the Church. Just as invariably, about 3-6 months later another black investigator would be baptized - and the cycle would repeat exactly. After a few years, if those black members would have stayed active, there would have been a thriving black membership in the Church in that area. I’m NOT blaming them for leaving. I actually understand how difficult it is to remain active in an organization when you feel like a token member - especially when you feel like the others in the organization don’t really understand you. For many reasons, I get that completely. All I’m saying is that when someone leaves they automatically contribute to the stereotyped self-fulfilling prophecy against which they complain. They also reinforce, unfortunately, the stereotyped view of those who are unlike them - that black members, or liberal members, or gay members, or feminist members ad infinitum never make life-long members. Being a pioneer or Christlike rebel is hard, but leaving only exacerbates the problem at both ends. “Be the change you desire” is great advice, as long as that desire doesn’t include bitterness and harsh confrontation and self-righteousness. It’s a tricky balance sometimes, and it requires serious humility and meekness, but it’s worth it in the end for those who can do it.”
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, particularly about how it applies to my good friend Cody (aka Gayldsactor), who is likely facing excommunication in the near future after holding a commitment ceremony with his partner. Cody is active and very much a believer. He holds no malice towards the Church or the laws it has to uphold. He may soon no longer be a Mormon on record, but he will always be one in his heart and intends on living as such in every way that he can — even if he is excommunicated.
I think that the Church needs more people like Cody. I have no idea what’s in store for gay members of the Church in the future. It would seem foolish of me to make any optimistic predictions about any future acceptance of homosexual relationships within the Church. But at the same time, I often have this feeling that something’s got to give. The “homosexuality question,” I believe, is the issue of my generation in the Church and the story is not over. Members like Cody will be “sacrificed” along the way, but it will not be in vain. Just like all the early black members of the Church who lived and died without being able to hold the priesthood, enter the temple, or receive any of its ordinances, perhaps without having any family members to do their temple work, a way must be paved for all those who remain as faithful as they can if God is truly fair and just.
But the way will not be paved until enough faithful dissidents are committed to paving it. And it requires faith, patience, sacrifice, and — perhaps the most difficult — a whole lot of humility.
Some of these examples you give are quite historically reductionist. The garment change, for example, came after they discovered that the original garment design was not handed down from Sinai, as it were.
I’m not opposed to the principle of change from within, but I’m not sure you’ve given the best examples on what or how.
I like Todd Compton’s “Counter-Hierarchical Revelation,” in SUNSTONE 15:2, in balance with Orson Scott Card’s “Walking the Tightrope” Sunstone April 1989.
Comment by Nitsav — February 12, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I do think it’s best to be a faithful member to the extent you’re allowed. Change does come from within.
Comment by Tatiana — February 12, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks for this very thought-provoking post, FD. I feel for gays in the LDS church. How painful to be a member of an organization which basically considers you anathema. The “changes” towards gays, particularly, “It’s okay to have same-sex attractions because we’ve decided those are not a mutable trait, but if you act on them, you’re out on your ear,” are not reassuring, I think, to the average gay person, particularly in light of the viciousness of the Church’s work on Prop 8.
You speak of minority people not creating change because they live up to an idea that minority members rarely stay for a lifetime, with black members dropping out after 3-6 months, when, had they stayed, they might soon have found other members like themselves. This surely doesn’t translate to gay members, though. You mention your friend, Cody, who is not dropping out for want of gay Mormon fellowship, or even for want of acceptance from at least some straight Mormons. Instead, he is being excommunicated. It is hard to stay and build up a membership-share if you and those like you are regularly being excommunicated. And asking gays to “do what it takes” to stay on as members in order to be able to promote change from within, is to ask them to give up all hope of love, companionship, sexual expression, family and children.
It is hard to see a way through to the other side in which gays are an accepted part of the Church, when the Church so vigorously persecutes and abandons its gay membership.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
I think it is those who are seeking change that have the ability to bring Christ to more people. It is those people who bring life and diversity to the church. If the church hadn’t changed and realized that blacks should have the priesthood, would any of us be LDS now? I think not. We wouldn’t want to belong to a racist church. How many more people would have been brought to Christ if we hadn’t excluded blacks?
Many of the leaders are a generation or two or three older than many of the members. This brings wisdom (that’s good), and sometimes hesitancy to change (that can be good or bad). Members have an obligation to pray, fast and ponder. When they receive an answer it is great that they share that in an appropriate manner.
Just my thoughts.
Comment by denver born — February 12, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Is it possible to be faithful and a dissident at the same time? I don’t think that this is a line we should flirt with. You know, the whole “you can’t serve two masters” thing. Of course, the master is Christ, not the Church, so above all, we should try to serve Him the fullest of our capabilities. I personally believe Christ is 100% aligned with the Church.
Additionally, the Church may always have unpopular stances, but that doesn’t mean they’re not correct. For example, how unpopular was it a few decades ago to have six children? How unpopular is it now and how worse will it be in another couple decades? It’s possible that the Church may never change it’s stance on homosexual lifestyles. If that’s the case, what will you decide? Are individual preferences worth more than Church membership?
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Jon, I am as active and faithful and believing as it gets, but I think that statement is naive and unscriptural and wouldn’t be accepted by any of the prophets and apostles that have been called since April 6, 1830. Obviously, we disagree, but I think it is impossible to make that argument and be consistent with the message that actually comes from “The Church”.
Comment by Ray — February 12, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
RE 6:
I want to rephrase that: I personally believe that the Church is 100% aligned with Christ.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Though they’re not perfect matches, Proposition 8 has some similarities to the Prohibition. In my opinion, a large part of the country believed it was an unlivable law. They were also both widely unpopular, and the Church opposed both drunkenness and homosexual lifestyles.
President Hinckley said this about the Prohibition: “In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state. I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, “Utah Kills Prohibition.” President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel.” (Read the whole article
Whether or not the Prohibition was good or bad doesn’t matter, but how loyal LDSaints are to the Church.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
#8 jon - how can you say that when the church has made changes in the past, and supposedly christ is unchanging? of course i’m talking about things like black people and the priesthood, women’s roles, etc. it seems undeniable to me that things HAVE changed in sync with human culture.
the only way i can reconcile this is that the church is run by imperfect humans who sometimes make HUMAN decisions, and christ guides the church to make changes for the better when people are ready.
considering the church’s history i don’t think it’s honest to say that the church must be 100% aligned with christ. this implies it is perfect. which no institutions that involves humans is.
Comment by nobobdyputsbabyinacorner — February 12, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
one more sarcastic comment: wow really? loyalty is what matters? here i thought it was truth.
Comment by nobobdyputsbabyinacorner — February 12, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
this scares me. anyone who talks like this scares me. that means you scare me.
your loyalty should aways be to god. not to the church. even if you belive the church is direct by god. they can still get stuff wrong.
Comment by mfranti — February 12, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
re#8 - loyalty to the church isn’t important, loyalty to what you believe to be true is important
Comment by denver born — February 12, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Wow…Just…wow.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Substitute something else for “Prohibition.”
“Whether or not Slavery was good or bad doesn’t matter, but how loyal LDSaints are to the Church.”
“Whether or not Segregation was good or bad doesn’t matter, but how loyal LDSaints are to the Church.”
“Whether or not denying women the vote was good or bad doesn’t matter, but how loyal LDSaints are to the Church.”
