Between denying my conscience and facing excommunication
January 15, 2015 10:00 PM Subscribe
Seven months after being initially notified of a pending disciplinary council (see previously), John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories Podcast, now faces discipline from the LDS church on charges of apostasy.
Previously, John made news along with Kate Kelly, the founder of Ordain Women, a movement seeking for women's ordination to the priesthood within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because of the close proximity of their notices from the church of disciplinary action. However, while Kate Kelly was eventually excommunicated from the church within two weeks of the notice of the disciplinary council, John Dehlin avoided discipline.
Commentator Kristine Haglund speculated on the differing treatments of Dehlin and Kelly in her article about the impact of the "Mormon Moment":
Whatever the ultimate reason is (as reported by the New York Times and in accordance with LDS Church custom, the church declines to publicly discuss the reasons why a member faces church discipline), now John faces a disciplinary council for January 25th. The result of the disciplinary council ranges from no change in standing to temporary probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication from the church. Per Dehlin:
In coincidental yet unrelated news, April Young Bennett, a blogger at The Exponent blog (the online blog arm for Exponent II, an independent feminist Mormon publication), announced her resignation from the board of Ordain Women and removal of posts on the site regarding women's ordination for the sake of maintaining worthiness to renew her temple recommend. (If that site is down, check the cached version here)
Per Bennett,
Previously, John made news along with Kate Kelly, the founder of Ordain Women, a movement seeking for women's ordination to the priesthood within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because of the close proximity of their notices from the church of disciplinary action. However, while Kate Kelly was eventually excommunicated from the church within two weeks of the notice of the disciplinary council, John Dehlin avoided discipline.
Commentator Kristine Haglund speculated on the differing treatments of Dehlin and Kelly in her article about the impact of the "Mormon Moment":
...When a group advocating priesthood for Mormon women sought media interest to draw attention to its cause, the strategy seems to have backfired: One of the group’s leaders, Kate Kelly, was excommunicated for her efforts, which included organizing two highly publicized collective actions (the group eschewed the term “protests”) requesting admittance to a meeting of the all-male priesthood.This led to John opining as to why Kate's disciplinary action had proceeded while his had not, with Kate's response following.
Around the same time that Kelly was excommunicated, the host of the popular Mormon Stories podcast, John Dehlin, was threatened with disciplinary action as well. Unlike Kelly, he was not excommunicated, perhaps in part because he initially kept details of his interactions with church leaders out of the media....
Whatever the ultimate reason is (as reported by the New York Times and in accordance with LDS Church custom, the church declines to publicly discuss the reasons why a member faces church discipline), now John faces a disciplinary council for January 25th. The result of the disciplinary council ranges from no change in standing to temporary probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication from the church. Per Dehlin:
The main items specifically mentioned to me by [my local ecclesiastical leaders] as contributing to my alleged apostasy include:As reported in the NYTimes, Dehlin "would prefer for them to leave me alone, but if given the choice between denying my conscience and facing excommunication, I'd much rather be excommunicated."
* My 10-year effort with Mormon Stories podcast, wherein difficult historical and cultural issues are discussed in an interview format.
* My public support of same-sex marriage.
* My public support of the Ordain Women movement.
* My publicly expressed doubts regarding key elements of orthodox LDS theology.
* My publicly expressed criticism of the church’s approach to LGBT members, feminists, intellectuals, as well as its lack of transparency regarding finances.
In coincidental yet unrelated news, April Young Bennett, a blogger at The Exponent blog (the online blog arm for Exponent II, an independent feminist Mormon publication), announced her resignation from the board of Ordain Women and removal of posts on the site regarding women's ordination for the sake of maintaining worthiness to renew her temple recommend. (If that site is down, check the cached version here)
Per Bennett,
As a condition of renewing my temple recommend, my new stake president has required me to resign from the board of Ordain Women and, with the exception of my Ordain Women profile, take down posts I have written that raise the question of women’s ordination to the priesthood. I do not believe that temple recommends should be used as leverage to censor ideas or silence advocacy, but if I hadn’t complied, I would have missed my brother’s recent temple wedding. Choosing between following the dictates of my conscience and being present for a family wedding has been heartbreaking. In the end, I concluded that while others may take my place as an author or an advocate, no one can replace me in my role as my brother’s sister.
If you don't believe in your religion's tenets you should: a. Find another religion, b. Start another religion, c. Give up religion, d. Write a blog.
posted by nicwolff at 11:00 PM on January 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nicwolff at 11:00 PM on January 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
LDS's position on women's ordination and its congreationally strong tradition has been unsettled and ambigious for most of its history, this move towards a centre mode is decades old, 40 at its oldest,, and could be considered a major shift. for a long time its tennants allowed this as a possiblity.
posted by PinkMoose at 11:06 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 11:06 PM on January 15, 2015
So sad. John Dehlin is a treasure of the LDS church and they are too blind too see it.
posted by SLC Mom at 11:06 PM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by SLC Mom at 11:06 PM on January 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Just so I'm reading this correctly... The the church's ultimatum to April Bennett basically boils down to, "Nice wedding your family has planned here, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
Funny in a Monty Python sketch about extorting the army. Exceedingly less funny when it is a church throwing its weight around.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:28 PM on January 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Funny in a Monty Python sketch about extorting the army. Exceedingly less funny when it is a church throwing its weight around.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:28 PM on January 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
If you don't believe in your religion's tenets you should: a. Find another religion, b. Start another religion, c. Give up religion, d. Write a blog.Yes, well, unfortunately for the people who find themselves under this kind of pressure it's not as easy as deciding "next week I'll go to a different church service or maybe none at all" as the original post makes clear -- the pressure put on Bennett boiled down to: "retract what you have previously written and keep your mouth shut in the future or you won't be allowed to go to your brother's wedding."
The LDS leadership know that they have huge influence over the family, community, and even professional relationships of those who question or criticize the church and they're evidently willing to pull those levers when they feel the need. They would surely argue that they are taking actions necessary to protect the faithful but you can see why some people might have reservations about an institution that uses the threat of being cut off from one's family and community to silence its critics. (Note: There's nothing here that's unique to the LDS church, but their size and the close connections of many Mormon communities give the church leverage over questioners that not every denomination can exert.)
posted by Nerd of the North at 11:28 PM on January 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I also think that John is pretty curious and he changes his opinon as evidence comes forward, and he is v. good at noting where he is
posted by PinkMoose at 11:50 PM on January 15, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 11:50 PM on January 15, 2015
If you don't believe in your religion's tenets you should: a. Find another religion, b. Start another religion, c. Give up religion, d. Write a blog.
Or, I don't know, try to reform the problems within your church? It sounds a lot like 'if you don't like America, then get the hell out.'
Church's can and do evolve on their positions (gay marriage, for example). Activists within churches have a duty to try to make their church a better one.
posted by el io at 11:58 PM on January 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
Or, I don't know, try to reform the problems within your church? It sounds a lot like 'if you don't like America, then get the hell out.'
Church's can and do evolve on their positions (gay marriage, for example). Activists within churches have a duty to try to make their church a better one.
posted by el io at 11:58 PM on January 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
Church's can and do evolve on their positions
Unfortunately, the church in question is one of the least socially progressive. This is especially interesting given the fact that there is also a very progressive and very vocal minority within the whole.
I hope folks find the peace they're looking for, but I think this will get much uglier before it gets better.
posted by basicchannel at 12:08 AM on January 16, 2015
Unfortunately, the church in question is one of the least socially progressive. This is especially interesting given the fact that there is also a very progressive and very vocal minority within the whole.
I hope folks find the peace they're looking for, but I think this will get much uglier before it gets better.
posted by basicchannel at 12:08 AM on January 16, 2015
In terms of basic social stuff, like feeding people and disaster relief the church is very good, also in terms of women in speaking in church, and temple cermonies, for example, women have equal roles--women's leadership is much more complicated than the narrative you are floating. That Salt Lake is over simplying, and making access more difficult suggests that you might eventually be right.
posted by PinkMoose at 12:12 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by PinkMoose at 12:12 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Came for comments from The World Famous. Left satisfied but looking forward to more tomorrow.
posted by persona au gratin at 12:16 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by persona au gratin at 12:16 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not The World Famous, but in the meantime, the letters he mentions are in the second half of this PDF. Apparently, his Stake President went into more details in-person, but the letters go into a fair bit of detail about the Church's reasoning, demands, and what John was willing and unwilling to do.
This Q&A page John put up in June after receiving the first letter may also be of interest. In both documents, he is clear that he will not take down or censor Mormon Stories to avoid disciplinary action.
posted by zachlipton at 12:47 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
This Q&A page John put up in June after receiving the first letter may also be of interest. In both documents, he is clear that he will not take down or censor Mormon Stories to avoid disciplinary action.
posted by zachlipton at 12:47 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
reading that, he seems to be on the way to a genuine split--the question of how to construct theological difference in a heavily politicized environment is not a negoation i could do
posted by PinkMoose at 12:59 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 12:59 AM on January 16, 2015
If you don't believe in your religion's tenets you should: a. Find another religion, b. Start another religion, c. Give up religion, d. Write a blog.
For those who don't know, (a), (b), and (c) would have also clearly resulted in her not being able to attend her brother's wedding. And I say that as someone who both had a temple wedding where my sibling was not allowed, and as someone who was not allowed to attend my sibling's wedding. Different siblings, where individual choices affecting standing in the church had been established for years before the wedding was on the horizon, which meant that the changes necessary to get a temple recommend would have been more onerous than what Bennett had to do (which is bad enough, where my free speech advocates at? y'all got ninety-five theses?).
(d) was somewhat less clearly going to turn out this way. Back when I was active in the bloggernacle (LDS blogging community), and online forums where people who were less-faithful were trying to figure out how to maintain relationships with still-faithful family, so many of the most liberal faithful LDS were saying that fear that what any of us wrote would be used against us in this way as we worked out our thoughts and feelings on the internet was just silly and paranoid. So yeah, if you've got some doubts you need to work through or some changes you'd like to see, and you live in an LDS household, start a blog. But use a pseudonym, and clear your browser history.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:47 AM on January 16, 2015
For those who don't know, (a), (b), and (c) would have also clearly resulted in her not being able to attend her brother's wedding. And I say that as someone who both had a temple wedding where my sibling was not allowed, and as someone who was not allowed to attend my sibling's wedding. Different siblings, where individual choices affecting standing in the church had been established for years before the wedding was on the horizon, which meant that the changes necessary to get a temple recommend would have been more onerous than what Bennett had to do (which is bad enough, where my free speech advocates at? y'all got ninety-five theses?).
(d) was somewhat less clearly going to turn out this way. Back when I was active in the bloggernacle (LDS blogging community), and online forums where people who were less-faithful were trying to figure out how to maintain relationships with still-faithful family, so many of the most liberal faithful LDS were saying that fear that what any of us wrote would be used against us in this way as we worked out our thoughts and feelings on the internet was just silly and paranoid. So yeah, if you've got some doubts you need to work through or some changes you'd like to see, and you live in an LDS household, start a blog. But use a pseudonym, and clear your browser history.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:47 AM on January 16, 2015
If you don't believe in your religion's tenets you should: a. Find another religion, b. Start another religion, c. Give up religion, d. Write a blog.
Who gets to decide a religion's tenets? These are all devout believers who disagree with the current stance and interpretation of the leaders of their church. Why should the leaders be the ones to decide? There are lots of things I can disagree with my rabbi about (like the nature of God - arguably way more essential than the ordination of women) - and that she disagrees with other rabbis about - without anyone suggesting we have to find a new religion.
posted by jb at 3:49 AM on January 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Who gets to decide a religion's tenets? These are all devout believers who disagree with the current stance and interpretation of the leaders of their church. Why should the leaders be the ones to decide? There are lots of things I can disagree with my rabbi about (like the nature of God - arguably way more essential than the ordination of women) - and that she disagrees with other rabbis about - without anyone suggesting we have to find a new religion.
posted by jb at 3:49 AM on January 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
I am aware that one of the tenets of LDS is that the leaders are divinely inspired. But major policies (plural marriage, ordination of black men) have changed over time - the ordination of women, acceptance of LGBT rights, and the fallibility of the leaders may all next.
posted by jb at 3:54 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by jb at 3:54 AM on January 16, 2015
I blame Jeremiah. "Worship of a "Queen of Heaven" (Hebrew מלכת השמים, Malkath haShamayim) is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah, in the context of the Prophet condemning such religious worship as blasphemy and a violation of the teachings of the God of Israel."
The religion of the god that happened to take over everywhere (or at least a great deal of where's being the deity of judaism, christianity, and islam), for better or worse, could have easily had a wife. Also I can not tell exactly what made Yahweh so different from El- the original god of Isra-el. I also can't tell what distinguishes the "true" god from all the "false" gods who originally were acknowledged to exist but they were just baaaaad for some reason. The lack of ethical reasoning about WHY one god is better than another, other than appeals to submission to authority and fear of punishment is not compelling. It has also fueled a compaign of hatred and control of all people who already had a relationship to the divine that could have been respected and honored instead of vilified and set a template of intolerance, hatred,and tyranny and control of all people with different religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I value compassion, who is serving, or representing compassion? Why is "the one true god" so true or so solitary?
The submission of the divine feminine as an equal by Christianity and associated religions who consider Yahweh the one true god- it is wrongful and not compatible with a compassionate deity. I'm not saying whether any of these deities exist, but if Yahweh exists and is kind of an egotistical dick who smashed all the other deities including his own wife for the sake of power and control, I'm not that interested. Or, of course the problem may be with people designing a god like this whether as faulted beings who fuck up at being scribes for an actual divine - or humans are making up and creating a religion that reflects their own sexism and discomfort with the feminine being honored as a divine being of equal power to that of a man. And thus, treating human women as second best even when they are allowed leadership roles-- they still need to "know their place". As well as being horrified by men who could be associated with the feminine, GLBT people who transgress gender and sexuality norms. If you have created, or discovered, a god that is not compassionate and you choose to worship such a god, what does that say about you or your religious community? I see religion as something that is largely created by humans- if there are any "powers that be" it would seem they can only work through the limitations of the humans who bring such forces to this reality by their actual real world behaviors. In which case-- yes. We can change things. To me, I like to think of the divine as an aspirational being or beings that inspire us to live out admirable and good qualities. If your relationship to the divine is causing you to be a worse person or or a worse community for humans, it is no longer serving a good purpose whether or not there is an actual spiritual being/s behind it.
And if there is an actual divine that's really so sexist, bigoted, and hateful to people who are simply different- we can say "I will not worship you until you get your act together you sexist, bigoted twit and start serving actual compassion."
posted by xarnop at 4:12 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
The religion of the god that happened to take over everywhere (or at least a great deal of where's being the deity of judaism, christianity, and islam), for better or worse, could have easily had a wife. Also I can not tell exactly what made Yahweh so different from El- the original god of Isra-el. I also can't tell what distinguishes the "true" god from all the "false" gods who originally were acknowledged to exist but they were just baaaaad for some reason. The lack of ethical reasoning about WHY one god is better than another, other than appeals to submission to authority and fear of punishment is not compelling. It has also fueled a compaign of hatred and control of all people who already had a relationship to the divine that could have been respected and honored instead of vilified and set a template of intolerance, hatred,and tyranny and control of all people with different religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I value compassion, who is serving, or representing compassion? Why is "the one true god" so true or so solitary?
