- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The other thread is very long and it takes many paths and can be a bit hard to follow. There are many different shades to this whole issue. I just listened to the Strib interview….and I wanted to ask one question. Mods — if this is out of line, let me know, but I would like to have a focused discussion on one question. What is the symbolism and implications for other people in faith/commitment crises of the church’s decision to raise the possibility of discipline for John and Katy?
I haven’t posted in a while but the events of this week (combined with a stake conference the other week that had a broadcast from Salt Lake) have left me feeling without hope. Let me elaborate.
I am troubled by the disciplinary actions against John, Kate, and Rock. Not because I fully agree with them but because they represented big tent Mormonism. The fact that the leaders were allowing them to get their messages out gave credence to the welcoming words of President Uchdorf, in that those who thought differently were still welcome. Even more so, it gave me hope for change. Maybe, just maybe, there could one day be real and loving acceptance of LBGT members (I don’t think we are even close at this point). Maybe, just maybe, there could be greater gender equality in the church. Perhaps not female ordination but an increased role for women and men.
The hope of change, of learning and growing line upon line, was what kept me moving forward in seeking to find a resolution to my faith crisis that kept me engaged in the church (I will always be engaged in the Gospel of Jesus Christ). However, I now feel that there is no room for me. If I feel scared to raise my doubts or offer an opinion that is different from the orthodox then church is not a place of succour and nourishment for my spirit and I don’t belong there.
Now I know that the very public way that John, Kate, and Rock expressed their views and there actions around their views is what ultimately led to these events but it is the hope that they represented that kept me going.
I watched it, too, SD and it was informative to me. I see both individuals as sincere in their desires not to be excommunicated and to remain part of the church. That said, I also see a difference in them (and John also mentioned Denver Snuffer and Rock Waterman) and us. They each have a website (gasp! 😯 ) that openly and, yes, defiantly oppose some doctrine and/or general teachings of the church. John made a good point in his comment about having lunch with Elder Holland and the “don’t buy a printing press” comment. They have bought a printing press (so to speak). In other words, it is entirely one thing for you and I to have questions and doubts which we keep to ourselves or share only with loved ones or local priesthood leaders (I don’t actually do much of either) and another thing to broadcast them to the world. Perhaps we are on shakier ground doing so on forums like these, but I do believe I have some anonymity here and I also believe that my doubts and questions have evolved significantly since coming here to the extent that some are gone and others are not nearly as daunting. A year ago I could have written almost exactly what John has currently posted on his web page – but I didn’t. Quite frankly, in his case, I think this stems from that post.I was thinking about this in the shower this morning: It’s clear to me what the church asked Denver Snuffer to do (take the book off the market, stop teaching things in opposition to the church), it’s clear to me what the church wants from Kate Kelly (take down the website, stop protesting), it’s clear to me what they want from Rock Waterman (take down the website, stop teaching). It is not clear to me what they want from John. Do they want him to take his unbelief statement off the page? Do they want Mormon Stories to stop? Or is it something else? (As a side note, I do believe both Snuffer and Waterman are apostate.)
Also, John said he may not go to his disciplinary council – I think he should. Of the councils I sat on, having the person sit there and bear testimony (and every one of them did to one extent or another) made a difference. I think the ones where the person did not come were much harder and much more impersonal.
So, to answer your question SD, I don’t think there are any implications for those of us who do not “buy a printing press” or broadcast from the pulpit or in the classroom.
Honestly, I don’t see any symbolism yet – for one simple reason: There are lots of people I know and admire who have expressed and continue to express hope for change in the Church – openly, online and using their real names. There are numerous scholars who have written things that would have been considered taboo a few decades ago who have not faced any form of censure. So far, none of them have been threatened with any kind of official discipline.
I think the “message” is quite limited in these cases:
1) Don’t call the Church and its leaders apostate. (Waterman)
2) Don’t interview some of the harshest critics of Mormonism (the Tanners) and say they are correct in their views. (Dehlin) [That interview floored me, and I can’t help but see it as a tipping point.]
3) Don’t mimic the Church in publishing recruitment materials for your group. (Kelly) [Seriously, publishing six discussions to recruit new members and spread their message was the final straw for OW, imo.]
