How to Request Change in the Church

I once posted regularly on TBM site and I tried to open a discussion on alternate organizational models for the church — such as splitting the Temporal and Spiritual role of the Bishop by having someone look after practical welfare matters while the Bishop concentrated on the spiritual. The person would report to the Stake, where I understand the fast offering funds lie anyway (??).

Holy Backlash Batman!!! The fact that I was even CONSIDERING an alternate model in the divinely revealed order of the church was sacriledge.

I agree with Roy — you have to let the church leaders “overhear” the need for change. The culture does not allow proactive pursuit of change by members openly at Church, or they get labelled as apostate, as i was in the discussion I started on the TBM site.

So, we need to keep right on posting, while being reasonable in our use of facts, generally supportive, etcetera. If the comments are too extreme, bitter, or borne out of selfishness, desire to sin without consequence, the leaders will not weight the opinions heavily.

And I believe they must see the same thing pop up over and over again as a theme – -not as a personal issue.

Social media is a great way to allow church leaders to overhear the membership say what they really think. I do hope the people who manage sites like these will never sell their members out by yieldign to pressure from formal church authoritites to reveal identifies or IP addresses or other identifying information, or it will close up this important conduit for change.

Talk with gay and lesbian members and encourage them to write to the global leaders – and to join “faithful” organizations of church members and respected (by the Church) gay rights groups and lend their voices and stories to the organizational efforts.

Speak up every. single. time. someone makes a bigoted or hateful statement about gays and lesbians – in a calm voice but mentioning “a friend” or “friends” who are gay and trying hard to live the standards of the Church but suffering terribly for it – emphasizing perhaps nothing more than they are good, faithful, sincere members who just want to be loved and not have to hear themselves condemned when they attend church. (Even if someone here doesn’t have a close friend in person in that situation, you have a friend here in that situation.) Say that many gay members don’t even care about sex; they just want to love and feel loved – just like an old couple (married or not) who don’t have sex but just live together in love. Don’t fight about the issue; make it real and personal, putting faces to the bigotry.

We have an apostle who has a family member who is gay, and who has a good, close relationship with that family member. Our top leadership is not unaware of these issues anymore, and they will listen and look for ways to include without violating what they believe to be eternal standards much more readily than could have happened in the past. It won’t be quick or easy, with regard to any change, not just how we treat homosexual people – but I’m convinced there is a lot we can do to be where we should be, even if that doesn’t include gay temple sealings. There is so much between there and where we are now that we can do without violating our current temple wording regarding the Law of Chastity in any way.

Pay tithing however you want to pay it, and cite the latest FP statement that Shawn provided saying that there is no single standard for how to calculate tithing and that every member has to decide personally what they will pay whenever someone says it has to be on gross – again, using “an active, faithful, believing friend” or “friends” (like me) who pay on net (as the easiest rebuttal) whenever someone says it has to be paid on gross.

I personally would NOT write to SLC about this one, since I don’t want a definitive statement codifying exactly how I should pay tithing. I want the most current statement saying I am free to make that decision myself. In this case, I want a “(members) don’t ask, (so leaders) don’t tell” policy.

In other words, look for opportunities to help educate and, hopefully, change hearts within your own sphere of influence (with gentleness, meekness, long-suffering and love unfeigned) – and encourage those who have a wider sphere to do the same.

I have been reading a book that was given to me for Christmas some years ago, very pro-LDS, titled “What Happened to the Cross? Distinctive LDS Teachings” by Robert L. Millet professor of ancient scripture and former dean of Religious Education at BYU.

He discusses how the Catholic Church uses tradition as a source of authority and sees a similar process in the LDS church. There were plenty of weird doctrines in the old days that never really caught on with the general membership of the church and thus fell away – some were later officially repudiated but that was only long after they had fallen out of favor with the membership.

This is probably not a very satisfying answer since anything beyond the local level tends to move at the glacial pace of generational demographics – but the church will change as the needs, wants, and perspectives of the membership change.

Even though the majority of members have already been voting with their feet for decades this vote is basically ignored and dismissed as if these inactive members are always the ones with the problem and the only acceptable answer is that they need to repent of their pride, laziness, selfishness, “bad” habits, etc.

Ironically staying in the LDS church and being the friendly reminder of the diversity of needs, wants, and perspectives seems to be much more effective at producing change than walking out.

I believe that respectfully participating in opportunities like the Faith Crisis Survey will increase the chance of being heard.

Once same sex marriage rights pass in more states (which it will) then the church will be forced to change because it wants to appear mainstream and the marriage right equality act will become the law of the land. If you want to see the church change then work to get the law changed and it will happen.