The submission of the divine feminine as an equal by Christianity and associated religions who consider Yahweh the one true god- it is wrongful and not compatible with a compassionate deity. I'm not saying whether any of these deities exist, but if Yahweh exists and is kind of an egotistical dick who smashed all the other deities including his own wife for the sake of power and control, I'm not that interested. Or, of course the problem may be with people designing a god like this whether as faulted beings who fuck up at being scribes for an actual divine - or humans are making up and creating a religion that reflects their own sexism and discomfort with the feminine being honored as a divine being of equal power to that of a man. And thus, treating human women as second best even when they are allowed leadership roles-- they still need to "know their place". As well as being horrified by men who could be associated with the feminine, GLBT people who transgress gender and sexuality norms. If you have created, or discovered, a god that is not compassionate and you choose to worship such a god, what does that say about you or your religious community? I see religion as something that is largely created by humans- if there are any "powers that be" it would seem they can only work through the limitations of the humans who bring such forces to this reality by their actual real world behaviors. In which case-- yes. We can change things. To me, I like to think of the divine as an aspirational being or beings that inspire us to live out admirable and good qualities. If your relationship to the divine is causing you to be a worse person or or a worse community for humans, it is no longer serving a good purpose whether or not there is an actual spiritual being/s behind it.
And if there is an actual divine that's really so sexist, bigoted, and hateful to people who are simply different- we can say "I will not worship you until you get your act together you sexist, bigoted twit and start serving actual compassion."
posted by xarnop at 4:12 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
If one is excommunicated from the Mormon church, are Mormons (including family and community members) prohibited from communicating with them on pain of punishment?
posted by acb at 4:35 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by acb at 4:35 AM on January 16, 2015
acb, no. That's not how it generally works.
I am aware that one of the tenets of LDS is that the leaders are divinely inspired. But major policies (plural marriage, ordination of black men) have changed over time - the ordination of women, acceptance of LGBT rights, and the fallibility of the leaders may all next.
jb, I agree with most of the substance of your comment, but I just want to let you know that the LDS don't have a doctrine of infallibility. You were on target when you said divinely inspired; it's a terminology thing. Not a big deal, but the LDS would object to the idea that "fallibility" is a belief they might adopt, since they already believe it.
And frankly, you've nailed the slippery slope that is at the root of some faithful LDS fears. I don't think they're particularly strongly opposed to women's rights or LBGT rights as such; they are just not willing to make changes in response to grassroots activism. That's where this could lead. Anyone could make any kind of request for the church to treat them differently, and that's not how it works; God makes the law, tells the prophet, the prophet tells the church, and the church members either get on board or they don't. That model is really fundamental to the church's understanding of itself, and it feels to some faithful LDS like that's at stake here.
I think the model the activists are hoping for has some basis in LDS scripture. All kinds of church members went to Joseph Smith asking him to ask God for a revelation for them personally, and those revelations make up a large part of the Doctrine and Covenants, which is part of the LDS scriptural canon, and it is an open canon: the current prophet could add to it. But few prophets after Joseph Smith have done so. It's kind of hard to explain why from a faithful LDS perspective other than to assume that more revelations are not necessary.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 4:43 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am aware that one of the tenets of LDS is that the leaders are divinely inspired. But major policies (plural marriage, ordination of black men) have changed over time - the ordination of women, acceptance of LGBT rights, and the fallibility of the leaders may all next.
jb, I agree with most of the substance of your comment, but I just want to let you know that the LDS don't have a doctrine of infallibility. You were on target when you said divinely inspired; it's a terminology thing. Not a big deal, but the LDS would object to the idea that "fallibility" is a belief they might adopt, since they already believe it.
And frankly, you've nailed the slippery slope that is at the root of some faithful LDS fears. I don't think they're particularly strongly opposed to women's rights or LBGT rights as such; they are just not willing to make changes in response to grassroots activism. That's where this could lead. Anyone could make any kind of request for the church to treat them differently, and that's not how it works; God makes the law, tells the prophet, the prophet tells the church, and the church members either get on board or they don't. That model is really fundamental to the church's understanding of itself, and it feels to some faithful LDS like that's at stake here.
I think the model the activists are hoping for has some basis in LDS scripture. All kinds of church members went to Joseph Smith asking him to ask God for a revelation for them personally, and those revelations make up a large part of the Doctrine and Covenants, which is part of the LDS scriptural canon, and it is an open canon: the current prophet could add to it. But few prophets after Joseph Smith have done so. It's kind of hard to explain why from a faithful LDS perspective other than to assume that more revelations are not necessary.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 4:43 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
xarnop, did you know the LDS believe God has a wife?
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 5:00 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 5:00 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nice! Then there's this "Orson Pratt, an early apostle of the LDS Church, opposed worshiping Heavenly Mother, because, he reasoned, like wives and children in any household, Heavenly Mother was required to "yield the most perfect obedience to" her husband."
Eek!
posted by xarnop at 5:23 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eek!
posted by xarnop at 5:23 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm reading Wolf Hall atm, so this is really resonating with me. Thank God for the First Amendment.
posted by whuppy at 5:48 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by whuppy at 5:48 AM on January 16, 2015
For anyone interested in the process of being excommunicated from the LDS Church, Teresa Nielsen Hayden has an essay about her experience, although it was some time ago.
I am aware that one of the tenets of LDS is that the leaders are divinely inspired. But major policies (plural marriage, ordination of black men) have changed over time - the ordination of women, acceptance of LGBT rights, and the fallibility of the leaders may all next.
There's a difference between "divinely inspired" and "infallible", though, right? Obviously the LDS Church has made some major revisions in their practices. But I thought the argument currently being made by the LDS church about those changes was that God changed his mind, possibly after being petitioned by prayer. (For example see this article from the LDS on the topic of African Americans and the priesthood: "In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8.")
Also, IIRC, the current position (although it is not widely publicized) is that plural marriage is outlawed for time, not for eternity. If a widower remarries, he can be sealed to his first wife and his new wife; this is not an option for a widow, who must choose between a for-time marriage to her new husband or being unsealed from her first husband. (Or has that changed recently, with the more visible public debate over polygamy?)
posted by pie ninja at 6:08 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am aware that one of the tenets of LDS is that the leaders are divinely inspired. But major policies (plural marriage, ordination of black men) have changed over time - the ordination of women, acceptance of LGBT rights, and the fallibility of the leaders may all next.
There's a difference between "divinely inspired" and "infallible", though, right? Obviously the LDS Church has made some major revisions in their practices. But I thought the argument currently being made by the LDS church about those changes was that God changed his mind, possibly after being petitioned by prayer. (For example see this article from the LDS on the topic of African Americans and the priesthood: "In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8.")
Also, IIRC, the current position (although it is not widely publicized) is that plural marriage is outlawed for time, not for eternity. If a widower remarries, he can be sealed to his first wife and his new wife; this is not an option for a widow, who must choose between a for-time marriage to her new husband or being unsealed from her first husband. (Or has that changed recently, with the more visible public debate over polygamy?)
posted by pie ninja at 6:08 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Without knowing anything specific about this controversy, the broad outlines remind me of my experiences some years back, when I rode with a "motorcycle club". The rank and file were good folks, and I helped them get set up with a website and so forth. But this was not a democratic organization: when the officers made a proclamation, it was not open for discussion. Any hint of disagreement was squelched and the disagreer was labeled a 'troublemaker'. Not for me - I left.
But it's impossible for me to read about John Dehlin and not notice that the LDS is using the same tactics used by biker gangs to enforce obedience.
posted by doctor tough love at 6:15 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
But it's impossible for me to read about John Dehlin and not notice that the LDS is using the same tactics used by biker gangs to enforce obedience.
posted by doctor tough love at 6:15 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm not a member of either, but have watched with great interest the activism within the LDS and Catholic churches for greater roles for women. I suspect both movements will eventually make gains (whether or not the result is full gender equality) but the process is clearly going to be incredibly slow and with enormous pushback at every step. My money is on equality within the LDS long before within the Catholic church, simply because the LDS church has a continued and recent history of being flexible on substantive doctrinal issues, but that's just a guess.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:48 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Dip Flash at 6:48 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
sorry - I realised that there isn't an LDS doctrine of infallibility (and the Catholic doctrine is very limited), but I couldn't think of another word to sum up. Just sub into my comment whatever word works to sum up the power that LDS church leaders have to decide doctrine and enforce it on members on pain of being excluded from the Temple or being excommunicated.
posted by jb at 6:55 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jb at 6:55 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
But it's impossible for me to read about John Dehlin and not notice that the LDS is using the same tactics used by biker gangs to enforce obedience.
doctor tough love
It's the same tactics any dogmatic organized group uses. If the LDS had the power to torture and execute Dehlin as the Catholic Church once had with its own dissenters, it would.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:10 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
doctor tough love
It's the same tactics any dogmatic organized group uses. If the LDS had the power to torture and execute Dehlin as the Catholic Church once had with its own dissenters, it would.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:10 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
This whole thing reminds me of the song "I Believe" from the musical "Book of Mormon":
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 8:13 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
A warlord who shoots people in the faceShut up & believe, or GTFO.
What's so scary about that?
I must trust that my Lord is mightier
And always has my back
Now I must be completely devout
I can't have even one shred of doubt
I believe that the Lord God created the universe
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America
I am a Mormon
And a Mormon just believes
You cannot just believe partway
You have to believe in it all
My problem was doubting the Lord's will
Instead of standing tall
I can't allow myself to have any doubt
It's time to set my worries free
Time to show the world what Elder Price is about
And share the power inside of meI believe that God has a plan for all of us
I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet
And I believe that the current President of the Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God
I am a Mormon
And dangit, a Mormon just believes
I know that I must go and do
The things my God commands
I realize now why He sent me here
If you ask the Lord in faith
He will always answer you
Just believe in Him and have no fear
(General, we have an intruder. He just walked right into camp.)
I believe that Satan has ahold of you
I believe that the Lord God has sent me here
And I believe that in 1978 God changed His mind about black people
You can be a Mormon
A Mormon who just believes
(What the fuck is this?)
And now I can feel the excitement
This is the moment I was born to do
And I feel so incredible
To be sharing my faith with you
The scriptures say that if you ask in faith
If you ask God Himself, you'll know
But you must ask Him without any doubt
And let your spirit grow
I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob
I believe that Jesus has His own planet as well
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri
If you believe, the Lord will reveal it
And you'll know it's all true, you'll just feel it
You'll be a Mormon
And, by gosh, a Mormon just believes
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 8:13 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
pie ninja, yes, I think there is a difference, although I don't think either one (divinely inspired or infallible) means there won't be future pronouncements that could be different from the current pronouncements.
I think your analogy to the 1978 revelation is apt. I'm just pointing out there wasn't a movement of black church members with placards or pamphlets saying "Ordain Blacks" or similar. I knew two black men who were members pre-1978 and who remained faithful till they died, and it tore me up to hear them talk about what the "before" was like because they were so calm and accepting of it. The Upper Room that your quote refers to is only open to the highest levels of leaders, so that quote is consistent with the idea that if God needs to be petitioned for a change in church policy to happen, the highest leaders will petition God, so just wait. (I mean, rank and file people are welcome to pray about it, too, just not out loud where others can hear them and might think the prayer sounds like advocating for a policy change.)
People laugh about the idea that God might change his mind, and as a gentle atheist now I definitely understand why, but at the same time I think it's something that's not unique to Mormons. For example, Abraham bargained with God about how many righteous people needed to be found in a city in order for God to change his mind about destroying it. It didn't completely work, though, the city bit it, but one way of reading it is that Lot's family might not have escaped if God hadn't changed his mind about destroying the whole city and everyone in it. When I was a believer, I wouldn't have phrased any of it as God changing his mind, though. I would have thought of it as God knowing the whole truth all along, and only revealing certain things at certain times to certain people for God's own unknowable reasons.
If a widower remarries, he can be sealed to his first wife and his new wife; this is not an option for a widow, who must choose between a for-time marriage to her new husband or being unsealed from her first husband.
No this isn't the policy anymore, not for widowhood or divorces. I couldn't say exactly when it changed, but I left the church in 2002 and it had already been changed for years at that point. The church is willing to perform the ceremony "for eternity" because it's always conditional on whether people live up to their covenants throughout the rest of their lives, so the church is content to let it be sorted out in the hereafter, which is still a place where men may have one or more wives but women may not have multiple husbands. Kickin' the can down the road since 1830.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 8:57 AM on January 16, 2015
I think your analogy to the 1978 revelation is apt. I'm just pointing out there wasn't a movement of black church members with placards or pamphlets saying "Ordain Blacks" or similar. I knew two black men who were members pre-1978 and who remained faithful till they died, and it tore me up to hear them talk about what the "before" was like because they were so calm and accepting of it. The Upper Room that your quote refers to is only open to the highest levels of leaders, so that quote is consistent with the idea that if God needs to be petitioned for a change in church policy to happen, the highest leaders will petition God, so just wait. (I mean, rank and file people are welcome to pray about it, too, just not out loud where others can hear them and might think the prayer sounds like advocating for a policy change.)
People laugh about the idea that God might change his mind, and as a gentle atheist now I definitely understand why, but at the same time I think it's something that's not unique to Mormons. For example, Abraham bargained with God about how many righteous people needed to be found in a city in order for God to change his mind about destroying it. It didn't completely work, though, the city bit it, but one way of reading it is that Lot's family might not have escaped if God hadn't changed his mind about destroying the whole city and everyone in it. When I was a believer, I wouldn't have phrased any of it as God changing his mind, though. I would have thought of it as God knowing the whole truth all along, and only revealing certain things at certain times to certain people for God's own unknowable reasons.
If a widower remarries, he can be sealed to his first wife and his new wife; this is not an option for a widow, who must choose between a for-time marriage to her new husband or being unsealed from her first husband.
No this isn't the policy anymore, not for widowhood or divorces. I couldn't say exactly when it changed, but I left the church in 2002 and it had already been changed for years at that point. The church is willing to perform the ceremony "for eternity" because it's always conditional on whether people live up to their covenants throughout the rest of their lives, so the church is content to let it be sorted out in the hereafter, which is still a place where men may have one or more wives but women may not have multiple husbands. Kickin' the can down the road since 1830.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 8:57 AM on January 16, 2015
...the church is very good, also in terms of women in speaking in church, and temple cermonies, for example, women have equal roles--women's leadership is much more complicated than the narrative you are floating.
Oh, please. Mormon women's roles are entirely dictated by men, and they are only permitted to speak provided they adhere to the dictates of the party line. It all comes down to women, submit to your lord and master, your husband.