If “normal members” who have expressed desire for change start getting excommunicated en masse, my response will be very different – but, for me, there is no symbolism yet.
DarkJedi wrote:So, to answer your question SD, I don’t think there are any implications for those of us who do not “buy a printing press” or broadcast from the pulpit or in the classroom.
I’m not sure. The crackdown is broader than the figureheads of dissent — focusing on people who use the printing presses others have provided.
I do think there are some risks now due to leadership roulette. Greater risks than in the past. I believe there has been training for leaders on the need to crack down on bloggers, and that is why I believe there has been a rash of disciplinary councils lately, and bloggers hauled in, TR’s taken from them, and releases from their callings.
Read the following excerpt that shows this has gone deeper than simply the people who start websites:
Quote:
Mr. Kloosterman, who was a bishop from 2007 to 2012, attracted headlines and scrutiny for an emotional talk he gave at a conference in Salt Lake City in 2011 apologizing to gays rejected by their Mormon families. He also lobbied for same-sex marriage in his state. But there were no consequences until March of this year, when, at a meeting, his bishop cited a Twitter post by Mr. Kloosterman congratulating the first gay couple to be married in Utah.“Jesus would never do that,” the bishop said, according to Mr. Kloosterman. He said his bishop informed him that an Area Seventy church leader had weighed in on his case (Mr. Kloosterman declined to name him), and that leaders had been monitoring his Internet activity and knew he supported groups that disagree with church teaching.
The bishop revoked Mr. Kloosterman’s “temple recommend,” denying him entrance to the temple, where important rituals like baptisms and marriages are held and where he and his wife used to go regularly for spiritual uplift.
“It’s been devastating,” he said. “I’m in shock still.”
Some supporters of the Ordain Women movement who have posted profiles and pictures of themselves on the movement’s website have also recently had their temple recommends withdrawn or been removed from church volunteer positions, according to Ms. Kelly and Ordain Women leaders.
Ms. Kelly’s parents, who live in Provo, Utah, were among those who lost temple privileges, as was a higher-profile leader, Hannah Wheelwright, who just graduated from the church’s Brigham Young University and founded a group called Young Mormon Feminists.
But there are also those who never sought the spotlight, like Dana, a member in the church’s Buena Vista stake in Virginia, who did not want her last name used because she has family in the church. She was very active in the church but supports the ordination of women and same-sex marriage, which church doctrine prohibits.
She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. On June 1, she said, her bishop phoned and told her to stop posting or face a church disciplinary hearing. Instead, four days later, she and her family resigned their church membership.
“It was just bizarre,” she said. “I was trying to quietly leave the church because of doctrinal reasons, and I hastily left the church because of my bishop.”
On the flip side of this coin – The Church has a long list of names and direct contacts for bloggers, Sunstone editors, Dialogue editors, Miller-Eccles group, heck they even have Robert Kirby and Peggy Fletcher Stack in their own backyard and yet…At present this myriad of people has been left untouched. The Stake President in Oakland/San Francisco who has a huge LGBT group is still there, Carol Lynn Pearson, Joanna Brooks, even the Givens have presented podcasts that encourage people to not blindly follow the leadership. All of these people stand between us and them. You and I are processing, not proselyting. Most of us keep our issues to ourselves, even our close family members don’t know the extent of our struggle or standing. Now we might want to remain quiet, especially in the present energy because leader roulette is real and people when they are agitated make knee jerk reactions out of fear. We all do. But I don’t think we who post here or comment on someones blog have much to worry about.
mom3 wrote:On the flip side of this coin – The Church has a long list of names and direct contacts for bloggers, Sunstone editors, Dialogue editors, Miller-Eccles group, heck they even have Robert Kirby and Peggy Fletcher Stack in their own backyard and yet…At present this myriad of people has been left untouched. The Stake President in Oakland/San Francisco who has a huge LGBT group is still there, Carol Lynn Pearson, Joanna Brooks, even the Givens have presented podcasts that encourage people to not blindly follow the leadership.
All of these people stand between us and them. You and I are processing, not proselyting. Most of us keep our issues to ourselves, even our close family members don’t know the extent of our struggle or standing. Now we might want to remain quiet, especially in the present energy because leader roulette is real and people when they are agitated make knee jerk reactions out of fear. We all do. But I don’t think we who post here or comment on someones blog have much to worry about.