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
I don’t believe that outward dissidence is as effective in changing policy as other factors are. For example, the Church seemed less moved by 60’s civil rights protests against them in America than they were by the fact that the Church was developing so rapidly in South and Central America, where the mixed ancestry issue would seriously cripple proselyting efforts. I think the softening of position on working mothers came less from outside protests and more from the fact that mothers were secretly crying in bishop’s offices as they expressed how difficult it was to pay tithing and make ends meet on a single income. Again, I differ “policy” from “doctrine and covenants”. Just my take on it.
Comment by larryco_ — February 12, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
(cross posted from my comments in FD’s blog)
That [the hope that I can be an influence and an agent of change] is a significant factor in my maintaining activity within the Church. There are certainly plenty of times I’ve considered bowing out. But if I do, I will only reinforce the stereotype among the mainstream membership that liberalism is another word for apostacy. And for all the flaws of the Church itself, I the core Gospel still rings true. If I grit my teeth and endure some of the most exasperating flaws of the Gospel, and maintain my activity, I believe I can ultimately be a catalyst for change on a local level–and, with you and other like-minded progressive types, on a global level as well. If we all give up on it, those flaws will ossify into eternity.
Comment by Derek — February 12, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
RE 10 - 13, but especially 13:
Maybe you don’t agree when I said, “Whether or not the Prohibition was good or bad doesn’t matter, but how loyal LDSaints are to the Church.” This was paraphrasing what President Hinckley said next:
Again, read the whole article if you care.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Jon, that doesn’t make it right, from my perspective. Had President Hinckley made a persuasive argument that continuation of Prohibition would have brought about healthy and valuable changes to this country, then I’d say that taking the Church to task for not voting the Church’s will on that issue might be justifiable.
But most historians consider Prohibition on nearly every score an unqualified disaster which caused far more harm than good. Even President Hinckley tacitly acknowledges this fact in your quote by not making an argument for the goodness or rightness of Prohibition. And to then argue after-the-fact, in the face of historical evidence that Prohibition was in many ways harmful to this country, that the membership SHOULD have voted according to Church directives, rather than voting their own conscience and good sense (at least, this is what I am understanding your post to indicate), flies in the face of what is right (that means, to be more blunt, that I think it’s really, really wrong).
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
3rd line above: “…then I’d say that taking the membership to task…”
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
RE 18:
You may think it’s wrong, but LDSaints believe that what is said during General Conference is at that moment even more important than what is said in Scriptures.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
#20 really? I think many of us believe more of what Jesus said in the New Testament than GC, but maybe I’m just way off base.
Comment by denver born — February 12, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
It is important to look how the church has changed and evolved. It brings me hope. I guess it just takes time.
The whole prop 8 issue reminded me of the equal rights movement. The church urged the members to do all they could to support it, because there was a fear that women’s roles would change. 20 years later, have the roles changed? Maybe, but it doesn’t it didn’t seem to cause a catastrophe.
Maybe in 20 years we will see that allowing same-sex couples won’t be as bad as everyone thought it would be. I’m sad for all the same sex couples in the church, but hopeful that the church will turn around.
Comment by Shannon — February 12, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Of course, what gets lost in the shuffle is that Prop 8 wasn’t about allowing, or even condoning, same sex couples or same sex marriage in the church. It was far more comparable to Prohibition.
Repealing Prohibition didn’t make drinking alcohol okay in the church. It just took away the criminal penalties attached to production, sales and possession of alcohol. Prop 8 was to gay marriage as Prohibition was to alcohol. While it didn’t make it illegal to be gay (just as Prohibition didn’t make it illegal to bottle your own wine for family use), it took away rights from gay people who wished to engage in a civil contract of marriage.
Neither one was really the church’s business, because neither one influenced what was required of churches or church membership by church authorities.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
In many ways, it’s difficult for people to be the change they desire because they aren’t “out” at Church. I’m not talking about being gay. I’m talking about the many, many people with questions and confusions and disagreements and outright contrary opinions that feel like they’re the “only” one. Probably the most thriving networks of these kind of Mormons are here online.
One big deterrent to any inside movement from the ground up is that no one wants to be seen as attacking the Church because of the repercussions. I mean, you may disagree with the stance on homosexuality, but are you willing to risk eternity for it if it doesn’t affect you directly? And as Lorian said, if it *does* affect you directly the only way you can exert influence is by living a celibate, single life, and most of my ex-Mormon gay friends told me they were told not to talk about being gay, so you can’t even be an outreach in that capacity. The Church still can and does excommunicate people. I think these things add an additional frustration to being the change you desire- is it worth risking membership to fight for a peripheral area you disagree with?
If I were a devout Mormon, but had certain issues- women and the priesthood, gay marriage, etc.- I honestly can’t say that I would stand up and lead the charge. Because if I believed this is the True Church, I wouldn’t want to get kicked out of it. It’s this situation of authority, and being able to excommunicate people, that sometimes gives me an icky uncomfortable feeling about the Church. Please know I understand that people aren’t getting booted out left and right- but the possibility is always there. It’s sometimes really sad to read not just this blog but others, to talk to my Mormon friends when they confide their deepest feelings to me, and to realize just how many Mormons want change. Faithful, lifelong members who agonize over why they can’t accept certain things.
It reminds me of how hard it is to organize a strike- it’s hard to identify the people who would do it with you, it’s hard to avoid accidentally tipping off someone who will rat you out, and even when you have a lot of people you all have to trust that everyone will actually strike instead of still showing up to work because they’re afraid of losing their job.
Comment by sophia*rising — February 12, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Ohh Ohh Ohh, Utah came in, provisionally as a slave territory. Go us.
Comment by lessbaddjinn — February 12, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
That was supposed to read RE: 23
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
“The whole prop 8 issue reminded me of the equal rights movement. The church urged the members to do all they could to support it, because there was a fear that women’s roles would change. 20 years later, have the roles changed? Maybe, but it doesn’t it didn’t seem to cause a catastrophe.”
Shannon, you misspoke? I often do, so understand. the Church did everything in its power to defeat (imagine caps here) the equal rights movement, including bussing busloads of women into appropriate conferences, endless talks, the occassional excommunication, etc. They succeeded. You may agree or disagree that this was good, but the Mormon Church played an extremely important rule in the Equal Rights Amendment failing.
Comment by lessbaddjinn — February 12, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Good post, Sophia.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
What was supposed to read RE: 23? :confused:
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
My comment (#25) was supposed to be addressed to comment #23, not #24.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
re: 23
Nor did the implementation reduce drinking or alcoholism in the nation. It was a futile legislative effort, and was inconsistent with the essential character of the Constitution (as I mentioned in my essay opposing a federal marriage amendment), so I believe it was appropriate to repeal it.
Comment by Derek — February 12, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
31 - Derek:
Exactly. :mindmeld:
30 - Jon:
I’m still confused. Comment #25 is from Djinn.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Sophia, that was so well put. I’ve recently left the church and you wouldn’t believe how many of my “friends” have just stopped calling me completely, or saying, “I haven’t seen you in a while.” when I do see them. Like I’m supposed to explain to them right then and there that I left. I feel like saying, “I haven’t seen you either.”
I’m not having a pity party or anything, I still have my core group of family and friends, but it really is telling when someone leaves how other people react to it.
Comment by nicole — February 12, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
RE 32:
I disagree. Again, you can read President Hinckley’s articles entitled “In Opposition to Evil” and “Loyalty“.
In short, President Hinckley says it’s more important to be loyal to the Church (especially the First Presidency) and that LDSaints should combat the liberalization of laws that erode moral character.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
RE 33:
My computer says mine was #25. It could be a fluke.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
How does legalizing gay marriage erode moral character? And since when do the laws of this country have to enforced a given Church’s view of “upholding moral character?”