Any religion that defines heaven as a place where men get their own planet to play a minor god while ruling over his multiple wives gives nothing but lip service to the idea of equality. My FIL was good enough to explain to me that polygamy was 'god's law' and how after the second coming things would be put right. FTS
posted by BlueHorse at 9:13 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh, please. Mormon women's roles are entirely dictated by men, and they are only permitted to speak provided they adhere to the dictates of the party line. It all comes down to women, submit to your lord and master, your husband.
Any religion that defines heaven as a place where men get their own planet to play a minor god while ruling over his multiple wives gives nothing but lip service to the idea of equality. My FIL was good enough to explain to me that polygamy was 'god's law' and how after the second coming things would be put right. FTS
posted by BlueHorse at 9:13 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
People laugh about the idea that God might change his mind, and as a gentle atheist now I definitely understand why, but at the same time I think it's something that's not unique to Mormons.
It's not just the changing the mind part, it's that it seems to happen at such convenient times.
The conflict with local, territorial, and federal authorities over polygamy was reaching a fever pitch after decades of struggle, with the Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 that disincorporated the LDS Church and authorized the federal government to seize all of the church’s assets? God changes His mind and now it's not okay.
Mounting criticism from civil rights advocates, a general societal shift against overt expressions of racism, and (maybe especially) increasing expansion overseas in places like Brazil where it would be impossible to find priests if black people continued to be excluded? God changes His mind and now it's not okay.
It's helpful that God keeps His finger on the pulse of the times and steps in just when things get really bad to relieve pressure on the Church. It does give hope that maybe someday He'll see that society has largely shifted to embrace gay rights and tell the Church to come around.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:18 AM on January 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's not just the changing the mind part, it's that it seems to happen at such convenient times.
The conflict with local, territorial, and federal authorities over polygamy was reaching a fever pitch after decades of struggle, with the Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 that disincorporated the LDS Church and authorized the federal government to seize all of the church’s assets? God changes His mind and now it's not okay.
Mounting criticism from civil rights advocates, a general societal shift against overt expressions of racism, and (maybe especially) increasing expansion overseas in places like Brazil where it would be impossible to find priests if black people continued to be excluded? God changes His mind and now it's not okay.
It's helpful that God keeps His finger on the pulse of the times and steps in just when things get really bad to relieve pressure on the Church. It does give hope that maybe someday He'll see that society has largely shifted to embrace gay rights and tell the Church to come around.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:18 AM on January 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh absolutely, it's terribly convenient. I just think all religions do it: God wants this, [historical conditions change] no wait, God wants that. It's just that the Mormons being such a new faith don't get the benefits of having their origins and early stumbles fade into the mists of time, like, at all.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 9:28 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 9:28 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
If anyone has any insight, how are members of the Mormon community generally reacting to this? From an outsider's perspective, threatening to break up a family wedding is outrageous and doesn't reflect well on the church's leadership. That sort of behavior alone seems like it would turn a lot of people away from the church. I would have a really hard time supporting the leadership again.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:26 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:26 AM on January 16, 2015
I concluded that while others may take my place as an author or an advocate, no one can replace me in my role as my brother’s sister.
The #1 reason I'm out of the LDS Church relates very much to this point.
Like any other religion, social group, or belief system, the LDS Church has certain beliefs that are Just Plain Wrong. This is annoying but for anyone who is a bit forgiving of humans and their frailties, it could be forgiven or worked with.
However:
If you truly believe that "Families Are Forever" then you can figure out a way to let every parent attend their child's wedding. Regardless of whether or not the parent happens to have a beef with the Church on some esoteric point of theology or other.
Or regardless of whether they are Mormon or not, for that matter. (Non-Mormon parents are excluded from the wedding ceremonies of their Mormon children. FYI.)
posted by flug at 10:54 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
The #1 reason I'm out of the LDS Church relates very much to this point.
Like any other religion, social group, or belief system, the LDS Church has certain beliefs that are Just Plain Wrong. This is annoying but for anyone who is a bit forgiving of humans and their frailties, it could be forgiven or worked with.
However:
- The LDS Church **insists** that its members really truly believe and continually re-profess undoubting belief in these wackadoodle beliefs.
- The Church enforces these enforced beliefs through the Temple Recommend system
- If you answer the belief questions 'incorrectly' during your Temple Recommend interview, then you don't receive a Temple Recommend
- If you don't have a Temple Recommend then you can't attend your brother's wedding. Or even your own son's or daughter's wedding.
If you truly believe that "Families Are Forever" then you can figure out a way to let every parent attend their child's wedding. Regardless of whether or not the parent happens to have a beef with the Church on some esoteric point of theology or other.
Or regardless of whether they are Mormon or not, for that matter. (Non-Mormon parents are excluded from the wedding ceremonies of their Mormon children. FYI.)
posted by flug at 10:54 AM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
"I can't believe he doesn't realize that he does, in fact, vocally advocate for disbelief in key tenets"
So what.
The remedy for that would be to ask John to not voice those beliefs in official Church meetings, official Church manuals, to make it clear in his writings that these are his own ideas and not official Church doctrine, to not voice those opinions in any Church position he might hold (or, if he keeps doing so, not appoint him to such positions), etc etc etc.
This really is the Thought Police (tm). What they are doing to him is at least 10,000X worse that what he is doing to them.
posted by flug at 11:00 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
So what.
The remedy for that would be to ask John to not voice those beliefs in official Church meetings, official Church manuals, to make it clear in his writings that these are his own ideas and not official Church doctrine, to not voice those opinions in any Church position he might hold (or, if he keeps doing so, not appoint him to such positions), etc etc etc.
This really is the Thought Police (tm). What they are doing to him is at least 10,000X worse that what he is doing to them.
posted by flug at 11:00 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
From an outsider's perspective, threatening to break up a family wedding is outrageous and doesn't reflect well on the church's leadership.
The part-of-the-family-at-the-wedding thing happens all the time to the point that the membership just accepts it. I certainly grew up thinking it was normal that only some people go to the wedding, because as a kid you can't go to any temple weddings, only to the receptions. You have to be at least old enough to become a missionary or get married yourself before you can attend someone else's wedding. And you've got to believe there is so much angst amongst 20-something LDS women who choose not to serve a mission and who happen to be the last of their group of siblings/cousins/friends to get married, because that means they are fully adult and have done nothing wrong, but they still have to either miss everyone else's wedding, or else make a special appointment with the bishop to get their own first temple recommend outside the mission prep / marriage prep context, which shines a huge spotlight on how they are old enough to be wanting to attend friends' temple weddings but are not married yet.
Most faithful LDS are too polite to discuss the belief or behavior reasons that people don't get temple recommends. For those who are willing to, in my experience it has never been framed as a problem with church policy about temple recommends, only "too bad that person chose the temporary pleasure of smoking/drinking/cohabiting over being with their family for eternity, and missing the wedding is only a small taste of that." Now add blogging-for-change to that list of earthly pleasures.
My ex-Mormon friends are posting on Facebook eloquently about how the policy needs to change and Dehlin and Bennett don't deserve this. My Mormon friends haven't posted anything about it. I just checked the "likes" on the Ordain Women page; I have two LDS women friends who I clearly remember had "liked" the page when I checked a year ago or so, and now they don't. Still one LDS guy friend hanging his "like" out there. Go, him.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 11:30 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The part-of-the-family-at-the-wedding thing happens all the time to the point that the membership just accepts it. I certainly grew up thinking it was normal that only some people go to the wedding, because as a kid you can't go to any temple weddings, only to the receptions. You have to be at least old enough to become a missionary or get married yourself before you can attend someone else's wedding. And you've got to believe there is so much angst amongst 20-something LDS women who choose not to serve a mission and who happen to be the last of their group of siblings/cousins/friends to get married, because that means they are fully adult and have done nothing wrong, but they still have to either miss everyone else's wedding, or else make a special appointment with the bishop to get their own first temple recommend outside the mission prep / marriage prep context, which shines a huge spotlight on how they are old enough to be wanting to attend friends' temple weddings but are not married yet.
Most faithful LDS are too polite to discuss the belief or behavior reasons that people don't get temple recommends. For those who are willing to, in my experience it has never been framed as a problem with church policy about temple recommends, only "too bad that person chose the temporary pleasure of smoking/drinking/cohabiting over being with their family for eternity, and missing the wedding is only a small taste of that." Now add blogging-for-change to that list of earthly pleasures.
My ex-Mormon friends are posting on Facebook eloquently about how the policy needs to change and Dehlin and Bennett don't deserve this. My Mormon friends haven't posted anything about it. I just checked the "likes" on the Ordain Women page; I have two LDS women friends who I clearly remember had "liked" the page when I checked a year ago or so, and now they don't. Still one LDS guy friend hanging his "like" out there. Go, him.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 11:30 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've been lurking around the Exmormon subreddit for at least several months now, not because I have any history myself in that tradition, but because I see some small parallels between their journey from faith to wisdom and that of my own, as I have endeavored (with varying degrees of success) to leave my own fundamentalist faith and its associated value judgments behind. It's been fascinating -- and, of course, heartbreaking -- to witness second or third-hand not only the the trials of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, but that of dozens of others who have been injured by the inflexible, compassionless orthodoxy of the LDS church.
(Sidebar: If you missed it when it came around here the first time, and you have an extra ~6 hours, witness the contortions the LDS church inflicted upon Benji Schwimmer when he tried to square his identity with his faith.)
One of the more fascinating things happening in the LDS church -- again, from my outsider's perspective; I especially don't want my observations to crowd out the more relevant experience of those who have been members -- is that at the same time they've moved to enforce othodoxy and suppress dissent through church discipline, they've also begun posting church-sanctioned essays on uncomfortable aspects of Mormon history and doctrine, subjects that faithful members were previously instructed to regard as ("anti-Mormon") fruit of biased inquiries and simply ignore.
The most interesting to me -- as well as the most damning (which I'll explain in a bit) -- is Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo, in which the church openly admits what it was long silent about: that the institution of polygamy was started by Joseph Smith, who married women as young as 14 years old, and even married the wives of other Mormon men after he had sent them on errands and missions.
Having no Mormon faith tradition of my own, I had not realized this was a fact that the LDS church had effectively hidden from many of its members. Before this essay, they tacitly let people assume the "blame" for it rested with Brigham Young, who advanced several other doctrines and practices (such as blood atonement and the Adam/God theory) that have since been ignored or repudiated.
What makes the essay damning is that while it admits to founding prophet Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage, it also goes to extraordinary lengths to exculpate him of blame, and support his claim that it was an enforced commandment of God rather than an indulgence of Man. Coming at this from the (non-sectarian) Christian perspective that I am most familiar with, I'm reminded of the words of John the Baptist, whom Jesus called the greatest of the Prophets who had come before, when he was asked about Jesus's rise to religious prominence:
In continuing to "blame" God for polygamy of the sort practiced by the early LDS Church, in which the female participants must exist In Sacred Loneliness, an arrangement that shocked the conscience of people both then and now, the modern Church has effectively decided that in order for Joseph Smith to increase, the glory of God himself must decrease.
posted by The Confessor at 11:32 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Sidebar: If you missed it when it came around here the first time, and you have an extra ~6 hours, witness the contortions the LDS church inflicted upon Benji Schwimmer when he tried to square his identity with his faith.)
One of the more fascinating things happening in the LDS church -- again, from my outsider's perspective; I especially don't want my observations to crowd out the more relevant experience of those who have been members -- is that at the same time they've moved to enforce othodoxy and suppress dissent through church discipline, they've also begun posting church-sanctioned essays on uncomfortable aspects of Mormon history and doctrine, subjects that faithful members were previously instructed to regard as ("anti-Mormon") fruit of biased inquiries and simply ignore.
The most interesting to me -- as well as the most damning (which I'll explain in a bit) -- is Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo, in which the church openly admits what it was long silent about: that the institution of polygamy was started by Joseph Smith, who married women as young as 14 years old, and even married the wives of other Mormon men after he had sent them on errands and missions.
Having no Mormon faith tradition of my own, I had not realized this was a fact that the LDS church had effectively hidden from many of its members. Before this essay, they tacitly let people assume the "blame" for it rested with Brigham Young, who advanced several other doctrines and practices (such as blood atonement and the Adam/God theory) that have since been ignored or repudiated.
What makes the essay damning is that while it admits to founding prophet Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage, it also goes to extraordinary lengths to exculpate him of blame, and support his claim that it was an enforced commandment of God rather than an indulgence of Man. Coming at this from the (non-sectarian) Christian perspective that I am most familiar with, I'm reminded of the words of John the Baptist, whom Jesus called the greatest of the Prophets who had come before, when he was asked about Jesus's rise to religious prominence:
He must increase, and I must decrease....and doesn't this epitomize the point-of-view one should expect of a prophet? To live and act for the glory of another, rather than one's own?
In continuing to "blame" God for polygamy of the sort practiced by the early LDS Church, in which the female participants must exist In Sacred Loneliness, an arrangement that shocked the conscience of people both then and now, the modern Church has effectively decided that in order for Joseph Smith to increase, the glory of God himself must decrease.
posted by The Confessor at 11:32 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
This kind of byzantine, internecine conflict just blows my mind. Why do people construct their thoughts and days of such stuff? *
*Rhetorical, in case that's unclear, and truly, no offense to any believers intended. It's that my life is really pretty simple and straight-forward and mine in a way that these people's are not, and I can't imagine inviting this into my life, and surrendering the freedom of thought and action such submission would require, especially when I know, like the two brave people who are the subject of the FPP, that the authority is clearly in the wrong. Life is short, even when it's long, you know?
posted by LooseFilter at 12:39 PM on January 16, 2015
*Rhetorical, in case that's unclear, and truly, no offense to any believers intended. It's that my life is really pretty simple and straight-forward and mine in a way that these people's are not, and I can't imagine inviting this into my life, and surrendering the freedom of thought and action such submission would require, especially when I know, like the two brave people who are the subject of the FPP, that the authority is clearly in the wrong. Life is short, even when it's long, you know?
posted by LooseFilter at 12:39 PM on January 16, 2015
I was just introduced to the term 'post-Mormon' in this thread. It seems kinder than a similar term I've been familiar with: 'recovering Catholic'. I'm curious if other religions have self-identified terms for ex-followers.
posted by el io at 12:48 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by el io at 12:48 PM on January 16, 2015
Oh absolutely, it's terribly convenient. I just think all religions do it: God wants this, [historical conditions change] no wait, God wants that. It's just that the Mormons being such a new faith don't get the benefits of having their origins and early stumbles fade into the mists of time, like, at all.
Not all religions deny vigorous public debate - Judaism celebrates it. The Talmud is the most sacred text(s) after the Torah & Tenakh, and it is a 2000 year old record of arguments. The rabbis agreed on X, except for R. Contrary who didn't. "Israel" means "wrestling with God, not obeying; lots of Jews take that wrestling bit quite seriously. (At my synagogue, there isn't even agreement on the existence of God, let alone one interpretation of his/her/their will).
Mainstream Protestant Christianity also has a tradition of dissent (albeit not as strong as Judaism). Luther promoted the idea of the "priesthood of all believers"; some denominations have set doctrine, but others do not -- and there is plenty of room for debate. When was the last time you heard of Presbyterians or Methodists excommunicating people? I don't even know if they can.
