- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I haven’t had much time to spend on computer lately. I just stumbled into the review of Joanna Brook’s book on Meridian Magazine by a Professor Hancock from BYU. I was shocked at his tone and dismayed by some of the negative comments. And had a few moments (just a few) of wondering why I stay in this church. I quickly reframed for myself and reading the comments again could pick up the on the fear in so many of the comments. I then found an article on Times and Seasons on the same topic. Ray, I saw your comments there and thank you for sharing those comments. WE are all so needed in our various locations in the church. I sorrow for some of those who wrote such mean comments about Joanna Brooks. What are all of you thinking about this? And I wonder what else I have missed while I’ve been busy elsewhere? Prof. Hancock’s review is shameful, imo. It’s easy to express disagreement without being disagreeable, as long as you try. He doesn’t even appear to be trying, and that’s sad. My opinion:
He’s a settler who is scared / concerned / whatever about an explorer. He sees Zion as unanimity of thought and vision, whereas I see it as unity forged despite (or even through) difference.
Any links anyone can provide so I can check it out? The link to Prof. Hancock’s review is: ( http://ldsmag.com/church/article/9497?ac=1 )The link to the Times & Seasons post is: (
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/03/review-the-book-of-mormon-girl/ Judging the church based on Meridien Magazine is like judging the Republican party based on the tea party only. Don’t let a few unsophisticated bad eggs taint your perspective. I know how hard that can be at times.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Judging the church based on Meridien Magazine is like judging the Republican party based on the tea party only. Don’t let a few unsophisticated bad eggs taint your perspective.
I know how hard that can be at times.
amen. Meridian magazine does not represent the church, and is not a publication of the church. it represents a conservative segment of mormon culture.Hancock’s views were bad enough, but some of the comments were quite nasty.
ah well.
wayfarer wrote:Hancock’s views were bad enough, but some of the comments were quite nasty.
ah well.
lots of examples of “holier than thou” in those comments, not very inspiring. Some of the comments you can tell they just don’t understand JBrooks, so the only thing that makes sense from their perspective is she must have fallen away from the truth to think such liberal things. It seems to be a common response from people. Sad, but common.
Amen, Heber. The same thing is happening in a thread on BCC about Kristine Haglund’s participation in a Boston College forum discussion about Anti-Mormon feelings in the country and how it is affecting Romney’s campaign that was broadcast on C-SPAN recently. Kristine’s contribution was wonderful, articulate and very thought-provoking, but a few commenters tore into her and said some really nasty things.
If anyone wants to see the discussion (
an hour long, but well worth it, if you have the time) and read the comment thread, here is the link: The comments are much more disturbing to me than the actual article. I hope you folks are right about these folks not being representative of the LDS church. Hmmm? Maybe Meridian and the commentators don’t represent the official church — but they certainly represent the LDS membership that I deal with. If the church leadership won’t, or can’t, do something about this kind of attitude and black/white thinking —- than there is no hope for me.
-sigh- The mormon people will not listen to their own prophets…and, they have the audacity to call me an apostate.
cwald wrote:I hope you folks are right about these folks not being representative of the LDS church. Hmmm? Maybe Meridian and the commentators don’t represent the official church — but they certainly represent the LDS membership that I deal with. If the church leadership won’t, or can’t, do something about this kind of attitude and black/white thinking —- than there is no hope for me.
-sigh- The mormon people will not listen to their own prophets…and, they have the audacity to call me an apostate.
cwald, it is certainly my ‘hope’ that there are ‘some’ active LDS who do not take the meridian conservative position. the problem is… i am not sure there are enough of us to make a difference.there is such comfort for the vast majority of the saints in that feeling of certainty that zion prospers and the world is going to hell. it’s easy and clear. living life in that bubble of safety is core to most active LDS. it is the ‘stasis’ or ‘status quo’ of the church culture — the nonprogressing conservative religious position that goes beyond the gospel of love into a hard and white fence around the law. to be liberal in one’s orientation to the church, to be progressive in one’s orientation, or to reject falsehoods held as truth by the majority is to seem to be be against (“apo-) the stasis of the majority.
but we who desire to stay LDS are not “apostates”, in the true definition of the term. we neither have renounced mormonism, nor actively opposed the brethren, nor do we preach against the gospel. renunciation of church membership, These are all obviously not the way to stay LDS. we don’t do these things, but there are those who interpret the hard and white in absolute terms, and thus see the liberal path as evil. we open a door in the gate and peer at what is inside and say, why? and in so doing threaten the peaceful status of the hard and whited walled enclave.
i stay LDS — yes in part to preserve family peace — but that alone cannot be the reason. authenticity suffers when i pretend to believe that which i know to be otherwise. i stay because i still find among all the threads of humanity a thread of clear, unique divinity that works for me. i encourage any who wish to stay to find that thread, and anchor to it, and not let the stasis– the tyranny of the majority take it away from you.
does this require flying under the radar? perhaps. my DW notices that i don’t say much in SS any longer whenever I do go — it isn’t worth the conflict. but this sitting back and hiding cannot last forever, and there are some things in the stasis that are so blatently untrue, so harmful, that one cannot sit silently. so, there are a few, like Joanna, who stand faithfully and confidently against the stasis.
there need to be more like Joanna.
wayfarer wrote:living life in that bubble of safety is core to most active LDS. it is the ‘stasis’ or ‘status quo’ of the church culture — the nonprogressing conservative religious position that goes beyond the gospel of love into a hard and white fence around the law. to be liberal in one’s orientation to the church, to be progressive in one’s orientation, or to reject falsehoods held as truth by the majority is to seem to be be against (“apo-) the stasis of the majority.