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
re#34: Would you remain loyal to Brigham Young’s racial statements? Fortunately, our modern day Prophets have been wonderful, wise men, yet they aren’t perfect, nor do I believe that they think they are. Oddly you appear to think they are.
Comment by denver born — February 12, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Jon, I can’t even see that post. The last post I see from you is # 20, and then nothing until # 26 where you say: “That was supposed to read RE: 23″
:paranoid:
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
RE 37:
You’re looking at this from a perspective outside of the Church. You asked me a similar question recently, and I’ll copy my response from then:
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
re: 34
Given that you are arguing with people who don’t believe in blind obedience to the prophets, you might want to find a different argument other than “Pres Hinckley said so.”
Moral character cannot be legislated. And isn’t trying to force moral behavior through legislation akin to Satan’s plan? Aren’t we supposed to use persuasion and brotherly kindness rather than coercion?
Comment by Derek — February 12, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
39 - Jon:
Is this post actually addressed to my post # 36? If so, then, yes, I recognize that post. It momentarily slipped my mind that you were the one who believes that Fire and Brimstone will rain down on San Francisco and Los Angeles. Sorry for bothering with the question.
Let me ask this question, then, which, as I recall, you failed to answer on the other thread:
Why will taking away civil rights from gay couples stop this rain of destruction on the Bay Area? It does nothing to prevent gays from being gay. Did Sodom and Gomorrah offer civil marriage benefits to same gender couples?
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
It’s probably about time to start ignoring Jon, I can’t see that he lends much by way of thoughtful discussion.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 12, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
RE 41:
Naturally. All of my statements are made assuming you (collective you) believe in and sustain the presidents of the Church as prophets. If you (you you) believe that dictating moral character is always part of Satan’s plan, than does that make President Hinckley’s comments from Satan?
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
FYI, I recently wrote Beehive Clothing suggesting changes to the garment cut, fabric, and sizing chart. They responded by having a designer personally contact me to discuss my suggestions - one of which was for a tank top. I was very impressed, and I encourage anyone interested in seeing change to not give up and to write our leaders instead. They are more open to suggestions than we might think! Just make sure that your perspective is clearly “faithful.”
Comment by Natalie — February 12, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
RE 42:
I’ll try to be clearer. Simply put, I think legalization of gay marriages will result in not only more people deciding to try homosexual lifestyles but that other but that how a government legislates on certain issues is an indicator of its righteousness. The more wicked a nation (or city), the worse the retribution will be.
Comment by Jon — February 12, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Could it be . . . Satan?
Jon I don’t think you have to attribute every human weakness and foible to such dark and dangerous jargon. Did Satan make you drive five miles over the speed limit? Did Satan make you take that extra pen home from the dentist office. Are you a tool of Satan.
Honestly, I think it’s time for you to moderate your overblown style or find someplace else to argue.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 12, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
re: 43 (Last response, in honor of FMHLisa’s suggestion)
I believe in and sustain the prophets as far as the Spirit confirms their words. Period.
Comment by Derek — February 12, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Jon,
I realize that you’re basically arguing a church-based point, so not being LDS, I won’t comment on that and let those who are LDS cover that angle.
But your callousness when it comes to this issue makes me wonder if you’ve ever met any gay people. And I don’t mean met them for two seconds, but really gotten to know them. If I knew you in person, I’d invite you to spend time with my fiance and me. You’d see that we’re every bit as normal as any heterosexual couple.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 12, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Jon, When Elder Ballard asked the members to use electronic media, he explicitly mentioned that it is critical to realize that individual members can’t speak for the Church. It was explicit.
In more than one comment, on more than one thread, you have written as if all members believe (fill in the blank) - and you have done it with comments that I personally think are flat-out wrong. As one faithful member to another, please stop it. Say whatever you want about what you believe, but please stop presenting your opinions as if they represent the Church and all righteous members. They don’t, and you don’t.
Thanks.
Comment by Ray — February 12, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Ray, you’re the best.
Comment by nicole — February 12, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Sorry, Lisa. I couldn’t plow through all the comments and jumped ahead. I won’t address it again.
Comment by Ray — February 12, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
John at 39 (assming I can count)
God, pushish me! Right now, and then the (**** ***), uh what I meant to say was those terrible countries that have accepted homosexual unions have been cursed with universal health care, a high standard of living, and some of the highest overall happiness ratings on the planet. For Denmark, the country that gave gay unions the very first rights equivalent to marriage, they have the highest rate of happiness of all.
So, G*d, rain down your showers of high life expectancy, good health, happiness, wealth, etc., on me for being (or, to be honest) vigorously supporting the sort of sin Jon decries. Please. Esp. that health care bit.
Comment by djinn, baddish — February 12, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
don’t apologize Ray, that was lovely, really.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 12, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
re#44 LOL, I love it!
Comment by denver born — February 12, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
May I respectfully submit that the efforts of ‘faithful dissent’ should include dialog with members like Jon instead of heaping scornful sarcasm and asking him to disappear?
Comment by DMT — February 12, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
with all due respect DMT, after doing this for a long long time, it becomes clear that sometimes a “dialog” is possible, and sometimes it is more of a pearls/swine scenario.
I’m all for reasonable disagreements with people who actually listen to each other and respond with respect and intelligence. I do truly believe that bad apples spoil the barrel, the science is compelling, one person does have an inordinate amount of power to drag down the tone and quality of an entire group. I’m not going to let my lovely intelligent commentators be bogged down having to respond to drek. If Jon can come back and participate with a more thoughtful tone and zero parts condemnation, then he will be allowed to participate again.
Otherwise it’s a “dialog” I have no interest in whatsoever.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 12, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
I always feel like an interloper here (not being LDS) but I just want to say: I love you people and your wild passionate blog-conversations. And I’d like to point out that this very blog is changing the nature and the culture of the church. You are providing a place where people can talk about their differences and feel supported and accepted and sane and normal.
I grew up in a christian religion which I assumed to be very liberal because of the way I was raised. We didn’t go to church so I was never touched by the culture of the church, only the scripture. My first immersion in the culture was when I went to church college (the equivalent of BYU) and found out that the college was unaccepting of openly homosexual students. I was also shocked to encounter the cultural expectation that women were sent to college to find a husband.
I dropped out and felt very very angry towards the church, towards god, towards all the members. I felt betrayed and shut out. But when I began attending a branch church (with a pitifully small membership) back home I met some other liberal members, a conservative gay member and a whole lot of conservatives. Regardless, everyone went to brunch together and teased each other about politics (with the most love imaginable). This was a truly healing experience for me. If I had known that there were others who thought like me or if I had seen the acceptance I saw at the branch church, I wouldn’t have struggled with so much hurt during the years in between.
This blog is kinda like those lunches!
Comment by The Singlutionary — February 12, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
As a long time reader, I would like to mention that it seems to me extremely difficult to keep the “right” tone on a blog uoon which anyone can post. fMhLisa appears to me to do this as well as anyone on the internets, hence the continuing popularity of her blog. Heed her words, all (including me.)
Comment by djinn, repentant — February 12, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
Oh, FD.
I wish I had your heart.
Thank you for writing this beautiful piece. I think it was intended just for me.
Comment by Natalie K. — February 12, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
I must say, I’m glad I no longer believe in a God who hovers over me with lightening bolts, waiting for me to mess up. God, as I understand God, is a lot bigger than that, and is not an arbitrary and vindictive joker who would make me, a gay person, and then tell me that if I dare find love in my life, I’m bound for hell, do not pass go do not collect $200.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
OK, so Lorian is a fellow gay. Yay. I’m just curious (being a nosy person and all).. anyone want to fill in this newb on who else here belongs to the club?
