More or Less Dissent Today?

[_The Dude]

As far as open dissent though, well I doubt it. If my bishop perceived that I was sharing my views with any other members in the ward I think I'd be hauled in for some discipline.

Such courage you display sharing your views anonymously here.

Good thing crock is a lawyer and not a detective, because if he was a detective, he would have figured out Seth's full name by now. It's not that hard.

[_truth dancer]

As far as open dissent though, well I doubt it. If my bishop perceived that I was sharing my views with any other members in the ward I think I'd be hauled in for some discipline.

Such courage you display sharing your views anonymously here.

Bob,

Rather than just criticize a poster, perhaps you could share your opinions?

~dancer~

(I'm still thinking you could just post your statement as your sig line and you would save yourself a lot of time)! ;-)

[_rcrocket]

As far as open dissent though, well I doubt it. If my bishop perceived that I was sharing my views with any other members in the ward I think I'd be hauled in for some discipline.

Such courage you display sharing your views anonymously here.

Bob,

Rather than just criticize a poster, perhaps you could share your opinions?

~dancer~

(I'm still thinking you could just post your statement as your sig line and you would save yourself a lot of time)! ;-)

My opinion is that I don't think much of anonymous posts which plainly conflict with what a person does in real life. Which is his "real" opinion? What he does in real life, or here? I am constantly harangued here about my private life, and told that my posts here are inconsistent with what a real bishop should say and do. Thus, you all believe as I do -- we should act consistently between our real and Second lives.

On the point of the original post, dissent was tolerated far less in Joseph's and Brigham's day than today. Read the journals of Clayton and Nuttal, who were secretaries to one or both of these men. People were excommunicated frequently for dissent - probably the main reason for excommunication in those days.

Today, you can probably count on the fingers of two hands all the people of whom you know who were excommunicated for public dissent. People of character today usually simply withdraw before they are excommunicated.

[_Jason Bourne]

Today, you can probably count on the fingers of two hands all the people of whom you know who were excommunicated for public dissent. People of character today usually simply withdraw before they are excommunicated.

Personally this anonymous hypocrite thinks it is sad that the Church feels a need to excommunicate for dissent. Oh sure some dissent maybe. But open and honest discussions about real and substantial issues can still get one in hot water. Bob do you really think that is a good thing? What kind of character trait requires such actions?

[_moksha]

Any chance that they Church may in the future seek to pare down its rolls through greater enforcement of doctrinal purity? What if President Packer ascended to the First Presidency? Might he appoint Bob Crockett as his Torquemada in charge of rooting out anonymous cowards?

People of character today usually simply withdraw before they are excommunicated.

That way they can still be counted on to help swell the official number of members.

[_truth dancer]

My opinion is that I don't think much of anonymous posts which plainly conflict with what a person does in real life.

Really? I never knew this! (wink)

Which is his "real" opinion? What he does in real life, or here? I am constantly harangued here about my private life, and told that my posts here are inconsistent with what a real bishop should say and do. Thus, you all believe as I do -- we should act consistently between our real and Second lives.

Maybe you could start a thread about this? Actually, I have no qualms about people expressing different aspects of themselves in different situations. I do think there is honor in living an authentic life but I do not think this means every situation requires exact same behavior.

I do think there is a point to be made about people acting inappropriately in certain situations or demonstrating what most consider to be indecent, nasty, or cruel behavior towards others.

On the point of the original post, dissent was tolerated far less in Joseph's and Brigham's day than today. Read the journals of Clayton and Nuttal, who were secretaries to one or both of these men. People were excommunicated frequently for dissent - probably the main reason for excommunication in those days.

Yeah, I was wondering about this. It seems folks in the early days were getting Xed all the time for hardly any reason whatsoever, OTOH, I seem to recall statements where the leaders approved of discussion.

Today, you can probably count on the fingers of two hands all the people of whom you know who were excommunicated for public dissent. People of character today usually simply withdraw before they are excommunicated.

