- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m sure most people here are much more comfortable than me in their ability to filter what they accept as true from church leaders. As someone new in my faith crisis, here are my thoughts: http://liberalbritishmormon.wordpress.com/ Thanks for reading.
1) Yes! As Ray has often pointed out it would be impossible to agree with all church leaders, all the time if only for the reason that they sometimes contradict themselves. 2) Yes! If the question is in regards to “loyal dissent” to have a different position but still uphold the mission of the church – then I believe the answer is still yes. This can put you in a tricky spot because in choosing to share your perspective it must be done very tactfully – lest you be seen as an enemy. And even then some will see you as not to be fully trusted.
3) Yes! Finally, I even believe that it is OK to come out publicly in opposition to the church and/or resign. I believe that there is a place for moving on and cutting ties when the relationship is destructive and I also believe that there can be a place for publicly stating one’s stance. In doing so I hope the individual understands that they are severing ties to the church and are not surprised when the church is not welcoming to them in the future.
From reading your blog – I personally would estimate that you are somewhere between #1 and #2.
My understanding of official church teachings is: It is okay to believe what you honestly believe, if you try to convince others that they need to go against the grain of the church then you may get into trouble. How this applies to disagreeing with leaders: If they are stating their opinion you have no problem. If they are making a statement for the church apply the above statement.
Roy wrote:From reading your blog – I personally would estimate that you are somewhere between #1 and #2.
Sounds about right to me!
I agree as long as your still in the faith you can have a different way of doing things but I would careful in who I tell. No one likes to be told they’re wrong. Yes, but sometimes delivery is 90% of the message we send. It’s better to think through how to express a disagreement, even if it means addressing it outside the initial moment sometimes than to react immediately and emotionally and risk sending the wrong message.
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, but sometimes delivery is 90% of the message we send.
It’s better to think through how to express a disagreement, even if it means addressing it outside the initial moment sometimes than to react immediately and emotionally and risk sending the wrong message.
This is definitely true.
I’ve been quite vocal with my support of same sex marriage on FB, and there have been some frank exchanges of views. Sometimes I’ve felt very reactionary, especially when family members have goaded me with falsehoods such as “just because people CHOOSE to be gay”…. I’ve had to step away from the keyboard and spend an hour fathoming a measured response. It sounds corny, but ‘what would Jesus do?’
Interestingly (or not – you decide!) I was looking into the phrase that we should not speak ill of the Lord’s anointed, and what I discovered is: 1) that’s not exactly what it says in the scripture – it says “Touch not”
2) lots of Christian sects debate whether this is just authoritarian nonsense or if it’s wrong to criticize
3) since Jesus is the anointed one, many question whether it’s correct to consider leaders as the Lord’s anointed, or if it should be all members (particularly in Mormonism where endowed members are anointed) or if it should just mean Jesus.
If you don’t intend harm to leaders or your fellow believers, that’s as good a starting point as any. When I make a “criticism” I try to stay focused on how the thing I’m noticing (often something in a talk, quote or curriculum or the culture itself) that harms people within the church by fostering unhealthy attitudes or actions. To me, that is loyalty.
Of course, this often goes along party lines politically (in the US): conservatives prize authority (never openly questioning it as a sign of loyalty), but liberals and progressives see dissent as a sign of being invested and engaged in the system to improve it from within.
kristmace wrote:It sounds corny, but ‘what would Jesus do?’
Jesus said that we should love God and love each other. There were no conditions given on how to express that love.
Quote:Jesus said that we should love God and love each other. There were no conditions given on how to express that love.
Except the attributes listed in the Beatitudes (meekness, mercy, etc.) and the Sermon on the Mount, which I try to take as my general guide. When I stray from that rule, I usually regret it – as evidenced by another current thread.
😳 I think a good parallel is disagreeing with leaders at work. I have people that work for me… I in turn, work for other people. There is an expectation in my line of work, that agreeing or disagreeing is unimportant, but working together for common goals is mandatory. Consent is the expectation, dissent will get you into trouble. Talking about different ways to approach a goal is encouraged. Lobbying for your way is not. One important way this is accomplished is to avoid thinking in terms of personification of ideas. Ideas don’t belong to or oppose PEOPLE. They just exist in the ether. As soon as someone starts campaigning for THEIR idea, that’s when emotions take over. IMO, regardless of the environment and the acceptance or rejection of competing ideas, it is always bad form to sit in the back and whisper under your breath that something is stupid. That is not disagreement, but dissent, and there is a huge difference.
Disagreement is a platform for compromise. Dissent, on the other hand, leads to division and entrenchment.
In fact, there’s frequent irony that shows up in hard-line cases, because often both sides will become entrenched and immovable, and then complain loudly that the other party is so entrenched and immovable.
So, apparently a member of the SP will be making an appointment to see me about this blog piece…. could be interesting. I firmly stand by what I said, but it looks like others have expressed horror (to leaders and not to me!)
Bring this along with you: http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/06/25/when-our-leaders-speak-the-thinking-has-been-done/ This debunks the original erroneous statement in the 1945 Improvement Era that when the brethren speak the thinking has been done. Pres. George A. Smith refutes it as false.
Quote:
I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children.I would like to know what is wrong with this church that we encourage members to police each other and rat each other out to leaders. If I were a leader receiving this kind of gossip, I would tell them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling and quit trying to take the mote out of their neighbor’s eye.
Thank you hawkgrrrl. I read that blog before i wrote mine and it was very influential. You make a great point about the behind the scenes moaning. Hardly anyone is willing to discuss it with me, but theyre quite willing to moan to leaders.
My Dad (SP member in another stake) has taken loads of calls from ‘concerned’ family members who also wont discuss it directly with me. Dad wont even read the blog.
Sent from my Windows Phone 8X by HTC using Board Express
kristmace wrote:So, apparently a member of the SP will be making an appointment to see me about this blog piece
What a great opportunity! One thing I think we all wish were different is in regard to our ability to provide feedback to the Church leadership. If you made the appointment with him, you are promoting and agenda, and would be viewed as confrontational. If he makes an appointment with you, presumably to try to understand you, then it’s a great chance to voice some concerns in a matter-of-fact way that doesn’t paint you as a militant. My suggestion is to go in with a small number of specifics that you wish were different, and keep emotions out of it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.