- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
“… If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. … I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.”
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, LDS Apostle, PBS Interview, March, 2006
I remember hearing Elder Holland stating this. Now if I could just get my Stake President and my Bishop to get on board as well my life would much less stressful. This statement also makes me wonder how many of the GA’s actually subscribe to this… I would place my bet on less than 50% of them actually do. It does make me a bit optimistic, but then again, I have ran into way too many “Fundamentalist” GA’s in my life as well. Not to mention some of the local leaders down on the local level, like my current stake and ward for example.
Thanks for posting this encouraging and hopeful quote from Elder Holland. I believe that God loves us all and wants us to show our love to him in whatever way we can. Tom, I think this quote provides important cover. I think it shows an important direction of tolerance and of a “big tent” approach.
It will definitely take a while for the approach to trickle down — that’s always the toughest part of managing a very large organization.
But I see the writing on the wall. The tolerance and space for people like us is only growing.
We just have to 1) help create the space by being loving, non-threatening people (while still being open about our position)…and 2) hang on until the sun fully comes up.
But it will come. I guarantee it.
Catholicism made a place for folks like us. So did Judaism. Most protestant churches have. And we’re on deck.
I hear what you are saying John and I most certainly like to think you are right. But then I read an article like this one (and it was posted today in fact): MormonTimes – “Not a pick-and-choose gospel”Quote:The gospel of Jesus Christ never has been and never will be a “pick-and-choose gospel.” Members are not free to pick and choose, to decide which principles are right and which are wrong. It is a complete and unified body of eternal doctrine.
I find myself leaning to what you are saying John, but it is difficult when you have others saying, publicly no less, that there isn’t any room for those with a “pick and choose” approach in the church.
John, thanks for posting that. Your second post made me smile. This makes me feel happy and hopeful. I did see the other article posted by Tom, though. So it does appear that it will take time and patience to see the changes come.
I’m in the cautiously optimistic camp.
Tom wrote:I hear what you are saying John and I most certainly like to think you are right. But then I read an article like this one (and it was posted today in fact):
MormonTimes – “Not a pick-and-choose gospel”Quote:The gospel of Jesus Christ never has been and never will be a “pick-and-choose gospel.” Members are not free to pick and choose, to decide which principles are right and which are wrong. It is a complete and unified body of eternal doctrine.
I find myself leaning to what you are saying John, but it is difficult when you have others saying, publicly no less, that there isn’t any room for those with a “pick and choose” approach in the church.
I agree, Tom, that rhetoric is there. But what helps me get past it is this: the church has low tolerance for behavior deviation (smoking, drinking, whoring, etc.) but as Elizabeth I said, the church does not “have windows into men’s souls.” Some like to think they do, and of course, there are those who can discern people’s hearts. But in reality, “the Lord looketh on the heart” whereas the rest of us “see through a glass darkly.” “Picking and choosing” which principles to live (outward behavior) is generally what is not tolerated. Picking what to have faith in, that’s a more ethereal concept, and no one can judge another’s belief (not that some haven’t tried).
Tom, Based on my readings from Chaim Potok….it would be bad for the church to completely lose its orthodoxed leaders and members (like the lady in the article you mentioned). They keep the church alive. If religion loses the literal strand of belief, it usually withers (in my observation).
So if we love the church and believe that it’s a good thing for the world — then we want the orthodoxed around…and we even want them spouting their rhetoric. Who else would do the callings we don’t want to do?
What we should want/strive for is a welcomed place at the table. Not agreement with our positions — but acceptance and welcoming of us as valid participants.
Plus, by having us at the table (in a non-closeted way) the dinner conversations will be all the more interesting. And we’ll get fed too (hopefully). I think the church needs orthodoxed AND liberals to stay healthy. It’s a balance.
So it will take some time — but things are moving fast now. I think that in 5-10 years we’ll be a sizable, non-closeted portion of church membership.
