Voicing dissent in church

[pellegrino]

Today was a different day for me. For the first time ever, I voiced dissent to a priesthood leader.

A few weeks ago the sacrament meeting topic was somewhat controversial regarding gender roles. I and quite a few others were upset by it. Normally in situations like this I'm able to get past things, concentrate on my calling, the people I hometeach, delve deeper into my personal studies until the memory fades or I'm able to have some perspective as to what caused me to have those feelings. This time was different. As I went through my personal routine, I couldn't get the talks out of my head. As I prayed and meditated upon it, the impression came to me to talk to the bishop about it and express my concern with the topics. So today during Sunday School, I saw the Bishop in the hall, pulled him aside and we discussed it.

It was a really strange feeling for me. I stated from the beginning that I didn't feel comfortable doing what I was about to do and that I don't feel it's my place to to tell priesthood leaders how they should do their job. I was frank and honest with my opinions of the sacrament meeting. He talked about how the topic was assigned by the Stake Presidency and he invited me to read a copy of one of the talks (it had been given to him by the speaker) and we discussed the issue in a non confrontational way. I never had any expectation of change, I simply expressed my concern and displeasure of the topic. He listened and asked questions.

The reason I post isn't so much to rehash gender equality issues in the church (we have plenty of threads on that) but rather to discuss dissent within the church. Is dissent an appropriate thing to express in the church? Have you ever openly told a priesthood leader that you disagree with a policy, doctrine, or practice? What was it like? Were there any consequences to your actions? What would be an appropriate approach to voicing dissent in the church?

I have to say that this experience opened my eyes a little bit, and while the bishop was compassionate and understanding, I'm not sure it was a pleasant experience for me. I was nervous, overly aware of body (the only way I can describe portions of it is to liken it to an out of body experience where I was watching the two of us converse) and it caused me a fair amount of anxiety, something I've never experienced, not even when approaching a bishop to confess sins and repent. I think it's safe to say that grumbling and complaining to friends in the hallways of the church or at home with my wife is easy to do. Expressing displeasure over a specific matter to a priesthood leader is completely different and much more difficult to do.

[Solon]

Today was a different day for me. For the first time ever, I voiced dissent to a priesthood leader.

A few weeks ago the sacrament meeting topic was somewhat controversial regarding gender roles. I and quite a few others were upset by it. Normally in situations like this I'm able to get past things, concentrate on my calling, the people I hometeach, delve deeper into my personal studies until the memory fades or I'm able to have some perspective as to what caused me to have those feelings. This time was different. As I went through my personal routine, I couldn't get the talks out of my head. As I prayed and meditated upon it, the impression came to me to talk to the bishop about it and express my concern with the topics. So today during Sunday School, I saw the Bishop in the hall, pulled him aside and we discussed it.

It was a really strange feeling for me. I stated from the beginning that I didn't feel comfortable doing what I was about to do and that I don't feel it's my place to to tell priesthood leaders how they should do their job. I was frank and honest with my opinions of the sacrament meeting. He talked about how the topic was assigned by the Stake Presidency and he invited me to read a copy of one of the talks (it had been given to him by the speaker) and we discussed the issue in a non confrontational way. I never had any expectation of change, I simply expressed my concern and displeasure of the topic. He listened and asked questions.

The reason I post isn't so much to rehash gender equality issues in the church (we have plenty of threads on that) but rather to discuss dissent within the church. Is dissent an appropriate thing to express in the church? Have you ever openly told a priesthood leader that you disagree with a policy, doctrine, or practice? What was it like? Were there any consequences to your actions? What would be an appropriate approach to voicing dissent in the church?

I have to say that this experience opened my eyes a little bit, and while the bishop was compassionate and understanding, I'm not sure it was a pleasant experience for me. I was nervous, overly aware of body (the only way I can describe portions of it is to liken it to an out of body experience where I was watching the two of us converse) and it caused me a fair amount of anxiety, something I've never experienced, not even when approaching a bishop to confess sins and repent. I think it's safe to say that grumbling and complaining to friends in the hallways of the church or at home with my wife is easy to do. Expressing displeasure over a specific matter to a priesthood leader is completely different and much more difficult to do.

