- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
Beware of groupthink. There is a culturally acceptable way to disagree. We just have to find it.
Yes, you are right.The trick is to find a way within our culture, a culture that defends the prophet even moreso than the argument or the actual words being said.
Heber13 wrote:Tom Haws wrote:Beware of groupthink. There is a culturally acceptable way to disagree. We just have to find it.
Yes, you are right.The trick is to find a way within our culture, a culture that defends the prophet even moreso than the argument or the actual words being said.
I’m sorry, but I do not believe there is ANY way in the LDS church today to “disagree” with the prophet in public (church) setting without negative consequences, especially at the stake level. I am interested to hear someone come up with a suggestion. The only one I can think of, which really is a cop-out, IMO, is to say, “well, I disagree with the prophet about X,Y,Z — but I will follow his council anyway.” That is a cop-out. How would one go about in the church today and say, I disagree with the prophet about X,Y,Z – and I’m not going to do it or believe it” without getting “black-balled by the local leadership and common member?
Let’s just use a benign example like a second pair of earrings, or watching R-rated movies. How would you disagree with the prophet’s council in SS while your Bish or SP is sitting in there listening to the lesson and discussion? You cannot do it – it’s completely against the LDS teachings and culture of our time. The prophet speaks for god, and will never lead us astray, so what they say, in regards to earrings and R-rated movies may as well be coming from god himself as far as the general membership is concerned.
Any takers. This is probably right up your alley Ray?
🙂 I hear ya, cwald. It is a tricky thing. The best I can come up with is how I handled my ward leaders when my daughter was 14 and dating a boy in the ward. She often got lectures about FSOY and what the prophet says we should do and waiting to date until 16 yrs old, and she would come home crying from YW meetings. To make it worse, the YM leaders were using her as an example in Priesthood class of what you should NOT do, and so her friends in YM would tease her about it, making it 10x worse.
I finally talked to the bishop and the YW President and the YM President individually, and said our family would not support this or tolerate our daughter being treated this way. I got talks from them on following the prophet, and chastity, and the dangers my daughter would be heading towards…and I had to shut them down immediately, and I just told them:
Quote:I know what the prophet has said in For the Strength of Youth. Frankly, we have bigger issues in our family to be dealing with right now, so we will not be following that. The church preaches Family First, so we will focus on our family, and if I hear one more reference about my daughter dating, we will no longer attend this ward.
We had no other problems with that issue from then on, and I don’t know about the YM President, but the YW Pres and Bishop understand our situation and respect our position, even though they don’t agree. She is 16 now. She doesn’t have any chastity problems or isn’t “in the grips of Satan” because of her choices. Ultimately, it was a non-issue, and I don’t think ward leaders really remember or think about it anymore.
It was just a cultural thing they had to get over, and in the end…life goes on with no issues. But to your point, even on a minor issue like this, we had to deal with quit a bit of warnings and preachings…but I had to stay true to what was right for my family. It wasn’t easy, but it can be done with minimal impact.
I don’t know, Ray…is there a better response to cwald?
Heber13 wrote:I know what the prophet has said in For the Strength of Youth. Frankly, we have bigger issues in our family to be dealing with right now, so we will not be following that. The church preaches Family First, so we will focus on our family, and if I hear one more reference about my daughter dating, we will no longer attend this ward.
So, if I understand you correctly, you played the “I am the presider/patriarch/head of household in my family and after careful consideration of complex issues that affect my family, I am applying the counsel of the prophets to my family based on priority” card. Is that correct?
Roy wrote:I am applying the counsel of the prophets to my family based on priority” card. Is that correct?
There were actually 2 elements to it:
1)
Lack of understanding– I didn’t understand what was meant by “dating” and the definition of it, so my daughter and I couldn’t really get an idea of what the prophet was really saying to avoid, other than to not get serious with members of the opposite sex too early because it progresses to serious sin, yet it seemed like local leaders strung that out to not holding movies in our house with boys and girls together…and we didn’t understand how they were defining it compared to the way the prophet says it in FSOY. So, we didn’t agree with how it was practiced by people in the ward, nor think the FSOY should be ammunition by others to tell our family how to apply the principles and spirit of the law given by the prophet; 2)
Priorities– as stated, there were bigger issues for us to deal with at home. Focusing on this could have been a negative influence that could push my daughter away from her parents into rebellion, rather than her trusting us and talking to us about what she does. We needed trust at home. This was just not a priority for us. For both these reasons, I definitely felt it was my duty as a parent to define how we would follow the rule in our home, and needed others to back off (=establish boundaries). Their job as leaders is to teach the principles, and let me govern my home. Not preach fear of “you must follow the prophet or else” and have my daughter keep coming home from church crying.