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 12, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Yes, that would be me.
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
MikeinWeHo is also a member of the club. I haven’t seen him around today, though..
Comment by Lorian — February 12, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
I never would’ve guessed he was with a name like that.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 12, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Crap, one more club I can’t join. Sometimes it really stinks being a straight, white male.
Comment by Ray — February 12, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
That was for you, Lorian.
Comment by Ray — February 12, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Did faithful dissidents from within the church cause the changes to be made? Or does their presence in the church simply correlate with the presence of cultural change?
The way I see the church changing is that society moves in whatever direction it’s going to move, often partly as a result of pushing by actual activists. Then as whatever “evil” of the previous generation becomes normalized (e.g. mothers working outside the home), or whatever “normal” of the previous generation is seen as evil (e.g. blatant racism), the church follows along society’s trendline, 15 to 30 years later.
The faithful dissidents are simply the ones who go with the flow in the church, don’t speak their mind publicly, don’t show anger, don’t take any action whatsoever to move things forward, just sit in the pew and hang onto their membership until the church finally gets swept along in the last wave of whatever progressive trend swept the rest of the US long before. In my opinion, it would be very difficult to underestimate faithful dissidents’ effects on the church.
Comment by Beijing — February 12, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
re:27
“Shannon, you misspoke? I often do, so understand. the Church did everything in its power to defeat (imagine caps here) the equal rights movement, including bussing busloads of women into appropriate conferences, endless talks, the occasional excommunication, etc. They succeeded. You may agree or disagree that this was good, but the Mormon Church played an extremely important rule in the Equal Rights Amendment failing.”
I understand the church played a critical role in this amendment failing. The point I was trying to make was, did it really have that big of an impact by eventually passing? No.
In my opinion the church played a huge role in the passing of Prop 8. The church put in about $190,000, and the members contributed greatly as well. Eventually prop 8 will be overturned and same sex marriage will be legal in CA, and it won’t have that big of an impact on us (well I mean those of us that can already marry. Obviously it will impact those that can’t).
I must not have made sense in my earlier comment. What I meant was the church is changing. 20 years ago there was a huge push for women to stay in the home during the ERA, now the church leaves it up to each individual family to decide about women’s employment status. There was a huge push to support prop 8, maybe in 20 years the church won’t be so against same sex marriage (at least outside the church). Do you understand the point I’m trying to make?
Comment by Shannon — February 12, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
“The faithful dissidents are simply the ones who go with the flow in the church, don’t speak their mind publicly, don’t show anger, don’t take any action whatsoever to move things forward, just sit in the pew and hang onto their membership…”
Ouch Beijing, but if that is the definition of “faithful dissident” than what do you call a person who attends regularly while speaking out publicly? Because that’s what I thought the term meant.
Ok, I see in the post above the person isn’t speaking publicly except blogging, but what if in real life, in church meetings, people are saying their supposedly controversial views and not being shut down for it? what do you call that?
Comment by cchrissyy — February 13, 2009 @ 12:34 am
Ray #66:
:kiss:
Comment by Lorian — February 13, 2009 @ 1:05 am
Shannon #68:
When did the ERA pass? To my knowledge, it has yet to happen. It’s been ratified by only 35 of the necessary 38 states. If it could pass without major modification, I expect it could make every bit as much of a difference as the 19th Amendment did.
Comment by Lorian — February 13, 2009 @ 1:12 am
As far as having a big effect on the Mormon Church, no, I don’t expect that ERA would. It doesn’t compel churches to do anything or take away the rights of women to obey the counsels and dictates of their churches, anymore than Prop 8 would compel churches to marry gays.
Comment by Lorian — February 13, 2009 @ 1:15 am
The original ERA itself is dead. The deadline for ratification has long since passed. The “three-state strategy” where you just work on it in three more states and then add it to the 35 states of the already dead ERA is legally questionable, at best, and I see virtually no chance of five justices on the current SCOTUS going along with that.
That having been said, a new ERA that starts from scratch could easily be ratified in today’s climate, provided that it specifically states that it doesn’t change the constitutionality of any abortion law. This specific exception would leave abortion law in basically the same state as it is today, with the validity of Roe and its progeny depending on the Court’s interpretation of existing constitutional amendments, rather than adding an additional ‘equality’ rationale for striking down restrictions, bans, and denials of government funding for abortions.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 13, 2009 @ 1:30 am
#67 Beijing-
I have to agree with the first part of your post- that the church follows along about 15-20 years later. I’m not going to state an opinion as to why, but it seems like on a lot of issues (the role of women, blacks and the priesthood, even issues like the nature of marriage equality and the roles of husbands and wives) the Church doesn’t so much hold to their own unique interpretations as they adopt the most conservative aspects of what society accepts. Once pretty much everyone in America says “ok, we believe X” then it seems the Church will eventually have a revelation, or send out a message, etc., adopting the most conservative element of “X”, but still adopting it nonetheless.
Maybe this explains what I’m trying to get across- my Pentecostal friends are still wearing dresses to the floor and not cutting their hair or wearing makeup. My Muslim friends are wearing hijab. Orthodox Jewish girls still cover their heads. Their respective religion’s interpretations of modesty are independent of the general culture’s interpretations of modesty, whereas in the Mormon Church, the definitions of modesty have been adapted to follow modern trends. Of course, it’s definitely on the modest end of the modern fashion specturm, as most members aren’t wearing strapless dresses and short shorts, but the idea of modest dress still fits within a modern framework- there are no skirts to the floor, no hijab.
Honestly, the ability to change is what I like about the Church, but I guess I wish there was more of an acknowledgement of how the Church responds to cultural shifts and pressures, instead of trying to paint every change as “revelation”. I mean, try as they might, no one has been able to convince me that the 1978 revelation didn’t have probably a lot to do with the backlash the Church was receiving, and the difficulties of preaching in parts of the world with significant African populations. The changing on the teaching of family size, women working, etc… I’m not trying to be so crass as to say they had to change to keep their membership, but something like that.
The problem with the gay issue seems to be that the Church is playing one step ahead this time - “oh, we’ve thought people were born gay for AGES guys! we totally get it! we just think it’s sinful to ACT on it”. This makes the Church come off more manipulative than I actually think it is, but there does seem to be a delicate line between new teachings and shrewd management to keep members, and there seems to be an unnecessary need to emphasize that changes in policy have nothing to do with social trends, even whenever (at least to me) they clearly do.
Comment by sophia*rising — February 13, 2009 @ 1:33 am
This post is a great example of the type of thinking that will, if not checked very carefully, lead to the eventual conclusion that “God is true, but the LDS Church and its leaders are out of sync with Him, and I can no longer support the LDS Church”. It’s pretty clear where that leads.
If you believe, as I do, that Christ is in a position of constant guidance over the Church and that the prophet is His mouthpiece on the earth, then many of the comments in this blog posting make little sense. Either you have to take the position that the prophet hears the Lord but ignores him for years at a time until he is forced to comply by the dissenters in the church and society. Or you have to take the position that the Lord is heard by the prophet and the church changes positions when the Lord directs the prophet to do so, and no sooner (or later). If you take the first position, you are treading a very dangerous path towards separating yourself from the church. If you take the second position, then you must accept that the church changes its stance when the Lord directs it to do so, and your dissent is simply “kicking against the pricks”.