Kudos to you pilgrim. It sounds like you followed your conscience but did so tactfully and honestly. If the only result is you being able to sleep better at night, then I'd say something good came of it.

After Prop. 8 went down my ward back in PA lost 3 or 4 members for good, and I had a long "off the record" talk with my bishop about it one day. He told me that he thinks it's important to have differing viewpoints in the ward and asked me to help him brainstorm a way to facilitate a more open exchange of ideas. We tried for about 30 minutes to think of a way, from a special "discussion night" to a 5th sunday something - but, in the end, we both agreed that most people in our ward come to church seeking something other than free and open debate.

He left just as stumped as I about how to voice dissent in the church. I don't think there is a good way.

The title of this thread reminds me of Paul Toscano's The Sanctity of Dissent, where he essentially contends that the church bureaucracy doesn't really trust the members to apply gospel principles. Rather, the bureaucracy applies the principles for them and then tells them about it. I'm not sure I'm ready to go to that extreme, but it's an interesting take.

[Goatnapper'96]

Kudos to you pilgrim. It sounds like you followed your conscience but did so tactfully and honestly. If the only result is you being able to sleep better at night, then I'd say something good came of it.

After Prop. 8 went down my ward back in PA lost 3 or 4 members for good, and I had a long "off the record" talk with my bishop about it one day. He told me that he thinks it's important to have differing viewpoints in the ward and asked me to help him brainstorm a way to facilitate a more open exchange of ideas. We tried for about 30 minutes to think of a way, from a special "discussion night" to a 5th sunday something - but, in the end, we both agreed that most people in our ward come to church seeking something other than free and open debate.

He left just as stumped as I about how to voice dissent in the church. I don't think there is a good way.

The title of this thread reminds me of Paul Toscano's The Sanctity of Dissent, where he essentially contends that the church bureaucracy doesn't really trust the members to apply gospel principles. Rather, the bureaucracy applies the principles for them and then tells them about it. I'm not sure I'm ready to go to that extreme, but it's an interesting take.

In my opinion the goal should be to make everyone comfortable to worship. That is really hard because it must be more principally based rather than story based when making a point. Even Christ used stories to illustrate points. While I don't think He was trying to elevate the application methodology over the principle, I think we all can fall prey to doing that. Especially if the application is consistent with our application. Along your point that many go to Church for affirmation moreson that for learning/knowledge.

For example, I find nothing wrong with the principle that our children's well being should be a parental couple's primary responsibility. I even believe it is ok to emphasize that having a parent as the primary caregiver is the best method to imbue shared values and protect a young child. I think a good application of this is stay at home moms, but it can just as easilly be stay at home fathers - although they struggle breastfeeding. Because in our culture the stay at home mother is the most frequent example people assume that is the only approved way. IMO, it should be up to the individual parents to find the right way to apply the principle within the context of their individual circumstances. I don't like trying to cover every possible variety of application that would be acceptable to make everyone feel secure, just emphasize the principle and allow others to govern themselves.

But I agree with you that there is no good way to voice dissent. I think it can be best addressed within the context of a gospel principle by stating I agree with such and such but question if that application is the only Christ centered way.

But I also think boobs are in, so don't listen to me.

[pellegrino]

Kudos to you pilgrim. It sounds like you followed your conscience but did so tactfully and honestly. If the only result is you being able to sleep better at night, then I'd say something good came of it.

After Prop. 8 went down my ward back in PA lost 3 or 4 members for good, and I had a long "off the record" talk with my bishop about it one day. He told me that he thinks it's important to have differing viewpoints in the ward and asked me to help him brainstorm a way to facilitate a more open exchange of ideas. We tried for about 30 minutes to think of a way, from a special "discussion night" to a 5th sunday something - but, in the end, we both agreed that most people in our ward come to church seeking something other than free and open debate.

He left just as stumped as I about how to voice dissent in the church. I don't think there is a good way.

The title of this thread reminds me of Paul Toscano's The Sanctity of Dissent, where he essentially contends that the church bureaucracy doesn't really trust the members to apply gospel principles. Rather, the bureaucracy applies the principles for them and then tells them about it. I'm not sure I'm ready to go to that extreme, but it's an interesting take.

