Conflict is the beginning of consciousness. – M. Esther Harding
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it. – Mahatma Gandhi
Whether you realize it or not, conflict is likely at the surface or bubbling just beneath the surface in your wards and branches. As the quotes above suggest, such conflict can be a positive thing if members have the abilities and skills to cope with conflict effectively. But, all too often, conflict results in negative consequences. From my personal experiences within the church and by seeing the conflict that is reported on the news every night, I believe that learning about how to best cope with conflict and how to help others do the same is increasingly important.
While I could focus on a variety of sources of conflict within the church, there is one source that I feel is (1) growing increasingly common, and (2) particularly challenging for members to cope with effectively. This source of conflict is diversity. But not diversity in terms of nationality or culture. Rather, diversity of thought, beliefs, and values amongst church members.
To explain this diversity of thought, beliefs, and values amongst church members consider the figure below. It depicts a continuum of thought, beliefs, and values that range from being rather orthodox (i.e., holding strong to church traditions and beliefs) on the left to being rather progressive on the right (i.e., open to new traditions and ideas). In older religions, such as Judaism or Islam, this continuum is often visibly apparent. Take Judaism for example, there are some very orthodox Jews that wear traditional black jackets/robes, a black hat, and have payot (sidelocks), and there are more progressive Jews that have taken on more modern traditions. Although less physically apparent, this continuum exists In the LDS Church, and there is commonly conflict occurring between members on either side of the continuum.
Let me provide several examples of where I have seen such conflict recently.
First, in my ward, a High Priest Group instructor gave a lesson about ministering to members who may be on the fringe. He focused on three different types/groups of people that might be considered on the fringe: single sisters, struggling members, and those with same-gender attraction. More orthodox members of the High Priest Group were not very happy that same-gender attraction was brought up in the meeting, and several went to the Stake President to complain.
Second, in an online forum, an individual stated that his Stake President recently informed his High Counselors that if they had facial hair, they needed to become clean-shaven. This individual asked whether there was anything in the Church Handbooks related to facial hair. In the comments that ensued, there came a very clear distinction in people that had more orthodox views and those that had more progressive views. Those that held more orthodox views promoted the idea of following our church leaders regardless of what they say, and those that held more progressive views promoting the idea that facial hair has little bearing on one’s ability to fulfill their calling and that perhaps the Stake President took his authority a bit too far. While I didn’t think the discussion grew too heated, there was clearly contention between the two camps.
Third, a few months ago, I was teaching a Gospel Doctrine lesson that dealt with the apostasy of members during the Kirtland era. In my lesson, I highlighted some of the reasons why this apostasy occurred, and focused the lesson on what we could learn from that era to help prevent apostasy in our current era. As I was discussing some of the reasons that led members to leave the church during the Kirkland era, conflict occurred in the class because, more orthodox members of the class were upset that I was focusing on what might be considered negative aspects of the church, instead of the positive aspects of the church. One such member stated that rather than focus on why people left, I should focus on why certain people stayed faithful. But, more progressive members of the class made the case that there are a number of people leaving the church, and to prevent this, we need to better understand why people are leaving the church, which may involve having difficult conversations.
Fourth, in August (2017), LDS Living (operated by Deseret Book) posted an article on its Facebook page that discussed the LDS Church releasing a statement in support of the LoveLoud Festival, which was a music festival promoting teen safety, especially amongst LGBT youth. Once again, the commenters largely fell into two camps. One camp seemed to take a more orthodox perspective and seemed against LDS Living posting this article because it dealt with the LGBT community. Even some commenters felt the church never should have released a statement supporting a group that focused on LGBT youth. The other camp seemed to take a more progressive perspective and congratulated the LDS Church for supporting the festival, and LDS Living for posting the article.
From these and other examples, I have seen how divisive conflict between members on opposite ends of the orthodox-progressive continuum can be. The purpose of this article is to ultimately bring members who think and believe differently closer together, not necessarily by changing their thinking and beliefs, but by helping members at either side of the continuum to better understand each other. I believe that with an enhanced understanding of each other there will come a (1) reduction of conflict, contention, and unwanted consequences of such within the church; and (2) enhancement of compassion, peace, and mutuality amongst members in the Church.