There is a place for “dissent” in the church, but it isn’t against issues that are ultimately in the hands of the Lord and His inspired leaders. It’s against the local attitudes and incorrect traditions that many of us (all of us?) carry around which are in opposition to the truths taught by the Lord and His prophets. That dissent can be healthy as it helps move people closer to the teachings of the Lord (as represented by the church, its leaders, and the scriptures). However, if you believe your dissent will eventually cause the “Church” to change, by which you mean that the church’s leaders will eventually pronounce a change in doctrine, then I would suggest you are instead, in opposition to the covenants you have made to sustain the Lord and His church as the Kingdom of God on earth.
Comment by Cliff — February 13, 2009 @ 1:36 am
Hmmm I guess I better check my history before I speak. Sorry to sound unintelligent guys. Honestly the ERA was before my time here on earth.
Comment by Shannon — February 13, 2009 @ 1:44 am
ConservativeRepublican #73
Yeah, I realize the original ERA is dead. My point was that it didn’t pass, either originally in the 70’s or at any time since. There is still movement and hope, but it just isn’t going anywhere.
I’d be all for a rewrite and starting over, but we would again face the same obstacles from conservatives claiming it would give the fags too much grounds for claiming equality, too. I remember quite vividly the conversation I had with my mother in the kitchen over breakfast one morning about “What the ERA is and what it means.” She was mostly hung up on the fact that it would allow homosexuals to become teachers (Heavens to Murgatroyd!).
There is still plenty of that homo-fear (to deGreek a term) in middle America, and when you consider that 30 states currently do not have basic civil rights protections for gays in fair housing, employment and public accommodations, the idea that we could get 38 states to ratify an ERA which was not specifically worded to exclude gays from protection seems pretty remote to me.
Yeah, abortion would be a big issue. But gays would be another, just like they were back then.
Comment by Lorian — February 13, 2009 @ 1:47 am
Don’t think twice about it, Shannon. Some of us are older than spit. I was 11 when it was put forward and 21 when it pretty much died. It’s sad that we as a country have never gotten around to reviving it in any meaningful way.
Comment by Lorian — February 13, 2009 @ 1:49 am
This discussion reminds me of a conversation one of my mormon aunts (yes, specifically THAT mormon aunt) and I had about 10 years ago over the issue of blacks in the priesthood. After a few minutes of dancing around the issue, I asked her point blank the reason that the ban was rescinded. Her response, in a rather monotone voice, was, “Because the Church ended the policy.” Well, geez, I already knew that. (In fact, I already knew way more than I was letting on. I was hoping for a deep discussion. I knew from previous conversations that in order to get one I’d have to act like I was almost totally ignorant of the subject. ) When I pressed her for more details, she became visibly upset and tried to change the subject. Rather than cause my own aunt to cry in public, I went along with the topic change.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 13, 2009 @ 1:56 am
Shannon,
Don’t feel bad. The main ERA movement was before my time, too. My knowledge in this area comes from books, not experience.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 13, 2009 @ 2:09 am
Honestly the first time I even heard about it was when I was watching that PBS documentary that came out a couple years ago on the church. I remember thinking “What? Why in the world would anyone be opposed to that?” I guess I just assumed it eventually passed.
Comment by Shannon — February 13, 2009 @ 2:15 am
Lorian,
Good points.
Fortunately, opinions on gay rights are rapidly changing in the positive direction in this country, so maybe a future ERA won’t have to have that exception in the relatively near future. That makes it a little different from abortion where support/opposition has remained relatively stable over the years. We’ll be debating that issue 50 years from now as passionately as we are today.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 13, 2009 @ 2:15 am
#20, Jon: “You may think it’s wrong, but LDSaints believe that what is said during General Conference is at that moment even more important than what is said in Scriptures.”
I recommend this excellent essay put out by FARMS (apologetics, so I’m sure you’ll approve). It clears up the General Conference factor.
Jon, in that Loyalty talk from Pres. Hinckley, he said:
“Now may I say a word concerning loyalty to the Church.
We see much indifference. There are those who say, “The Church won’t dictate to me how to think about this, that, or the other, or how to live my life.”
No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein.”
I think that you’re focusing entirely on the last sentence. What about the first part of the last paragraph? And once again, using certain women’s issues and gays not being excommunicated and actually being able to attend the temple today as examples, how would things have ever changed were it not for those who did not follow 100% what the Church taught? How were such members (i.e. women who used birth control despite what the prophets said, gays accepting their orientation even though some of them were excommunicated for it, even though they were chaste) being disloyal to the Church? If the Church required such fierce, perfect loyalty to absolutely everything that GA’s have ever said, then I think that the Church would look much like it did in the beginning: a mostly white, homogenous group of people where all the women stay at home and bear one child after the other. In some ways, I picture it being like the FLDS.
So I don’t think that loyalty means that you can never disagree with anything. If we argue something with our husbands, are we being disloyal to him, since he’s supposed to preside over the family and we’re supposed to heed his counsel? I suppose that you and I define loyalty differently.
#24 sofia*rising, I’m definitely not “out” at church, and it’s mostly for the reasons you described. It’s also why I blog anonymously. If I ever get “discovered,” then I stand by what I have written in my blog. I don’t think I have crossed the line, and I have a hunch that some of my superiors would agree with me, although I’m sure that some will disagree. Just a difference in opinion, I suppose. A part of me really wishes I could be “out” and publish my real name and picture on my blog. Maybe someday, but I’m a bit leery of some Gestapo-like members who would want to put a stop to the frank discussions that I have with my fellow bloggers. Some think that members like me are out to bring down the Church. My “mission” has been to understand things better so that staying in the Church becomes not just bearable, but enjoyable.
#44 Natalie, that was very interesting about garments. I’m dreaming of garment tank tops now, even though it’s 20 below outside right now.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — February 13, 2009 @ 5:08 am
@56
That may very well be the case, but I suspect that Jon’s perspective, if not his tone, is representative of much of your ultimate target audience in the Church.
I am probably somewhere right near the middle of the spectrum between ‘uber-orthodox TBM’ and ‘faithful dissident’ (which basically means, eg, that I honestly have no clue how to resolve dividing issues like SSM, because I’m torn by both sides), so you can take the below with whatever grain of salt you wish.
The danger of ‘faithful dissent’ is the temptation to stray into an attitude of condescension at the “un-enlightenment” of others, exemplified by your own reference to pearls and swine. There is already great tension inherent in a church that simultaneously teaches deference to leadership while encouraging members to study issues personally to receive greater light and knowledge. But if ordinary members - those very people whose opinions you wish to change - sense the undercurrent in some of these comments and feel that you are talking down to them while reaching to steady the ark of leadership, make no mistake. They will quickly and firmly entrench themselves in defense of orthodoxy.
Comment by DMT — February 13, 2009 @ 7:11 am
“The danger of ‘faithful dissent’ is the temptation to stray into an attitude of condescension at the “un-enlightenment” of others…”
Yes, you are right that there is a danger in that, hence the call for humility. But let me put a spin on that:
“The danger of ‘unquestioning orthodox Mormon” is the temptation to stray into an attitude of condescension at the “un-spirituality and apostasy” of others.”
So it goes both ways, and since the Church membership is generally imbalanced, heavily favouring the conservative, orthodox side, it’s generally the less-orthodox side that feels ostracized and looked down upon.
#75 Cliff said: “If you believe, as I do, that Christ is in a position of constant guidance over the Church and that the prophet is His mouthpiece on the earth, then many of the comments in this blog posting make little sense.”