Heber13 wrote:I definitely felt it was my duty as a parent to define how we would follow the rule in our home, and needed others to back off (=establish boundaries). Their job as leaders is to teach the principles, and let me govern my home. Not preach fear of “you must follow the prophet or else” and have my daughter keep coming home from church crying.
Wow, Nicely done. Great example!
I disagree with singling out groups like this fundamental does. And I like Hawkgrrl’s rejoinder about the proud and dumb, and the proud and poor. Could it be there was a certain arrogance from the well-educated back in the time of Joseph Smith, when education was not freely available? Arrogance that caused him personal angst? And that this was a source of statements against the learned in the Book of Mormon? And could those statements be the inspiration for this fundamental? And is this fundamental rooted in a desire to lessen the power of the rich or well-educated to change minds and obstruct the aims of the Church? It’s as if this fundamental is saying “If you are proud and lack influence, then I’m not worried about you; you can’t hurt me. HOwever if you’re proud and influential, then you need to be put in your place lest you obstruct my goals”.
If I was to write my own scripture, I would be deeply tempted to include a passage on the woes of arrogance, as that bothers me, as well as discimination/violence based on outward appearance. I know this because years ago, I took up the challenge and tried to write like the BoM just to see how hard it was (there is a story about someone who tried to write scripture like the Book of Mormon and couldn’t do it, so I thought I’d take a stab at it). Before you think I’m crazy, I had no intention of distributing it as inspired scripture, or anything, I just wanted to write in that style to experience it for myself.
During this experience, I gravitated immediately toward writing about the sin of arrogance, since that was dear to my heart at the time. I wonder if the BoM references to proud, learned, rich people has its same roots….personal angst on the part of Joseph Smith? Or a desire to pre-empt the efforts of rich and learned people who might stand in the way of Joseph’s development of a new Christian movement?
It would be interesting to know how learned people were viewed in the time of Joseph Smith, and the full range of interactions he had with them at that time. I know that after he had his vision, learned men (ministers) persecuted him — perhaps this is a source of this negativity toward the learned.
I’ve expressed disagreement with various prophetic statements over the years, but I NEVER do it by saying, “I disagree with (fill in the blank) about (fill in the blank)” – or, “(so and so) is wrong about (such and such)”. That isn’t going to go over well at all; I know that, so I don’t approach it that way.I don’t believe in conversational suicide. Period. I also talk regularly about respecting different opinions and perspectives (kind of a central theme in a lot of my talks, for example), so people aren’t all that surprised when I express a different opinion about something.
My approach varies based on the situation, but it generally is one of the following:
1) Heber’s approach: (“I know the general counsel, and I respect it – but I’m dealing with my own situation, and the Church teaches STRONGLY that my wife and I are responsible to follow the promptings of the Spirit concerning how we make each decision we make. We feel this is inspired, so we feel it is right for us at this time in this situation.”)
2) the competing Prophet / apostle / scripture approach: (“I have a hard time with this question / issue sometimes, since different apostles and prophets [or scriptures] have said different things about it. I tend to agree with (whomever or whatever scripture) and think . . .”)
3) the “I don’t know, but” approach: (“I’m not sure about this, but I wonder if . . .”)
4) the ideal vs. the practical approach: (“I believe in the ideal of (whatever), but I’ve seen SO many situations where that ideal just isn’t possible. For example, . . .”)
5) the “we have to be aware of how many other people are affected by this idea” approach: (“I agree that joy is the object of our existence, but when we say that we need to be aware of those who are suffering from depression and take what we say as condemnation for not feeling joy more often.” “I agree that marriage is important to preach, but we need to be aware of how that message comes across to single adult members – especially if they hear it practically every week, over and over and over again.”)
6) the “a good friend of mine once said / asked” approach: (Some of you get quoted without attribution with this approach. I’ve used cwald’s experiences with his branch and stake as an example on more than one occasion.)
SD – great comments! Quote:Could it be there was a certain arrogance from the well-educated back in the time of Joseph Smith, when education was not freely available? Arrogance that caused him personal angst?
Or, JS was just uneducated and poor, and he was critical of the rich and educated as a result. Likewise with all people throughout time: the haves and the have-nots.