To help members on opposite ends of the orthodox-progressive continuum better understand each other, I want to discuss the following:
- Why members on the polar ends of the orthodox-progressive continuum think and believe the way they do
- Why orthodox members can have a hard time with progressive members, and why progressive members can have a hard time with orthodox members
- Recommendations for how conflict can be reduced between members at opposite ends of the orthodox-progressive continuum
Why Members on the Polar Ends of the Orthodox-Progressive Continuum Think and Believe the Way They Do
What leads members within the LDS church to think and believe differently from each other? While the answers are surely many, I want to focus on two individual attributes that strongly contribute to where members stand on the orthodox-progressive continuum. The first attribute is a dimension of personality called openness to experience, and the second attribute is a divide in moral values between community and individuality.
Identifying and understanding the differences among us has two primary benefits. First, it helps us to more clearly identify the value in the philosophies of those that think and believe differently than us. And second, it helps us to see the limitations or blind spots in our own philosophies. Together, such identification and understanding allows us to better relate to and understand each other, which is critical to us having charity for one another.
Personality
Personality traits are enduring characteristics representing our behavior, temperament, and tendencies. There has been much research on personality, and most psychology researchers agree that there are five primary personality traits (Big Five): openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). The personality trait that explains some of the difference between orthodox and progressive members is openness to experience.
Openness to Experience. Orthodox members have a tendency to be low on openness to experience, which means that they prefer things to be familiar, safe, and dependable. As such, they tend to be conventional and traditional in their outlook and behavior, they prefer familiar routines, and they generally have a narrow range of interests.
Progressive members have a tendency to be high on openness to experience, which means that they crave novelty, diversity, variety, and new ideas. They tend to cope better with organizational change and are more adaptable. As such, they value traditions less than those low on openness to experience.
A common bias that we all have is that we believe that what comes naturally for us is more valuable, important, or correct. This suggests that orthodox members (those low on openness to experience) have a tendency to overvalue convention and tradition, while progressive members (those high on openness to experiences) have a tendency to undervalue convention and tradition. So, when a topic such as ‘should men always wear white shirts to church?’ comes up, orthodox members are inclined to suggest “yes” because it is conventional, traditional, and safe (and perhaps because they assume it is policy). But, progressive members are going to be more inclined to say “no” because they enjoy variety, diversity, and are more adaptable.
Another more important way this difference manifests itself within the church relates to members’ approach to prophets and prophetic teachings. It is not uncommon for members high on openness to experience to be open to novelty, diversity, and/or change within the church. When such openness is expressed, those low on openness to experience often feel as though such openness is evidence of going against prophets and need for repentance. For example, my family has a fun story that we commonly joke about. Several years ago when the Ordain Women movement was in full force, we were having a family discussion amongst adult family members. In this discussion, I stated that I was open to the idea of women holding the priesthood. A serious response that was provided to this openness was the question: “Do you still hold a temple recommend?” (I did and still do). We laugh about this now, but at the time, what this family member failed to see was that one can be open to novelty and diversity while still believing in prophets, seers, and revelators.
Moral Values
Moral values are standards that we possess that guide our perspectives and decision-making, often related to good versus evil and right versus wrong. Throughout life, we are presented with options. When confronted with such options, we often rely upon our moral values for guidance. For example, when we encounter a homeless person asking for money, we are likely to lean upon our moral values to determine whether to give the person some money. We may cite our values for care and give money, or we may cite our values of fairness (they do not deserve my hard-earned money) and not give money.
One set of moral values that factors into the orthodox-progressive divide is community vs. individuality. Orthodox members have a tendency to place greater value on community and progressive members have a tendency to place greater value on individuality. While I present this as being polar opposites, it is important to remember that many members of the church fall somewhere on the continuum between the poles.
Community vs. Individuality. Members who highly value community value order within the community. They believe that members of the Church need to put their individuality aside and demonstrate their membership by conforming to the standards and norms of the Church. This value often comes with the attitude, “if you join our team, you have to play by our norms and rules.” This is reflected in the facial hair example above where members who value community articulated that members of the church should follow all of their priesthood leaders’ directions (often without question). Doing so helps promote order, and such order helps those that value community over individuality to feel safe and comfortable within the community.