In other words, Cliff, you believe that the prophet is infallible just like the pope. Now, before you say, “No, I don’t!” you have to realize what papal infallibility really entails. No, Catholic doctrine does not say that the pope is an infallible man that can’t make mistakes. What it does say is that the pope is infallible and cannot be mistaken when he speaks for the Church on matters of morals and doctrine (i.e. abortion, the Immaculate Conception, etc.). So what’s the difference between what orthodox Mormons and Catholics believe in in regards to their leader? It seems to me that orthodox Mormons do very much believe in prophetic infallibility. See an informative post by a Catholic-turned-Mormon on the subject here.
Personally, I don’t believe in prophetic infallibility. I believe that the prophet can be inspired and can speak God’s will, but I don’t believe that he doesn’t makes mistakes, not even on doctrine (Brigham Young and his Adam-God doctrine being later declared false doctrine being an example). I think that If you and other orthodox Mormons want to believe that the prophet is infallible when he speaks to the Church, then that’s fine. Just quit trying to throw out the infallibility card when it seems that you always want to play it.
I’m not saying that the prophet “ignores” the Lord. As we’ve already discussed, things change in the Church. I certainly believe that it could very well be that the Lord is withholding certain things from us that he will reveal later. That could be the case with homosexuality. I simply don’t know. But I just don’t believe that the personal opinions and prejudices of Church leaders, based on their personal experiences and the environments in which they were raised, don’t EVER influence the things that they teach. The priesthood ban is the best example I can think of. Although I think it’s possible that the Lord may have had a reason for withholding the priesthood from black people, I’m more inclined to believe that it was a policy (not inspired doctrine) implemented because of personal prejudices and misinterpretations that only lasted so long because certain members of the Quorum of the 12 held on to their prejudices for so long. So it’s not that I think the Q of 12 were “ignoring” the Lord per se when it came to the priesthood ban. I think that they were perhaps just not ready to accept what the Lord really wanted because of their personal views were blocking divine communication that may have been trying to get through on the subject (not hard to believe when you read what some of them had to say about black people). It could be the same with homosexuality. Once again, I don’t “know.”
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — February 13, 2009 @ 9:34 am
hey that was mean!!! be nice. we all make mistakes on this board.
Comment by moderator — February 13, 2009 @ 10:26 am
While the official ERA legislation may not have passed, the movement which promoted the legislation has indeed pushed a great deal of improvement in society over the past several decades (including within the Church, in spite of opposition from the leadership). The general idea Shannon was getting across was correct.
Comment by Derek — February 13, 2009 @ 10:35 am
“The danger of ‘faithful dissent’ is the temptation to stray into an attitude of condescension at the “un-enlightenment” of others, exemplified by your own reference to pearls and swine.”
I am troubled by this, too, sometimes.
I’ve come to the conclusion that when people feel passionately about something and have been burned by someone over the issues being discussed, it’s quite easy to dump vitrol and grief on them. Particularly in a safe place like this forum… and I think it happens from time to time.
The question is, when is this innappropriate? It is obvious going into these discussions what the bent of some of the posters/commenters tends to be. Would you go into an all-black congregation and start talking about white supremacy? I mean, it’s never good to be a white supremicist, but theoretically there are venues where those who have those views might intelligently discuss them with those who do not. But there are times and places. I’ve long struggled with the issue of gay marriage and the church’s opposition to it and have not brought that discussion here… because I knew what I would get
and while I agree with a lot of what’s said on the subject here, I also have some iffy feelings about some of what tends to be corroborated among the many loyal posters and commenters here. I don’t air out/explore my feelings in that regard over here, for that reason… it’s really not the place.
I just inadvertently compared myself to a white supremacist…
I am neither a white supremacist nor an anti-gay person. Just thought I’d clarify. I’m actually glad governor huntsman came out in the press about civil unions, and glad the church softened its tone after the intial “rally to arms” among members.
Comment by sare — February 13, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Oh and, by safe, I don’t mean to belittle the moderators of this site. I think they do a grand job. By safe I mean, through the medium of the internet, and among percieved peers, it is much easier to “take a stand” and “vent” than it is among people who disagree with your opinion. particularly over an issue as sensitive and personal as gender and orientation.
Comment by sare — February 13, 2009 @ 10:44 am
DMT,
perhaps (maybe) (possibly) I went too far with the whole pearls/swine thing, but I was talking specifically about Jon and his tone and his self-righteous condemnations. In fact I do believe I said specifically that he is welcome here, it is his tone that is not.
The thing about swine is that they are not evil, they simply see no value or beauty in pearls. I have found that some people (of whom I have banned both the liberal and conservative) simply see no value in thoughtful soul-searching discussion, and no amount of prompting on my part can draw that out of them. I have no time or inclination to beat my head against that particular brick wall any more. It has everything to do with the attitude and very little to do with the content of their opinions. I feel the same way about exmos who tell me I am brainwashed and the feminists who tell me I am a tool of patriarchy.
It is you that generalized this reference to “the ordinary member” and the “keep your liberal hands off the arc of leadership” attitude they supposedly embrace (I’m skeptical that this is as true as you seem to think, precisely because of the inherent tension you articulate so well. A tension I think the “ordinary member” is perfectly aware of to a far greater degree than Jon seems to be.)
I hope that makes things more clear.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 13, 2009 @ 10:53 am
kinda on the ERA topic: I did this post (in 2007) on the church’s ERA involvement.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 13, 2009 @ 10:58 am
“hey that was mean!!! be nice. we all make mistakes on this board.”
Um, wow, moderator, I thought I was being nice. I was being serious with my “Don’t feel bad” comment. I was explaining to her that the reason I know about this particular topic is just because I happened to read about it, not because I lived it. Like her, the main ERA movement was before my time.
That’s what I meant. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 13, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Blacks were denied **exultation,*** not just the priesthood. No temple for them.
Comment by djinn, less repentant — February 13, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
I don’t know who moderator is (none of the perma’s use that handle and it’s a new IP, I’m checking to see if she really is a moderator) but I think from her tone that she was probably joking too.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 13, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
I speed-read all the posts - fascinating comments all. I was married w/3 small kids, at BYU during the ERA bit. I was bewildered by it all- did not see what the fuss was about. All I remember was the horror (?) of coed bathrooms which we see now as family restrooms - no big deal. To me, LDS women were like sheep, blindly following what thery were asked/told to do. I actually sympathisized with Sonia Johnson, who was excommunicated becasue of her outward dissidence. I’ve read her book several times over the years, and still sympathize with her. And that is why I’m a SILENT faithful dissident. I’ve read about other former LDS women who speak out on Heavenly Mother, who are excommunicated for speaking publicly. I understand and believe they are acting with their conscience. I am also a historian, especially on women’s issues, so I look at the church with a feminist eye. I feel early LDS women had a less rigid female role in some ways - but them we only read about the outspoken ones.
As far as BC, I have nine children with an X, who believed in no BC. Would I do the same now - absolutely NO NO NO. But i will never be able to say that to my children. As to garments, I remember the baggy one piece things. UGH! Now I love the variety - someone precipitated these changes. Did they feel dissident? Obviously the suggestions were taken seriously and no one was excommunicated over it?
All my life I have not understood the blacks/priesthood issue, even as an LDS teenager growing up in the south. I never said anything, and rejoiced at the change in June 1978 (at BYU then too).
As to gays - I really don’t care too much. The Bible is very clear as to the “sinfulness” of the homosexual relationship, yet the church official statement, after Prop 8 said it was not against civil unions, just not marriages for gays. Seems like the ban agst.polygamy - it was a “revelation” that was politically expedient, at the time.
So…for me - I think I need to be more public and outspoken, I follow Hugh Nibley’s esuggestions - pay my tithing, temple worthy, etc. I do believe the church is lead by a prophet of God, but we are all imperfect people - subject to change and improvement.