That’s a great point, and maybe that is the best way to affect change in the Church.

It’s just that I think the Church should be carrying the banner of acceptance and inclusion, rather than reluctantly accepting it because society is outpacing it. Our Church has the single most inclusionary gospel of any that I know. In our doctrine only the most deliberate rebellers against God don’t go to some level of post-mortal glory. In our doctrine, God makes sure that you have a fair and clear chance to accept the Gospel and join with him, even if you were born in the far corners of the world, outside the reach of missionaries. Unbaptized children who die are not consigned to some torment, but are accepted into the presence of God. Our Church should be trying with all its might to figure out a way to make a place for faithful people no matter their sexual orientation. I can understand why we didn’t when we thought it was a pure choice and well-defined sin, but nowadays, only hardliners think that way. Surely the “God who weeps” has a place in his heart for his children who where born into homosexuality. It is similar, in my mind, to the treatment of people of African decent. We should have fought tooth-and-nail for inclusion. Instead, we stood like Dan Quayle, frozen at the accusation that we are no Jack Kennedy. All we could say is that its God’s law, so we are powerless to change it. Had we sent our old policies packing and championed acceptance, inclusion, and equality in 1958, we would have been heralded. By waiting until 1978, we looked like buffoons. I remember a news anchor rolling her eyes as she announced that the Mormon Church had received a “revelation” allowing blacks to have the priesthood. We still have to answer for the slow-minded acceptance of the obvious 35 years later.

So, I like your suggestion, I just wish there were a more direct and urgent way. I have a feeling that if you polled the general population of the Church, there would be a significant number, albeit a minority, who want to be way more progressive than we are. If that were known, I think it might accelerate. I think of my own situation. My attitudes have changed substantially, since coming to this site and learning from others, and simply by being forced to think about it. I just think this is dialog we should be having IN the Church, not in the hedgerows and highways.

We are talking about here and that’s a start. I know others are too and I have seen my attitude as well as other soften in the last few years. It would be nice if the church would lead in this but it won’t.

I do see things softening. I’d describe my ward/stake overall as very conservative. In RS recently (it made sense with the lesson) one woman talked about her best friend being a gay atheist. Another one talked about her lesbian cousin and partner. She said she was stand-offish with them and it only got stranger when they had a baby. But then her cousin was diagnosed with cancer and she watched the partner nurse her through the ordeal. She just simply said that she knows they love each other, and it was left at that.

She said she was stand-offish with them and it only got stranger when they had a baby. But then her cousin was diagnosed with cancer and she watched the partner nurse her through the ordeal. She just simply said that she knows they love each other, and it was left at that.

That is priceless. Thank you for sharing it.

Whoa. Is this just a fear, or do you know that there is pressure to do this?

I have been involved HEAVILY throughout the “Bloggernacle” for six years, including extensive time helping administer more than one site that is seen by most members (even other somewhat liberal members) as “fringe” in some way, and I have not heard once about any pressure to do this. I would be floored if it happened, especially since there is absolutely no need to do so. Enough of us post under our real names that the ones who post anonymously have nothing to fear – and I don’t have any fear about it happening.

I have been involved HEAVILY throughout the “Bloggernacle” for six years, including extensive time helping administer more than one site that is seen by most members (even other somewhat liberal members) as “fringe” in some way, and I have not heard once about any pressure to do this. I would be floored if it happened, especially since there is absolutely no need to do so. Enough of us post under our real names that the ones who post anonymously have nothing to fear – and I don’t have any fear about it happening.

That is good. I have no experience beyond blogging on this site and another TBM site. For me, it’s simply an underlying fear because I know how it can be at the local level if the leaders or membership feel people are teaching false doctrine or sharing divergent or discontented thoughts about the church. It heightened when cWald told me there was a movement in one of the valley’s in Utah to root out people who were meeting and discussing the Middle Way. Cwald indicated a local leader said he should no longer post here at StayLDS and that was monitored.

Apparently, they were also monitoring posts here at StayLDS, which led Brian to write a post inviting leaders to contact him if anyone had concerns about StayLDS specifically and what we say here.

To my knowledge, no one ever contacted him….however, I have had occasional fears about the ramifications for me personally, or anyone who posts here given the church’s local discomfort with doubt, tendency to restrict privileges and expect proof of re-commitment if they know you have doubt or commitment concerns.

That is all…it’s comforting to know Ray has never had any pressure to give up IP addresses or otherwise disclose identities. And I hope that day never comes.