In the previous post on my blog Dehlin and Bennett Put on Notice, I was surprised that the discussion of April Young Bennett’s resignation of the board of Ordain Women, instead of John Dehlin’s pending excommunication. (Incidentally, Dr. Nancy Ross of Dixie State University in St. George, Utah and Jessica Finnigan at King’s College London are conducting a poll asking about opinions about Mormon feminist activism and some of the recent changes in the LDS Church.)
The discussion turned to the question of (1) proper terminology in talking about Ordain Women, and (2) how to appropriately agitate for change. For example, some commenters felt that April’s comment that the LDS church was guilty of “censor[ing] ideas” by forcing her to resign her position in Ordain Women. There is a sentiment that the term “censoring” is an inflammatory term that conjures images of book burning, which the LDS Church clearly doesn’t do. However, the dictionary definition includes the ideas of
1) an official who monitors books, plays, news reports, etc. For the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political or objectionable grounds. 2) any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
It seems that the LDS Church is suppressing ideas here, and is certainly supervising the morality of Mrs. Bennett. Is “Censorhip” an appropriate term when the church attempts to discipline church members with respect to Ordain Women?
Some think Ordain Women should be classified as an apostate group, yet Elder Christofferson recently responded to a question about Ordain Women and those members who support Gay Marriage, saying
“There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it,” Christofferson said, “if that’s your belief and you think it’s right.”
Any Latter-day Saint can have a belief “on either side of this issue,” he said. “That’s not uncommon.”
How do we respond to LDS members who are so adamantly opposed to Ordain Women or Same Sex Marriage? Is it good enough to merely point to Elder Christofferson’s statement?
Wheat & Tares 
I actually found Elder Christoffersons comments rather unhelpful. What he said was:
1. As a church we have not yet decided where the line is in this type of issue
2. Feel free to support such issues if you genuinely believe in them
3. Members hold polar opposite views on this issue
4. It is not uncommon to see such polarised views.
His subsequent comments relating to public advocacy don’t seem to capture the nuances and complexity of people’s position and stance on LGBT issues.
Thanks for the clarity….
I’d rather not have agitation (contention) in the church. Let every man or woman support whatever cause he or she wants to while in the public square, but when we come to worship on the Lord’s day, well, let’s come and worship. Please, leave public policy disputations in the public square where they belong.
Those who question the church are usually questioning doctrine, practice or history. These questions are almost never directly addressed by the brethren. However similar but faked questions to make them either seem ridiculous or to make them easier to answer are sometimes addressed. The brethren are far more concerned with maintaining and defending a milieu of celebrity one way top down (nearly) infallible communication spiced with occasional token soft ball questions taken from starry eyed TBMs in small groups. Any questions no matter how logical or prayed over they might be will be censored if they even remotely appear to challenge this top down authority (sorry, wrong venue for that question, sorry no time for your question, etc.). In other words simply asking is considered an act of war and automatically engages an asymmetrical response that dodges both the question and the answer while censoring the questioner and calling their faith and sincerity into question for having simply asked! The censorship increases with the tenacity of the questioner(s) until apologists smear the questioner and excommunication is reached. In practice one’s faith in the gospel is largely irrelevant, one’s loyalty to the brethren and willingness to blindly follow and blindly defend them is everything.
The appropriate way to agitate faithfully is to live a Christ-like life, serving others, not failing prey to ridiculous make-up ideas of the past, knowing what you know for yourself, putting all things in the proper perspective and have some respect for those who might have a opposing views.
In that manner you are setting an example and teaching others to do the same without trying to shove change down people’s throats.
#2,#4 – “Nuthin but Net”.
In III Nephi 11:29 the Savior makes it quite clear that HE isn’t inspiring ‘contention’. Yet Paul the Apostle (whom the Savior himself to inform that it was HE that the then-named Saul was persecuting) did admonish Jude to ‘contend’ EARNESTLY for the faith. Ain’t English wonderful with its double meanings?
There comes a point of accepting things in humility. I like to have all the answers and get mine own way. Who doesn’t? I can ride a Gospel hobby-horse as well as anyone, and have tried to steady the ark so often I ought to have enough of its outer coating rubbed off to tempt Auric Goldfinger. I’ve found in some 36 years of Church membership that if I wait patiently, I get my answers: IAW the Lord’s schedule, not mine.
Elder Christofferson’s answer was sufficiently vague and loaded with qualifiers as to give effectively no cover to supporters of gay marriage or ordaining women. What is the line between supporting and promoting? Between private and public? Between taking a position contrary to the position of the brethren and coming out in opposition to the brethren? It will quickly turn into a question of intent and tone, with the local leader as the ultimate judge of the person’s heart and motives. I would be shocked if there was a single bishop or stake president who believed that Ordain Women was an apostate group but changed their mind based on Elder Christofferson’s remarks.