Non-Anglican Protestants were actually known as "Dissenters" in 17th century England.
posted by jb at 12:54 PM on January 16, 2015
Not all religions deny vigorous public debate - Judaism celebrates it. The Talmud is the most sacred text(s) after the Torah & Tenakh, and it is a 2000 year old record of arguments. The rabbis agreed on X, except for R. Contrary who didn't. "Israel" means "wrestling with God, not obeying; lots of Jews take that wrestling bit quite seriously. (At my synagogue, there isn't even agreement on the existence of God, let alone one interpretation of his/her/their will).
Mainstream Protestant Christianity also has a tradition of dissent (albeit not as strong as Judaism). Luther promoted the idea of the "priesthood of all believers"; some denominations have set doctrine, but others do not -- and there is plenty of room for debate. When was the last time you heard of Presbyterians or Methodists excommunicating people? I don't even know if they can.
Non-Anglican Protestants were actually known as "Dissenters" in 17th century England.
posted by jb at 12:54 PM on January 16, 2015
"The LDS Church **insists** that its members really truly believe and continually re-profess undoubting belief in these wackadoodle beliefs."
Regardless of the truth of this (World Famous didn't explain why this isn't true, but I do acknowledge his expertise in this area) 'wackadoodle beliefs' isn't really an appropriate term to be using in a thread about a particular religion and its beliefs. Frankly, all the worlds religions could be characterized as having 'silly beliefs' by people that don't follow that religion (and most of the worlds religions have serious gender issues, for example).
Save the phrase 'wackadoodle beliefs' for threads that are explicitly about atheism, perhaps (ie: where the subject of a thread is to dissent against all religions in general).
posted by el io at 1:08 PM on January 16, 2015
Regardless of the truth of this (World Famous didn't explain why this isn't true, but I do acknowledge his expertise in this area) 'wackadoodle beliefs' isn't really an appropriate term to be using in a thread about a particular religion and its beliefs. Frankly, all the worlds religions could be characterized as having 'silly beliefs' by people that don't follow that religion (and most of the worlds religions have serious gender issues, for example).
Save the phrase 'wackadoodle beliefs' for threads that are explicitly about atheism, perhaps (ie: where the subject of a thread is to dissent against all religions in general).
posted by el io at 1:08 PM on January 16, 2015
Also, that's really not true at all.
Dude. Can you get a temple recommend without answering Yes to belief questions now? Because being single, that means all I'm missing is tithing and church attendance, and then I can go again!
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 1:12 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Dude. Can you get a temple recommend without answering Yes to belief questions now? Because being single, that means all I'm missing is tithing and church attendance, and then I can go again!
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 1:12 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I had never heard of "call-and-response liturgy" until after I left the church. There's no entry for liturgy in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It's not a common concept among the LDS at all.
I disagree that the interpretation of those questions as a belief test is "a particularly orthodox approach," as if it were the minority interpreting it that way. The idea that those questions aren't asking what you believe sounds like something a lawyer came up with.
My parents are temple workers. They are sometimes assigned to check people's recommends at the entrance. If someone's beliefs are so far outside the LDS norm that they only overlap on "a certain Christian faith - albeit vaguely and extremely broadly," then my parents just like the vast majority of temple workers interpret that as needing to turn that person away at the door, except they can't do so if that person has a recommend that looks like any other. I mean, I support you doing what you need to do, just like I still get my story straight with my siblings before talking with my parents, because the sibs do stuff when they're with me they don't want the folks to know about.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 2:22 PM on January 16, 2015
I disagree that the interpretation of those questions as a belief test is "a particularly orthodox approach," as if it were the minority interpreting it that way. The idea that those questions aren't asking what you believe sounds like something a lawyer came up with.
My parents are temple workers. They are sometimes assigned to check people's recommends at the entrance. If someone's beliefs are so far outside the LDS norm that they only overlap on "a certain Christian faith - albeit vaguely and extremely broadly," then my parents just like the vast majority of temple workers interpret that as needing to turn that person away at the door, except they can't do so if that person has a recommend that looks like any other. I mean, I support you doing what you need to do, just like I still get my story straight with my siblings before talking with my parents, because the sibs do stuff when they're with me they don't want the folks to know about.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 2:22 PM on January 16, 2015
Threads on Mormonism are among the best of MetaFilter. Thanks.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:33 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by persona au gratin at 2:33 PM on January 16, 2015
Not all religions deny vigorous public debate - Judaism celebrates it. The Talmud is the most sacred text(s) after the Torah & Tenakh, and it is a 2000 year old record of arguments. The rabbis agreed on X, except for R. Contrary who didn't. "Israel" means "wrestling with God, not obeying; lots of Jews take that wrestling bit quite seriously. (At my synagogue, there isn't even agreement on the existence of God, let alone one interpretation of his/her/their will).
jb
Oh, come on. I'm also Jewish (though I no longer practice), and was brought up Reform, but you're painting a really skewed, rosy vision of Judaisms's openness. More orthodox traditions certainly aren't the paragons of openness and questioning your synagogue apparently is. Certain friends from such traditions have had real struggles because of that.
You also can't really compare Judaism to the LDS this way. Judaism is a spectrum that covers a pretty wide range of beliefs with no central authority, unlike the unified hierarchy of the LDS.
I don't mean to belittle you or Judaism in general, I just think it's unfair to present your particular Jewish experience as representing the whole.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:35 PM on January 16, 2015
jb
Oh, come on. I'm also Jewish (though I no longer practice), and was brought up Reform, but you're painting a really skewed, rosy vision of Judaisms's openness. More orthodox traditions certainly aren't the paragons of openness and questioning your synagogue apparently is. Certain friends from such traditions have had real struggles because of that.
You also can't really compare Judaism to the LDS this way. Judaism is a spectrum that covers a pretty wide range of beliefs with no central authority, unlike the unified hierarchy of the LDS.
I don't mean to belittle you or Judaism in general, I just think it's unfair to present your particular Jewish experience as representing the whole.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:35 PM on January 16, 2015
The first three almost approach belief but don't actually ask what I believe.
If these are the questions, what does this mean?
"3) Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"
posted by davidstandaford at 3:04 PM on January 16, 2015
If these are the questions, what does this mean?
"3) Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"
posted by davidstandaford at 3:04 PM on January 16, 2015
And yet I was the guy asking the questions and that was my view.
You were the guy in your area. And my dad was the guy in my area (bishop, then counselor in SP) for much of the time when I was answering the questions. And that sure as heck was not his view. I had a few other bishops and SPs (it was the annual interview era), and none of them ever signaled that they had a less than orthodox approach.
I'll agree that it depends on the bishop. And that's a major problem. If you have a bishop who approaches it your way, great. If you have an bishop who doesn't (and as you say, the orthodox viewpoint is the norm), pretty sure your only option to get that recommend would be to uproot your home address from that area and move within the ward boundaries of a more freethinking bishop. Could be a hardship for some people.
Whether you honestly believe in your own interpretation is a separate question, and is a matter of conscience. My conscience is clean.
I didn't mean to suggest you shouldn't have a clean conscience. My intent was to say that I tell carefully curated versions of the truth to my parents, too, and my conscience is clean, too. There is nothing wrong with certain information being on a need to know basis.
It was a revelation to me when I found out that it's common for kids who grow up under excessively high expectations and excessively harsh punishments to learn how to be significantly better at deceit. I sure did. It was something I had to really work on as an adult so that it wouldn't be flat-out lying but would be telling as much of the truth as was safe to tell, and so that I could learn how to be completely honest with people I felt safe with. But those people have never been my parents.
When they ask "do you have a testimony of . . . ," they don't ask you to profess to have a strong or doubt-free testimony or faith. The smallest amount will do.
I would always be very touched when a newbie would start off at testimony meeting with something along the lines of "I have a lot of doubts..." instead of the de rigueur "I know..." That happened maybe one out of every thousand testimonies. Most Mormons know the drill.
Temple workers are not supposed to be determining and judging the personal religious beliefs of temple patrons. If your parents are actually doing that, I am, frankly, outraged.
I didn't mean they do it at the doorway to the temple. I mean they sit around at family gatherings and say things like "you know, I think Brother Smith doesn't really have a testimony because when I was chatting with him in the foyer after Sunday School, he said something a little off, so I asked him straight out whether he believes Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he wouldn't give me a straight answer, so I'm just going to have to let Bishop Jones know about that in private sometime, because I haven't seen Brother Smith at the temple in a while but I just need to be sure his bishop knows he needs to not have a recommend." I'm sure the reason bishops aren't supposed to question people's answers is because of folks like the McJudgerson-Humperdinck clan.
"3) Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"
A little oversimplified, but:
Liberal version: do you think the Mormon church is a good church?
Orthodox version: do you think the Mormon church is the only true church?
The key is restoration, meaning that (orthodox version) Christianity was in apostasy from the time the last of Jesus' original apostles died until God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith to restore the church to how Jesus originally set it up. Which is pretty unbelievable even if you have a History Channel level understanding of the ancient church. And it's a concept that is pretty disrespectful to Christians who did a lot of good things during those centuries. Good and bad, of course, but it really tosses the baby with the bathwater, in my opinion. I think the liberal version is kind of along the lines of "did God work through Joseph Smith?" where the broader belief is "God works through everybody, so sure why not JS, too."
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:39 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
You were the guy in your area. And my dad was the guy in my area (bishop, then counselor in SP) for much of the time when I was answering the questions. And that sure as heck was not his view. I had a few other bishops and SPs (it was the annual interview era), and none of them ever signaled that they had a less than orthodox approach.
I'll agree that it depends on the bishop. And that's a major problem. If you have a bishop who approaches it your way, great. If you have an bishop who doesn't (and as you say, the orthodox viewpoint is the norm), pretty sure your only option to get that recommend would be to uproot your home address from that area and move within the ward boundaries of a more freethinking bishop. Could be a hardship for some people.
Whether you honestly believe in your own interpretation is a separate question, and is a matter of conscience. My conscience is clean.
I didn't mean to suggest you shouldn't have a clean conscience. My intent was to say that I tell carefully curated versions of the truth to my parents, too, and my conscience is clean, too. There is nothing wrong with certain information being on a need to know basis.
It was a revelation to me when I found out that it's common for kids who grow up under excessively high expectations and excessively harsh punishments to learn how to be significantly better at deceit. I sure did. It was something I had to really work on as an adult so that it wouldn't be flat-out lying but would be telling as much of the truth as was safe to tell, and so that I could learn how to be completely honest with people I felt safe with. But those people have never been my parents.
When they ask "do you have a testimony of . . . ," they don't ask you to profess to have a strong or doubt-free testimony or faith. The smallest amount will do.
I would always be very touched when a newbie would start off at testimony meeting with something along the lines of "I have a lot of doubts..." instead of the de rigueur "I know..." That happened maybe one out of every thousand testimonies. Most Mormons know the drill.
Temple workers are not supposed to be determining and judging the personal religious beliefs of temple patrons. If your parents are actually doing that, I am, frankly, outraged.
I didn't mean they do it at the doorway to the temple. I mean they sit around at family gatherings and say things like "you know, I think Brother Smith doesn't really have a testimony because when I was chatting with him in the foyer after Sunday School, he said something a little off, so I asked him straight out whether he believes Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he wouldn't give me a straight answer, so I'm just going to have to let Bishop Jones know about that in private sometime, because I haven't seen Brother Smith at the temple in a while but I just need to be sure his bishop knows he needs to not have a recommend." I'm sure the reason bishops aren't supposed to question people's answers is because of folks like the McJudgerson-Humperdinck clan.
"3) Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"
A little oversimplified, but:
Liberal version: do you think the Mormon church is a good church?
Orthodox version: do you think the Mormon church is the only true church?
The key is restoration, meaning that (orthodox version) Christianity was in apostasy from the time the last of Jesus' original apostles died until God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith to restore the church to how Jesus originally set it up. Which is pretty unbelievable even if you have a History Channel level understanding of the ancient church. And it's a concept that is pretty disrespectful to Christians who did a lot of good things during those centuries. Good and bad, of course, but it really tosses the baby with the bathwater, in my opinion. I think the liberal version is kind of along the lines of "did God work through Joseph Smith?" where the broader belief is "God works through everybody, so sure why not JS, too."
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:39 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
>>The Church enforces these enforced beliefs through the Temple Recommend system
>Also, that's really not true at all.
First off, I really appreciate that you, personally, were trying to not do that when you were in that position.
But first off, that is not my lived experience at all. In my own experience and many others of my family, friends, and acquaintances, the Temple Recommend process is a very important part of cultural 'enforcement of belief' that is very, very much part of the LDS religion and culture.
Second, this exact scenario is the exact topic of the very post we are discussing:
So that scenario is playing out right here in front of us.
I'll agree with you that it *shouldn't* be true at all. Yet, it is.
posted by flug at 4:25 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
>Also, that's really not true at all.
First off, I really appreciate that you, personally, were trying to not do that when you were in that position.
But first off, that is not my lived experience at all. In my own experience and many others of my family, friends, and acquaintances, the Temple Recommend process is a very important part of cultural 'enforcement of belief' that is very, very much part of the LDS religion and culture.
Second, this exact scenario is the exact topic of the very post we are discussing:
As a condition of renewing my temple recommend, my new stake president has required me to resign from the board of Ordain Women and, with the exception of my Ordain Women profile, take down posts I have written that raise the question of women’s ordination to the priesthood. I do not believe that temple recommends should be used as leverage to censor ideas or silence advocacy, but if I hadn’t complied, I would have missed my brother’s recent temple wedding.This is the exact scenario that you say "Is not true at all"--a Stake President is very specifically using the temple recommend process to force a member to change beliefs--or at least speech about beliefs, which boils down to the same thing.
So that scenario is playing out right here in front of us.
I'll agree with you that it *shouldn't* be true at all. Yet, it is.
posted by flug at 4:25 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The World Famous: Your take sounds a bit Humpty Dumptyish. Are there limits to the permissible interpretations of the terms in the profession? So some liberal Protestants will recite the Creeds and claim that they are true. But when they say, e.g., "I believe in God the Father" they mean what I mean when I say "I believe there was a grand evolutionary process that brought us into existence." Etc. So some people, understandably, question whether they really believe the Creeds.