I like this thread and agree with virtually all that has been said here. Especially do I find hope in John’s assessment that 5/10 years will make the difference, that a host of us will find acceptance and tolerance in our liberal views of the Restoration. Here’s my problem. I’m almost seventy years old. My timeline means that my beloved grandchildren are reaching adulthood. For TBM’s that means missions and marriages. I just (for the first time) missed the temple wedding for an offspring, my oldest grandson. I know it was my choice. But I also know that in the next decade, should I live so long (dad made 95 years), I will miss many more temple weddings. I feel I must answer temple recommends questions with honesty. Perhaps I’m foolish. The truth is, I will be the loser in this decade. If I don’t live through it, I will go to my grave wondering if openness will really come to liberals in the church. I do believe in the future, less active parents or non-parents will join their children in the temple on their special days. But that is my vision, and I’m not a prophet. I have twelve grandkids, three at BYU currently (dating naturally). I feel like my golden years will lose tender moments. It both angers and saddens me. Here I go again with semantics! 
johndehlin wrote:“We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.”
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, LDS Apostle, PBS Interview, March, 2006
I think this statement is both telling and problematic. Don’t want to “sound smug”? Don’t want to “
seemuncompromising and insensitive”? Wouldn’t it be better, possibly, to just not parse words: “We will NOT be uncompromising and insensitive”. Meaning: “We will be compromising and sensitive”.
I know that this blows up the orthodoxy and I get John’s sentiment for the need of orthodox and liberal (Catholicism and Judaism have sustained themselves in this way).
Would my “suggestion” then be the next step, moving from the current “image” of openness to an “actual” openness?
swimordie wrote:Would my “suggestion” then be the next step, moving from the current “image” of openness to an “actual” openness?
Baby steps.
Well, I am here. I am here every week. I don’t plan on leaving. I can’t see any defensible reason for leaving. I don’t see a single shred around me (only on the internet) of evidence of increased appreciation for diversity of Stage. But I believe. I dress as I see fit. I speak the truth as I understand it. (Or I keep my mouth closed.) I serve as I can. I do my best. I look, listen, and learn. And I am here. That is why I love that man. His statements have done more to solidify my testimony than any other GA besides GBH. I think that both of them taught, GBH more in his later years, a doctrine of inclusion. While, for some, it may not be as much inclusion as they were looking for, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Even my TBM (well she thinks she is, but you should hear some of the things she says.) agrees that the leadership of the church is changing and that attitudes are starting to change a great deal. I like the idea, that to belong you don’t have to believe everything 100%, but you can still be a part of things.
Here’s another snippet from the interview: Quote:What about people who question the history of the Book of Mormon?
There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church — firmly, in their mind, in this church — and the church isn’t going to take action against that.
[The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn’t going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: “Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve.” At that point, we’re going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. … “Patient” maybe is a better word than “tolerant.” We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can’t go. … That’s a good bit of advice. I recently shared my doubts with a member of the stake presidency. I was careful to point out that these are MY feelings and I have no intention to advocate those beliefs to others. He signed my temple recommend with the counsel to pray, read the scriptures, and attend the temple often.
I think this approach is also good for creating healthy relationships with our families. For example, I’ve found that my TBM wife is more understanding when I express love and respect her for her beliefs. In our efforts to be “understood”, we don’t have to convert others to our way of thought.
Great insight, Scott!! Thanks for the added quote. Now I can take issue with another semantic/rhetoric point.
😆 Why is “tolerant” such a bad word in the church? If you use the word tolerant, you immediately have to parse it to some other meaning, as Holland did here.
Wasn’t the point of this part of the interview to demonstrate, at least, the image of compromise and sensitivity?
If you’re going to preach tolerance, it’s okay to use the word “tolerant”.
Sorry for the rant, I read last week the blog post John did on that FoxNews “interview” with the church and I just see alot of parsing going on with these interview answers as well.
😳
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.