Well said, Mom3.
SD, I don’t think I’m using anyone else’s printing press. I think there’s a real difference in what we are doing here and what Kate Kelly did. I also think there’s a real difference in asking questions and thinking out loud, such as we do here, and putting a statement of belief (or lack thereof) on a webpage read by thousands as John did (under his name). Really, were I his SP I might have asked him the same question – because it sounds like he doesn’t want to be part of the church he doesn’t believe in. Waterman is clearly apostate, IMO, and is clearly openly defiant of church leadership and doctrine. I would have no problem with him respectfully posting anonymously here (he doesn’t tend to be respectful from what little of him I have read) and not trying to gain attention for his beliefs – but that is not what he does. I had read the entire article you reference, and I even commented on it somewhere here (I don’t feel like looking it up right now, I might later) and summarizing, I think there’s much more to each of those stories than we read in one short article. Mom3’s post supports that ideology.
Thanks DarkJedi – SilentDawning, I have one other thought that I think symbolizes a lot of what has happened recently – loss of love. As soon as we put aside concern, caring, interest in others we open the door to painful contention. From my limited vantage point, this loss of concern or love for others, can be applied to every performer in this experience. I don’t know each person individually, but so many actions of caring could have happened at any point by any person and the outcome might well be different.
We are defensive because we want to protect ourselves, that defensiveness, like a helmet blinds us. We can only see what is in front of us. The only way to see more is to turn our head left or right.
There will be an extended aftermath of these events, many private hours of refection, in those hours the key players have the opportunity to look at their hearts, answer their actions and reactions – and consider what was most important to them in the moment.
We don’t need to wait, we can begin now – what is most important to us? Is it us, our way, our… If we turn our head/heart side to side to see anything else. Do we see family, do we see human kindness we could share, do we see hurting – can we pray or hug the hurt (whether we concur how the hurt happened or not). As I said in yesterday’s post, what can we build, uplift, inspire, create.
This site is stayLDS – we are seekers of hopeful. Not just belief and dogma. How would an soul that is inspired by inclusion, love, yearning for community act? We can do that now and make that the best symbolic lesson of these events. We can walk as Jesus walked – but it must be done with out arrogance or look at me-ness. It must be done with love for all –
As Abraham Lincoln said
Quote:With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Old-Timer wrote:2) Don’t interview some of the harshest critics of Mormonism (the Tanners) and say they are correct in their views. (Dehlin) [
That interview floored me, and I can’t help but see it as a tipping point.] I watched that interview and I thought it was fairly respectful. I’ve only watched a few Mormon Stories interviews so I don’t know if that particular interview strayed from some established format. Still, if that interview changed the landscape I’ve got to think it was more the who than the what.
I don’t have a history of dealings with the Tanners. They were always portrayed as a family of contentious, lying, apostates so that’s the view I held. They were like that spooky old house down the street on a kid’s TV show where no one has ever been seen coming or going, you just feared and stayed away.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were very contentious back in the day but not having them as a part of my immediate culture I wouldn’t know. Still I get the impression that if anyone took issue with JD interviewing Sandra Tanner I’ve got to think it’s because of preexisting bad blood between them and the Tanners, nothing that JD did. IMO that just makes another case to have a bit more variety or turnover in top leadership. Perhaps a feud in the past is preventing healing in the present. If I walked into the Tanner’s book store just to say “hi” am I going to have some guy hiding behind a bush tell someone on the other end of a walkie talkie to look up my membership record?
Again, I don’t have the complete context on just how contentious things became, all I see is the now and I think it would be best for the church if some of the leaders that were mired in the Tanner situation started to let some things go.
mom3 wrote:Thanks DarkJedi –
SilentDawning, I have one other thought that I think symbolizes a lot of what has happened recently – loss of love.
I see it. To the higher ups, Kate has been dealt with. Every day, she will wake up dealing with her new circumstances as an excommunicated member. But now that it’s over, it won’t occupy a lot of thought in the minds of the brethren near the top, in my view, though.
In general, life is isolated — each person has their own private suffering within their own “sphere” and as humankind, we don’t care enough, in my view.