Lucy Sophia
Comment by LucySophia — February 13, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Maybe the difference in the loyalty factor stems from the confusion between loyalty to Heavenly Father versus loyalty to the Church, with it’s inherent limitations as a human institution.
It is possible to love and appreciate the dedication of leadership, while continuing to understand and have compassion over the fact that they remain fallibly human in this dispensation…subject to generational attitudes and prejudices. Our church history has borne this out. I am of the persuasion that FD shared- that entrenched belief systems or cultural practices may interfere with the ability to receive revelation to the contrary. I can believe it that they can make decisions that are wrong, while they completely believe that they have done what is best. I’ve done it before- most people with a jot of humility will admit to having done so.
I’ve changed my mind about many important matters in life. I have become increasingly aware of my own biases and less afraid of discovering them- in fact, I delight in it because I realize that it is only in discovering them and the limitations that holding them imposes upon my ability to increase my understanding, that I can progress. And so, knowing this about myself, it enables me to give every other human being a lot of slack over holding cherished prejudices. Who doesn’t? Isn’t is so much safer to slide that grave responsibility of independent thought over decision making onto the shoulders of individuals perceived as more worthy (even though leadership vigorously denies it themselves- because they are intimately acquainted with their own faults).
Of course they disclaim and encourage us all to study it out in our own mind. What if someone follows advice that is completely contradictory to the well-being of a family who is in exceptional circumstances? As for those who doggedly follow every prophetic utterance, believing that their own revelation is more correct because it is in accordance with the prophet…isn’t it a very powerful and comforting thought to entertain, “If I do everything the prophet suggests, I will never make a mistake.” How threatening to actually come to the opposite conclusion if you believe this to be so. It’s why I have compassion for those who do live this way. However, I also acknowledge that the leadership is, above all, preserving an institution and that involves the contaminating influence of power and the human element adds the propensity to make mistakes.
Yes, I can be a faithful dissident. It is not contradictory because the faithful aspect belongs to God and the dissidence is my sacred right to exercise the fruits of my direct personal revelation from that acknowledged God. I don’t have the right to impose it upon any other person- as it should be. Yet, if by example, I am continually exercising my personal solutions to moral/religious dilemmas, while at the same time showing up for SM, doing a good job at my callings, doing VT, loving my neighbor (which includes openly supporting my homosexual brother and many other gay friends)- then I am showing through my actions that I can be a practicing LDS, while at the same time, living according to my personal conscience. In my opinion, that is more powerful than throwing my shovel in the sandbox and announcing that I’m not going to play anymore.
Yet, I do understand that there are situations where it is just too hard to stay. I went inactive for a period of time after my divorce- due to a simple lack of energy in my grief. It takes considerable strength to swim against the flow.
Comment by Kimberly — February 13, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Your special and unique for being a dissident. You are such a strong person for being able to stand up against the man. Your quite efforts will resonate thru the eternities. Pat yourself on your back and move on.
I thought there were just members of Christ’s Church. Now I am hearing that there are orthodox members, feminist mormons, etc… What a joke. Give yourself whatever label you need to make yourself feel special or more important.
As for the comment on the Word of Wisdom, I would like to draw a parallel to Kosher laws. A Rabbi will tell you that there are some laws that God expects us to obey just because he asked. It is a test of our faithfulness, etc…
I have to get on a plane. Thanks for letting me to participate.
Comment by 411 — February 13, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
#97 411
And you are the kind of person, with the kinds of reactions, that force every person on this blog to feel more comfortable talking about their fears, and confusions, and frustrations here than with people at their ward. Because as hurtful as your sarcasm and ridicule are here, imagine opening up to a sister in your ward and having her respond that way.
In fact, I would take your own words and present them back to you
“I thought there were just members of Christ’s Church”.
If you really think that, maybe you should treat them as such, with charity and kindness, even on here, with the benefit of anonymity behind you.
Comment by sophia*rising — February 13, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Well said, sophia*rising.
Comment by ConservativeRepublican — February 13, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
A few years after I graduated from high school in I became friendly with my former english teacher. Her daughter, who was younger than I, had converted to the church, but my friend wasn’t LDS. She had, however, made a rather thorough study of the church because of her daughter’s baptism. She was a thoughtful and brainy woman whose retirement activity was to serve in the state legislature.
Not long after the 1978 revelation, she shared some of her thoughts with me that I keep remembering as I read these posts. She said that she admired the church leadership because they were slow to make changes. The church had endured criticism for exactly that for years, but she told me that it was better for societal institutions (such as churches) to change more slowly than the society itself because in that way the institutions were protected from damaging effects of rapid or poorly considered changes. She taught me that society at large usually benefits from its institutions not being blown about by every wind of doctrine, but rather carefully considering where and how to change. Since then I have felt comfort in seeing our leadership not react violently to the pressures which they surely must endure from stormy public opinion.
I don’t think the church is perfect, and I don’t anticipate that it will be as long as it’s run by mortal men and women for a bunch of mortal men and women and children. I do think that the doctrine which guides us is perfectly serviceable for our needs, and comes from God. I do look forward to the slow and steady improvements, changes and adjustments which I have seen in my lifetime, and is startlingly visible in my parents’ lifetime, when a member could, in times past, be brought before a church court for taking the Lord’s name in vain (it actually happened).
I have confidence that it will improve because I see enough humility and love in the efforts of the leaders and members. It’s good to study the scriptures and see the ways in which Christ balanced the needs of the law against the need for people to be shown love and mercy.
We all have a streak of dissident in us, some more than others. I intend to stay right where I am, being silent when I feel that speaking out would be destructive, but speaking up when I can see a way to do it productively. Serving in a calling is a good place to effect change. You have a lot of latitude in choosing how to serve when you are a volunteer.
The church would be a poor place for growth without all the faithful dissidents.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — February 13, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I’m sorry that I am so long winded.
Comment by Mommie Dearest — February 13, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
aw dang… already over 100 comments.
sorry, I haven’t even skimmed them so someone probably already offered this link, but this post reminds me quite a bit of mraynes thoughts over at the exponent.
yes.
change happens.
And I think it comes both from within and from without. from the members who chose to stay, from those who chose to leave… from people who aren’t members (aka “potential” members)… all of these individuals affect policy (and doctrinal) change upon this living organization which is the LDS church.
great post, FD. (awesome links. thank you.)
Comment by G — February 13, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
shoot… forgot the link to mraynes post. Here you go.
Comment by G — February 13, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
“dialog”
@56 - I’m not sure what’s the point of sarcastically pointing out that you think he misspelled a word. dialog is a legitimate form of “dialogue”.
Comment by queuno — February 13, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
The thing about swine is that they are not evil, they simply see no value or beauty in pearls. I have found that some people (of whom I have banned both the liberal and conservative) simply see no value in thoughtful soul-searching discussion.
#90 - Beautifully said, Lisa. My only comment:
Being a “swine” is a situational condition, not an inherent value.
By that, I mean that someone who is a “swine” in one context might not be a “swine” in other contexts. For example, there are those who understand the “value in thoughtful, soul-searching discussion” and, thus, are not “swine” here on this blog who would be “swine” on other blogs that are more conservative - since the type of “soul-searching discussion” that occurs there is not “valuable” to them.
All of us have within us a spark of divinity, but all of us are capable of being devilish, as well. It is that devilish nature that is our own internal “swine”, and it grows stronger every time we feed it - no matter how justified we feel we are in feeding it.
Comment by Ray — February 13, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Sorry, that first part was meant to be a block quote.