While I find many people likely are in the seats and think similar to me or others, the ones that are propped up as examples are not the ones liberal or progressive, but the ones that exemplify the status quo (these are considered for callings or acknowledged as stalwart examples).
However, on a personal level, the ones appreciated the most are the ones that promote love and caring attitudes (regardless of callings), which sometimes means having the tact to express the idea or thought that stretches others’ minds without coming off as the shocking view against the status quo.
It is easy to regurgitate correct SS answers. It is also easy to walk out (which I have done often
😳 ) or stand up for one’s personal opinions that go against the status quo or correct others on facts. I find it more difficult to stay and lovingly build bridges. It is sometimes painful to do so, and sometimes I just don’t know how to start. But I keep trying.Heber13 wrote:However, on a personal level, the ones appreciated the most are the ones that promote love and caring attitudes (regardless of callings), which sometimes means having the tact to express the idea or thought that stretches others’ minds without coming off as the shocking view against the status quo.
It is easy to regurgitate correct SS answers. It is also easy to walk out (which I have done often
😳 ) or stand up for one’s personal opinions that go against the status quo or correct others on facts. I find it more difficult to stay and lovingly build bridges. It is sometimes painful to do so, and sometimes I just don’t know how to start. But I keep trying.
And i think it is worth it. If joanna is an example of anything, it is to stand up and be counted, and not to walk out. She lives in the middle, faithful to a point, and loving to a large measure. this is key. it is also very hard.I was HT’ing tonight with a wonderful fellow democrat. We were having dinner with a very poor widower who is barely making ends meet; and my companion, a former BP and not NOM, was pointing out how easy it is for Romney to pay tithing. I pointed out that by the math, romney pays on net after taxes and not gross. To which my former BP companion insisted that the true principle is to pay on gross. We went a few rounds on this, I pointed out the official policy is not so specific, and he continuing to say that he’s always been told and told others to pay on gross. I said that the principle is vague, deliberately so, in order for us to seek our own spiritual confirmation of it. After discussing how he went to the bishop to ask whether to pay tithing on a previously tithed inheritance, the bishop advised him to pay. I said the process should have been to seek personal guidance through studying it out, proposing a plan, and seeking revelation through prayer. He finally landed on “I have never heard anyone counsel to seek an answer to how much to pay in tithing through prayer”. Really the end of the conversation.
Perhaps the poor guy we were home teaching, listening in on our gentle debate, might have learned something — not sure. In the end, I remain disenchanted with the absolutism that TBMs force on their own compliance of law. I’m not encouraged that there can be a lot of dialogue.
Heber, let me give a personal example of what you just said: I just moved into a new ward. I have been there for a month, and I have said things in multiple meetings already that have been a little “out there” – or, at least, that shifted the conversation in significant ways. I am not viewed as a threat in my new ward, and my comments have been received quite graciously. I’ve even had people make comments that referenced my comments and added onto them.
How can I get away with it in a new ward?
1) I contacted the Bishop before moving into the ward – to introduce myself and ask some basic questions about the church in this area. I told him the truth – that we had thought and prayed about which Bishop to contact and where in the city we should relocate. I told him we had felt impressed to call him and hoped to be able to find a house in his ward.
2) He asked what my wife and I were doing in the Church. I told him I had served on the High Council in the Nauvoo Stake and was released to be the Institute Teacher at the college where I worked – and that my wife was the Seminary Teacher in our small town and had been an Activity Days teacher and YW President before that.
Iow, I set the stage to be accepted as a faithful member. It wasn’t devious in any way, but it was intentional, nonetheless.
3) When I got to my new area, I volunteered to help clean the church each Saturday this month – since, “I’m a bachelor right now, have no life and don’t have anything better to do.” I’ve been at the church each Saturday morning this month helping clean the building.
4) I offered to play the piano in Priesthood meeting when they didn’t have the regular pianist and were talking about singing acapella.
5) I offered to help with baptisms for the dead next weekend.
Iow, I immediate dove into the service aspect of the ward.
6) 4) I have worn a white shirt, tie and suit coat to church each week so far. Why? It’s a visible sign right now that I’m not a non-conformist – even though I eventually will start mixing it up and wearing a colored shirt.
7) I smile constantly when I’m at church (and most of the time outside church, but that’s beside the point, a bit). I introduce myself to everyone. I talk with the little kids and tell their parents how cute the kids are. I flirt with the elderly ladies. I crack jokes occasionally in class. I sing openly and, while not truly loudly or with full voice, more loudly than most of the others in the congregation. When I make a comment, I generally speak fairly softly – but intensely when I am making an important point. I use “I think” and “I’ve often wondered” quite a bit – or other qualifiers and “softeners” in what I say.
Iow, I am being a “good neighbor” at church – fitting in and making friends and being good to be around.
What I’m saying is that people see me as one of them in every way that makes an immediate impression – so when I say something in class that is different than what is being said (and even different than anything they’ve considered previously), it’s not nearly as jarring as the visitor yesterday who went on and on in a very forceful tone.
I have social capital from my past, but I’m building social capital in the present – intentionally, but not deceptively in any way.
Old-Timer wrote:… He sees Zion as unanimity of thought and vision, whereas I see it as unity forged despite (or even through) difference.
We all know people who see Zion as unanimity of thought. I can’t help but see such uniformity as the antithesis of eternal progression. I wish we could better remember how Jesus responded to the status quo, and how he treated the outlier.
…and with this in mind I think what you described above Ray is in every way a perfect example of “what would Jesus do?”
cwald wrote:-sigh- The mormon people will not listen to their own prophets…and, they have the audacity to call me an apostate.
No truer words right there Cwald….exactly.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.