Quote:It’s as if this fundamental is saying “If you are proud and lack influence, then I’m not worried about you; you can’t hurt me. HOwever if you’re proud and influential, then you need to be put in your place lest you obstruct my goals”.
Also quite possible.
The other thing to consider is that religion has always appealed to the socially disenfranchised. (There’s a reason it’s called the opiate of the masses). The early Christian church was criticised for being a church of women & slaves, a fact that initially slowed its ability to win converts. Only when the educated and powerful embraced it did it really take off. Of course, some would say they were the ones who corrupted it as well.
Those are not bad examples Heber and Ray. I see the possibilities. SD – I would LOVE to read your
Book of SDthat you wrote. Seriously, how long is it, and what is the story line? Old-Timer wrote:I’ve expressed disagreement with various prophetic statements over the years, but I NEVER do it by saying, “I disagree with (fill in the blank) about (fill in the blank)” – or, “(so and so) is wrong about (such and such)”. That isn’t going to go over well at all;
I know that, so I don’t approach it that way.I don’t believe in conversational suicide. Period. I also talk regularly about respecting different opinions and perspectives (kind of a central theme in a lot of my talks, for example), so people aren’t all that surprised when I express a different opinion about something.
My approach varies based on the situation, but it generally is one of the following:
1) Heber’s approach: (“I know the general counsel, and I respect it – but I’m dealing with my own situation, and the Church teaches STRONGLY that my wife and I are responsible to follow the promptings of the Spirit concerning how we make each decision we make. We feel this is inspired, so we feel it is right for us at this time in this situation.”)
2) the competing Prophet / apostle / scripture approach: (“I have a hard time with this question / issue sometimes, since different apostles and prophets [or scriptures] have said different things about it. I tend to agree with (whomever or whatever scripture) and think . . .”)
3) the “I don’t know, but” approach: (“I’m not sure about this, but I wonder if . . .”)
4) the ideal vs. the practical approach: (“I believe in the ideal of (whatever), but I’ve seen SO many situations where that ideal just isn’t possible. For example, . . .”)
5) the “we have to be aware of how many other people are affected by this idea” approach: (“I agree that joy is the object of our existence, but when we say that we need to be aware of those who are suffering from depression and take what we say as condemnation for not feeling joy more often.” “I agree that marriage is important to preach, but we need to be aware of how that message comes across to single adult members – especially if they hear it practically every week, over and over and over again.”)
6) the “a good friend of mine once said / asked” approach: (Some of you get quoted without attribution with this approach. I’ve used cwald’s experiences with his branch and stake as an example on more than one occasion.)
Ray — I think these need to be given shorter, more descriptive names, and then refined and placed in the resources section of this site. I think these are an effective aresnal of ways of politely disagreeing with social “shoulds” and blanket expectations of conformity. The only problem is I can’t remember them all in their qualitative descriptions here. Perhaps naming them as:
a) The “Combining Counsel with Personal Revelation” Approach (Could also be called the Personal Exception Approach following Dallin Oaks comments that GA’s teach only general principles, and that individuals must work out their personal exceptions with the Lord. Could also call it the Spiritual Ownership approach)
b) The Conflicting Counsel Approach
c) The “I Don’t Know” Approach (need a bit more explanation on this one, for me to understand it)
d) The Ideal vs Practical Approach
e) The Exception to the Rule Approach
f) The Competing Anectdote Approach (I would need a bit more explanation on that one too to fully understand it).
But I see it as a good set of coping mechanisms for those times when people are talking without thinking or expecting myopic conformity.
I have a couple other approaches:
1) The Winds of Change Approach: “I have never been able to get a testimony of this policy, however, I have faith that it will change, just as other hard-to-accept policies have changed over the years”
2) The Competing Principle Approach: “Yes, we are told we must pay 10% of our income in tithing, yet, we are also given STRONG counsel to stand independent (self-reliant) of all things below heaven. Therefore, I see these two principles in conflict, and need to decide which is the most important, just as Eve did in the Garden of Eden”
3) The Personal Accountability Approach: “Yes, others may not agree with this decision, but I accept whatever consequences I may have to endure.”
4) The Spiritual Ignorance Approach: “Short of having an undeniable vision, I’m not convinced anyone can know for sure — all we have are experiences that point us to a particular shade of belief; and those shades can all be different given our limited understanding”.