Comment by Ray — February 13, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
[…] Can there be faithful dissidents in the LDS church (the post also includes a link to a fascinating post about the history of birth control in the church)? […]
Pingback by Johnsenclan » Blog Archive » links 2/13/09 — February 13, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
queno, I wasn’t being sarcastic, just ignorant. I can’t spell, didn’t notice the misspelling. I’ve never in my life made fun of someone for bad spelling. I feel far too loyal: Bad Spellers of the World UNTIE!!
The scare quotes were all about meaning, applying a word like “dialogue” which implies a two-way conversation, to someone clearly not listening, I felt like the word was being abused.
. . . .So that means you jumped enthusiastically at the opportunity to attributed the worst of motives to me. Makes you think a little about your own self, doesn’t it?
Comment by fMhLisa — February 13, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Oh, i agree Ray. In fact I remember thinking about that as I wrote, we can all be swine sometimes. Reminds me of our RS lesson this week, the teacher did a fantastic job talking about the parable of the sower, and our teacher focuse on how each of us has thorns and rocky ground and shallow ground in our hearts, and we all have to continuously try to cultivate the good soil in our hearts so that the seeds can grow.
I really liked that way of looking at it so much better than pointing a finger outward at those thorny shallow rocky people. I know there are times when my inner swine wants to stop listening and just bury my nose in the slop. How’s that for mixing metaphors, or er, mixing parables.
What’s up with me ‘n pigs lately.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 13, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
lisa,
you are never a bore.
boar?
boor?
.
.
.
.
.
.
(that’s a facebook reference for those of you who don’t know)
Comment by mfranti — February 13, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
speaking of my bad spelling, the facebook thing actually started here.
Comment by fMhLisa — February 13, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
i didn’t know that! thanks.
it’s even funnier now.
Comment by mfranti — February 13, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
I see I’m a bit late to this discussion. On the topic of dissidents and Prohibition, there were plenty of faithful members who opposed it for a variety of well-founded reasons:
Huzzah for faithful and thoughtful dissidents in the Church then and now.
Comment by e — February 15, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
This is a really interesting conversation and I’m enjoying the various comments being made.
A few comments of my own.
To “AFaithfulDissident” re post #85:
You talk about Papal infallibility and try and associate it with the view I espoused in comment #75 about the prophet being constantly guided by the Lord. It might be tempting to make such a comparison, but these two concepts are completely different. The Catholics MUST claim infallibility for the Pope because they specifically claim there is no continuing revelation. If there is no revelation, the Pope has to be infallible or there is no point in him speaking about anything new.
In the LDS church, we claim specifically that the prophet is NOT infallible, but that this fact doesn’t matter because we claim continual revelation. The prophet can, and does, speak fallible human things when he is not speaking as the Lord’s voice. The example of Brigham’s “Adam God” theory is a poor example for the case you are making, since Brigham never claimed it to be doctrine. It was later specifically denounced because some people didn’t understand the difference between opinion and revelation.
I claim that the Lord constantly guides His church and that no prophet will ever be allowed to claim something that would damn people who believed in it. A prophet may say things that are less “enlightened” than we might expect today (such as the previously claimed ‘justifications’ for blacks not having the priesthood) but these things will never affect your exaltation or else the Lord would prevent the prophet from stating them as doctrine.
Point Two:
In the scriptures we are told that Zion is of “one heart and one mind”. While we’ll never truly reach this state so long as fallible human beings are in the church, this ideal is what the Lord has asked us to seek. As we specifically take positions like “one day the brethren will overcome their prejudice against Gays and will support Gay marriage” we are specifically setting ourselves in opposition to “one heart, one mind” ideal of Zion.
Perhaps some day we will discover that the brethren were incorrect in the statements they put forward in the Proclamation on the Family, and that the Lord truly feels different, but until then I claim that taking a personal position in opposition to the brethren is not pleasing to the Lord - no matter how enlightened you might feel you are.
It is good to oppose incorrect traditions and ideas where the Lord, the scriptures, and His prophets, are silent or also in opposition - but it is a spiritual gamble to assume your dissident view on doctrine will one day be matched by the brethren. If you choose to take such a position, you are a lot riskier than I am willing to be.
Point Three:
There are so many important things in the world that need outgoing, dissident voices to oppose them: government corruption, corporate greed, third-world hunger, you know the list. Given all the places where a true dissident could be invaluable, expending effort trying to reform the Lord’s church is such a waste of good talent.
Comment by Cliff — February 15, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I’m late coming to this discussion, but I feel like I should say something. So, you know, I’m going to.
#75 Cliff: What about those of us who think that Christ directs His church, but won’t reveal revelation before church membership is ready for it? In that case, faithful dissent is exactly what’s needed, since those of us who have ardent testimonies and devout lifestyles but socially dissenting views have the greatest potential to influence attitudes amongst the general membership of the LDS Church.
I won’t say that the leaders themselves are always or even often the reason that certain revelations and policy changes (not necessarily the same thing) seem to come through so late. It’s definitely possible for leaders to make mistakes, and FD might be right in #85 when she lays part of the blame on entrenched views of the Apostles. But laying all or most of the blame on Pres. Monson and our other called and annointed leaders for delayed revelation just feels extremely presumptuous to me, especially when I don’t know them very well or have access to their kind of information. Plus it always brings to mind, and then I get all uncomfortable. But I do firmly believe that very often the community of the Church, the majority of it anyway, is not ready for change. So the change comes when the timing is better. At a time, perhaps, when the new policy may challenge the membership, yes, but it won’t cause large groups of people to shut off completely simply because they weren’t ready. Faithful dissent, or whatever you want to call it, if it’s truly done with faith and appropriate humility, can help change those attitudes and prepare the way, making it easier for policy changes to follow.
I’m not sure how to respond directly to your comments in #114 just yet, since I agree in part with several of your points but predictably see far more shades of gray than you seem to be describing.
And admittedly I’m pretty moderate in most ways, so maybe it’s different if you’re more liberal than I am, but I do think there are ways to be outspoken about dissenting beliefs without being construed as anti-Mormon (or anti-Church leadership). But I feel like I’ve already written one of my many novel-length comments again, so I’m going to just throw that statement out there unqualified and move on with life.
Comment by OhMissJulie — February 15, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Um. Evidently I didn’t close a link correctly. What I meant to say there was, “Which always brings Helaman 13:25-26 to mind, which…” Sorry about that. If someone with editing privileges could fix that, I’d be ever so grateful.
Comment by OhMissJulie — February 15, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
Very good stuff here, thoughtful and helpful to this dutiful dissident in the wilderness. Love Cliff and earlier Jon for the light relief. Reading this makes me realise I live in a very limited geographic area for discussion or acceptance so the blog is therapeutic. Essentially you all help me to articulate my dilemma: do I speak out with all the risks attendant on that (sophia*rising outlines them well) or wait in quiet desperation for a time - or after-time - that will deliver what I see coming? I’m mindful of not steadying the ark, but wonder why I am made the way I am if I can’t use my talents?
I well remember the 70s and messages we got then, and how those have now changed, but those messages and others were the ones I followed, and they caused me great heartache. So I’d like to be able to speak out and short-cut some other person’s suffering . Trouble is, I have done that, and all that happens is a vociferous silencing (from my sisters, not my brethren) and I get “counselled”.
So I’m tentative about activism, wary of saying anything controversial, and avoid SS completely and RS mostly. So I guess I won’t be changing anything any time soon. Thank God for the bloggernacle.
Comment by possum — February 17, 2009 @ 7:49 am