On the other hand, members who highly value individuality place great value on individual agency, value, autonomy, independence, and self-reliance. As such, they do not feel like one’s goals and desires should be constrained by a group. They also believe that the worth of a soul is great in the sight of God, and that devotion and ministering is best done on a one-on-one basis. So, in the facial hair example, members who value individuality are going to suggest that having facial hair is an individual’s agency that has little, if any, bearing on the agency of others. As such, they are going to see little reason why individuals with facial hair need to conform to the norms of a larger group. Members who value individuality commonly feel that individuals within the church should not have to be different than who they are in order to be accepted.
Why Members on the Polar Ends of the Orthodox-Progressive Continuum Have a Tendency to Rub Each Other the Wrong Way
Orthodox and progressive members both feel the need to (1) be safe within the church community and (2) belong. But, the reason why conflict arises between those on either side of the continuum is because the differences in their personality and moral values lead them to feel safe and belong in essentially opposite ways.
Orthodox members feel most safe and most like they belong when members conform to both tradition and community. When everyone acts, looks, and thinks like each other, orthodox members feel (1) like they can trust each other, leading to perceptions of being safe; and (2) a strong sense of unity, leading to feelings of belonging. But, progressive members almost feel the exact opposite. When everyone acts, looks, and thinks like each other, progressive members feel pressure to conform and be different than who they are, leading to perceptions of feeling unwelcome, unsafe, and not fitting in, leading to feelings of isolation.
On the other side, progressive members feel most safe and most like they belong when members accept each other for who they are and are open to moving past (what they may consider to be) outdated dogmas. When everyone is able to be loved and accepted for who they are regardless of whether they follow tradition or conform to norms, progressive members feel like (1) they are safe being who they are; and (2) accepted (not judged). But, as eluded to in the previous paragraph, the idea of breaking tradition and individuality leaves orthodox members feeling like they cannot trust other members and are not united.
Altogether, it is not surprising that orthodox members view progressive members as being disrespectful and cavalier. And, it is not surprising that progressive members view orthodox members as being rigid and judgmental.
But, the good news is that it does not have to be that way.
Recommendations for Reducing Conflict Between Members at Opposite Ends of the Orthodox-Progressive Continuum
There is much information available for how to deal with or respond to a variety of different types of conflict. But much of that information is not necessarily designed to strengthen relationships or bring people together. If the LDS Church wants to be the stone that rolls to fill the whole earth, its members will need to understand more than just how to respond to conflict, rather, they will need to understand how to rise above conflict. The following recommendations are designed to help LDS leaders and members rise above current conflict, get in front of potential future conflict, and ultimately create an environment where members can live and cope with conflict such that it strengthens relationships and brings people together.
Singular Purpose
Conflict often boils over when individuals place greater emphasis on their differences than they do their similarities. Thus, to prevent conflict from boiling over between orthodox and progressive members, local leaders should promote a shared and unifying purpose. Such a purpose creates a cooperative conflict style as opposed to a competitive conflict style, and it helps members focus on the big and most important things as opposed to focusing on the little things.
Nothing confirms the power of this more than seeing how our country responds to disasters. When our country feels relatively safe, is seems like all we hear about is people in conflict, often conflicting about rather menial things. But, when a disaster occurs (think 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Boston Marathon bombing, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Las Vegas, etc.) people’s and society’s attention changes to focus on a common and shared purpose, and often the things that really matter.
What is interesting about the conflict between orthodox and progressive members is that they tend to hinge closely on organizational norms and standards as opposed to salvific practices and doctrines. Common divides often deal with outward appearances (e.g., white shirts for men, skirts/dresses for women, garment wearing, bikinis, etc.), outward actions (e.g., playing sports or going swimming on Sunday, listening to certain music, not going to Sunday School), or even inward orientations (e.g., same-gender attraction, having doubts about the church or some of its doctrine). Thus, to minimize unnecessary conflict and rise above such conflict, it is important to focus on higher-order purposes and salvific practices and doctrines.
