Voicing dissent in church

[UtahDan]

What does one do when repeated offers of private conversation to discussed differences are dismissed, or worse, remain unanswered?

One lowers their expectations.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What does one do when repeated offers of private conversation to discussed differences are dismissed, or worse, remain unanswered?

from the article:

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:
“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)
Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

[creekster]

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.

I am not going to get into this discussion other than to say first that I think you are overstaing the rise fo the disenfranchised with resepct to the founding of America. It was the rise of a new boss, not discarding of any boss. (I am not being critical but I think we shoudl be accurate.)

Second, I think Pellegrino handled it properly and I am glad his bishop had the widom to respond properly.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm sure all here could guess what my bias would be. I was first amused by fussy's lapdog comment, but then wondered how much truth there is or how many members of my ward feel the same way; I never have. In 4 years in this calling I have never once felt any pressure from my Stake President. I have never been told to do or not do something, unless I have asked him for specific advice on a situation and even then it is generally more a discussion than a decree from him.

Believe it or not I feel like CUF has made me a better bishop. I have never been bothered by dissent or someone disagreeing with my views or opinion. I use to be more bothered by people having differing opinions from the brethren, but realize that also is normal and can be healthy, especially if handled as maturely as pellegrino did. Yesterday in PEC, I was in charge of training so we spent 20 minutes talking about John Dehlin's how to stay mormon manifesto specifically the Faith is a Low Bar section. I thought it was a very good discussion, I tried to emphasize the need for inclusion for those having struggles versus ostracization.

My talk was probably a B- or C effort it was neither great nor horrible, but probably the most damning description would be it was likely forgettable. The time was short, but my 1st counselor gave an A+ talk before me, so I didn't have time to elaborate many of the points I wanted to. I had planned to build my talk around sections 121-123 the Liberty Jail chapters of Joseph's life. Oh well.

We did break the 500 number for sacrament attendance again. The scary part is I often don't know who is visiting and who are the new members that have moved in over the past month.

[mUUser]

I know you love me, sosce baby. My tone in this response should be read in my wuap-just won-a-close-game-of-domination-and-is-totally-relaxed voice. Why have standards for baptism at all? While I'll admit that most of my response was bureaucratic worrying about hometeaching people who don't know who wrote the Book of Mormon, I was more concerned about how hard it was for these people to feel successful in Church if we let them get baptized when they are still struggling with sins that will keep them from progressing in the Church (priesthood, temple, etc.). Now, I don't care so much. I still feel like people get baptized too quickly and that they have zero idea what they're getting themselves into. I also believe that someone could come to an elder and say, "I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, and I want to get baptized right now" and that the elder shouldn't wait for an interview.

So, 2006 Mac isn't 2010 Mac. But, the dissent was there.

The mission & retention program is broken, and this is just one reason why it needs an overhaul.

On the topic in question -- you did well. Truthful, straight-forward, but in the right spirit. I've had my share of run-ins as well. Keep at it, but also keep in mind that the Bishop has an impossible job, and a double-dose of empathy towards him is helpful as well.

[Solon]

I think in this case you could also consider Oaks' comments during the PBS documentary on the Mormons in 2007:

I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.

But not everything that’s true is useful.

For context, Oaks is referring to LDS historians who publish less-than-savory information about LDS leaders.

From: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...bs-documentary

[Sullyute]

I've literally typed three different responses to this and deleted them.

I had to chuckle at this as my thoughts have also changed several times as I have read the different responses. Criticism of church leaders is such a slippery slope. The church is definetely a top down organization and I am sure that any changes coming from the ground up are few and far between.

Peligrino, in my opinion talking directly to the bishop or individual about your concerns shows that you care. You care about your family, you care about the less active, you care about the youth, you care enough to do something that you would have prefered not to do but felt you needed to in order to protect those people. Even though your talk may have little effect as the message is driven by the SP, at least you are doing right by your conscience. Although I haven't had a similar experience, I applaud your care, love, gumption, tenacity and everything else that it you took to express your concerns. I hope I would care enough to do the same.

As a side note, I really like reading about the 19th century church and all of the dissent and arguements that went on in the Q12 over polygamy, politics, doctrine, etc. Although today the first presidency and the Q12 vigorously show a united front, I would hope that there are still some strong differing opinions on many of the current issues facing the church and us members.

[Solon]

I'm sure all here could guess what my bias would be. I was first amused by fussy's lapdog comment, but then wondered how much truth there is or how many members of my ward feel the same way; I never have. In 4 years in this calling I have never once felt any pressure from my Stake President. I have never been told to do or not do something, unless I have asked him for specific advice on a situation and even then it is generally more a discussion than a decree from him.

