Causing Trouble at Church

[Integrating Editor]

This question and CPM's answer got me thinking about the disconnect between the church as a community and some more "progressive" views from general authorities. Even though President Uchtdorf's talk is presumably more authoritative than the manual, being seen as a troublemaker is probably the inevitable result of asking people to question the manual, and the manual is what far more people are going to study and internalize than Uchtdorf's careful wording.

I've gotten to the point where I rarely comment in church at all, and when I do, it's almost always to call someone out on something. I'm careful to be polite and to couch things in terms of my experience or my friends' experiences, and sometimes it's so subtle that the person doesn't even realize I'm contradicting them. I have had a few people get mad at me, but every single time I've spoken up, I've had someone thank me for saying what I did. They were just as uncomfortable with what was being said as I was, but they didn't feel like they could say anything or they worried about the backlash if they did.

I've asked a few different bishops to consider changing the wording the bishopric was using after the sacrament ("We'd like to thank the priesthood for the reverent manner in which they blessed and passed the sacrament and invite them to sit with their families/the congregation") because conflating the power of God with a few highly fallible human men is a serious problem for me, both theologically and personally. I had some friends mention how much difference that small change made for them, so I'm not the only one with that concern. (Seriously, in one ward, a guy who had often helped with the sacrament sexually assaulted my roommate. Having routinely heard him referred to as the priesthood and been told to honor the priesthood definitely didn't make reporting him easy on her.) Fortunately for me, I've been able to back up my requests with a few general authority talks where that usage has been discussed declared inaccurate. Even so, I once got told off fairly publicly for bringing it up, and the bishop suggested that I was nitpicking and looking for something to be offended about. To be fair to him, I got an apology later, and he and his counselors did try to make that change, but it was still pretty humiliating and shows why most people don't even try.

I've decided I'm willing to own that troublemaker label, even when it gets messy and uncomfortable, because it has helped people feel less isolated, less faithless, and less worthless when I've pointed out that some people deal with mental illness, that some people have far from blissful experiences with the temple, that some people have legitimate doubts and questions and unorthodox beliefs, that some people are uncomfortable with certain customs within the church community—and that we don't have to view these things as their fault.

[Zedability]

I agree so much with all of this. Having one or two "troublemakers" at church can make it such a more inclusive place for everyone.

[Craig Jessop]

Yesterday in our EQ lesson on temples, we had some doozies. One kid said that the Salt Lake Temple is earthquake-proof because it's sitting on a rock separate from the ground around it. He even "called the Church Office Building" to confirm the rumor (As an aside, I've known enough COB employees to be able to picture the phone call: "Hey, is this true?" "Yeah bro, you can believe that if you want"). And here I was under the impression that the SL Temple was sitting on particularly sandy ground, and that any earthquake-proofing came from the multi-million dollar renovation in 1993. But hey, that doesn't build a (fake) testimony, so whatever, I'm wrong.

More from the same guy: we know where Noah's temple was, and it's the most magnificent building ever built according to scientists, "like building a 747 with an exacto knife" (Really? It's more impressive than the Hagia Sophia? The Empire State Building? Even the Conference Center?). Also, the Hawaii Temple was almost bombed during Pearl Harbor, but the weapons malfunctioned, and the pilot is now a member of the Church living in Tokyo/living in Hawaii/living in Salt Lake (never mind that nobody actually saw any of this happen, and nobody has ever actually met the so-called pilot).

It was all I could do to not deck this guy, especially because everybody in the room was eating him up. I wasn't even sitting next to anybody who would make fun of him with me!

[Zedability]

Okay that's a completely different type of "causing trouble"

[Craig Jessop]

Ugh, I talked to this guy last night at Mutual, I mean FHE, to try to get to know him so maybe I wouldn't dislike him so much. Anyway, that didn't work. It just gave me motive to challenge him publicly.

[Zedability]

Okay, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just saw the title of this thread and not the body.

No matter how much this guy loves folk doctrine or how much your ward eats it up, out-there folk doctrine is a completely different problem than deeply ingrained, damaging cultural myths that are treated as doctrine. This thread is about how difficult it is to challenge these assumptions and make the Church both more accurate and more inclusive, even though recent GA statements support it, and how you end up being labeled a "troublemaker" and are accused of looking for ways to be offended.

This is a much deeper and more damaging accusation in this context than being the kind of "troublemaker" who calls out weird, but innocuous, folk doctrine in Sunday School. Some crazy myth about Pearl Harbor doesn't cause the kind of long-term damage to people's activity and testimonies. Hearing that anyone who goes less-active is lazy, when half your family is less-active, does. Getting in trouble for picking a fight over Noah's temple isn't the same as getting accused of looking for ways to be offended when you ask a bishop to use more accurate language to describe the priesthood because his current language is hurting your friend who has been sexually assaulted.

I recognize that this guy is frustrating to you, but this is not the same problem at all, and frankly it feels like you're minimizing the issue we're trying to discuss by conflating the two subjects.

