Standing up together to Make a Change within Mormonism.

[Guest]

I recently discovered this website and I have a question which I’d like to ask, but before I ask the question let me first explain what caused me to ask it.

Yesterday I listened to Mormon Expressions recent interview with an anonymous bishop. This Bishop has many concerns about Mormonism. Maybe it was the combination of secrecy and fear that got to me.
http://mormonexpression.com/2011/02/03/episode-110-an-discussion-with-a-current-bishop/
This interview disturbed me for many reasons, but I’ll address 2 of them at this time, before asking my question at the end:

1. He is not able to come forward with his concerns in an environment that would welcome or support debate and discussion, but instead he is forced to remain in secrecy. This is a typical complaint and problem which I’m aware of. Listening to it on this interview externalized an actual voice to the problem in a way that touched me differently.

2. He is engaging in mental gymnastics to such a degree that if I could have been able to cry I sincerely would have. At any rate it made me very sad. Halfway through the interview it becomes clear that his desperate attempt to justify Mormonism’s past and present is to introduce his own personal method of looking at everything about Mormonism symbolically rather than literally. He doesn’t understand how people can take it literally and wonders why interpreting it symbolically is a stretch for many. It was similar to listening to a child scramble to come up with a method of reasoning to answer something that is well beyond their ability to grasp or come to terms with. Yet their need to explain concepts causes them to come up with answers and ideas. As I listened to his mind attempt to justify the incongruence’s I finally had to turn it off and could not listen to the entire interview. It was too painful to hear. My own process through Mormonism was slightly different, yet listening to his externalized my own and allowed me to see it in a different way.

This was heartbreaking not only because he couldn’t make sense of the in congruencies and had to come up with unorthodox inventive ideas, but also because Mormonism doesn’t create a format for an opportunity to discuss such things openly and without fear of some type of fall-out, causing his secrecy and obvious internal dilemma and discomfort.
This made me question if there are options and what are they.
It is only a matter of years, or decades at most, for the many, many historical and present incongruences and deceptions to be heard and felt by more and more members. This is inevitable. People who operate from a place of intellectual logic soon discover the many holes in Mormonism that can’t be plugged and that aren’t logically answered by leaders; if even attempted to be answered by the current apostles of the Mormon church.

Here’s where I begin my questions.

Wouldn’t it be wisdom for President Monson to come forward and address specific issues facing Mormonism in an open Q and A ?

Wouldn’t it be wise for Pres. Monson to offer alternatives within the Mormon system for dealing with such concerns?

I’m convinced that the above action would help Mormonism in the long run. It would not only smooth over many relationships caused by current inactivity and questioning, but it would also bring these issues to the Mormon membership in a presidentially ‘controlled’ environment; rather than having it thrown upon members through word of mouth or on the internet; leaving them to more secrecy and lack of answers from the prophet.

This led me to wonder what would motivate LDS members to stand up and come forward by requesting the President Monson to address the serious issues plaguing the Mormon church. As a spokesperson for Jesus, within the Mormon structure, doesn’t he have a responsibility to step forward and take a leadership position in this area? I do believe if many, many people stood up and petitioned for change and answers it could certainly not do any more harm than this silent secrecy (from fear) that people like the Silent Bishop endure.

How can members like the above mentioned Bishop join together and rise up and be heard about specific issues, or stand up and request some specific changes to create a better Mormon environment.

What would it take to challenge and motivate members internationally to write the President asking for answers to specific questions and change toward specific areas of the LDS system or operation? To provide an environment without this sort of secrecy that damages people individually, and in relationships, I think a few changes that could be petitioned for and protested against, are changes within the system to replace the old Mormon system which is not healthy for a family or a religious organization and will likely be the Mormon church’s undoing.
What are some of the areas that could be petitioned for change?

An environment that allows open discussion has to have sufficient threat of fear removed wherein that freedom can grow and blossom. The main areas I see that need restructuring, which would quickly release fear and dysfunctional relationship environments within the church system are as follows:

- remove priesthood interviews and courts. This will help remove fear causing shame, guilt and secrecy which is damaging individuals and families. Leaders could still have conversations with members, upon members request and approval, but remove specific “worthiness” questions. Enmeshing members and leaders in the traditional format is causing ugly secrecy which will not withstand the number of people that are starting to educate their Mormon friends and family.