Promote Diversity and Greater Openness to Diversity
In the book, The Big Sort, by Bill Bishop, he suggests that people do not expose themselves to diversity like they used to, and a consequence of this is poor thinking and greater conflict. Here is some evidence that people do not expose themselves to diversity like they used to:
- In 1976, less than 25 percent of Americans lived in places where the presidential election was a landslide
- In 2016, 80 percent of Americans lived in counties that gave either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton a landslide victory
In Braving the Wilderness, Brené Brown, uses Bishop’s book to suggest that we have geographically, politically, and even spiritually sorted ourselves into like-minded groups in which we silence dissent, grow more extreme in our thinking, and consume only facts that support our beliefs—making it even easier to ignore evidence that our positions are wrong. Of this, Bishop writes, “As a result, we now live in a giant feedback loop, hearing our own thoughts about what’s right and wrong bounced back to us by the television shows we watch, the newspapers and books we read, the blogs we visit online, the sermons we hear, and the neighborhoods we live in.”
Church leaders need to help members on both sides of the orthodox-progressive continuum become more open to hearing and understanding the perspectives of those on the other side of the continuum. Brené Brown states that “our lack of tolerance for vulnerable, tough conversations is driving our self-sorting and disconnection.” The reality is that members at either end of the orthodox-progressive continuum have very valid perspectives that are worthy of being heard. We need to create space for diverging thoughts, philosophies, and opinions because without such, we not only create a greater divide between each other, but we leave ourselves prone to incorrect biases, poor decision-making, and a lack of charity. Once we see that orthodox and progressive members both have something to contribute, they form a healthy balance between change and stability.
Stepping Beyond the Conflict
This last recommendation may be the hardest for members within the church. Our Church has some strong truth claims. It is ok to have truth claims, and I am surely not suggesting that we get rid of those truth claims. But, having these truth claims often leads members to take very strong and loud stances in favor of the truth claims and other beliefs that the Church holds that may not necessarily be “truth claims.” And, experts on conflict resolution suggest that such strong and loud stances may not help with conflict resolution and with creating an inviting atmosphere within our walls.
In a TedTalk on the Moral Mind, Jonathan Haidt states:
“If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between ‘for’ and ‘against’ is the mind’s worst disease… You can’t just go charging in, saying ‘You’re wrong, and I’m right.’ Because…everybody thinks they are right. A lot of problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are—understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we’re right—and then step out, even if it’s just for a moment, step out… Step out of the moral matrix, just try to see it as a struggle playing out, in which everybody does think they’re right, and everybody, as least, has some reasons—even if you disagree with them—everybody has some reasons for what they’re doing. Step out. And if you do that, that’s the essential move to cultivate moral humility, to get yourself out of this self-righteousness, which is the normal human condition.”
In her latest book, Brené Brown calls this stepping out ‘braving the wilderness’ (also the title of the book). Braving the wilderness is being able to step out of the battle, not initially taking a side, and stand alone with yourself in a place that might be uncertain, vulnerable, and open to criticism. (If you want honesty… because of the truth claims our Church possesses, we are not very good about being uncertain, vulnerable, and open to criticism, which actually fuels conflict).
Brené Brown goes on to state that paradoxes (think contrasting views between orthodox and progressive members) are part of the human experience, and that rather than avoid these paradoxes, she suggests that: “Only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life.” Stated differently, it is only when we come to accept the paradoxes that we face, rather than fight against them, that we can understand and have a fullness of life. Otherwise, we just have one side or perspective (or less) of life.
Thus, my last recommendation is not to avoid conflict or potential conflict, promote truth claims, or even just being open to diversity. Rather, my last recommendation, and the recommendation of conflict experts, is to step beyond the conflict. See the conflict from a higher level, where you can take in multiple perspectives and you can sit with those perspectives. Rather than try to promote the idea that (a) orthodoxy is the ‘correct’ side of the continuum (blue), (b) progressivism is the ‘correct’ side of the continuum (yellow), or even (c) somewhere in the middle is the best way to compromise (green), it means that we allow people to stand where they are, accept them for who they are and their unique perspective (as opposed to try to change them), and we understand their perspective. We need to remember that people can have more orthodox inclinations or more progressive inclinations, but still believe in Christ and sustain our Prophet and Apostles (even though it may seem foreign to someone at the opposite end of the continuum).
When there are disagreements related to the orthodox/progressive divide, we need to be able to talk civilly about those disagreements because where those disagreements occur identifies where more attention and conversation is needed. But, if we are emotionally reacting to what someone states, how someone behaves, or the stance someone takes, we are stepping into the conflict, not beyond it. We need to remember that what binds us together should be more than what we believe, it should be who we are, which should involve kindness, love, and encouragement, among other qualities.