I don't mean the question to come off as overly confrontational. I'm a big fan. :)
posted by persona au gratin at 4:39 PM on January 16, 2015
I don't mean the question to come off as overly confrontational. I'm a big fan. :)
posted by persona au gratin at 4:39 PM on January 16, 2015
The belief component is that she is not free to interpret the temple recommend questions as she wishes. She believes what she's doing is compatible, but that counts for nothing. I feel that my work at Ordain Women and the Exponent has been spiritually enriching and compatible with temple recommend criteria.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 4:43 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 4:43 PM on January 16, 2015
Four things:
a) the church likes to think that outside the temple it is post-liturgical, but aside from the sacrament prayer--listen to the shape of how they pray, how their bodies move when they pray, what they do and what they won't do--i still often pray like a mormon when i have to offer expetermous prayers (most often blessings)
b) Claudia Bushman made the same argument as the World Famous in a lecture I heard this year--it is an argument that rests from the vernacular practice of the church, but one that I think is tightening--i think that we are in the middle of a movement away from a liturgics of liquidity or absence to one much more mageristal--less of the methodist heritage and more of Catholic power .
c) This talk of judaism suggests that it is really helpful to think that their is a wide spectrum of possible mormonisms--there is some talk about this when California or Utah mormons are mentioned in this thread--but we have to think of fundamentalist mormons, the church of christ and their dissenters, the bullerites, the toneyites, bickernoites but also think that for most of its history the lds were splitters--within the context of the broad tent of mormoniusm, that doctoronial purity was never really a solid game. This call towards purity is quite new.
d) I wrote a long peice about this that may show up in an aussie journal, but i think that the other thing that needs to be talked about but isn't is two fold, the first is that the lds social media policy is v. much centered on rention and on a seamless identity construciton and the second in a move that inherits procedures from both Foucualt and Nixon, by being honest about polygamy and race for the first time, it allows for them to control the narrative in the same way.
posted by PinkMoose at 4:47 PM on January 16, 2015
a) the church likes to think that outside the temple it is post-liturgical, but aside from the sacrament prayer--listen to the shape of how they pray, how their bodies move when they pray, what they do and what they won't do--i still often pray like a mormon when i have to offer expetermous prayers (most often blessings)
b) Claudia Bushman made the same argument as the World Famous in a lecture I heard this year--it is an argument that rests from the vernacular practice of the church, but one that I think is tightening--i think that we are in the middle of a movement away from a liturgics of liquidity or absence to one much more mageristal--less of the methodist heritage and more of Catholic power .
c) This talk of judaism suggests that it is really helpful to think that their is a wide spectrum of possible mormonisms--there is some talk about this when California or Utah mormons are mentioned in this thread--but we have to think of fundamentalist mormons, the church of christ and their dissenters, the bullerites, the toneyites, bickernoites but also think that for most of its history the lds were splitters--within the context of the broad tent of mormoniusm, that doctoronial purity was never really a solid game. This call towards purity is quite new.
d) I wrote a long peice about this that may show up in an aussie journal, but i think that the other thing that needs to be talked about but isn't is two fold, the first is that the lds social media policy is v. much centered on rention and on a seamless identity construciton and the second in a move that inherits procedures from both Foucualt and Nixon, by being honest about polygamy and race for the first time, it allows for them to control the narrative in the same way.
posted by PinkMoose at 4:47 PM on January 16, 2015
Also as a theologian I want to spend a lot of time writing about Ulchtdorf's view of the restoraiton as a construciton of domionist/american protestant utopias.
posted by PinkMoose at 4:54 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 4:54 PM on January 16, 2015
He is to ask the questions, accept the answers, and not elaborate.
I think we've been talking past each other on this point, and I hope this clarifies. Like you, I don't want to come off as disagreeable. I agree with you that the interview process itself is supposed to be just questions, answers, signature. And that was my experience. But outside of those five minutes in the bishop's office, there is a context.
What I meant by no signal that my bishop might be unorthodox was that whenever he bore his testimony on Sunday, it was a standard LDS testimony. When he gave a talk, it was straight down the line orthodox material, nothing about how you don't really need a strong or doubt-free testimony or anything like that. So then when I went to his office for the interview, I felt pretty sure I knew what he meant when he said "do you have a testimony..." It never occurred to me (as a believer) that the need to not question or interpret was for any reason other than speediness of getting through the interviews and home to dinner. I had no idea people were sliding their far-out, just-barely-Christian beliefs under the radar, and that's pretty cool, and I hope we've put enough keywords in here that LDS folk in distress can find this when they Google "how to renew a temple recommend if I've lost my testimony"
The way that most people who lose their recommend lose it is the way I lost my last one. Not getting it renewed. I didn't even go in for the interview because I knew that I couldn't honestly give the expected answers. I'm certainly not accepting the idea that being unable to give those answers makes me "unworthy" to be in the temple, it's just that I defer to the community's judgment that they don't want someone in the temple who doesn't share those beliefs and practices. So I'm just like, OK, I will be elsewhere, your loss.
threatened with church discipline in the form of recommend revocation
I don't think so. She says in the post that it was a condition of renewing her recommend, and she hints in the post about how this wasn't happening under her previous SP but now that the leadership has changed, the new one has a different interpretation. It sounds to me (reading between the lines a bit) that she went to an interview assuming the renewal would be rubberstamped and suddenly discovered there were these extra conditions.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 5:22 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think we've been talking past each other on this point, and I hope this clarifies. Like you, I don't want to come off as disagreeable. I agree with you that the interview process itself is supposed to be just questions, answers, signature. And that was my experience. But outside of those five minutes in the bishop's office, there is a context.
What I meant by no signal that my bishop might be unorthodox was that whenever he bore his testimony on Sunday, it was a standard LDS testimony. When he gave a talk, it was straight down the line orthodox material, nothing about how you don't really need a strong or doubt-free testimony or anything like that. So then when I went to his office for the interview, I felt pretty sure I knew what he meant when he said "do you have a testimony..." It never occurred to me (as a believer) that the need to not question or interpret was for any reason other than speediness of getting through the interviews and home to dinner. I had no idea people were sliding their far-out, just-barely-Christian beliefs under the radar, and that's pretty cool, and I hope we've put enough keywords in here that LDS folk in distress can find this when they Google "how to renew a temple recommend if I've lost my testimony"
The way that most people who lose their recommend lose it is the way I lost my last one. Not getting it renewed. I didn't even go in for the interview because I knew that I couldn't honestly give the expected answers. I'm certainly not accepting the idea that being unable to give those answers makes me "unworthy" to be in the temple, it's just that I defer to the community's judgment that they don't want someone in the temple who doesn't share those beliefs and practices. So I'm just like, OK, I will be elsewhere, your loss.
threatened with church discipline in the form of recommend revocation
I don't think so. She says in the post that it was a condition of renewing her recommend, and she hints in the post about how this wasn't happening under her previous SP but now that the leadership has changed, the new one has a different interpretation. It sounds to me (reading between the lines a bit) that she went to an interview assuming the renewal would be rubberstamped and suddenly discovered there were these extra conditions.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 5:22 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
That said, the threat to take away her recommend was not based on belief, but was a threat of church discipline for conduct - i.e. her blogging and advocacy. That's just as bad, in my opinion, if not worse, but it's not the same thing.
I agree, it's not the same thing--that's why I wrote, "using the temple recommend process to force a member to change beliefs--or at least speech about beliefs, which boils down to the same thing".
If you are allowed to have certain beliefs but aren't allowed to write about them, talk about them with anyone, express them in any way, meet together with others who hold similar beliefs, etc etc etc, you've got something tantamount to thought control. They can't actually control your thoughts, but they're doing their level best by controlling every single one of the control points they do have.
And of course, the real subjects of the thought control police aren't the writers, but their (potential) readers. They can and will destroy all public discussion of these topics by faithful/believing LDS members. Meaning that faithful LDS members will be left with two information sources: 1) Official/sanitized information and 2) info put out by non members & anti-Mormons.
LDS members who consider themselves faithful tend to strongly discount source #2. So it really isn't a competitor to #1. But option #3 is. Option #3 is thoughtful, well researched, logical, persuasive thinking by believing Mormons that comes to a different conclusion than the Official Church position. That's why Option #3 has to be eliminated.
PinkMoose's comment is very much on point:
posted by flug at 5:40 PM on January 16, 2015
I agree, it's not the same thing--that's why I wrote, "using the temple recommend process to force a member to change beliefs--or at least speech about beliefs, which boils down to the same thing".
If you are allowed to have certain beliefs but aren't allowed to write about them, talk about them with anyone, express them in any way, meet together with others who hold similar beliefs, etc etc etc, you've got something tantamount to thought control. They can't actually control your thoughts, but they're doing their level best by controlling every single one of the control points they do have.
And of course, the real subjects of the thought control police aren't the writers, but their (potential) readers. They can and will destroy all public discussion of these topics by faithful/believing LDS members. Meaning that faithful LDS members will be left with two information sources: 1) Official/sanitized information and 2) info put out by non members & anti-Mormons.
LDS members who consider themselves faithful tend to strongly discount source #2. So it really isn't a competitor to #1. But option #3 is. Option #3 is thoughtful, well researched, logical, persuasive thinking by believing Mormons that comes to a different conclusion than the Official Church position. That's why Option #3 has to be eliminated.
PinkMoose's comment is very much on point:
first is that the lds social media policy is v. much centered on [member retention?] and on a seamless identity construction and the second in a move that inherits procedures from both Foucault and Nixon, by being honest about polygamy and race for the first time, it allows for them to control the narrative in the same way."Member retention" and "controlling the narrative" are indeed what it is all about--why Option #3 has to be eliminated.
posted by flug at 5:40 PM on January 16, 2015
"so I'm just going to have to let Bishop Jones know about that in private sometime, because I haven't seen Brother Smith at the temple in a while but I just need to be sure his bishop knows he needs to not have a recommend."
And that kind of thing is outrageous, improper, and goes against everything I believe. It does happen from time to time, and it's outrageous.
Back when I was still going to church, I was outed by a fellow churchgoer who saw me with my boyfriend (now husband) at the park. She did not talk to me then, or contact me later, instead she went straight to the pastor and shared "her concerns with my struggle with sin." What had been a fairly progressive church turned really ugly really fast, and the "family" that I had shared my life with for the past 10+ years gave me the ultimatum of "turning from sin" or leaving. I left, and have not been back in church since.
That is the worst kind of poison, from self-righteous do-gooders who, often sincerely believing they are Doing The Right Thing, continue to destroy other people's lives because they just can't mind their own damn business.
I am one who calls himself a "recovering Christian", because Christianity has and continues to do so much damage to people, particularly LGBTQ folk, both intentionally and unintentionally. I have no beef with God, but just between you and me, he's done a terrible job raising his kids.
posted by xedrik at 5:57 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
And that kind of thing is outrageous, improper, and goes against everything I believe. It does happen from time to time, and it's outrageous.
Back when I was still going to church, I was outed by a fellow churchgoer who saw me with my boyfriend (now husband) at the park. She did not talk to me then, or contact me later, instead she went straight to the pastor and shared "her concerns with my struggle with sin." What had been a fairly progressive church turned really ugly really fast, and the "family" that I had shared my life with for the past 10+ years gave me the ultimatum of "turning from sin" or leaving. I left, and have not been back in church since.
That is the worst kind of poison, from self-righteous do-gooders who, often sincerely believing they are Doing The Right Thing, continue to destroy other people's lives because they just can't mind their own damn business.
I am one who calls himself a "recovering Christian", because Christianity has and continues to do so much damage to people, particularly LGBTQ folk, both intentionally and unintentionally. I have no beef with God, but just between you and me, he's done a terrible job raising his kids.
posted by xedrik at 5:57 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry that happened to you, xedrik. I wish you and your husband the best.
Read between the lines, assume things are very orthodox, and then self-select out of church fellowship when their personal faith falls below what they, in their orthodoxy, believe to be a line of demarcation
I thought we agreed that most Mormons are very orthodox. Not an assumption on my part, but a reality. I think that every bit as much as self-selecting out, I was also made to feel very out of place. Not that most people were hostile to me, but toward the end it was less and less often that it was safe to speak freely about what I really thought even in casual conversations, and more and more often that people would say judgey stuff about others that I knew to be true of me, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to read between those lines and think: these folks would judge me similarly if they knew. I think lots of Mormons are doing good work on writing about this stuff, but which of them is going to bring me a casserole? I had to leave so I could make room in my life for the support I needed.
they are free to believe as they want, but they are being disciplined for advocating for positions contrary to the church. Again, I think that's outrageous and wrong of the church, too, but there is a distinction.
Isn't it a distinction without a difference? When the rule is "these particular beliefs must not be advocated" then yes, you've got on the one hand "if it were merely a question of belief, there would be no church action." And on the other hand, if it were merely a question of advocacy, there would be no church action. The church is famous for wanting the members to go out and advocate for it.
Are you insisting on the distinction because you believe this stuff and you're still Mormon, so if someone says "Mormons can't believe this" it bugs you? Because I get that. I hate when people tell me what I do or don't believe. It's just that it's true for me; I personally can't believe something and never talk or write about it openly. I tried. I did.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 6:05 PM on January 16, 2015
Read between the lines, assume things are very orthodox, and then self-select out of church fellowship when their personal faith falls below what they, in their orthodoxy, believe to be a line of demarcation
I thought we agreed that most Mormons are very orthodox. Not an assumption on my part, but a reality. I think that every bit as much as self-selecting out, I was also made to feel very out of place. Not that most people were hostile to me, but toward the end it was less and less often that it was safe to speak freely about what I really thought even in casual conversations, and more and more often that people would say judgey stuff about others that I knew to be true of me, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to read between those lines and think: these folks would judge me similarly if they knew. I think lots of Mormons are doing good work on writing about this stuff, but which of them is going to bring me a casserole? I had to leave so I could make room in my life for the support I needed.
they are free to believe as they want, but they are being disciplined for advocating for positions contrary to the church. Again, I think that's outrageous and wrong of the church, too, but there is a distinction.
Isn't it a distinction without a difference? When the rule is "these particular beliefs must not be advocated" then yes, you've got on the one hand "if it were merely a question of belief, there would be no church action." And on the other hand, if it were merely a question of advocacy, there would be no church action. The church is famous for wanting the members to go out and advocate for it.
Are you insisting on the distinction because you believe this stuff and you're still Mormon, so if someone says "Mormons can't believe this" it bugs you? Because I get that. I hate when people tell me what I do or don't believe. It's just that it's true for me; I personally can't believe something and never talk or write about it openly. I tried. I did.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 6:05 PM on January 16, 2015
TR renewal regardless of her beliefs or whether she could truthfully answer the questions correctly, because of her advocacy and affiliation with a group the church considers apostate
Boy, hair-splitting mode just shifted ultra-fine overdrive there . . .
Parsing: She's not being denied temple recommend renewal because of her beliefs, but because she associates with a group who shares her beliefs and whose beliefs been declared apostate. OK . . .
I'm not really sure I buy that line, though. If the very long-established Exponent II really is being declared as officially apostate, then we should see many more thousands of excommunications of its writers, financial supporters, board members, subscribers, etc--or all those folks suddenly leaving en masse, after demands by their local leaders. I'm betting we'll see nothing of the sort.
It's certain specific ideas they are going after, more so than groups.
For those non-Mormons playing along at home and wondering what we are talking about, the full list of LDS Temple Recommend questions is here. The specific question TWF is referring to is this:
posted by flug at 6:25 PM on January 16, 2015
Boy, hair-splitting mode just shifted ultra-fine overdrive there . . .
Parsing: She's not being denied temple recommend renewal because of her beliefs, but because she associates with a group who shares her beliefs and whose beliefs been declared apostate. OK . . .