- Remove the focus of fear of obedience not only by removing the traditional style of obedience interviews, but also changing the focus of the laws of obedience and responses to them:

- tithe interviews are removed. Teachings such as tithing could begin to be approached through less forceful means. Every six months the members could receive a pamphlet which gently teaches an understanding of the members personal financial role in the system and making personal choices to tithe, and the amount tithed, rather than an obedience fearful approach. Fear of obedience or disobedience will ease up and a greater sense of independence would set in.

Likewise the focus on other specific rules should be changed to instill a personal sense of cause and effect rather than a sense of fear of disobedience. Counseling and interviews/discussions could replace the commandment doctrines allowing young and old to discuss the effects of living a responsible lifestyle – not out of fear of loss of reward but out of common sense toward what is associated with a Mormons clean lifestyle, thereby removing much of the secrecy and fear surrounding disobedience in interviews concerning chastity or words of wisdom, tithing or serving in callings.

- commands to attend Sunday services needs to be removed. This obedience/disobedience creates a division of contention among family members who do not want to attend each week and those who expect that they do; plus it would release a need to control based on fear, thereby help remove some of the fear tension when family members do not want to attend. A sense of love and acceptance could be taught instead, which would make a happier family environment. Members should be encouraged to attend church and meetings because they want to, not because of a “rule” to serve and attend.

- Couples should be married civilly before the temple marriage without exception. If this were changed it would open the Mormon system to embrace everyone into what Mormons consider the greatest institutions – marriage, family – rather than to alienate non-Mormon, or non temple attending family members or friends from such an important Mormon event as a marriage ceremony. The amount of social problems within inactive families, or non-member families, that would be avoided in such cases would foster a better environment of unity within family and community. It’s my own personal experience and conclusion that The Families Forever Temple teachings are merely a ploy to control and keep people in obedient line through hope of reward and ritual obedience. This is clear when one realizes that the specific family unit cannot possibly live together as a unit indefinitely in this life much less the next. Each person grows up, moves away, and has their own unit therefore living with each other in the same house throughout eternity in a celestial kingdom is as unlikely as living together in the same house throughout the length of a human lifespan on planet earth. Since it’s presumed in doctrine that they will all go to the celestial kingdom the sealing itself becomes an irrelevant non-issue because they will all be in the same location. Sealing therefore doesn’t appear to be anything more than another manipulative fear/reward teaching method to keep people obedient in this life. Removing, or at least tweaking, this heavy doctrine would release the tension of fear or lack of reward based on temple family together forever doctrines, as opposed to the carrot-dangling ritual it has become. The way it’s currently approached doesn’t make sense therefore the focus can be dropped and in so doing releases and removes much tension between couples and parents who expect obedience based on a lack of this heavenly reward as opposed to an environment that encourages and promotes healthy productive caring and kindness for no other reason but the reward of an inclusive family free of the trappings of fear, guilt or shame to obey a ritual that doesn’t even make sense on an eternal viewpoint. Becoming sealed together doesn’t magically qualify a Mormon for a celestial kingdom, but a focus on living an ethical, upright kind and caring life should. If the focus were shifted toward the latter then the former would automatically happen without the sealing ritual; which as I say is null and void anyway under the lack of caring and embrace often found within the social environment of the manipulative dogma.

- Open discussion should be encouraged without any fear of repercussions; with No threat of having common rights or privileges removed or typical fear of threats of anti-mormonism. This would release the tension that exists between spouses and family members who do have questions and disagree with specific doctrines or methods taught within the LDS system. People like the Bishop could have a marital and family relationship far less burdened by difficult expectations and shame based coercion. People like this Bishop could release the secrecy because there would be no more fear attached. In an open environment where discussion is welcome members could address the benefits they receive from their social structures within the LDS system while also feel safe to hold their own opinions without repercussions. If acceptance and genuine love were taught then an embrace of differences could be the focus rather than isolation because of differences and a focus on conformity due to fear/reward/loss.

Traditionally the Mormon church has relied on secrecy to keep members in the dark about the complexities behind the Mormon System. The secrecy of the bishop in Dehlins interview is an overwhelming example.
If there is relatively little loss then secrecy becomes unnecessary. The loss of a family unity appears to fly in the face of a Family Forever message; but the traditional teaching message only serves to ostracize and distance, rather than include and embrace in a practice of genuine spirit of caring and understanding. Again, if there is acceptance and welcoming within the LDS system to discuss differences and opinions then secrecy becomes unnecessary.