Several months ago, Leading Saints released an article that I wrote on how leaders can help minister to Millennials. Since the LDS church (and all religions) is losing a meaningful number of Millennial members, this is a topic that needs greater attention and civil conversations. In an attempt to create attention and civil conversations on the topic, I wrote the article to bring people together to help retain the Church’s Millennial population. The response to that article was, let’s call it…interesting. You can read some of the comments yourself. The article was picked up and posted on LDS Living’s Facebook page, and the comments there were even more…interesting. What I observed as I saw the comments come in was the formation of two clear camps: an orthodox camp and a progressive camp. Each camp was emotionally reacting to either the article or each other. What few seemed to be doing (at least those that were commenting) is stepping beyond the conflict and seeking to understand the different perspectives that members had. Rather, they were engaging in conflict that only seemed to create a greater divide and little conversation about what really mattered (retaining Millennials), the exact opposite of what I intended.
Conclusion
Our society is definitely struggling with conflict right now, and the same could be said about members within our church, whether you see it or not. Such conflict is typically divisive and unhealthy. But, I believe in the quotes at the beginning of this article:
Conflict is the beginning of consciousness. – M. Esther Harding
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it. – Mahatma Gandhi
Conflict can spur us to become more conscious, and we probably won’t be able to avoid conflict moving forward, but we can improve our ability to cope with it. To do so, I have provided three recommendations:
- Focus on a singular and overarching purpose
- Promote diversity and greater openness to diversity
- Step beyond the conflict
It is also important to recognize that members, regardless of where they are on the continuum, all believe in Christ, they all follow their covenants, hold temple recommends, serve faithfully, give their hearts to God and others etc. What matters little is where someone stands on the continuum. What matters much more is where someone’s heart is.
It is my hope that this article will help local leaders within the LDS Church help those under their stewardship face and deal with conflict. Additionally, I hope that this article helps all LDS members to become more conscious and able to cope with conflict. Remember, as the stone rolls to fill the whole earth, it is only going to absorb increasingly diverse opinions and perspectives. As this occurs, it is my hope that we will focus on each others’ hearts and be less concerned about where one stands on the continuum.
I see the conflict more simple and basic. There are the “save ourselves” members and the “Jesus saves us” members, or the “do it yourselfers” in regard to earning Salvation versus the “Gracers” who rely on the Savior for Salvation instead of orthodox or progressive.
To me, all the other conflicts stem from these two positions. Having taught GD and HP Group and being a “Gracer”, I have been confronted by the other group and told I was flat out wrong and teaching false doctrine. The division seems to be drawn down this line.
Fortunately, here in Central Texas we have not had to deal with all of the issues you mentioned in your article. If you want to wear a beard, wear it. If you want a tattoo, get one. If you are Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and confused about your gender, keep it to yourself and don’t wear a name tag announcing it to the world. We also have gossipers, liars, cheaters, adulterers, members who view porn, and the list goes on. As for church history, I do not have a testimony of church history. I am a convert of 50 years and did not join the Church because of its history but despite its history with plural marriage. I believed then and still believe that this is where Christ is. If I begin to believe that the church starts worshipping at the altar of political correctness, then I will start again my search for Christ. I have two filters that help me with all these issues. 1. Is this essential to my salvation? and 2. Ask yourself, SO WHAT? When the new Priesthood and Relief Society lessons start in January we may very well have to discuss the issues you mentioned in your article when the 1st Sunday Counseling program begins.