JI, I think far too many people view agitation=contention.
I don’t think they are the same. Zelphehad’s daughters agitated to get a blessing from Moses. The Parable of the Unjust Judge is about a widow who wearies the Judge. Emma was agitated at the tobacco spit, and we got the WoW. Even in the Book of Mormon Manual, it says,
It is important to make our will known to the Lord, but I think that our leaders, like the Unjust Judge, need to be importuned as well.
If the gospel is supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, agitation should be par for the course. Of course, that means agitators should also question their own motives or they are just trying to operate within their comfort zone too.
Am I the only one who thinks it clear that Hinckley was praising a *lack of* agitation rather than suggesting agitation? I know this isn’t fully on point, but the way people have hijacked that word as a sales pitch to their own purposes sort of gets under my skin.
MH,
There is no comparison between the private pleadings you cite from history and the agitation (contention) commonly spoken of today. I believe most sincerely in the efficacy of private pleadings.
Jeff G, I agree with you on Hinckley’s intent with the “agitation” quote. I don’t think any of the general authorities believe in faithful agitation. Hinkley was speaking to outsiders, wanting to give the impression that members are free to speak up and agitate for change. But I don’t think he believed that, or that any general authorities have ever taught that in the last 50+ years.
The unjust judge has found a new way to end the pleas of those below him. He now redirects all unflattering communication back to those leaders below him and instructs those leaders that “they face out”.
Joel,
“Hinkley was speaking to outsiders, wanting to give the impression that members are free to speak up and agitate for change.”
I don’t even think he was saying this! I think he was saying that women are happy in the church because we’re doing the right thing…. and that’s it. I don’t see anything else that can safely be inferred from his statement.
To back off a bit, Hinckley did not say “..because we’re doing the right thing” either. It is an interference that I am myself making, but I think this inference is at least as defensible as the exact opposite one that the activists try to make. The main point is that Hinckley’s statement provides no justification whatsoever for faithful agitation.
And yet, Jeff G, the idea that women are all 100% satisfied with everything, including polygamy and Pres. Benson’s “back in the kitchen” admonitions, is of course not true at all. Any woman who’s been paying attention in RS over the last few decades will know that faithful sisters are still not 100% happy with the gender roles crammed down our throats since time immemorial.
JI, Jesus certainly didn’t privately plead with the Pharisees and Sadducees. If we are to follow Jesus, we should follow him in ALL THINGS. I’m just trying to agitate like Jesus. Well, maybe I’m not trying to get crucified, but there is no question that Jesus not only agitated, but pissed off the Church leaders with his agitation.
Hawk et al. – to get perspective on this in a (slightly) different area, recall the WWII editorialist Bill Mauldin. His ongoing characters “Willie and Joe” were hugely popular with the troops. Not so with Lt. Gen George S Patton – at one point, Patton had the famed cartoonist in his office and threatened to toss him in the stockade for spreading dissension among his men. The famed cartoon duo Patton deemed as “G#d$#3d bums!” Mauldin DID have respect for Patton’s generalship, but also said “the old bastard was crazy”. A difference in perspective between the ‘citizen-soldier’ and the ‘lifer’.
So in many ways the Church hierarchy, inspired and all, exhibit bureaucratic and corporate cultural behaviors. It’s been my observation of most GAs, though, that they mostly seem to be quite affable and loving men. And if some DO have quirks, it just shows what the Lord can do in spite of the weaknesses of MEN (sorry, sisters, I’m leaving you all on your respective pedestals…)
The children of Heavenly Parents know that a little agitation is always needed to get holy garments clean.
MH: Jesus ended up on the outside of Judaism by my reckoning. Just sayin’.
Hawk, are you saying the current LDS leaders are as corrupt as the Pharisees, and maybe they’re acting the same? Should we just start a new church like Jesus, because this one is too apostate? (I wasn’t going that far.)
To agitate faithfully one needs to add water, perhaps heated or hot, some detergent to lower the surface tension, and a little bleach might be needed in some cases. And over time things to be moved, stirred up, twitched and impelled.
The church after all is a washing machine.
MH: Seems to me that there are seasons to every religion. Its formation which is revolutionary, followed by centuries of bureaucracy and self-preservation.
Soft-soap required then wreddyornot?
Unfortunately, that just isn’t something I’m good at.
Part of the necessary backdrop here is that a time-honored tactic of those with vested interest in the status quo is clearly to suppress agitation of all types. Struggling with Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail I think is necessary for anyone who is pushing the “now don’t agitate too much, it isn’t polite” angle. OW claimed the Tabernacle and the Priesthood Session as the public square. They asked to enter respectfully since it was public meeting declared off limits only due to gender. The nature of all agitation for change is to make people face uncomfortable truths. Anyone that thinks that eventually we would have politely desegregated the south or that the church would have eventually, politely welcomed our black brothers and sisters simply doesn’t have a fundamental grasp of history. Those are strong words but I will stand by them. Show me one instance of those in power int he status quo giving up their power without such agitation and we will talk. Like seriously one.
