More or Less Dissent Today?

[_truth dancer]

On another thread, John Larson wrote,

I just think you can get away with more criticism of the Church these days then say, in the 70s. Dissent is starting to creep in. More and more run of the mill members are not so comfortable with towing the party line.

I think it all began with the birth control debacle.

I'm interested in your opinions on this matter.

Do you think the church is more tolerant of criticism, disagreements, and unusual interpretations of doctrine/teachings/belief than in the past?

In the early days of the church would leaders allow such open criticism/dismissal of leaders? (Just his opinion... smile).

How about thirty years ago?

Are members more able to pick and choose what they want to believe?

Is the church actually losing control a bit?

What prompted the change if there is one?

Is it more difficult to believe it all these days?

It certainly does seem to me there are more and more "alternative" believers (smile), members who pretty much dismiss/disregard any teaching/doctrine/belief that doesn't fit with what they want. (Not to be confused with those who embrace their personal truth and incorporate/assimilate the church into their authentic beliefs).

What are your thoughts?

:-)


~dancer~

[_Some Schmo]

I don't know what it's like at church these days, but if I had to guess, there have always been people with alternative beliefs; I think people are just a little more open about than they used to be. I would say with the introduction of the Internet, more and more people are realizing they aren't alone in the things they're thinking.

But... you know... I'm just guessing.

:)

[_Jason Bourne]

Do you think the church is more tolerant of criticism, disagreements, and unusual interpretations of doctrine/teachings/belief than in the past?

I think the Church is less apt to discipline for sinful acts. I think that they are not tolerant of differing doctrinal views but are less apt to discipline do to concern over PR issues. Tom Murphy and Grant Palmer are two examples the Grant was disfellowshipped so I could be wrong. But I think there is little wiggle room to publically dissent over doctrine and I think there was a time when one could be more vocal of differing views on doctrine.

In the early days of the church would leaders allow such open criticism/dismissal of leaders? (Just his opinion... smile).

This is hard for me to tell. In the 19th century this seemed a mixed bag. Brigham said one should challenge and that he could teach false ideas and one should not take his word. Yet he chastised Orson Pratt over his teaching in THe Seer. On the other hand Orson stood right in Brigham's path over Adam God and had it not been of that it might be as much doctrine in the LDS Church as anything else is.

How about thirty years ago?

I think starting with correlation that Church has dumbed down the doctrine and is not as friendly about openly espousing varying views or deeper issues.

Are members more able to pick and choose what they want to believe?

Sure as long as they do not stand up and proclaim it loudly. I cannot bear testimony at church that I believe polygamy was false.

Is the church actually losing control a bit?

I think they have less control over life choices people make expecially with the younger crew who are marrying older and having fewer children and even delaying them.

Is it more difficult to believe it all these days?

For some yes for others no. I think the internet and the onslaught of available information has changed things. The Church is trying to roll with this and figure it all out. It will be interesting to see if they become more open-and I think we are seeing some of this-or if they clamp down.

[_Sam Harris]

I don't know what it's like at church these days, but if I had to guess, there have always been people with alternative beliefs; I think people are just a little more open about than they used to be. I would say with the introduction of the Internet, more and more people are realizing they aren't alone in the things they're thinking.

But... you know... I'm just guessing.

:)

Nah, I think you're right on point. The church is going through what the RC church went through when the Bible became available in the vernacular, books became available in print, and people started reading more...and for them that was just the beginning.

[_Blixa]

This is an interesting question, TD, and I'm curious how people perceive it. My sense is a bit like Jason's---that post correlation there is less room for dissent (understood broadly). The more I read about early 20th C Mormonism (especially in places like Southern Utah) the more it contrasts with the church today in terms of how various "doctrine" and cultural practices were lived. Of course, how individuals live Mormonism on a daily basis can vary a great deal and I'm not sure I would want to make a generalization about quantitatively more "dissent" then than now on that level.

[_Sethbag]

I think that it's more and more likely that people will take things like Noah's Flood not to be true, or accept evolution completely with all its ramifications, and hence not believe certain doctrines (such as that Adam ushered death into the world). I'm sure we're all familiar with that article by a Brother Parry (forgot his first name) just several years ago in the Ensign affirming that LDS members can be confident that the Flood of Noah was an actual, worldwide event that really did happen, as confirmed by revelation to the prophets in this dispensation. I think in decades past it was probably a lot easier for members to believe that, and that now far too more members would read that article and come away making the whole "well they didn't jump through all the hoops, cross all the Ts, dot all the Is to make this really, truly, honest-to-Kolob, cast-iron doctrine, so I'm just chalking it up as his opinion" argument.

I think the better understanding of science of many in the church is making a lot of these older teachings on the ancient history of the Earth less believable in general.

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.

[_BishopRic]

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.

[_Mercury]

The internet killed the Mormon personality cult star.

[_Sam Harris]

The internet killed the Mormon personality cult star.

New sig line.

[_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.