I'm not really sure I buy that line, though. If the very long-established Exponent II really is being declared as officially apostate, then we should see many more thousands of excommunications of its writers, financial supporters, board members, subscribers, etc--or all those folks suddenly leaving en masse, after demands by their local leaders. I'm betting we'll see nothing of the sort.
It's certain specific ideas they are going after, more so than groups.
For those non-Mormons playing along at home and wondering what we are talking about, the full list of LDS Temple Recommend questions is here. The specific question TWF is referring to is this:
#7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?FWIW, at least according to the folklore I grew up with, this question was designed mostly/primarily to tease out adherents of polygamous Mormon offshoots. These folks are commonly strong ultra-orthodox believers who believe their particular polygamous branch is the 'true' branch church while the larger LDS church has gone astray. But still want the 'Temple Blessings' to which only the larger LDS church had access. So, apply at your local LDS Ward for your recommend and if you can answer all the questions honestly, all is well. But once the LDS Church had renounced polygamy (and then really-officially-hey-we-REALLY-mean-it-this-time renounced it again a few times more over the space of a few years), adherents to these polygamous groups--being honest folk--would be tripped up by Question #7, because they are certainly aware that their polygamous group supports a certain practice (polygamy) opposed by the mainstream LDS Church.
posted by flug at 6:25 PM on January 16, 2015
>>Option #3 is thoughtful, well researched, logical, persuasive thinking by believing Mormons that comes to a different conclusion than the Official Church position. That's why Option #3 has to be eliminated.
>As much as I like John Dehlin, though, that's not him. He's not a believing Mormon.
I don't know much about any of these folks. But it sounds very much to me like John has been pushed and shoved out over the course of years through this process--meaning that this is actually a nice textbook example of turning an Option 3 voice (seen by himself and at least some others as speaking from the inside and still believing in at least some ways, even though perhaps unbelieving in others) into Option 2 (anti/non-Mormon and 'othered'). People who are complete unbelievers don't bother going to ongoing weekly meetings with a church leader for over a year--which Dehlin says he was doing as recently as 2011-2012.
Regardless, people like Katy Kelly of Ordain Women and April Young Bennett seem to fall pretty clearly into the 'thought-they-were-believers-until-the-Church-informed-them-otherwise' camp.
posted by flug at 6:41 PM on January 16, 2015
>As much as I like John Dehlin, though, that's not him. He's not a believing Mormon.
I don't know much about any of these folks. But it sounds very much to me like John has been pushed and shoved out over the course of years through this process--meaning that this is actually a nice textbook example of turning an Option 3 voice (seen by himself and at least some others as speaking from the inside and still believing in at least some ways, even though perhaps unbelieving in others) into Option 2 (anti/non-Mormon and 'othered'). People who are complete unbelievers don't bother going to ongoing weekly meetings with a church leader for over a year--which Dehlin says he was doing as recently as 2011-2012.
Regardless, people like Katy Kelly of Ordain Women and April Young Bennett seem to fall pretty clearly into the 'thought-they-were-believers-until-the-Church-informed-them-otherwise' camp.
posted by flug at 6:41 PM on January 16, 2015
Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
I agree with you overall, flug, but this is an area where I don't mind slicing it a little thin. Because to take this question at face value would be absurd. Just one example: "Do you support... any... individual whose... practices are contrary to... those accepted by the LDS?" If taken literally, that would mean that my mom's recommend would be conditioned on her telling her bishop she doesn't support me. I have a regular practice of drinking coffee (oops! forgot that one earlier! not giving up coffee!) which is contrary to LDS teachings. But the church actually doesn't insist that my mom interpret it this way; the church has no problem with my mom supporting me regardless of my coffee habit.
If your bishop handed you a list of officially declared apostate groups, and said do you associate with any of these? Or a list of apostate teachings, and said do you agree with any of these? That would be one thing. But this is left open enough to interpretation that there's room for all kinds of goalpost-shifting both by local leaders who might choose to throw their weight around or not, and individuals who "just know" (as I did) what will or won't fly in an interview, and as The World Famous worries maybe too many members will self-select out instead of trying to push the boundaries from within. As Bennett points out, the fact that it goes down this way highlights the need for everyone to be able to participate in governance. And also the need for another several centuries of commentary upon commentary. Oh and maybe a professional ministry, with an ethical code that their jobs depend on staying in line with? And as long as I'm dreaming, how about an ombuds office that you could write to if you felt your local leader was out of line, and they would enforce the Handbook of Instructions, all volumes of which would be published on their website? I'm getting loopy. Time for bed.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 7:20 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I agree with you overall, flug, but this is an area where I don't mind slicing it a little thin. Because to take this question at face value would be absurd. Just one example: "Do you support... any... individual whose... practices are contrary to... those accepted by the LDS?" If taken literally, that would mean that my mom's recommend would be conditioned on her telling her bishop she doesn't support me. I have a regular practice of drinking coffee (oops! forgot that one earlier! not giving up coffee!) which is contrary to LDS teachings. But the church actually doesn't insist that my mom interpret it this way; the church has no problem with my mom supporting me regardless of my coffee habit.
If your bishop handed you a list of officially declared apostate groups, and said do you associate with any of these? Or a list of apostate teachings, and said do you agree with any of these? That would be one thing. But this is left open enough to interpretation that there's room for all kinds of goalpost-shifting both by local leaders who might choose to throw their weight around or not, and individuals who "just know" (as I did) what will or won't fly in an interview, and as The World Famous worries maybe too many members will self-select out instead of trying to push the boundaries from within. As Bennett points out, the fact that it goes down this way highlights the need for everyone to be able to participate in governance. And also the need for another several centuries of commentary upon commentary. Oh and maybe a professional ministry, with an ethical code that their jobs depend on staying in line with? And as long as I'm dreaming, how about an ombuds office that you could write to if you felt your local leader was out of line, and they would enforce the Handbook of Instructions, all volumes of which would be published on their website? I'm getting loopy. Time for bed.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 7:20 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
flug,
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your overall comments, but I just want to say a couple of things.
I think there's also something to be said for leading vs following. Certainly, it's not just OW leaders who have been getting these messages, but it does seem that the more visible and vocal someone is, the more likely they are to be up for disciplinary council.
But for many other people, this question will not be seen as so narrow. To have leaders of Ordain Women excommunicated or to have board members step down...that's going to send a message to some folks, "Hey, maybe I don't want to associate with this group..." And that's where we get that self-selecting that TWF was talking about too...
I mean, on any given day, I will probably think that the parsing between beliefs and practices is pretty suspect/flimsy. However, I think that the church has been relatively consistent in pointing out that they are really disagreeing with methods and publicity -- so one could theoretically believe in women's ordination (and even discuss it at church!), but if one pulls a publicity stunt to try to get women's ordination, then that's not going to fly. Certainly, if one were to limit oneself only to the sorts of actions that the church would be OK with, then one would probably never get anywhere with a movement...but that's not the church's problem.
(I have heard plenty of arguments from conservative LDS folks who would absolutely appreciate a change in women's roles and responsibilities in the church, who say that they just can't get behind OW because they find the methods to be too public, too secular, and too oppositional. Instead, they argue, faith must be shown by trusting that the Lord would reach out to the leaders -- so the only thing that can be faithfully done is really just to pray for this to occur. As a nonbeliever, I don't really think that would be effective, but I can see how some people might think that's what faith requires, and how they would think that people pursuing other methods are broadcasting their insufficent faith.)
posted by subversiveasset at 7:33 PM on January 16, 2015
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your overall comments, but I just want to say a couple of things.
Parsing: She's not being denied temple recommend renewal because of her beliefs, but because she associates with a group who shares her beliefs and whose beliefs been declared apostate. OK . . .I don't think it's that the Exponent II is being declared as officially apostate...in this example, it would be whether Ordain Women is being declared so. And Bennett and Kelly aren't the only people in Ordain Women who are facing adverse reactions because of association -- they are just some of the higher profile people (Kelly as founder, Bennett because of her association with Exponent II's blog.)
I'm not really sure I buy that line, though. If the very long-established Exponent II really is being declared as officially apostate, then we should see many more thousands of excommunications of its writers, financial supporters, board members, subscribers, etc--or all those folks suddenly leaving en masse, after demands by their local leaders. I'm betting we'll see nothing of the sort.
I think there's also something to be said for leading vs following. Certainly, it's not just OW leaders who have been getting these messages, but it does seem that the more visible and vocal someone is, the more likely they are to be up for disciplinary council.
The specific question TWF is referring to is this:While I also learned the same folklore growing up (and I think that folklore has a reasonable basis given history, although I'm not too big on studying polygamy), I would just point out that this sort of interpretation is actually a really good example of the sort of "lawyerballing" that TWF referred to earlier. Certainly, people who are aware of this history (or who have been taught this sort of reasoning) can say, "Well, certainly, I don't support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individuals whose practices are contrary to the church...because I am not involved with polygamy at all!"#7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?FWIW, at least according to the folklore I grew up with, this question was designed mostly/primarily to tease out adherents of polygamous Mormon offshoots.
But for many other people, this question will not be seen as so narrow. To have leaders of Ordain Women excommunicated or to have board members step down...that's going to send a message to some folks, "Hey, maybe I don't want to associate with this group..." And that's where we get that self-selecting that TWF was talking about too...
I mean, on any given day, I will probably think that the parsing between beliefs and practices is pretty suspect/flimsy. However, I think that the church has been relatively consistent in pointing out that they are really disagreeing with methods and publicity -- so one could theoretically believe in women's ordination (and even discuss it at church!), but if one pulls a publicity stunt to try to get women's ordination, then that's not going to fly. Certainly, if one were to limit oneself only to the sorts of actions that the church would be OK with, then one would probably never get anywhere with a movement...but that's not the church's problem.
(I have heard plenty of arguments from conservative LDS folks who would absolutely appreciate a change in women's roles and responsibilities in the church, who say that they just can't get behind OW because they find the methods to be too public, too secular, and too oppositional. Instead, they argue, faith must be shown by trusting that the Lord would reach out to the leaders -- so the only thing that can be faithfully done is really just to pray for this to occur. As a nonbeliever, I don't really think that would be effective, but I can see how some people might think that's what faith requires, and how they would think that people pursuing other methods are broadcasting their insufficent faith.)
posted by subversiveasset at 7:33 PM on January 16, 2015
i think the conserative lds argument is well thought out, and hasn't been given proper consiideration
posted by PinkMoose at 9:04 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 9:04 PM on January 16, 2015
Oh, come on. I'm also Jewish (though I no longer practice), and was brought up Reform, but you're painting a really skewed, rosy vision of Judaisms's openness. More orthodox traditions certainly aren't the paragons of openness and questioning your synagogue apparently is. Certain friends from such traditions have had real struggles because of that.
You also can't really compare Judaism to the LDS this way. Judaism is a spectrum that covers a pretty wide range of beliefs with no central authority, unlike the unified hierarchy of the LDS.
I wasn't comparing Judaism to LDS - my response was to another comment implying all religions have one set Orthodoxy, which then can change.
My synagogue is Reform Judaism - it's not exactly out of the main stream. And the fact is that no matter how crazy we get - female rabbi, debates on God - no one can claim we're not Jewish (though some want to keep us from the Wall, but that's because of our ovaries, not our statements or actions). I have a gay friend who was raised very Orthodox; it hasn't been easy for her, but at least there is a place where she can go, practice her religion and be accepted as Jewish - and be married in a Jewish ceremony to her soon-to-be-wife next year.
My specific point about Judaism is that it is, and has been for 2000 years, a decentralised religion which does invite debate. Even for the most observant, orthodox Yeshiva student, they are obliged to not just study Torah, but to actively debate it with their study partner. Who is allowed to debate, what is up for debate - this changes over time. But public dissent is an essential part of the religion.
posted by jb at 9:28 PM on January 16, 2015
You also can't really compare Judaism to the LDS this way. Judaism is a spectrum that covers a pretty wide range of beliefs with no central authority, unlike the unified hierarchy of the LDS.
I wasn't comparing Judaism to LDS - my response was to another comment implying all religions have one set Orthodoxy, which then can change.
My synagogue is Reform Judaism - it's not exactly out of the main stream. And the fact is that no matter how crazy we get - female rabbi, debates on God - no one can claim we're not Jewish (though some want to keep us from the Wall, but that's because of our ovaries, not our statements or actions). I have a gay friend who was raised very Orthodox; it hasn't been easy for her, but at least there is a place where she can go, practice her religion and be accepted as Jewish - and be married in a Jewish ceremony to her soon-to-be-wife next year.
My specific point about Judaism is that it is, and has been for 2000 years, a decentralised religion which does invite debate. Even for the most observant, orthodox Yeshiva student, they are obliged to not just study Torah, but to actively debate it with their study partner. Who is allowed to debate, what is up for debate - this changes over time. But public dissent is an essential part of the religion.
posted by jb at 9:28 PM on January 16, 2015
JB the lds churches non paid clergy, its open sacramental table, fast and testimony meetings, women preaching, and the mutuality of temple interviews all have a strong decentralized the tradition. The LDS is more ocmplicated than you are allowing.
posted by PinkMoose at 11:25 PM on January 16, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 11:25 PM on January 16, 2015
I wrote Oh absolutely, it's terribly convenient. I just think all religions do it: God wants this, [historical conditions change] no wait, God wants that. It's just that the Mormons being such a new faith don't get the benefits of having their origins and early stumbles fade into the mists of time, like, at all.
jb, is that the comment you thought was implying that all religions discourage public debate? or was implying all religions have one set Orthodoxy, which then can change? I had to reread a few times to see how you got that from my comment. But now I see it could come across like I thought all religions were always requiring adherents to move in unison as God changes his mind about things, and I didn't mean it that way. I know public debate is possible and encouraged in some religious traditions, and I see it as a good thing.
I meant that if you look for it in any religion that's been around for a while, you can find some evidence of outside events affecting the way (some or most or all, depending) adherents interpret what God wants from them. Which can result in God changing his mind on some pretty basic points sometimes, especially in the religion's early days. For example, God asked for animal sacrifices in ancient times, but ever since the temple was destroyed by an outside event, now God does not require animal sacrifice. (Is that a fair summary?)
One benefit of an ancient religion is that certain basic parameters get hammered out early on, and then when we're born millennia later, there's many strands of rich tradition to draw upon. It's tougher to have that public debate when for Mormons, their books that they revere like the Torah and Tanakh have not finished being written, and they have very little in the way of a Talmud. Conference talks are about as close as you can get to that, maybe. The book Mormon Doctrine was kind of trying to provide that, but it was really ill-advised and off-base and has been pretty well sidelined. Also, there are no theology degrees being offered at BYU, the only church sponsored university, and Mormon bishops don't have anything even close to rabbinical training, so it's kind of unclear where commentary is going to come from. Heck, maybe TWF could write it--that's the exciting thing about Mormonism is who knows? Could happen! But it's also the thing that sets you up for big disappointments when a pronouncement does come down that closes off one possible pathway where things might have developed.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:43 AM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
jb, is that the comment you thought was implying that all religions discourage public debate? or was implying all religions have one set Orthodoxy, which then can change? I had to reread a few times to see how you got that from my comment. But now I see it could come across like I thought all religions were always requiring adherents to move in unison as God changes his mind about things, and I didn't mean it that way. I know public debate is possible and encouraged in some religious traditions, and I see it as a good thing.