No, H, flattery is not at all involved in a genuine cleansing agent and cajolery is not a substitute for a substance that breaks down surface tensions and permits dirt to be washed away.
I was thinking of tone.
Maybe we should go back and read the Book of Enos to find out how to agitate faithfully. It only took him one day to get his answers.
Glenn
H, got it. Analogies are always flawed, but I enjoy playing with them. Most cleaned cloth that’s old can use some fabric softener. The apology discussions all over the place come to mind.
Rah
have you sacrificed your masculinity to the feminists?
When Hinckley said, “it could change, but there’s no agitation for it,” the implication of that statement is that agitation for it would be an accepted thing and could even potentially lead to a change in policy or doctrine. I think that was the implication he intended the non-Mormon reporter to take away. It’s similar to when BYU defended not having caffeinated drinks in their vending machines by saying there was no demand for it. The implication is that the policy has the support of the population, and that a change in that support may lead to a different policy. But it’s a message to outsiders.
Insiders are supposed to know that agitation is a no-no, and that policy is top-down, not bottom-up. But when you make public statements implying that you really do take into account your members’ views and opinions, then I think it’s perfectly okay for members to go ahead and express their views and opinions publicly. That’s the consequence of having contradicting public and private messages in this day and age.
Surely the point is that there is no approved way to agitate faithfully, except at the local level. The local leaders also have no communication with the church leadership so can not influence change, even if they agreed with the need for change.
With modern communications, there must be a way to achieve this. I sent an email to the office of the president of the US and got a personal response, answering my question. That office has many times more potential callers than the COB.
There needs to be a way to communicate faithfully, and believe someone heard you, or there will be public agitation of those who feel they are not heard.
If there had been productive meetings between OW and COB there might not have been need for public protest. Even then public protest is still a means to encourage the other side.
We need a North Korea rule. If our stance is the same as that of North Korea, we should reevaluate it.
Douglas: #2,#4 – “Nuthin but Net”.
Me: #2, #4 – “Shut up and Don’t Bother Anyone.”
That’s no way to run any human organization, which (like it or not) the Church is. We can be courteous, we can be respectful, be can organize our thoughts and words, we can be credible, but in matters of conscience we cannot be silent.
Martin Luther would be turning over in his grave.
hawkgrrrl,
Do you see the leaders of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the same light (or darkness) as you see the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?
When we take up a position that our leaders are unquestionable and can’t be criticized and that any dissenting opinions are automatically wrong, and everyone has one eye on SLC for approval before they will simply do what is right (hoping that COB will agree first), then we have a N. Korea problem, whatever the cause.
I don’t think North Korea should be used in this setting.
I think its best to treat the church like we would family members we love when difficulties arise.
Divorce is sometimes the only option for individual who agitate to the point of unfaithfulness to covenants. John Dehlin may be an example. But even in divorce the parties can be kind to one another.
This is, IMO, strictly a question of how potential converts perceive us. I could care less what we think as insiders. When we look & sound too authoritarian, we need to correct it, or we will die on the vine. Our leaders aren’t fragile flowers in need of protection (perhaps unlike N. Korea’s leaders). When we treat them as such, that creates an optics issue for non-Mormons. They are skeptical of us and our church. We start to look like a cult.
“I don’t think North Korea should be used in this setting.” Isn’t that what North Korea would say?
I think North Korea is a very poor metaphor to use in context with the church. I lived in Korea for many years and based on my experience I find it a poor comparison.
What do you think of using the Us Senate or even the SCOTUS for your argument? It’s a better fit in my opinion.
Which Korea did you live in Jared? You lived in North Korea?
Hawk – for someone who spent a considerable time in the Far East you seem to know little (or deliberate ignore) the nature of the DPRK (aka “North” Korea). Ask the families of the late Capt. Bonifas and the late 1Lt. Barrett what THEY think of the “democratic principles” shown by the DPRK to their fallen beloved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident
Just a smidgen of the ‘enlightenment’ that the DPRK has shown under the Sung dynasty.
NEVER has the counsel come down to obey the LDS leaders WITHOUT questioning like a murderous Communist regime would require of its subjects. It’s demeaning and insulting to infer that blind obedience (which I don’t advocate myself) would place the members of the Church in like jeopardy.
MH-I lived in South Korea.
North Korea is probably the most evil regime on the planet. The people of North Korea are viewed as animals (like cattle) by their leaders.