The use of the word “Progressive” seems to be an inappropriate term, especially if you wish to build bridges. It is the ‘progressives’ who define themselves as progressive to make themselves appear to be more ‘enlightened’. Ordothox also implies a certain amount of judgment, in that it implies that those on this side of the spectrum are uncompromising. Personally, I don’t like to divide members in such a spectrum, it can by its nature be divisive. If such a spectrum is used, then I suggest the middle of the spectrum needs to considered. I would define the middle as “Tolerance and Openness” to all teachings, doctrines,etc., and this is where latter-day saints should reside. Latter-day Saints are by their nature are both questioning and trusting. Questioning is how we all began our testimonies. We call those people who the full-time missionaries are teaching as ‘investigators’. But after our baptism, we should not stop being ‘investigators’ of truth. The true disciple has an inborn questioning to know more but accepts it is line upon line, precept upon precept. In SS, P/hd or R/S class where members take different approaches to a problem, we allow open discussions as long as respect is shown to each other. After all, we are all at different stages along the path to eternal life. I can only speak for myself, but I sustain our ward and stake leaders even when I disagree. Rest assured in a ward or stake council meeting I have strongly expressed different views to my local leaders. But when the decision has been made I have sustained them. For example, I don’t believe latter-day saints should be celebrating Halloween. If the bishop allows it I will not stand up in Fast & Testimony Meeting declaring everyone to be heretics. I just won’t participate. But we still respect each other – no arguing, no
division. It is our testimony and love for the Saviour and each other that binds us. General Patten: “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”
What is of concern for those of us who have been in the church for a number of years and in our leadership have seen a number of people who would fit on the progressive end leave the church because they won’t sustain the prophets. We still see it now, i.e. Never Again. And we have observed the very orthodox leave because some practice is changed. I.e. temple ceremony, blacks the priesthood, etc. They may confuse practice with doctrine. THe orthodox have difficulty with tolerance (to them tolerance and acceptance is the same thing) and the progressive have problems with honoring authority. Hence some progressives want the church to be a democracy….with the policies being from the bottom up rather than being from the Lord down through prophets. At some time all will have to embrace and accept the “Lords way”. If we stay square with the doctrine, and follow the prophets we will be safe and we can come to common ground. I remember vividly one time when as a counselor in a bishopric in a single adult ward I noted in the handbook it said that the Bishopric could invite the Relief Society President to P.E.C. meeting. We found that very helpful in a single adult ward. Although it was approved in the handbook, our Stake President was very opposed and said, “in this stake we will not have the R.S. president in our PEC meetings.”
I still disagreed, but I stepped in line in conformity and have not regretted that I did. Unity was more important than individuality.
We all need to put the doctrine and the good of the church ahead of personal preference, whether we be orthodox, progressive, or somewhere in between.
Yes, you are exactly right. Do we believe in monarchs/prophets or do we believe in democracy/the-people? Who gets to rule? I tend toward the democracy side, because bunches of reasons. Am I wrong? No. Are you wrong? No. Paradox. In actuality, decisions flow both from the top down and the bottom up. It’s a dance. To deny one or the other stops the dance. In your example I would have likely taken the other path. Is that wrong? No. Did you do the wrong thing? No. Paradox.
This was a great read! I grew up in a long line of LDS-orthodoxy and have mostly been pretty orthodox in my thoughts and practice. I’m also a product of my generation, so I’ve questioned and even doubted and my faith is now more nuanced than ever. I’ve really come to appreciate the “progressive” perspective and have even embraced some progressive attributes. I’m serving as a bishop right now and I see the whole continuum within my ward. I’m probably viewed by others as rather orthodox, but anyone who takes the time to visit with me about the points of contention discussed in this article will find me rather open and more progressive than expected. There are some heart-breaking results of the conflict between orthodox and progressive church members that I’ve seen. I think articles like this help us realize that it is okay that we all exist as faithful members of the church. These kinds of articles also help expose us to each other’s perspectives and encourage the appreciation of the diversity. Thanks for the three recommendations. Well done!
I think your double arrow graphic is mislabeled. The left arrow should read; “Understands Sustaining Leaders”. The right side; “Does not understand Sustaining Leaders”.
Welp, it’s pretty clear where Mike falls on the continuum.
Here is where most of the issues that I see happen. There are members of the church who are completely faithful, hold TR, sustain the Prophets, yet can look at a blanket program of the church and think, hey if we just tweaked it here or there we could find some success. Or they suggest that proselytizing doesn’t do much good because if you look at the numbers we’re baptizing the same amount of people with 85000 missionaries as we did with 50000 missionaries – I wonder if something could be different. What about the idea that someone is called of God by the Bishop to a calling in the ward, then 2 months later and updated Call from God comes for that person. Or a Primary President who asks for more primary teacher and the Bishopric tells her to pray about it and submit names. Her revelation comes back and the Bishopric rejects all names, she tries again, again, no names accepted.