Believe it or not I feel like CUF has made me a better bishop. I have never been bothered by dissent or someone disagreeing with my views or opinion. I use to be more bothered by people having differing opinions from the brethren, but realize that also is normal and can be healthy, especially if handled as maturely as pellegrino did. Yesterday in PEC, I was in charge of training so we spent 20 minutes talking about John Dehlin's how to stay mormon manifesto specifically the Faith is a Low Bar section. I thought it was a very good discussion, I tried to emphasize the need for inclusion for those having struggles versus ostracization.

My talk was probably a B- or C effort it was neither great nor horrible, but probably the most damning description would be it was likely forgettable. The time was short, but my 1st counselor gave an A+ talk before me, so I didn't have time to elaborate many of the points I wanted to. I had planned to build my talk around sections 121-123 the Liberty Jail chapters of Joseph's life. Oh well.

We did break the 500 number for sacrament attendance again. The scary part is I often don't know who is visiting and who are the new members that have moved in over the past month.

I like the suggestions in the manifesto, but the typos in it are a little embarrassing.

Art, to paraphrase Top Gun, You are still dangerous. But you can be my bishop anytime.

[Art Vandelay]

I like the suggestions in the manifesto, but the typos in it are a little embarrassing.

Art, to paraphrase Top Gun, You are still dangerous. But you can be my bishop anytime.

Their was typos?

[Green Monstah]

Elder Oaks elaborates on criticism of church leaders here:

http://www.living-prophet.info/LDS/0...in_H_Oaks.html

While some parts of this make me squirm, it is not as heavy-handed as you might think. He would be fine with pellegrino's approach I think:

Thanks for posting that...and perhaps that is what Indy was referring to.

[RobinFinderson]

The last time I voiced dissent to a priesthood authority also happened to be the last time I went to church. I had already lost my testimony, but was still active for the chance the church might bring to do some good. I was especially interested in my calling, as the young men's president in the South Central branch in LA. I was the scouting leader, the weekly teacher, and the sacrament administering organizer... basically everything having to do with young men. The only thing that really interested me in all of this was teaching each week, where I saw the chance to impart some practical wisdom, wrapped in a thin gospel veneer, but completely avoiding anything that compromised my personal beliefs. The lessons were mostly about navigating young male teenage years, accepting responsibility and preparing to accept responsibility as the meaning of becoming an 'adult,' with lavish displays of pride in the young mens' better choices.

One week I was scheduled to teach about missionary service. It so happened that the stake young men's presidency was in attendance that week, and came to my class. One of the things that I refused to teach was that 'every worthy young man should serve a mission.' Quite frankly, I don't believe that a mission is for everyone, so I refused to teach otherwise. When it came to this part of the lesson, I taught the young men about some of the many things I valued about my mission: the language, service, learning about the church and its members and figuring out my place in all of that. I explained that there were many good reasons to serve a mission, but that each person should carefully consider his reasons for wanting or not wanting to go, and do all that he could to make an informed decision. Anyhow, I taught something like that, not telling the boys NOT to go, but making sure that they knew that it was a big CHOICE for them to make. At that point the stake leader interjected with the party line, saying that while it was clearly a choice in the sense that no one would be forced to go, it was not a choice for anyone who wanted to follow the teachings of the prophet. I responded to that by saying that the Stake leader had indeed taught them the official church position, however I had also known many missionaries who chose to serve primarily for selfish reasons, because it was expected of them, even though they didn't want to be on the mission. I explained that in spite of the official church position, each person needed to make the choice that was best for him, and if he didn't want to go, he probably shouldn't. Then I reiterated the benefits I saw from my own missionary service, never mentioning the fact that I wished I had known what I couldn't , namely that I would eventually regret serving a mission (it is a strange regret... it was definitely the right choice for where I was at. What I really regret is not figuring out the things I think I have figured out now much earlier in life, but I was way too into the church to see the forest for the trees at that point).

For all of this I received a big lecture after church. I listened to it all, took it all in, and it was at that point that I realized that I should probably go seek out service opportunities that were a better fit for my true beliefs.

[Solon]

The last time I voiced dissent to a priesthood authority also happened to be the last time I went to church. I had already lost my testimony, but was still active for the chance the church might bring to do some good. I was especially interested in my calling, as the young men's president in the South Central branch in LA. I was the scouting leader, the weekly teacher, and the sacrament administering organizer... basically everything having to do with young men. The only thing that really interested me in all of this was teaching each week, where I saw the chance to impart some practical wisdom, wrapped in a thin gospel veneer, but completely avoiding anything that compromised my personal beliefs. The lessons were mostly about navigating young male teenage years, accepting responsibility and preparing to accept responsibility as the meaning of becoming an 'adult,' with lavish displays of pride in the young mens' better choices.

