- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On the BCC post about Middle Wayers, Loursat replied to a comment I made and asked if I had any tips to discovering that other church members are more nuanced in their belief than we (or they) might have originally thought. Here were the ideas I shared there: Quote:1) discussing the plight of gay Mormons, including pointing out the pitfalls of mixed orientation marriages which were the go-to solution until quite recently
2) stating my belief that polygamy is not and never was divine (because it’s so damaging to women, nearly everyone is careful in how they defend it if they even try)
3) discussing a point of counsel from a church leader that just doesn’t sound right but isn’t a barn-burner either. (e.g. Kimball stating that it doesn’t matter who you marry so long as they are a worthy member in good standing)
4) talking about church leaders whose messages most resonate for us as a contrast with those who do not for whatever reason (we’ve all got favorites, and there are deep reasons for this)
5) pointing out differences of opinion between church leaders on various topics that allow for disagreement (e.g. evolution was attacked by both JFS and BKP but is taught as scientific fact at BYU)
6) discussing now defunct policies that nearly everyone agrees were terrible (e.g. Priesthood ban, and even the church’s opposition to the ERA). Knowing the history better than they do and simply pointing out that the facts differ from the narrative.
It’s all in how you approach it, though. I find these topics interesting to discuss, and most people in the church seem to also. I don’t care if they agree with me or not. I just say what I think, and let them have their own conclusions. Being willing to state something that isn’t the party line (but without anger or an agenda to change the other person) is the starting point.
What topics have the rest of you used to have a more “real” conversation with other church members? Did you discover they were more nuanced than you thought before, or did they come away thinking you were apostate? What was your experience?
Thanks for giving that post from By Common Consent. I haven’t used those, but in last July when my brother was driving my parents and I to the Chicago Temple Store to buy more temple garments we got into a discussion about the endowment and my brother mentioned some changes to the initiatory and the endowment. Although my parents and brother are more traditional than I am, I was glad to see the things we could definitely agree on about those ordinances. In my experience, a lot of orthodox members would agree with my views on each of those points. Their particular feelings on any of those issues are not what makes them “middle way Mormons”. Or maybe everyone is a middle way Mormon. Or maybe I’m a heretic. I think the biggest difference between someone like me, and someone I’d consider to be orthodox, is not their feelings on a particular issue, but rather our overall view of the Church. For example, I don’t believe any of the Q15 have any real legitimate authority, but I do really like Uchtdorf’s talk. Most members hold that the Q15 really do have God’s authority and speak for him, but might not particularly like the way Oaks gave his talk.
I guess that’s what separates me from the more traditional Mormon. I am all out except _____. They are all in except _____.
Something I have noticed in my ward what helps make space for Nuanced Believers & Practicers is my RS Presidency. he President’s husband is actively Catholic. She has no kids. Isn’t able to. Has a career. Whip smart woman. She and her presidency often wear leggings under their skirts ( a subtle form of pants to church). Most of all though – they repeat over and over again. “No judging.”
Our RS first counselor has an openly gay, married to his spouse, child. She is always fond of saying “Relief Society is a safe place”. They really work to mean it.
We have a tattooed member in our ward – who does wear pants. Last week another guest had a nose piercing. When either of these woman raise their hands or speak up, they get equal time.
Little by little our personal nuance’s are sliding out because people do feel safe.
mom3 wrote:
Something I have noticed in my ward that helps make space for Nuanced Believers & Practicers is my RS Presidency.
Our branch has sisters wearing pant suits periodically. Leggings are a thing in the wintertime.
3 members of our current R.S. Presidency work full-time outside of the home. One of them is raising her grandson, and another has a 18 month baby.
This post is helping me check myself though – a few times over the summer I got frustrated because some family members were having the same issues I was with the gender imbalance but weren’t forming the same conclusion about what the root cause was. This was baffling, because it felt like they were disregarding a mere re-stating of the issue we had just agreed on. Wanna bet that it was an “all out” vs “all in” moment?
😆 Quote:This was baffling, because it felt like they were disregarding a mere re-stating of the issue we had just agreed on. Wanna bet that it was an “all out” vs “all in” moment?
I find being nuanced or middle-way is a bit like playing poker. No one thinks a good poker player is a cheat. It’s considered skill. I am happy to hone to my skill. Tides are always turning. In the end the judgement day comes down to me.
Well, one couple I home taught were very anti-gay marriage and mentioned gays’ upbringing. I subtly reminded them that their daughter was living with a man outside wedlock, just by bringing up her name. The thing was that they did end up seeing things differently. I did it in a non-confrontational way, but I was able to point out that moral issues are sometimes closer to home.
Discuss the case of Helmuth Hübener. Nazis are almost the stereotypical bogeyman these days, but Brother Hübener paid with his life for defying them. Hübener did the right thing, but actually went against local church leaders (who were probably Nazi infiltrators) and was excommunicated for his troubles before he was executed. 1. Discussions on emphasis to include everyone as they are, all are welcome and should not be judged for their personal circumstances. These discussions usually reveal the people I am talking to are more nuanced the more I get into many topics and they don’t stop me saying how evil and lost the world is. 2. People who talk about preferring smoke smells in the chapel are also usually also conveying they think some rules are less important than individuals being accepted and welcome.
3. Supportive of SSM is more specific and a relavent to social issues now, so it usually reveals a person’s open-ness to things, not just regurgitating conference talks or church positions, but thinking for themselves.
One thing I have found does NOT seem to correlate to open-minded, nuanced faith is politics. I kinda thought openly Democratic people would be nuanced believers and Republicans were more TBM…but I haven’t found that to be the case. Political affiliation is all over the map, I think.
I thought for sure when I last spoke in church and openly said I disagreed with something the prophet said, that there would be someone in the ward who would open up and we would have an in depth conversation about our beliefs. Nothing. hawkgrrrl wrote:
What topics have the rest of you used to have a more “real” conversation with other church members? Did you discover they were more nuanced than you thought before, or did they come away thinking you were apostate? What was your experience?
Never say No to a calling. Also the old school belief that you don’t tell the Bishop where you would like to serve — you serve where placed until told you are released. When I go into counterpoint on that, I normally get a few people come forward and share similar opinions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.