The two different camps will look at those situations very differently. In the instance of the person getting 2 callings in 2 months, they’ll say something like the Lord knew that person needed to be in that calling for 2 months before they’d accept the other, etc.. the 2nd camp looks at that and says, sometimes we’re just staffing positions doing the best we can to make a judgement.
The difference in the camps is the basic approach to how they view the Lord guiding the church, and the amount of human mortality that gets involved.
The main problem with the two camps is that one side holds the lock and key, stations people in watchtowers and reports any ‘odd’ behavior to the closest ecclesiastical leader. They are quick to want someone removed from a position for their ‘unorthodox-ness’ (oops I think I gave away my carefully neutral look at the camps) That person said XXX during Gospel Doctrine, I don’t think they say prayers before they prepare their lesson. That person said XXX during Young Women’s meeting I don’t think she’s a good influence on the girls. So here’s the clincher. The leaders, to ‘not rock the boat’ will remove, in general all cases the non-orthodoxy-conforming member rather than asking others to open their minds.
The results can be extremely difficult, it means certain people are never called to Presidencies, they are never asked to teach in the Youth program. They never, then, raise beyond that area as well. They do not get ‘promoted’ to the Bishopric, they do not sit on High Councils, and not Stake Presidencies, and then the cycle continues, this cycle continually reinforces a particular camp which emboldens their members to think that their way is the only correct way.
I used to be we say more variety in the General Authority level of things, but at this point, it is rare to see someone like a Hugh B. Brown, or a John A. Widstoe, B.H. Roberts, etc.. sit on the highest councils to help the other camp see that there is some light out there.
N. Eldon Tanner Oct. 1979
“We often hear the Church referred to as a democracy, when in reality, instead of being a church where the body is governed by officers elected by the members, the Church is a theocracy, where God directs his church through representatives chosen by him.”
Wow. Very helpful framework for helping me understand why I can generate emotional responses by simply bringing up some topics. Thank you!
Good stuff. Thanks. I’m a bishop caught in the crossfire. 🙂
One discussion that often occurs is the difference between doctrine (immutable and unchanging), dogma (things some think are doctrine that aren’t), and practice (how we live our faith, like FHE, HT now ministering, etc.). My experience is that orthodox/traditional members are more likely to put dogma in with doctrine (like beards, taking the sacrament with the right hand, etc.) Practice and policy change with time (ask anyone who’s 57 how long missions are supposed to be). I conducted a baptism yesterday where a mother and a grandmother were the witnesses to their child’s baptism. It was quite moving.
Progressive members are sometimes dismissive of orthodox members, thinking they’re blind followers and don’t scrutinize anything, i.e., a GA said it, I believe it, that settles it.
At the end of the day, what we agree upon is that Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, He loves us all, and the Atonement is real. The saving ordinances are key to our religion. If we can all agree those things and be more tolerant of each other, things run much smoother.
Most of the reasons I see conflict are dogmatic…was Joseph Smith a prophet? We all believe that he was the prophet of the restoration. The conflict comes disagreement from just when was Joseph a prophet, and when he wasn’t. Clearly, he wasn’t all the time, and while we revere him, we certainly don’t worship him (or shouldn’t). The truth is often somewhere in middle. Infallibility is for popes, not prophets.
I have a dear friend who left the church because of the JS Papyrus, which with modern scholarship has shown to be flawed, even by church scholars. He felt like he had been lied to for forty years. Orthodox members believe it is true and translated correctly. Many progressive members dismiss it. I’m in the middle. It may not be factual, but it beautiful and true. I’m okay with ambiguity at this point in my life.
The Handbook is just that — a guide. Some consider it scripture. I tend to look at it as a great collection of guidelines that help me manage my ward. A close read shows often statements are couched with caveats when it comes to practice: “Generally, it is not acceptable to do [X].” Generally means there are exceptions with most guidelines. At the end of the day, we should be listening to the Spirit to decide what’s best for the member at that point in their lives.
Example: we are told not to broadcast meetings. I agree, in general practice. But we had a sister who was homebound for a few weeks. I put my phone on the pulpit so she could listen to the talks. It seemed like the right thing to do. It blessed her life. If I had followed the Handbook to the letter, that member’s life would have been less rich.
Anyway, I’m rambling. Let’s keep trying to create one Zion, where there are no manner of -ites.