One week I was scheduled to teach about missionary service. It so happened that the stake young men's presidency was in attendance that week, and came to my class. One of the things that I refused to teach was that 'every worthy young man should serve a mission.' Quite frankly, I don't believe that a mission is for everyone, so I refused to teach otherwise. When it came to this part of the lesson, I taught the young men about some of the many things I valued about my mission: the language, service, learning about the church and its members and figuring out my place in all of that. I explained that there were many good reasons to serve a mission, but that each person should carefully consider his reasons for wanting or not wanting to go, and do all that he could to make an informed decision. Anyhow, I taught something like that, not telling the boys NOT to go, but making sure that they knew that it was a big CHOICE for them to make. At that point the stake leader interjected with the party line, saying that while it was clearly a choice in the sense that no one would be forced to go, it was not a choice for anyone who wanted to follow the teachings of the prophet. I responded to that by saying that the Stake leader had indeed taught them the official church position, however I had also known many missionaries who chose to serve primarily for selfish reasons, because it was expected of them, even though they didn't want to be on the mission. I explained that in spite of the official church position, each person needed to make the choice that was best for him, and if he didn't want to go, he probably shouldn't. Then I reiterated the benefits I saw from my own missionary service, never mentioning the fact that I wished I had known what I couldn't , namely that I would eventually regret serving a mission (it is a strange regret... it was definitely the right choice for where I was at. What I really regret is not figuring out the things I think I have figured out now much earlier in life, but I was way too into the church to see the forest for the trees at that point).

For all of this I received a big lecture after church. I listened to it all, took it all in, and it was at that point that I realized that I should probably go seek out service opportunities that were a better fit for my true beliefs.

Thanks for sharing, Robin. I always enjoy reading your stories.

[SeattleUte]

I am not going to get into this discussion other than to say first that I think you are overstaing the rise fo the disenfranchised with resepct to the founding of America. It was the rise of a new boss, not discarding of any boss. (I am not being critical but I think we shoudl be accurate.)

Second, I think Pellegrino handled it properly and I am glad his bishop had the widom to respond properly.

I didn't say America was about discarding leaders. It was about establishing a nation that valued dissent above all else. Dissent and good leadership are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary (maybe they are in traditional religion; but traditional religion is still groping for its true place in our pluralistic, secular, rational society).

Some of you know that I'm a fan of Russian novels. A grreat one about the Stalin era is "The Case of Comrade Tulayev", by Victor Serge. It is tragic to read about what has happpened to the descendants of Tolstoy's characters. One of the characters is a man named Makeyev. Makeyev was born a poor peasant, with no opportunity, until the Bolshevik Revolution suddenly happened. He was a brave man and distinguished himself first fighting the Germans (WWI) and then in the Revolution. He rose in the party, and while still a young man became the leading party official in the district in which he was raised. But Makeyev is not a reflective man; he is only vaguely troubled by requiring the peasants to turn over their harvests to the State, when even had they kept them, they would not have had enough to eat.

One day an old comrade from the war, a former superior, visits Makeyev. Stalin has banished him way up north, and he is on his way to his new assignment. The old comrade begins to express doubts about socialism, about Stalin's stewardship in particular, and laments that the peasants now are worse off than under the Czar, worse off than in even the poorest nations. The discussion incites in Makeyev a moment of honest reflection for the first time in his life. Here is his reaction:

Makeyev had too much sense of reality to demur, but he was afraid someone in the hall might hear such words spoken in his office--words of sacrilege, challenging the Chief's doctrine, challenging everything! they cut him, they troubled him: he became aware that it required his most conscious effort to keep himself from speaking the same terrible language.

Makeyev's reaction ought to be chillingly familiar to any Mormon who has felt ill at ease at dissent againts LDS leaders.

(This novel, published in 1947, when Bolshevism and even the USSR were still romaticized by leftists in the West, was amazingly ahead of its time; Serge was himself a dissafected old Bolshevik who was imprisoned and had to flee Stalin to Mexico.)

[SeattleUte]

Also, this thread is probably ripe for bringing up the priesthood ban. LDS leaders won't apologize and acknowledge its evils because they feel LDS leaders' aura of infallibility is so crucial, and it is so precious to them ("my precious!"). That is the exclusive reason they don't do the right thing.

[Surfah]

Also, this thread is probably ripe for bringing up the priesthood ban. LDS leaders won't apologize and acknowledge its evils because they feel LDS leaders' aura of infallibility is so crucial, and it is so precious to them ("my precious!"). That is the exclusive reason they don't do the right thing.

Is there a thread that isn't ripe for you?