Yes, I think fewer and fewer folks are getting Xed these days, OTOH, it seems like quite a few members are not buying the whole LDS story. I get the sense early members believed more fully than the vast majority of members today. What is your impression?

I am continually surprised at how many folks no longer actually believe what I thought used to be the foundational claims of the church. Lots of folks cherry pick the teachings and seem to hold the prophets and leaders as nothing more than an organization head.

Seems to me, so long as one doesn't speak out they are free to believe whatever, and in fact I think the church would rather them stay, even as non-believers than have them off the records of the church, (that whole numbers thing).

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

Yes, I think fewer and fewer folks are getting Xed these days, OTOH, it seems like quite a few members are not buying the whole LDS story. I get the sense early members believed more fully than the vast majority of members today. What is your impression?

I don't agree. The Church is a church of miracles, which follow them that believe. Miracles are additional proofs to the believer of the authenticity of the Church. Unfortunately, this Board is not the place to cast pearls before swine. Somewhat a conundrum -- how can one use miracles and testimony of them if not in a place like this?

[_harmony]

I think there's been a bit of a roller-coaster with dissent. From what I've read, there was much dissent in the early days, and as long as it didn't directly interfere with Joseph's direction, it was tolerated. There was even some acceptance of other's visions and dreams back then.

Then after correlation, things tightened up. The muscle flexing of the leaders in the early 90s with the scholars' excommunications was an attempt to homogenize the members, I think.

But with so much recent information being available to members that contradicts the party line, and the declaration "The Glory of God is Intelligence" backs the church into a corner a bit. In other words, it can't suggest that good science and research is a bad thing, so as it happens, it must loosen the reigns a bit to save face.

Plus, ultimately, the church needs members. So if it gets too strict, the base goes down, and that's never good for the coffers or the PR. I anticipate it will continue to loosen the reigns a bit with more "that was never doctrine, just man's opinion" sorts of statements.

Just my 2c.

Huh. What a novel thought: the church needs members. The church, as in church leaders, always deal with members as if it's the members that need the church, not the other way around.

As for the dissent idea, I think Pres Monson will crack down and crack down hard on anyone who publically or even semi-publically challenges the leaders' interpretation of doctrine, policy, or any derivitive thereof. I think he thinks Pres Hinckley was too soft on those who would steady the ark. (I think Pres Hinckley was much more cognizant of the importance of good PR than Pres Monson is). Contrary to his public persona, I don't think he's the marshmellow he plays in public. And if he is, then someone is running the church. Packer or Oakes, most likely.

[_John Larsen]

I think there is definitely a limit to tolerated dissent. If you are too vocal, or vocal at the wrong time you will get punished. I believe you are less likely to be ex-ed, but that may be a different discussion.

My original thought is that there is more tolerance for dissent in thought. I gave the example of birth control. 30 years ago, dissent on this view would not be tolerated. Couples with few children or who delayed children would be reprimanded by their leaders. This still happens today, but only in the margin. Let us be clear: in my opinion the Church has never backed down from the position that birth control is wrong. There new, less draconian position can only be inferred from silence.

Most members, in my opinion tolerate dissent on this position. I have seen it even openly expressed in Sunday School/Priesthood. Most members including leaders will not look down on families with only 2 or 3 children.

This expression of dissent is common in the following areas:
birth control
card playing
Caffeinated sodas
wearing short garments
R-rated movies
Stay at Home Mothers/Day Care
etc.
etc.

Let me restate, these are areas that members feel comfortable openly expressing dissent about obedience. Others, like alcohol, still have 0 tolerance.

[_Jason Bourne]

As for the dissent idea, I think Pres Monson will crack down and crack down hard on anyone who publically or even semi-publically challenges the leaders' interpretation of doctrine, policy, or any derivitive thereof. I think he thinks Pres Hinckley was too soft on those who would steady the ark. (I think Pres Hinckley was much more cognizant of the importance of good PR than Pres Monson is). Contrary to his public persona, I don't think he's the marshmellow he plays in public. And if he is, then someone is running the church. Packer or Oakes, most likely.

Reasons and or evidence to conclude such?