I don't know that it accomplished much more than that. The bishop can't change anything, he can't make the words of the proclamation on the family go away, and he can't refuse the stake president if he is asked to have a similar topic in the future. I do take some satisfaction in knowing that I was not the only one who voiced their concern with the talks. I found out this afternoon that one of them was the Relief Society President.

I agree that there is no good way to voice dissent in the church, mainly because there is no avenue for members to do so. SLC sloughs off the responsibility on local leaders who are impotent (that was for you Goat) and can do nothing but report it up the chain of command.

I do think that one could dissent too much, and that if dissent is to be an instrument for effectuating change on a local and general level it has to be done wisely. I'd like to think that my approach was done in such a manner, but I'm afraid it wasn't. I feel like I may have tipped my hand a bit too much and were he a different man it might have not gone as well.

[wuapinmon]

I don't know that it accomplished much more than that. The bishop can't change anything, he can't make the words of the proclamation on the family go away, and he can't refuse the stake president if he is asked to have a similar topic in the future. I do take some satisfaction in knowing that I was not the only one who voiced their concern with the talks. I found out this afternoon that one of them was the Relief Society President.

I agree that there is no good way to voice dissent in the church, mainly because there is no avenue for members to do so. SLC sloughs off the responsibility on local leaders who are impotent (that was for you Goat) and can do nothing but report it up the chain of command.

I do think that one could dissent too much, and that if dissent is to be an instrument for effectuating change on a local and general level it has to be done wisely. I'd like to think that my approach was done in such a manner, but I'm afraid it wasn't. I feel like I may have tipped my hand a bit too much and were he a different man it might have not gone as well.

Aww hell, don't worry so much. It's not like they can ban you. I remember once in New Orleans at a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting, we were talking about the missionaries and the "new" Preach My Gospel manual, and I asked if they were going to follow the rule that the investigators attend "Several" sacrament meetings before baptism. I was told that the Mission President made the rule two. I pointed out that the "Requirements for Baptism" page in the manual says, "several" which means more than 3.....when I was told that the MP had decided it, and it wasn't our stewardship, I pointed out, very vocally, that it wasn't the MPs stewardship to go against the Q12's requirements, and that the definition of too fast of growth is cancer, and that the missionaries were baptizing people who didn't even know anything.

Someone handed me an apocryphal quote from some prophet that said, "No one should say, that person ought not to have been baptized." I challenged back that the quote was unattributed, and the stake president actually said that it was a false quote.

The room turned on me, but these were all the white dudes in the suburbs talking about their wards, when we were the five Melq Psthood holders Uptown working like mad. I left the meeting and went out to my car and listened to Bob Marley so farking loud that it hurt my ears.

[wuapinmon]

Monday, May 08, 2006

Dissention is not sedition

Last Thursday night I attended the Stake Bishop's Training meeting for my branch president who had something else he needed to attend to. As his counselor, I went to understand the training being offered, return and report to him about it, and also to act as his representative at the meeting. It was attended by all of the branch presidents and bishops in the Stake, as well as the combined Stake Presidency.

A key focus of the meeting was on retention of converts. Our church has a problem keeping people active in the church after they are baptized and confirmed.

The New Orleans area, and especially my little branch has a particularly difficult time retaining new converts. In the meeting the question was asked why we couldn't retain members, and I voiced my opinion that I thought that we were given an impossible task since the missionaries insist on baptizing people who are obviously not ready. For non-LDS readers, the missionaries have authority over the people they teach until they are actually baptized. Once they are baptized they then become the ecclesiastical responsibility of the local priesthood leaders. Cases in point, the names have been omitted to protect these person's privacy:

1. A brother was intoxicated when he was actually baptized. I don't care what the missionaries said, he was drunk or high.
2. A sister who was married to someone else and living with another man when she was baptized. Her boyfriend moved out for a week, and the missionaries thought this was sufficient time for them to get baptized. People in love and involved in a sexual relationship don't just quit each other cold turkey. Had she gotten divorced and then married then the man, I could support her baptism after the fact. Assuming that someone will remain celibate in that situation is naivete.
3. A young man on probation for grand theft auto, came to church one time and they baptized him. He had no idea who Joseph Smith was, what the Book of Mormon was about. In less than a month he was in prison, not jail, but prison, for grand theft auto. 3rd strike as a juvenile got him 5 years. He was 14. For the record, people on probation are not allowed to get baptized. The missionaries never asked him.
4. A young man, also on probation, a known gang member, was baptized even though I told the elders that I could "smell sex" on him when he came to a youth activity before he was baptized and was already scheduled to get baptized in a few days. He stunk like he just gotten it on in the parking lot. He was 13. The missionaries had no idea what I was talking about. He would later smash his neighbor in the head with a brick over a Matchbox car. He had no idea about anything in the Gospel.
5. A man and woman living together. She refused to get married because she was on disability and her boyfriend has a great job, and if she got married she might lose her disability, which she didn't need anymore, btw. I told the elders (elders=missionaries) that we didn't really want people like that joining the church as she was clearly not "honest in her dealings with her fellow men" since she didn't want to get married because she would've lost money that she really wasn't entitled to in the first place. Katrina hit before they could get baptized.
6. A man was baptized who was a lifelong serious alcoholic. The missionaries thought that if he could go 7 days without drinking that would mean that he had stopped drinking forever.

I could go on and on. It does no one any good, especially the people baptized, to baptize someone who does not understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and the commitment required to live it. Maybe some of these people, at later points in their lives would be better suited to living the Gospel with the maturity that comes with age. Once they are baptized, they then are bound by a covenant to live like Christ. It is far easier to repent without having broken that covenant. Simply baptizing someone and saying that they are saved smacks of Protestant "grace" alone saves doctrines to which we do not subscribe, because as James said "Faith without works is dead."

I made my comments in that meeting, and the other bishops all looked at me incredulously. I got glares and someone passed me an apocryphal note where the prophet had said "No one in this church should ever say 'the missionaries ought not to have baptized that person.'" The quote was false and so is the idea that you cannot disagree with your priesthood leaders and yet still sustain their leadership. I have covenanted with God to dedicate my possessions, time, talents, and energy in his service, and if I were asked tomorrow to give all that I own to the church, I would do so without hesitation. After it was handed over however, I would like to be able to ask why and what it would be used for (which I'm sure would be done without my asking before I ever gave them anything). I should clarify that the church has never yet asked any members to give all they own to the church. We are only covenanted to do so should a need so great ever arise, and that's not every church member either, only those who have chosen to receive the Endowment ordinance and try to live a higher law--no one is ever compelled or even pressured to make the covenant.

I sustain my stake president. Whatever service he asks me to do, I will do. Yet, I need to feel that disagreeing with a policy still allows me to sustain him and not be seditious. The Stake President told me that we needed to focus on the aspects of missionary work over which we have authority, which is ex post facto. He never made me feel like I was being disrespectful or seditious; it was the others in the meeting that looked at me with that look in their eyes like "Who is this kid?" I am not afraid to question our policies, because a leader is only as good as the council he asks for and receives, from his congregation and from the Lord. We were asked our opinions, and I offered mine. We have been given the Gospel and told to preach it to all the world. We have not been given the details of how to best preach it, it is up to us to figure out how to best proceed, and this includes the occasional change in the program and change only comes about after we realize there is a problem, what is causing it, and what we can do to fix it.

The definition of too fast of growth is cancer.

My opinions are my own and are not official statements of doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I take full responsibility for them.

[pellegrino]

Aww hell, don't worry so much. It's not like they can ban you. I remember once in New Orleans at a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting, we were talking about the missionaries and the "new" Preach My Gospel manual, and I asked if they were going to follow the rule that the investigators attend "Several" sacrament meetings before baptism. I was told that the Mission President made the rule two. I pointed out that the "Requirements for Baptism" page in the manual says, "several" which means more than 3.....when I was told that the MP had decided it, and it wasn't our stewardship, I pointed out, very vocally, that it wasn't the MPs stewardship to go against the Q12's requirements, and that the definition of too fast of growth is cancer, and that the missionaries were baptizing people who didn't even know anything.