[larry_wayne]

It looks like I have a few things to say, and somehow they ended up in a numbered list.
1. Somewhat tangential: I was surprised by the mention of the manual. It might just be that I’m not too familiar with how Sunday School lessons work outside of the youth world. Could someone explain the reference to the Howard W. Hunter book?
2. I’m going to echo the idea that the entire church could benefit from having people who are willing to actually speak their minds instead of going along with a status quo that’s damaging.
I remember my deacons quorum adviser talking to us boys once and referencing our future “spouses.” He immediately caught himself and clarified that each of us would have a wife—not a spouse. He was reinforcing the church’s views on marriage, but also (it seemed to me) making it very clear that in the church environment it was unacceptable to have different views or practices on the issue of marriage.
Another thing that I’ve noticed and think is relevant: people who consistently joke about “having to go see the bishop.” I’d like to remind people that counseling with the bishop in order to more fully repent of a sin can actually be a good thing that helps people who are dealing with serious sin. I’d like to tell everyone I don’t think it’s appropriate to joke about that in the way so many do. These jokes minimize the seriousness of the issue, and they could make it more difficult for someone to really go see the bishop.
However, I have never actually said these things at church. I’m hesitant to offend my peers, and I’m honestly not sure enough of my own views on these things to feel confident enough to speak up. I also don't necessarily know that these cases I’m talking about have actually been hurtful to people, despite the fact that they’ve bothered me.
3. On the question of the priesthood administering the sacrament: I paid attention in church on Sunday. My bishopric says “we’d like to thank the brethren of the priesthood.” However, I’ve also heard that line rendered as “we’d like to thank you for your reverence,” speaking to the congregation. That suggests that this situation is really just a formality that can take a variety of different forms. And yes, any other form is probably better than equating men with the priesthood they hold.
4. Craig Jessop, I’m sorry the things that guy says are bothering you. I hope you can resolve that in a way that works out for all involved. As for how, I'm just going to say I don't know.

[Cognoscente]

Zed: 100% yes.

[Portia]

I'm going to present a question in all sincerity: I like and respect Zed and people like her, and that's why we're friends, but she has absolutely no authority or "stewardship" over a ward, or the Church organization as a whole. I left because of what Christofferson and friends said, and I don't think I was morally wrong to take them at their collective word.

Is offering compassion in response to doctrine coming from the top really a long-term solution? To me, it seems structural, but having walked away gave me the luxury of not caring. Just thought I'd jump in to say that someone even well-meaning saying "well how I deal with sexism in MY workplace" or "here's a nuanced view of mental health" etc etc wouldn't have kept me in, ultimately. The people around me were fine. The Church wasn't.

[Integrating Editor]

Somewhat tangential: I was surprised by the mention of the manual. It might just be that I’m not too familiar with how Sunday School lessons work outside of the youth world. Could someone explain the reference to the Howard W. Hunter book?

Relief Society, Elders Quorum, and High Priest Group lessons come from different sources depending on what Sunday of the month it is, but some of them are based on a manual in a series based on the teachings of presidents of the Church. Each year, the manual is based on a different prophet's life and teachings. This year, it's Howard W. Hunter. Sunday School lessons focus on a different book of scripture each year, just like seminary.

And Craig Jessop, I try to keep in mind that to plenty of people in wards I've been in, I am that annoying kid with non-doctrinal tangents, some more harmless than others. Plenty of teachers have just moved on with their lessons as if I didn't say anything, and sometimes someone has contradicted me to make sure their view had been aired. That's generally worked out all right, where we can avoid direct confrontations with both sides feeling like they've gotten somewhere.

Portia, at least for me, none of this has anything to do with keeping people in the Church. I don't see myself as solving anything, just trying to alleviate some of the pain I see people going through. Working within the system by using general authorities' words when possible makes it easier for people to listen to what I have to say. There are certainly plenty of issues where sharing their words just isn't going to be helpful, and I have to get more creative.

[Zedability]

For sure, I don't want to imply that nobody would ever leave the Church again even if every ward perfectly reacted in these situations. Like Integrating Editor said, for me it's less about keeping people in the Church and more about mitigating the harm that certain aspects of the Church can cause people.

I think your question touches on the broader issue of where the line is between institutional issues and cultural issues, and I think people delineate that differently.

I would say that I consider ingrained, damaging myths to be an institutional issue, but it's one that can be fixed at least on a local level by recognizing it and stopping it. And in some cases - mental health not being a sin, the complexity of going less active, etc. - these myths have been debunked even at the top by Holland, Uchtdorf, etc. Which is why it's so frustrating when ward leaders get mad at you for pointing that out - at that point, it feels like it's also a cultural issue, and for me that's when I get a very clear impression that I'm not wanted here.

I also think that people have different priorities as far as what bothers them about the Church and what motivates them to stay in or out. So someone who has issues with what's being taught by the General Authorities today might find that that outweighs having an inclusive ward, whereas someone who has issues with their ward perpetuating stuff from the 70s that aren't taught today (but have fewer issues with modern GA teachings) would benefit from an inclusive ward.

[Portia]

Thanks for your responses, guys, I appreciate it.

I imagine it's challenging when there are rapidly vacillating Official-Official responses. And manuals from the 90s will likely appear more conservative -- so someone teaching that isn't like way out in woo woo apostasy land.

I read an article about the Republican platform. It was odd to realize it's closer in many ways (immigration notably excepted!) to the official policy positions of the Church than the stated beliefs of me and and my close friends.

I hope that you two can get institutional support for "making trouble." But I personally think that cultural inertia wins. :-\

[Whistler]

to me, it's not so much institutional support (because there are other members out there who agree that some of our LDS traditions are false)--it's more a way to bond with other members. But I'm in primary now, so I don't get as many opportunities to make trouble, which is less stressful overall for me.