If the prophet, acting as a mouthpiece for Jesus which is his Mormon calling and job, addressed the main differences in an open Q and A with members he could address the main problems within Mormonism and open a way for a better church system.

What would it take to motivate those still attending, or with Mormon family, or exmormons to stand up to the prophet Monson and ask for changes and answers through personal petitions and letters and as a united group?

How could a strong movement be launched?
Would exmormon movements be able to band together and petition President Monson and all of the apostles to meet at an exmormon foundation Q and A session where these specific concerns were addressed on behalf of those members who still have to navigate their family interactions around Mormonism?

Would we as a mass project unified in one direction be able to convince newspapers to run an article describing the foundations desire to meet with the President and the Mormon apostles and thereby use a littler public leverage to possibly bring some action on this subject?

If there is no letup in the request and petition this could be an excellent opportunity for the Mormon leaders to come forward and disclose problems and present remedies to the general Mormon public.
What are your opinions on this?

What would involve the undertaking of personally, and as a group, putting forward a project and goal toward the above agenda?

[_Called2Swerve]

Change = Failure

[_GlennThigpen]

What would involve the undertaking of personally, and as a group, putting forward a project and goal toward the above agenda?

Start your own church and run it the way you think it should be run. Declare yourself a prophet and insist that Monson is a fallen prophet and is not God's chosen mouthpiece.

Glenn

[_Fence Sitter]

What would involve the undertaking of personally, and as a group, putting forward a project and goal toward the above agenda?

Start your own church and run it the way you think it should be run. Declare yourself a prophet and insist that Monson is a fallen prophet and is not God's chosen mouthpiece.

Glenn

Under what circumstances, if any, would the members of a church (any church) have to right to ask for change within the church?

[_Hades]

SF, welcome to the board. You have some good thoughts. The church has gotten a lot of mileage over the years by using fear, shame and guilt. I don't think there will be a change unless the church starts hemorrhaging members. The church will only change if it has to. Fear brings in a lot of tithing dollars and they really don't want to take a hit in the pocketbook. I think it would be difficult to get members or dissenters to band together. There is too much bad stigma attached to dissension. Nobody wants to be "that guy" within Mormon social circles. The indoctrination runs deep.

[_ShadowFax]

SF, welcome to the board. You have some good thoughts. The church has gotten a lot of mileage over the years by using fear, shame and guilt. I don't think there will be a change unless the church starts hemorrhaging members. The church will only change if it has to. Fear brings in a lot of tithing dollars and they really don't want to take a hit in the pocketbook. I think it would be difficult to get members or dissenters to band together. There is too much bad stigma attached to dissension. Nobody wants to be "that guy" within Mormon social circles. The indoctrination runs deep.

You’re right, I was probably too optimistic.
If a hemorrhage is needed to help create a change then how do I help move that along?
I recently saw an advert for the newly formed exMormon education program that places a webring advert on the internet but I haven’t donated yet.
Now I will, if it will help. If I can find the donation link again.
Do you know if this forum has a direct link to donate to that project? I haven’t seen here it but may be I’m not looking in the right place. Thanks.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I want to go on the public record as strongly opposing any church or movement of any kind in which the dominant -- or even prominent -- emotions are fear, shame, and guilt, and which is based upon indoctrination.

[_ShadowFax]

[
Under what circumstances, if any, would the members of a church (any church) have to right to ask for change within the church?

Many churches encourage their members to participate with input. That's how many protestant groups introduced women clergy and welcome gays within their church system. It came from membership debate.

If your family is falling apart due to lack of acceptance toward an inactive or unhappy family member I'd say this would constitute a right. Or more specifically this is where the unhappy family member feels as though they have no right or input and in this case suffers from a system which doesn't nourish an environment for them.

Do church members have any rights?
Should they have any rights?

[_Quasimodo]

I want to go on the public record as strongly opposing any church or movement of any kind in which the dominant -- or even prominent -- emotions are fear, shame, and guilt, and which is based upon indoctrination.

I take it that you're not a Mormon, then.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I take it that you're not a Mormon, then.

I am. And very, very happily so.

But I don't recognize the church that many of you describe.