Someone handed me an apocryphal quote from some prophet that said, "No one should say, that person ought not to have been baptized." I challenged back that the quote was unattributed, and the stake president actually said that it was a false quote.

The room turned on me, but these were all the white dudes in the suburbs talking about their wards, when we were the five Melq Psthood holders Uptown working like mad. I left the meeting and went out to my car and listened to Bob Marley so farking loud that it hurt my ears.

I think it's a little different when your dissenting argument has the support of the Q12 behind you. My dissenting voice was articulating my belief that it's unfortunate that the proclamation on the family has words like "preside" tied to masculinity and "nurture" to femininity and that sacrament meeting is being used as a vehicle to reinforce those roles rather than to remind us of our baptismal covenants and bring us closer to Christ. The purported reason for the talks was that "women don't know the hierarchy of the priesthood" to which I responded "it's no wonder seeing as how none of them hold it."

I'm not worried, I have a good bishop. I wouldn't have dreamed about bringing this up with the last bishop I had.

[thesaint258]

It sounds like you have a good bishop. Not all bishops would've reacted the same way.

[fusnik]

It sounds like you have a good bishop. Not all bishops would've reacted the same way.

No kidding. I think the biggest lie we tell ourselves as members is that, we are stewards over our wards, quorums, groups.

I worked in a stake calling that required that I attend meetings with the SP. I learned very quickly that Bishops are the lap dogs to the SP's, who in turn are lap dogs to the AA's, who in turn are..... etc, etc.

We are a top down organization. Its not worth it to complain up the chain, that ship ain't going nowhere.

[clackamascoug]

No kidding. I think the biggest lie we tell ourselves as members is that, we are stewards over our wards, quorums, groups.

I worked in a stake calling that required that I attend meetings with the SP. I learned very quickly that Bishops are the lap dogs to the SP's, who in turn are lap dogs to the AA's, who in turn are..... etc, etc.

We are a top down organization. Its not worth it to complain up the chain, that ship ain't going nowhere.

Was an assistant Stake Clerk (financial) for 5 years. I attended the Stake Presidency meeting about 10% of the time. I was set back a bit by the iron fist mentality. The stake totally thinks the wards are the "kids" are they are the parent. Heavy hands are not helping hands.

[Portland Ute]

Monday, May 08, 2006

Dissention is not sedition

I don't know why #6 really doesn't bother me.

[fusnik]

Wuap,

You know I love you.....

Why would you care about someones issues prior to baptism?

The descriptions of those people sound similar to the lives that many of the great religious leaders of the ancient and modern world lived before they found the refuge of Christ.

One of the greatest men Ive met in my short life was drunk at his baptism and fresh off a night of romping his live in girlfriend. Finding a glimmer of hope and mercy can literally change the course of ones life instantly.

[SeattleUte]

Today was a different day for me. For the first time ever, I voiced dissent to a priesthood leader.

A few weeks ago the sacrament meeting topic was somewhat controversial regarding gender roles. I and quite a few others were upset by it. Normally in situations like this I'm able to get past things, concentrate on my calling, the people I hometeach, delve deeper into my personal studies until the memory fades or I'm able to have some perspective as to what caused me to have those feelings. This time was different. As I went through my personal routine, I couldn't get the talks out of my head. As I prayed and meditated upon it, the impression came to me to talk to the bishop about it and express my concern with the topics. So today during Sunday School, I saw the Bishop in the hall, pulled him aside and we discussed it.

It was a really strange feeling for me. I stated from the beginning that I didn't feel comfortable doing what I was about to do and that I don't feel it's my place to to tell priesthood leaders how they should do their job. I was frank and honest with my opinions of the sacrament meeting. He talked about how the topic was assigned by the Stake Presidency and he invited me to read a copy of one of the talks (it had been given to him by the speaker) and we discussed the issue in a non confrontational way. I never had any expectation of change, I simply expressed my concern and displeasure of the topic. He listened and asked questions.