I meant that if you look for it in any religion that's been around for a while, you can find some evidence of outside events affecting the way (some or most or all, depending) adherents interpret what God wants from them. Which can result in God changing his mind on some pretty basic points sometimes, especially in the religion's early days. For example, God asked for animal sacrifices in ancient times, but ever since the temple was destroyed by an outside event, now God does not require animal sacrifice. (Is that a fair summary?)
One benefit of an ancient religion is that certain basic parameters get hammered out early on, and then when we're born millennia later, there's many strands of rich tradition to draw upon. It's tougher to have that public debate when for Mormons, their books that they revere like the Torah and Tanakh have not finished being written, and they have very little in the way of a Talmud. Conference talks are about as close as you can get to that, maybe. The book Mormon Doctrine was kind of trying to provide that, but it was really ill-advised and off-base and has been pretty well sidelined. Also, there are no theology degrees being offered at BYU, the only church sponsored university, and Mormon bishops don't have anything even close to rabbinical training, so it's kind of unclear where commentary is going to come from. Heck, maybe TWF could write it--that's the exciting thing about Mormonism is who knows? Could happen! But it's also the thing that sets you up for big disappointments when a pronouncement does come down that closes off one possible pathway where things might have developed.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:43 AM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
PinkMoose,
1) Since one of the results of a disciplinary council can be that a person can lose the privilege of taking sacrament, even saying that there is an open sacrament/open communion is more complicated. That there isn't a whole lot of policing on this is more of a pragmatic limitation than an ideological one.
2) Talking about women preaching still has a lot of caveats. Every role that a woman has will eventually, either directly or indirectly, report to a man, because of the priesthood structure. Even when women and men occupy roles that seem to be analogous (e.g., female missionaries vs male missionaries), the women are at a disjointed standing due to lack of priesthood. (E.g., sister missionaries can still teach the lessons, but it must be a man who holds the priesthood who will baptize the investigator.)
posted by subversiveasset at 1:01 PM on January 17, 2015
JB the lds churches non paid clergy, its open sacramental table, fast and testimony meetings, women preaching, and the mutuality of temple interviews all have a strong decentralized the tradition. The LDS is more ocmplicated than you are allowing.I would also agree that the LDS tradition is more complicated than a lot of comments are allowing, but I would still push back:
1) Since one of the results of a disciplinary council can be that a person can lose the privilege of taking sacrament, even saying that there is an open sacrament/open communion is more complicated. That there isn't a whole lot of policing on this is more of a pragmatic limitation than an ideological one.
2) Talking about women preaching still has a lot of caveats. Every role that a woman has will eventually, either directly or indirectly, report to a man, because of the priesthood structure. Even when women and men occupy roles that seem to be analogous (e.g., female missionaries vs male missionaries), the women are at a disjointed standing due to lack of priesthood. (E.g., sister missionaries can still teach the lessons, but it must be a man who holds the priesthood who will baptize the investigator.)
posted by subversiveasset at 1:01 PM on January 17, 2015
>i think the conserative lds argument is well thought out, and hasn't been given proper consiideration
Just for those keeping score at home, I quite agree with PinkMoose that the conservative/orthodox/what-have-you Mormon position isn't really represented in this thread.
If you went to a forum heavily populated by believing Mormons, you'd find that position (well thought out or not . . . ) very strongly represented and the the entire range of opinion represented on this thread very much minority, very much fringe, and very much clustered to one particular end of the ideological spectrum.
Just one thing to keep in mind, for those of you who may not meet or converse with many mainstream Mormons in your day-to-day lives.
posted by flug at 1:09 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just for those keeping score at home, I quite agree with PinkMoose that the conservative/orthodox/what-have-you Mormon position isn't really represented in this thread.
If you went to a forum heavily populated by believing Mormons, you'd find that position (well thought out or not . . . ) very strongly represented and the the entire range of opinion represented on this thread very much minority, very much fringe, and very much clustered to one particular end of the ideological spectrum.
Just one thing to keep in mind, for those of you who may not meet or converse with many mainstream Mormons in your day-to-day lives.
posted by flug at 1:09 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because to take this question at face value would be absurd. Just one example: "Do you support... any... individual whose... practices are contrary to... those accepted by the LDS?"
PinkMoose is champing at the bit to write an essay from his viewpoint as a theologian. I'm champing at the bit to put down my thoughts on the situation from the power politics point of view.
Just to keep it brief, it is no coincidence at all that this is happening at a point in time when LDS President Thomas Monson has moved from vigorous to pretty elderly and frail.
This is a type of situation we're likely to see appear whenever the LDS President becomes frail, unwell, or otherwise unable to effectively and actively lead the entire Church leadership and bureaucracy underneath him.
And so it is no coincidence at all that this series of disciplinary actions are coming at a very similar point in time to when the September Six incident happened. The September Six was a group of outspoken LDS writers etc disciplined very publicly in the early 1990s, at a time when then LDS President Ezra Taft Benson was very elderly and frail.
As pointed out upthread, LDS governance has both highly centralized and highly de-centralized tendencies. The President/Prophet is very clearly the top leader, he has two or three Counselors who derive their power from his position, then the Twelve Apostles (all equivalent in some sense but also in seniority order), then the councils of the seventies and some other 'General Authorities', who oversee a pretty large professional bureaucracy and local lay leaders. A lot of this is organized geographically, so you'll have Apostles & other General Authorities overseeing particular local areas with a fairly high degree of autonomy.
At the local level there are Stake Presidencies, Bishop/Bishoprics--all lay leaders--for each ward, and a variety of other local leadership. Essentially every member who wants a job has one and fits into this hierarchy in one way or another.
There is a fair degree of autonomy at every level. Just for example, Apostles & other General Authorities are supposed to give general guidance to local lay leaders, but they are not supposed to, for example, just straight-up tell local lay leaders to excommunicate a particular person. Making disciplinary decisions of that sort is the rather exclusive domain of the local leaders.
Still, there is plenty of scope for hinting/guessing, and plenty of room for ambitious local leaders to take action they believe will please their higher-ups, based on the hints they have received. Also, as pointed out upthread, the Church Disciplinary process is very, very loosely determined--meaning that the local leaders have plenty of scope to act or not act, as they choose.
Apostles are appointed for life. By tradition, upon the President/Prophet's death, the senior Apostle becomes President/Prophet and he, also, holds that position for life.
Thus, the cycle is that a President/Prophet dies, a new younger, more vigorous, enthusiastic, charismatic man takes his place. But the new prophet has, by necessity, outlived 13 (or so) other apostles, so he is not precisely young, but rather young-ish elderly.
So the new President/Prophet has a number of vigorous years of leadership and then a fairly long-ish period of diminished or nearly absent leadership. Elderly people with good healthcare and a strong, supportive social network can live a long time in these circumstances, and they do.
During the new President's early years, we're unlikely to see disciplinary crackdowns. The new leader is enthusiastic, energetic, optimistic, and has a both a positive message and a strong influence on the leaders and bureaucracy under him.
He's like the powerful magnetic field that makes all the iron filings line up in neat rows under him. And, honestly, a newly appointed powerful, energetic, and charismatic leader isn't very concerned about a few renegade writers, intellectuals, or bloggers.
But when the President becomes more elderly and frail, the magnetic field fades and all the little iron filings go back to their natural orientations.
There is something of a leadership vacuum, and there are a number of fairly large, fairly level playing fields where there is ample opportunity for individual initiative and no one clearly placed above to say 'no'.
And that is the playing field where our disciplinary actions tend to thrive.
A few characteristics that help this:
- The senior leadership of the LDS Church is a fairly large group. It is (by design) somewhat homogenous, but still, the group is large and diverse enough that on any given issue there will be a *wide* range of opinion. Just for example, on the issue of disciplining members as discussed in this OP, opinions among Church leadership almost certainly will range from those favoring immediate and harsh discipline to those favoring no discipline whatsoever, and everything in between.
Results:
- That means that at least a few people will want to take action, and no one is well positioned to stop them.
- If one leader takes the initiative and takes action, other leaders are by nature of LDS leadership, disinclined to oppose the leader or the action--and *certainly* won't publicly oppose either.
- Thus, there may be a wide range of opinion but because of the system, culture, and leadership vacuum, extremists win. If there were a vote or consensus-based process to make the decision, the majority would carry it. This is (likely) more what happens when the President is actively leading and actively developing that consensus.
But in the leadership vacuum, the extreme and action-oriented minority will 'win' every time, because there is scope for them to take action and no process in place to stop them.
- Still, the 'extremists' are limited in the action they can take, because division of responsibility geographically and by role. An Apostle, for example, can't just pull in a couple dozen, or few hundred, trouble makers and excommunicate them all. Rather, he must hint to people lower in the hierarchy, who may or may not take up the hint, etc. Furthermore, his most direct control is only to those directly under him in the hierarchy, who are typically limited to certain geographical areas of the Church.
Summarizing:
- Centralized/decentralized tendencies
- Bureaucracy and hierarchy but also scope for individual initiative at all levels; a culture and well-defined roles that protect the individual initiative at all levels
- Hint/guess culture and natural strong human desire to please higher-ups, while also not knowing exactly what will please them
- Wide range of opinions on a given subject, but a landscape where the assertive/action-oriented/highly motivated minority has more scope to achieve policy ends than the less assertive minority
- A natural cycle with periods of strong central leadership when the new President is younger, followed by a long period of power vacuum as he inevitably becomes older and more frail
All this rather neatly explains:
- Why the LDS church has periodic, rather than continual purges (they happen primarily when the Prophet is elderly/frail and the leadership vacuum exists)
- Why the purges are rather limited in scope and seemingly fairly arbitrary in choosing victims (only some General Authorities choose to take action; they primarily lead only certain geographical areas; local leaders may be enthusiastic about the discipline or may resist; other local leaders may take disciplinary action rather autonomously)
- Why they happen at all (at least some percentage of any large group are likely to fall in the 'harsh disciplinarian' camp and the periodic leadership vacuum and other particularities of LDS Church governance gives these folks room to maneuver at certain times and on certain issues)
- Why procedures and guidelines, such as the ambiguous Temple Recommend question that touched off this little rant, seem to be purposefully ambiguous and wide open to varying interpretations (they are developed and refined by leadership committees over a long period of time; the committees represent a wide range of viewpoints and the committee process tries to preserve them all; some want to preserve the privacy and individual initiative of the individual members while others want to preserve the option to use *their* individual initiative to take strong disciplinary action when they feel it necessary)
posted by flug at 2:25 PM on January 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
PinkMoose is champing at the bit to write an essay from his viewpoint as a theologian. I'm champing at the bit to put down my thoughts on the situation from the power politics point of view.
Just to keep it brief, it is no coincidence at all that this is happening at a point in time when LDS President Thomas Monson has moved from vigorous to pretty elderly and frail.
This is a type of situation we're likely to see appear whenever the LDS President becomes frail, unwell, or otherwise unable to effectively and actively lead the entire Church leadership and bureaucracy underneath him.
And so it is no coincidence at all that this series of disciplinary actions are coming at a very similar point in time to when the September Six incident happened. The September Six was a group of outspoken LDS writers etc disciplined very publicly in the early 1990s, at a time when then LDS President Ezra Taft Benson was very elderly and frail.
As pointed out upthread, LDS governance has both highly centralized and highly de-centralized tendencies. The President/Prophet is very clearly the top leader, he has two or three Counselors who derive their power from his position, then the Twelve Apostles (all equivalent in some sense but also in seniority order), then the councils of the seventies and some other 'General Authorities', who oversee a pretty large professional bureaucracy and local lay leaders. A lot of this is organized geographically, so you'll have Apostles & other General Authorities overseeing particular local areas with a fairly high degree of autonomy.
At the local level there are Stake Presidencies, Bishop/Bishoprics--all lay leaders--for each ward, and a variety of other local leadership. Essentially every member who wants a job has one and fits into this hierarchy in one way or another.
There is a fair degree of autonomy at every level. Just for example, Apostles & other General Authorities are supposed to give general guidance to local lay leaders, but they are not supposed to, for example, just straight-up tell local lay leaders to excommunicate a particular person. Making disciplinary decisions of that sort is the rather exclusive domain of the local leaders.
Still, there is plenty of scope for hinting/guessing, and plenty of room for ambitious local leaders to take action they believe will please their higher-ups, based on the hints they have received. Also, as pointed out upthread, the Church Disciplinary process is very, very loosely determined--meaning that the local leaders have plenty of scope to act or not act, as they choose.
Apostles are appointed for life. By tradition, upon the President/Prophet's death, the senior Apostle becomes President/Prophet and he, also, holds that position for life.
Thus, the cycle is that a President/Prophet dies, a new younger, more vigorous, enthusiastic, charismatic man takes his place. But the new prophet has, by necessity, outlived 13 (or so) other apostles, so he is not precisely young, but rather young-ish elderly.
So the new President/Prophet has a number of vigorous years of leadership and then a fairly long-ish period of diminished or nearly absent leadership. Elderly people with good healthcare and a strong, supportive social network can live a long time in these circumstances, and they do.
During the new President's early years, we're unlikely to see disciplinary crackdowns. The new leader is enthusiastic, energetic, optimistic, and has a both a positive message and a strong influence on the leaders and bureaucracy under him.
He's like the powerful magnetic field that makes all the iron filings line up in neat rows under him. And, honestly, a newly appointed powerful, energetic, and charismatic leader isn't very concerned about a few renegade writers, intellectuals, or bloggers.
But when the President becomes more elderly and frail, the magnetic field fades and all the little iron filings go back to their natural orientations.
There is something of a leadership vacuum, and there are a number of fairly large, fairly level playing fields where there is ample opportunity for individual initiative and no one clearly placed above to say 'no'.
And that is the playing field where our disciplinary actions tend to thrive.
A few characteristics that help this:
- The senior leadership of the LDS Church is a fairly large group. It is (by design) somewhat homogenous, but still, the group is large and diverse enough that on any given issue there will be a *wide* range of opinion. Just for example, on the issue of disciplining members as discussed in this OP, opinions among Church leadership almost certainly will range from those favoring immediate and harsh discipline to those favoring no discipline whatsoever, and everything in between.
Results:
- That means that at least a few people will want to take action, and no one is well positioned to stop them.
- If one leader takes the initiative and takes action, other leaders are by nature of LDS leadership, disinclined to oppose the leader or the action--and *certainly* won't publicly oppose either.
- Thus, there may be a wide range of opinion but because of the system, culture, and leadership vacuum, extremists win. If there were a vote or consensus-based process to make the decision, the majority would carry it. This is (likely) more what happens when the President is actively leading and actively developing that consensus.
But in the leadership vacuum, the extreme and action-oriented minority will 'win' every time, because there is scope for them to take action and no process in place to stop them.