SilentDawning wrote:Ray — I think these need to be given shorter, more descriptive names, and then refined and
placed in the resources section of this site.Agreed. I think this would be the premise for a GREAT StayLDS article. perhaps you should consider it as your next blog project and link it with a word doc in the sites section with the articles like the the How to Stay article
cwald wrote:Those are not bad examples Heber and Ray. I see the possibilities.
SD – I would LOVE to read your
Book of SDthat you wrote. Seriously, how long is it, and what is the story line? I only pushed out two chapters before my wife called me to repentence and told me to stop. I see her point — it might look like I had developed a Messiah-complex or something. And again, just to cover myself, I wasn’t claiming it was scripture or trying to disseminate it or start a movement. So, with that caveat, here is what I wrote about….
I had written it in the same format as the scriptures, complete with chapter introductions in italics, verse numbers, and columns. Used a similar font to the one we have in our scriptures. I wanted to see if I could write something, and then put it aside, and read it like I do the scriptures through an objective perspective after I had forgotten about it. I wanted to see if I could feel the Spirit about it, and have it trigger inspiration like scriptures do, particularly if it felt authentic like scripture. I also wondered about the extent to which my own personal angst would flow to my “pen” and make it into the “scripture”. Finally, I wrote it as if it was a novel meant to inspire a fictitious group of followers to adopt certain values…again, postulating what might have been going through Joseph Smith’s mind if he wrote, rather than translated it. In short, I wondered just how JS might have felt about writing scripture if it was NOT inspired, but as Cadence says “all made up”.
The story line was about a talented young prince who took the throne. He had many successes in culture, business and war at a very young age, but developed an extremely arrogant attitude toward his kingdom and subjects given his successes. Nonetheless, the people conslidated more and more power in his hands given his talent. His parents tried to point this character flaw out to him, however, he rejected their counsel in the same typical fashion real-life arrogant people lack self-awareness and reject such counsel from others. Then, he has a dream in which he sees himself for who he really is, and wakes up exhausted, shocked, sorrowful, and full of empathy for the people he has harshly wronged in his kingdom. This leads him to greater kindness, greater reliance on God in decision-making, less reliance on his own talents, and a crisis in his kindgom due to ignoring his basic instincts. In short, in carving out a new character, he abandons his native talents, and makes mistakes. However, God intervens, saves his Kingdom, and he emerges with a character that combines his talent and godly attributes of humility and kindness at the same time. In short, he becomes a bit like the Heber approach where he combines godly inspiration with personal talent, and becomes even more successful. He is eventually martyred for some selfless acts to improve the lot of his people, at the chagrin of the wealthy.
Anyway, that’s the gist of it. As I said, my wife got really mad at me as it was during my initial withdrawal from Church life, and it scared her. So, amen to that. I deleted it and moved on. Now I wish I had it as I want to read it again. It’s been over a year and I’d like to see how authentic it feels.
For sure, I learned my own biases and angst made it into the story line — that’s for sure, as did my own philosophy about inspired leadership.
The first time I read the statement I thought it said difficulty following Jesus. I immediately thought of a third category — the proud who are self-righteous. I think they can have difficulty following what Jesus really taught. …Guess that puts us all in the boat together, we can all find our flavor of pride! SilentDawning wrote:..
The story line was about a talented young prince who took the throne. He had many successes in culture, business and war at a very young age, but developed an extremely arrogant attitude toward his kingdom and subjects given his successes. Nonetheless, the people conslidated more and more power in his hands given his talent. His parents tried to point this character flaw out to him, however, he rejected their counsel in the same typical fashion real-life arrogant people lack self-awareness and reject such counsel from others. Then, he has a dream in which he sees himself for who he really is, and wakes up exhausted, shocked, sorrowful, and full of empathy for the people he has harshly wronged in his kingdom. This leads him to greater kindness, greater reliance on God in decision-making, less reliance on his own talents, and a crisis in his kindgom due to ignoring his basic instincts. In short, in carving out a new character, he abandons his native talents, and makes mistakes. However, God intervens, saves his Kingdom, and he emerges with a character that combines his talent and godly attributes of humility and kindness at the same time. In short, he becomes a bit like the Heber approach where he combines godly inspiration with personal talent, and becomes even more successful. He is eventually martyred for some selfless acts to improve the lot of his people, at the chagrin of the wealthy.
All that in TWO CHAPTERS! What, were you doing the the Enos, Jarom, and Omni style rather than the Nephi and Alma style? Run out of ore or something?
🙂
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 11’ is closed to new replies.