The reason I post isn't so much to rehash gender equality issues in the church (we have plenty of threads on that) but rather to discuss dissent within the church. Is dissent an appropriate thing to express in the church? Have you ever openly told a priesthood leader that you disagree with a policy, doctrine, or practice? What was it like? Were there any consequences to your actions? What would be an appropriate approach to voicing dissent in the church?

I have to say that this experience opened my eyes a little bit, and while the bishop was compassionate and understanding, I'm not sure it was a pleasant experience for me. I was nervous, overly aware of body (the only way I can describe portions of it is to liken it to an out of body experience where I was watching the two of us converse) and it caused me a fair amount of anxiety, something I've never experienced, not even when approaching a bishop to confess sins and repent. I think it's safe to say that grumbling and complaining to friends in the hallways of the church or at home with my wife is easy to do. Expressing displeasure over a specific matter to a priesthood leader is completely different and much more difficult to do.

The first time I did this was on my mission. I told my mission president that his branch configuration was a fraud. I told him that most of them had no priesthood holders and rarely any males attend; mostly kids with a couple of women and missionaries doing the ordinances. Earlier that day I had unloaded on his AP, who had come to my zone and confronted me in front of my charges about my recommendation that they merge these Potemkin branches.

How did it feel? It felt great. After that, I knew (at least subconsciously) that if I could do it then, I could do it again and again. I knew that they had no superior knowledge to me; they were just men; in fact, as to many important matters, my own insight, my wisdom, and my integrity, was greater. Pelligrino, I know you and I know the same is true for you. You are better than 99% of them.

Pelligrino, my friend, I'm going to say something that will initially sound a lot worse than what I mean: the reticense that you express is un-American. No, I don't mean you are a bad American, disloyal or not patriotic or anything like that. What I mean is that the foundning of America was all about people--for perhaps the first time in human history--having the gumption to stand up to clerics and other autoritarian figures claiming divine authority, and deny their superior station (in any sense), indeed overcoming the very feelings of impotence and guilt that you describe. America was the apotheosis of the Enlightenment. If you read about any authoritarian situation, it always relies on this type of oppression, making dissent or even doubt the most greivious offense.

Fear of standing up to "priesthood holders" is not rational. It is our tradition of rejecting that very kind of irrationality that has made us great.

[Indy Coug]

There's nothing wrong with disagreements, as long as it's made in the proper spirit and in a proper time and place. Disagreements happen weekly in bishopric meeting and in PEC, but they (usually) are done without the spirit of contention and can often result in a change of direction.

Angrily blasting someone in public (or private) is not an effective means of voicing your opinion or effecting change.

I think you handled the situation very well.


$0.02

[Moliere]

Mentally I break this out into two different pieces: Policy and doctine.

I dissent over policy all of the time. Some church policies, even those CHoI policies interpretted by the stake, are just not applicable to every situation. I try and follow what I can, but when it comes down to running an effective program, breaking from church policy in some instances is okay. Before I break policy though I will let the bishop know what we are doing and sometimes he tells me no, sometimes he turns a blind eye, and sometimes he says yes. I have a really good bishop though that would rather my auxilliary be run effectively rather than burdened down with archaic goals and responsibilities.

I don't dissent over doctrine, however this doesn't include expressing concern over things that are said. I've voiced my dissent to a member of the bishopric before over a talk or principle that was preached over the pulpit and found that they oftentimes had the same issue. I've never done this as formally as Pellegrino did in his example but it does happen. However, I think that if I get to the point where I'm dissenting over actual church doctrine then I have bigger issues from a Mormon standpoint. I have issues with correlation and what it has done to Sunday School and PH/RS teaching as well as sacrament talks, but I don't disagree with church doctrine.

My advice on this would be the same advice that RF gives quite often and that is to be a voice for reason and thinking and alternative points of view. If someone in GD class if trying to scientifically explain how Jonah could live in a fishes belly for three days or if they are trying to explain how all the animals could fit onto Noah's boat then feel free to raise your hand and talk about how you don't feel it is necessary to believe these events physically happened as written in the bible but that you get a lot out of the beautiful allegories that are contained in these stories. Chances are many people sitting in that class are in the same boat as you.