- Still, the 'extremists' are limited in the action they can take, because division of responsibility geographically and by role. An Apostle, for example, can't just pull in a couple dozen, or few hundred, trouble makers and excommunicate them all. Rather, he must hint to people lower in the hierarchy, who may or may not take up the hint, etc. Furthermore, his most direct control is only to those directly under him in the hierarchy, who are typically limited to certain geographical areas of the Church.
Summarizing:
- Centralized/decentralized tendencies
- Bureaucracy and hierarchy but also scope for individual initiative at all levels; a culture and well-defined roles that protect the individual initiative at all levels
- Hint/guess culture and natural strong human desire to please higher-ups, while also not knowing exactly what will please them
- Wide range of opinions on a given subject, but a landscape where the assertive/action-oriented/highly motivated minority has more scope to achieve policy ends than the less assertive minority
- A natural cycle with periods of strong central leadership when the new President is younger, followed by a long period of power vacuum as he inevitably becomes older and more frail
All this rather neatly explains:
- Why the LDS church has periodic, rather than continual purges (they happen primarily when the Prophet is elderly/frail and the leadership vacuum exists)
- Why the purges are rather limited in scope and seemingly fairly arbitrary in choosing victims (only some General Authorities choose to take action; they primarily lead only certain geographical areas; local leaders may be enthusiastic about the discipline or may resist; other local leaders may take disciplinary action rather autonomously)
- Why they happen at all (at least some percentage of any large group are likely to fall in the 'harsh disciplinarian' camp and the periodic leadership vacuum and other particularities of LDS Church governance gives these folks room to maneuver at certain times and on certain issues)
- Why procedures and guidelines, such as the ambiguous Temple Recommend question that touched off this little rant, seem to be purposefully ambiguous and wide open to varying interpretations (they are developed and refined by leadership committees over a long period of time; the committees represent a wide range of viewpoints and the committee process tries to preserve them all; some want to preserve the privacy and individual initiative of the individual members while others want to preserve the option to use *their* individual initiative to take strong disciplinary action when they feel it necessary)
posted by flug at 2:25 PM on January 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Well done, flug. You explained a lot very succinctly.
One thing that kind of draws together what you write above about power politics with what TWF has been saying about being able to believe what you want. My LDS friend who "likes" the Ordain Women page was a rank and file member of the ward when I left the church. He told me he was getting less and less comfortable at church, feeling more and more judged and scrutinized, and was surprised to get a calling to be in local leadership. When he accepted, he said his experience at church dramatically changed. Instead of feeling like he constantly had to prove his worthiness, he felt part of a "boys' club" of local leaders where groups of them hung out and bonded, shooting the bull, gossiping about who was making a power play for a higher leadership position. He felt freer than ever to do stuff like read Michael Quinn (who had already been excommunicated before the linked book was written), secure knowing that his friendships with so many local leaders meant no one was going to bug him about losing his testimony.
And he was like, come back, Bento, look at all this stuff I can say and do; stop underestimating how much room there is for you in the church. And I'm like, still a woman here, so no LDS leadership boys' club for me.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:30 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
One thing that kind of draws together what you write above about power politics with what TWF has been saying about being able to believe what you want. My LDS friend who "likes" the Ordain Women page was a rank and file member of the ward when I left the church. He told me he was getting less and less comfortable at church, feeling more and more judged and scrutinized, and was surprised to get a calling to be in local leadership. When he accepted, he said his experience at church dramatically changed. Instead of feeling like he constantly had to prove his worthiness, he felt part of a "boys' club" of local leaders where groups of them hung out and bonded, shooting the bull, gossiping about who was making a power play for a higher leadership position. He felt freer than ever to do stuff like read Michael Quinn (who had already been excommunicated before the linked book was written), secure knowing that his friendships with so many local leaders meant no one was going to bug him about losing his testimony.
And he was like, come back, Bento, look at all this stuff I can say and do; stop underestimating how much room there is for you in the church. And I'm like, still a woman here, so no LDS leadership boys' club for me.
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:30 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Bentobox
I hadn't thought about the elderly situation but it is totally on point
Subversiveasset:
I would argue that the LDS move to a magerstial model means that the role of women has been systmetically diminished, and part of my riding that pony paticuarlly hard has socio-political positionatilies more than perhaps strict accauracies.
Also, this is a v minor thing, but I have been using they as a pronoun and not his
posted by PinkMoose at 3:36 PM on January 17, 2015
I hadn't thought about the elderly situation but it is totally on point
Subversiveasset:
I would argue that the LDS move to a magerstial model means that the role of women has been systmetically diminished, and part of my riding that pony paticuarlly hard has socio-political positionatilies more than perhaps strict accauracies.
Also, this is a v minor thing, but I have been using they as a pronoun and not his
posted by PinkMoose at 3:36 PM on January 17, 2015
And he was like, come back, Bento, look at all this stuff I can say and do; stop underestimating how much room there is for you in the church. And I'm like, still a woman here, so no LDS leadership boys' club for me.
This is a great story and I really appreciate you sharing it.
It really illustrates why you have to change the system to eliminate the racism, sexism, and other similar -isms. In the recent Ferguson-related discussions, the police have insisted repeatedly that they're not racist, so all is well. LDS priesthood leaders will say the same--I'm not prejudiced, I'm doing my best to be fair, etc.
The problem is that when you put people of good will into a slanted system, you end up with the racism, sexism, and other prejudiced outcomes automatically as a result of the system, even though individuals within that system are trying their best to create the opposite outcome.
If you really want to end racism and sexism, you have to change the system as well as individual attitudes.
Here is a nice photo showing most of the top leadership of the LDS Church. If you look at the photo, you'll notice a veritable sea of dark suits and ties. And w-a-y over in the corner is a small area of color. That is the (very) small group of woman leaders.
It's the perfect illustration of a system with a huge built-in bias.
posted by flug at 9:59 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a great story and I really appreciate you sharing it.
It really illustrates why you have to change the system to eliminate the racism, sexism, and other similar -isms. In the recent Ferguson-related discussions, the police have insisted repeatedly that they're not racist, so all is well. LDS priesthood leaders will say the same--I'm not prejudiced, I'm doing my best to be fair, etc.
The problem is that when you put people of good will into a slanted system, you end up with the racism, sexism, and other prejudiced outcomes automatically as a result of the system, even though individuals within that system are trying their best to create the opposite outcome.
If you really want to end racism and sexism, you have to change the system as well as individual attitudes.
Here is a nice photo showing most of the top leadership of the LDS Church. If you look at the photo, you'll notice a veritable sea of dark suits and ties. And w-a-y over in the corner is a small area of color. That is the (very) small group of woman leaders.
It's the perfect illustration of a system with a huge built-in bias.
posted by flug at 9:59 AM on January 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Coming Crackdown on Mormon Liberals: Feminists, gays and liberals are finding no welcome in the Mormon Church.
posted by homunculus at 4:15 PM on January 19, 2015
posted by homunculus at 4:15 PM on January 19, 2015
In flug's photo, please note the literal and symbolic evidence of how women are shunted to the side.
posted by BlueHorse at 11:01 AM on January 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by BlueHorse at 11:01 AM on January 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
I quickly realized that my earlier comment in this thread was pretty damned problematic, notwithstanding the disclaimer(s) that I attached to it, in an analogous-to-"mansplaining" sort of way, hence my subsequent abstention from this thread while it was an active conversation.
I apologize. Social grace is and has always been my dump stat.
subversiveasset
Certainly, if one were to limit oneself only to the sorts of actions that the church would be OK with, then one would probably never get anywhere with a movement...but that's not the church's problem.
My instinct is not to accept that assertion.
To me, the presence and management of dissenting opinion within a community -- any community -- is an attribute of that community, and therefore by definition a community's problem. Where the tools endorsed by the governing power prove unable to effect change, or seem structured to resist needed change, you can expect dissent to take a more strenuous (and less societally acceptable) form.
This was the pattern of the civil rights movement in the South. The tools endorsed by the (white) power structure were specially constructed to sequester black people from the most likely means of redress. This was why you instead saw sit-ins, boycotts, marches, and other means of non-violent resistance.
posted by The Confessor at 4:14 PM on January 20, 2015
I apologize. Social grace is and has always been my dump stat.
subversiveasset
Certainly, if one were to limit oneself only to the sorts of actions that the church would be OK with, then one would probably never get anywhere with a movement...but that's not the church's problem.
My instinct is not to accept that assertion.
To me, the presence and management of dissenting opinion within a community -- any community -- is an attribute of that community, and therefore by definition a community's problem. Where the tools endorsed by the governing power prove unable to effect change, or seem structured to resist needed change, you can expect dissent to take a more strenuous (and less societally acceptable) form.
This was the pattern of the civil rights movement in the South. The tools endorsed by the (white) power structure were specially constructed to sequester black people from the most likely means of redress. This was why you instead saw sit-ins, boycotts, marches, and other means of non-violent resistance.
posted by The Confessor at 4:14 PM on January 20, 2015
The Confessor,
While I don't disagree with the basic gist of the analysis, I think that the different parties in the analysis have very different goals.
For example, "community" is too broad. "Governing power" is more narrow, and (white) power structure of the governing power is more so. And for the white power structure, the fact that the system it created sequestered black people from the most likely means of redress really wasn't *its* problem.
Perhaps it's because when I talk about the "church," I use that as shorthand not for the entire community of believers, members, etc., but as shorthand for the leadership. So yeah, if the leadership has tools to minimize dissent, it's not a problem for it if dissent is therefore minimized.
Other folks are naturally going to go through other channels, but in both cases (white power structure, LDS church leadership), they aren't going to go down without a fight.
posted by subversiveasset at 12:28 PM on January 21, 2015
While I don't disagree with the basic gist of the analysis, I think that the different parties in the analysis have very different goals.
For example, "community" is too broad. "Governing power" is more narrow, and (white) power structure of the governing power is more so. And for the white power structure, the fact that the system it created sequestered black people from the most likely means of redress really wasn't *its* problem.
Perhaps it's because when I talk about the "church," I use that as shorthand not for the entire community of believers, members, etc., but as shorthand for the leadership. So yeah, if the leadership has tools to minimize dissent, it's not a problem for it if dissent is therefore minimized.
Other folks are naturally going to go through other channels, but in both cases (white power structure, LDS church leadership), they aren't going to go down without a fight.
posted by subversiveasset at 12:28 PM on January 21, 2015
Hah--I just came across the rant I sent to whoever was in charge of the LDS.org website back in the day. Every time one of these Mormon threads come up I think back to that little incident, and how prescient it actually was.
They had just launched a spiffy new 'corporate-style' web site with plenty of whizz-bos and shebangs, which meant that it took over 5 minutes to load (on a typical 1998 internet connect), at which point you were presented with a twirling, flashing graphic that said something like "Welcome to LDS.org. Click here to proceed!"
I won't bore you with the first few pages of the rant, but the conclusion is pretty spot on to what has happened to the LDS Church from that point to this:
Well, the last 16 years or so has indeed proven that the massive slowdown in the growth rate was very much in the near future. During much of the 20th Century, the Mormon Church was among the fastest growing in the U.S. and the world. But in the 21st Century, that is very much no longer true.
Reasons:
Well, pretty much all of those 'mission fields' are now opened up wide now, and the response in distinctly underwhelming. Nobody in (for example) the former Soviet Union is all that interested in joining a church whose primary message (besides a slightly idiosyncratic version of Christianity) is that America is the Promised Land.
FYI, as far as I understand many Christian denominations, particularly Pentecostal & charismatic type groups, are having very great success proselytizing in all the exact same areas that Mormons are gaining no traction at all. So it's not that some people in those areas are not seeking some kind of religious experience, but rather that the particular LDS flavor of it just simply isn't appealing to them.
And I apologize for a long rant at the end of a nearly-closed-up thread, but honestly the prospective of getting TWO 15-20 year old "I told you so"s into one single message was just far, far too tempting to resist.
posted by flug at 9:56 AM on January 26, 2015
They had just launched a spiffy new 'corporate-style' web site with plenty of whizz-bos and shebangs, which meant that it took over 5 minutes to load (on a typical 1998 internet connect), at which point you were presented with a twirling, flashing graphic that said something like "Welcome to LDS.org. Click here to proceed!"
I won't bore you with the first few pages of the rant, but the conclusion is pretty spot on to what has happened to the LDS Church from that point to this:
Just in case you missed it, the Internet Age is aboutOne of the ongoing flamewars I was involved in back in the late 1990s was some numbskull who was projecting h-u-g-e and inevitable growth for the Mormon Church, based on exponential growth rates in the mid 1900s. Enthusiastic LDS members had a hard time accepting the idea that exponential growth (by its very nature) has to slow down at some time or other and it is just every possible that some time was more in the near future than the far future.
* Open, two-way communication
* Finding the information you want, when you want it (as
opposed to finding the information some other nitwit
thinks you want, when he thinks you want it)
* Flexible, open, and responsive (as opposed to rigid,
closed, and unresponsive) organizations
As I said--good luck in surviving the Internet Age. Because, just coincidentally, in defining the Internet Age I also defined the exact antithesis of your organization as portrayed on your web page at www.lds.org.
Well, the last 16 years or so has indeed proven that the massive slowdown in the growth rate was very much in the near future. During much of the 20th Century, the Mormon Church was among the fastest growing in the U.S. and the world. But in the 21st Century, that is very much no longer true.
Reasons:
- Far more open culture, much harder to keep secrets, people can easily find out the secrets and (perhaps even far more important) are dismayed with organizations who are trying to hide the truth.
- Particularly this is true among young people, who (along with their young families) are the key to growth and vitality of any movement.
- The LDS church membership and theology is very, very America-centric. It always did appeal most to Americans, native Americans (the Book Mormon purports to tell the ancient history of the native American peoples, though the LDS Church is now somehow, awkwardly trying to back away from that claim, which was the very bulwark of their message and appeal from the 1830s through t 1980s). Outside the Americas, the Church appealed most to those who those who were America-oriented, wanted to immigrate to America, etc etc etc. Now that that period is over, they are discovering that the universal appeal of the Church to 'all the world' is very, very limited.
Well, pretty much all of those 'mission fields' are now opened up wide now, and the response in distinctly underwhelming. Nobody in (for example) the former Soviet Union is all that interested in joining a church whose primary message (besides a slightly idiosyncratic version of Christianity) is that America is the Promised Land.
FYI, as far as I understand many Christian denominations, particularly Pentecostal & charismatic type groups, are having very great success proselytizing in all the exact same areas that Mormons are gaining no traction at all. So it's not that some people in those areas are not seeking some kind of religious experience, but rather that the particular LDS flavor of it just simply isn't appealing to them.
And I apologize for a long rant at the end of a nearly-closed-up thread, but honestly the prospective of getting TWO 15-20 year old "I told you so"s into one single message was just far, far too tempting to resist.
posted by flug at 9:56 AM on January 26, 2015
« Older Stupid Sexy Four-armed Gorilla Dragon! | ACCESS FLASH Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PinkMoose at 10:57 PM on January 15, 2015