None of the values we hold as Americans are esteemed in North Korea. Any thing that sets a North Korean apart (intelligence, talent, beauty, and etc) are owned by the regime and can be drafted into service of the regime when and how they see fit. If a North Korean decides not to cooperate with the regime they and their family are subject to the cruelest kinds of treatment imaginable.
Jared: Clearly my statement isn’t about real evil or corporal punishments as reprisals for dissent. Unquestioned dictatorships with fawning citizenry would be the parallel as indicated above.
hawkgrrrl-
You made my point. North Korea doesn’t have “fawning citizenry”. That’s why it is a poor metaphor. At least that is the way I see it. Enough said. 🙂
I use Paul as my example. He preached a strong new gospel and talked about leaving the Old Law behind by everyone. But when the Spirit moved him as he returned to Jerusalem, he went through the rituals of the Old Law as requested by his priesthood leaders. I can’t imagine how it chafed! The main takeaway _for me_, is that I try really hard to rely on the Spirit regarding my involvement in or with any group. I don’t know what would happen if I was officially asked by a leader to not be a Democrat or something. But I would use my relationship with the Holy Spirit as a deciding factor, very strongly. Do we think the official priests in Jerusalem would have condoned Nephi’s actions? This is why the holy spirit and learning how to use personal revelation is so important.
Jared, check out Lisa Ling’s video about the fawning North Koreans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4#t=612
North Korea DOES have “fawning citizenry”. That’s why it is a good metaphor. (Or if they aren’t fawning, they are jailed.) Enough said.
#46 – OF COURSE the ones privileged to appear in video footage are ‘fawning’ over the ‘Dear Leader’. That’s just it! This is more than a somewhat weird application (“Juche”) of Communism. The Soviets under Stalin and the ChiComs under Mao were both in very much a ‘personality cult’, something that Mark and Lenin both would have vigorously opposed. We can ‘thank’ ol’ Nikita Khrushchev for having “De-Stalinized” the USSR, his banging-of-shoe-on-table and playing nuclear brinksmanship when outnumbered HUGELY in nuclear assets notwithstanding. Amazing what a drunken peasant can accomplish in life. Likewise with Chairman Deng, who quietly got rid of the ‘Gang of Four’ after Mao’s ADMITTED death (some experts conclude that Mao actually died sometime between 1966 and 1976, as an ex-OSS operative who worked with the Chicoms during their part of the war with Japan accompanied Nixon’s delegation and told the President that the man was NOT Mao). Though his tankers liked to play ‘Chicken’ with protesters in Tiananmen Square, the man did bring ‘raw, naked, old-fashioned’ capitalism so we could buy their cheap crap at Walley-World.
The Sung (First Kim-Il, then his son Jong-Il, now grandson Jong-Un) dynasty is more a monarchy without the crown, robes, and scepter. Aside from MANY obvious differences between this misbegotten monarchy and the Nine LDS Presidents since the formation of the DPRK in 1948, you don’t see any semblance of a dynasty in the upper echelons of the Church. It’s interesting to note that relatively few of the founder’s descendants are in the faith (the Community of Christ would, of course, disagree), and though dear ol’ Brother Brigham undoubtedly has a few in the Church today, the only one I can recall is the erstwhile 49er quarterback.
In short, we WORSHIP Jesus Christ, NOT His duly appointed servants.
Jared: I think you would enjoy this article I read about a week ago. There were some real parallels to how some Mormons defend Mormonism and attack competing ideals (and how some North Koreans defend N.K. and attack American/foreign ideals). http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/what_it_was_like_to_teach_essay_writing_to_north_korean_graduate_students.html
hawkgrrrl-
Thanks for the link. I see the parallels-interesting. Human nature at work. I think the students in this article were among the elite. Probably children of those in the regimes power structure.
Jared: Yes, that certainly could be, given the type of education they were granted access to receive. The article really surprised me, honestly. I expected them to be simply cowering in the shadow of authoritarian leaders, but in reality, they bought it lock, stock & barrel. Their own identity got wrapped up in their civic pride. Which I think really does have parallels to why leader worship is so insidious and hard to stop. Do I think Oaks wants to be worshiped and never contradicted? No, not really. I think he’s confident in his views, but doesn’t seek to squelch dissent. And yet, we seem to have a N. Korea problem in terms of how we come across. That article goes a long way toward explaining it, IMO.
I think that there are a lot of people who would like to be able to worship without having to worry about politics. They are largely the ones who are agitating right now, because the pain and derision that go with doing so are less bad than what they, or their loved ones, already experience in the LDS church every day.
I think that as long as this fact is ignored in discussion about them, it isn’t going to go anywhere. And I think that a lot of people are willfully blind to it, and that there are a lot of ready excuses to dismiss others’ pain or say they brought it on themselves. When the people who make these excuses don’t really know and don’t care to find out (but will then say we should give maximum benefit of the doubt to church leaders who cause others harm).