But it happens even on a superficial level too — I won’t harp on how you quickly people get ostracized over cultural, non-doctrinal matters, let alone high profile demonstrations like Kate Kelly’s. I hate to say it, but I honestly believe the priorities of the average church leader go in this order:
1. Personal position
2. Organizational interests: The church will change when its assets or its strength as an organization is threatened. When such interests are not threatened, they are willing to let members endure significant hardship before changing. The handbook generally trumps over leadership by exception, which is the key to a loving relationship between an organization and its people.
3. Symbolic truth: I find this is less important — to the church, and organizations in general than the 2 items above. I’m a thinker of symbolism — I see my actions as symbolic of the larger culture, and I take them very seriously. I tend to expect leaders to follow the admonition of my HR professor who said “its the little things, all the time, that make a culture.
I don’t see church leaders’ commitment to making the sacrifices that really show it is serious about its own value — particularly when it means the church must sacrifice something — such as assets, control, or power. So, the leaders who excommunicated KK appear not to have considered the larger symbolic meaning of the excommunication — the message it sends about how we handle difference of opinion with love. Or how we handle requests for consideration by committed members of the church. In the leaders’ view, it was dealing with a managerial problem they perceived to threaten the church.
4. Lack of Concern for individual suffering and long-term motivation.
I won’t quote my life experiences here, but I feel our relationships at church are generally arm’s length, and many people serve out of a sense of duty. They tend to lack love. Now, as organizations get bigger, there is a need for more rules, and these rules lead to programs that eclipse love and understanding, and consideration for the inner person.
There is a lot of “programmed caring” that doesn’t tap into the deep love of which humans are capable, toward others. There is hometeaching and visiting teaching, but not deep friendship and kindness — except in the hearts of a very few people I have known over the years.
I do see a loss of love as you do as a result of the excommunication Mom3. I think progressive discipline would have been better in Kate’s case. The symbolism of the swift communication, for me — is that its better to be as anonymous as possible in my personal thoughts and challenges (locally).
The sad part is that it means my local leaders will never get to share the advice they think I need to be active again. This is because they are not capable of creating the kind of trust and safety people like me need, in order to them my concerns. When they act as judge, jury and executioner all rolled in one, they don’t make great confidantes and advisors.
Well said SD. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Great comments SD, Nibbler, and mom3. Thought provoking.
mom3 wrote:The Church has a long list of names and direct contacts for bloggers, Sunstone editors, Dialogue editors, Miller-Eccles group, heck they even have Robert Kirby and Peggy Fletcher Stack in their own backyard and yet…At present this myriad of people has been left untouched. The Stake President in Oakland/San Francisco who has a huge LGBT group is still there, Carol Lynn Pearson, Joanna Brooks, even the Givens have presented podcasts that encourage people to not blindly follow the leadership.
I wonder if the only thing that keeps these individuals from being apostates is that they have not yet been asked to stop. If any were asked to stop and persisted – would they not be considered apostate? Why or why not? I am working on a functional definition for apostacy.
I believe they WOULD be considered apostate. As it stands, one of the temple recommend questions asks whether you attend symposia or affiliate with groups whose teachings are contrary to the church. I think Sunstone may have been on the minds of leaders when they added that question. So, to some extent there is already some control on the kind of contrarion activities you can get involved in – explicitly stated and institutionalized in the TR questions. Naturally, I think the church would absolutely love to have a world in which no one ever says anything negative or has doubts about the church. So, what puts the breaks on a widespread clamp down on public statements of contrarionism?
The only thing I can think of is:
a) Avoiding the perception the church has a cult-personality that prohibits free thought.
b) Avoiding the image of being authoritarian and punitive (like the inquisition, but on a smaller scale).
c) The impact that widespread clamp downs on bloggers might have on the missionary effort.
Roy asked – Quote:I wonder if the only thing that keeps these individuals from being apostates is that they have not yet been asked to stop.
How I read the statement from the First Presidency, they are not considered apostate until the publicly lead people away from the church. To share opinions or “How we do things in our home” doesn’t constitute apostasy. The names I mentioned don’t create “printing presses” with the intent of drawing people away. I also think the church/PA department enjoy having the bloggers out there, it saves them some effort. Kind of a quid pro quo deal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.