- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As a spin-off from a different thread, I wanted to ask how you go about effecting change in your Ward? As I said earlier, one reason I go is to change attitudes of the members about things that are destructive — the one size fits all mentality, tempering unqualified statements from former leaders that are applied uniformly across the board, and expanding people’s belief in their autonomy within the church, while still maintaining commandments, and the tension between organizationalism and individualism. What changes would you like to see in your Ward, and how
might you/do yougo about gently changing people’s minds without attacking the religion or nullying your influence by being too much of a renegade? And, do you get engagement in your church experience from these efforts if you do them? SD, the shortest answer I can give won’t be specific in the use of exact examples, but it’s perhaps the purest answer I can give: I’m comfortable with myself and my views, so I simply am myself – after decades of practicing the art of sharing and steering rather than convincing and rocking the boat. As a pre-teen with heterodox views, I had to learn both confidence and tact – which often includes healthy doses of meekness and mildness.
I’m not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking, and I think that makes a HUGE difference in how effective I can be.
There’s a difference between addressing false, harmful statements and expressing personal opinions – and people tend to perceive or overestimate attacks that aren’t meant as attacks. It’s when the latter are done in the same way as the former that things get the most dicey – and when discussions turn into defensive posturing by two or more people who perceive attacks that might or might not be happening.
Those days and opportunities are long behind me. Once you are labeled as an “apostate,” your sphere of influence is quite diminished and limited. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald, I know I don’t live in your branch, and I know I’m grateful for that, but your influence isn’t non-existent. It might be limited, but it also might be limited to the few people who actually need it (your exact influence) and could benefit from it. Sometimes, continued, dogged, humble, stubborn perseverance in the face of irrational opposition is a mighty influence in and of itself – usually in ways and times of which you can’t be aware.
If it helps, you could see yourself as an Anti-Nephi-Lehite who has buried his weapons of war and refuses to swing back at the Lamanites swinging their metaphorical swords at you.
😆 I’m not saying that to try to get you to be fully active in your branch. I’m not saying you have to be active in your branch at all to see the fulfillment of the principle above. I’m not saying anything situation-specific at all. I’m just saying it because it hit me that I should – and because I believe in the principle itself.
cwald wrote:Those days and opportunities are long behind me. Once you are labeled as an “apostate,” your sphere of influence is quite diminished and limited.
The key is not to get branded as an apostate. seriously. This ambiguous situation where they haven’t taken action on you is unfair in the extreme. Either they should take action, or dismiss the case entirely and welcome you into full fellowship. And if they do the latter, when jerks come in and give you crap, you can stand tall and tell them it’s none of their business.I hate to see how they’ve pushed you into this corner. You are not an apostate. you are more ‘true believing’ than I am in some ways. You’re thoughtful and caring, and that little branch in the middle of no-where really needs your help. It’s time for them to crap or get off the pot.
i love you dude.
Thanks Ray and Wayfarer. To be fair — remember my church woes don’t all stem from the branch or the branches fault.
I understand, cwald – and should have been more precise. Thanks for the reminder. I think the key is the emphasis the leader places on different aspects of the Church. In my ward, we have been VERY lucky to have had three bishops in a row who were kind, humble men that genuinely cared about ward members and tried to do their best for them (my history with this ward doesn’t extend beyond that time). Oh, they aren’t perfect. In fact, my current bishop (who I like very much) does some things that make me roll my eyes at times but I always know that his intentions are in the right place. But the accepting attitude really starts with the leaders of a ward. If the leaders do the wrong thing, those in the ward with such tendencies will also feel justified. Given that our leaders have been been more tolerant than intolerant, our intolerant members (and we have a few) have receded into the background and their influence is rarely felt. Try to imagine a Branch or Ward where the majority is made up of members like the people on this forum. (sounds like a John Lennon song.)
A. they would feel comfortable in expressing new ideas outside of the orthodox view.
B. they would feel safe when challenged after presenting that view or idea.
C. as long as you don’t deliberately try to hurt others, you should feel safe in that environment or religious experience.
Until that happens, I try to do the following:
A. I sit towards the back during Sacrament & I try to meet people that maybe on the “fringe.
B. I try to talk with people after or between meetings & comment on their talk or comments in SS. (In a positive way.)
C. I try to stay positive. When I can’t, I stay quiet. (Quiet doesn’t always work well for me.)
I would love to see a Branch or Ward made up of people like us. I bet it wouldn’t be quiet.
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:I would love to see a Branch or Ward made up of people like us. I bet it wouldn’t be quiet.
Mike from Milton.
I’d be in the band for sure — electric bass or guitarist in the Worship Band and Ward Sacrament Meeting Choreographer for the dance squad.
I’m afraid that as long as the majority of the folks on the podium are white guys with conservative haircuts and business suits, diversity is going to be a token gesture at best. Sometimes, out of disgust, I think we should just chunck it all…everyone show up with just the scriptures….let’s read them for what they really say and start over. I’m not holding my breath.
There are lots of incredibly diverse wards and branches in the Church where the vast majority of members wear the standard cultural attire. That can’t be ignored in a conversation like this, since ignoring it warps the conversation in important ways. Besides, Bruce diversifies any traditional LDS Church ward or branch he attends just by attending.
Actually, that is the simplest answer I can give to the title question:
Quote:I diversify my ward by attending, speaking in Sacrament Meeting occasionally and participating in the class discussions. If I don’t do so, I contribute to the homogenization of my ward.
I’ve heard of members in Hawaii saying: “Aloha”, before giving their testimony on fast day. That would be great way to keep some diversity in a church service.
Are there other regions in the world that have similar customs?
Mike
Cultural diversitymore easily achieved as diversity of thought within Mormonism though — and that’s the kind of diversity I’m talking about. Diversity in the grey areas of our doctrine, diversity in dress among people of similar national heritages, diversity in our beliefs in general within Mormonism. That is a hard one for me.
SilentDawning wrote:Diversity in the grey areas of our doctrine, diversity in dress among people of similar national heritages, diversity in our beliefs in general within Mormonism.
Sorry SD, I don’t think this is going to happen on the Macro side for the following reasons:
1) Church culture is very strong. There is even a prominent belief that church culture is divine.
2) “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” Scriptures like this are interpreted that we should be homogeneous. That if we act, dress, look, think, feel like a typical latter-day saint then we are on the right path.
3) Follow the crowd is seen as a virtue. For any schism that has happened in the church – stay with the main body – there is safety and truth and right in the main body.
4) Personality – Those that find the LDS church most appealing are usually not the explorer types. The benefits of the LDS church are that we have all the answers to the critical questions, not that we have a diversity of opinions about the answers to the critical questions.
5) Even topics that are relatively diverse such as how we view the atonement in our lives, how does grace work, and does the HG ever tell people who they should marry? I would love to get a discussion going to compare and contrast the differing opinions/experiences but it just doesn’t work. Remember that even DBmormon has been censured for his well defended and relatively tame ideas on “grace” (a fairly ethereal concept that would seem to lend itself to personal interpretation).
This is not to say that teachers like yourself can’t hold thought provoking lessons – but even if you can back an unorthodox opinion with quotes from church leaders – people are not reassured, they are not comforted finding that there has been significant diversity of thought between church leaders past and present. “Who is right? Why doesn’t the current Prophet clarify such things?” People want to be uplifted and I think for some the “upliftment” they seek is to be told that they are on the right path, they are doing the right, and that someday all of their sacrifices will be made worth it.
I also like what Ray said – diversify by being yourself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.