Questions for Clark Gobel

[_moksha]

I read today in the Salt Lake Tribune how Clark Goble was talking about change in the LDS Church, and I wanted to ask a few questions about his suggestion.

Clark said, “If liberal Mormons want change, it’s really hard to see how anti-authoritarianism brings it to them. Their best bet isn’t to agitate for change, but to persuade. . . . Agitation past a certain point really is no longer about persuasion but is more about hurting the church.”

So here are my two questions:

1. How do you persuade members without being accused of leading them into apostasy?

2. How does persuasion reach decision-makers in the Church when they seemingly exist within a bubble?

[_Rosebud]

Here's how I took this problem on:

1. I organized hundreds of Internet voices (progressive Mormonism was a lot smaller back in 2011, there weren't as many of us online) as they weighed in on crowdsourcing some shared values that we thought conservative Mormons and progressive Mormons could all get behind.

Here they are:

Shared Values Statement

1. We acknowledge the richness of Mormon heritage, teachings, and community in all of its diversity.

2. We believe that one can self-identify as Mormon based on one’s genealogy, upbringing, beliefs, relationships, and other life experiences, regardless of one’s adherence or non-adherence to the teachings or doctrines of any religious organization.

3. We seek spaces where we as Mormons can live lives of intellectual and spiritual integrity, individual conscience, and personal dignity.

4. We acknowledge and honor different spiritual paths and modes of religious or non-religious truth-seeking. We respect the convictions of those who subscribe to ideas and beliefs that differ from our own.

5. We recognize the confusion, distress, emotional trauma, and social ostracism that people on faith journeys often experience. We seek constructive ways of helping and supporting people, regardless of their ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation or activity.

6. We affirm the inherent and equal worth of all human beings. We seek spaces where Mormons (and all people) can interact as equals regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. In this spirit of egalitarianism, we prefer non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical means of organization and affiliation.

2. I organized in-person comferences across the United States meant to make it safe for believers and unbelievers to sit side-by-side and share their commonalities. Every event began with a reading of the Shared Values. People would get up and bear their testimonies of disbelief alongside people bearing their testimonies of belief. Most considered attending a very different and rewarding experience.

Many "important" (meaning they have known names and status) Mormons said things like, "Wow, something new is happening in Mormonism. This is really good."

3. I recorded and publicized the events until "important" (again in quotes because I believe everyone is important but there are only a handful of people who truly carry that status) believing Mormons who had influence on the authorities felt safe participating as keynote speakers. The events were safe enough for them that they weren't worried about the harm their affiliation with the disbelievers might do their reputations. "Important" straight Mormons sat alongside gay Mormons and angry ex-Mormons and listened to their stories without fear of retaliation from the church. It all seemed pretty revolutionary at the time.

There was a chance......and then it was over. If the above had continued instead of the big public lies and manipulations, who knows where we'd be today.

[_Rosebud]

I intentionally chose this strategy because my thoughts after several years of observations of Mormons were similar to Kish's here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50041

I reasoned that all that I needed to do was create a way to make it socially safe to affiliate with people from the opposite side of whatever spectrum (belief, sexuality, etc.), create a highly emotional environment that encouraged stories and tears, and pull in some influential "important" people to feed the Mormon craving for authority.

I think I hit the nail on the head.

[_Gadianton]

I read today in the Salt Lake Tribune how Clark Goble was talking about change in the LDS Church, and I wanted to ask a few questions about his suggestion.

Clark said, “If liberal Mormons want change, it’s really hard to see how anti-authoritarianism brings it to them. Their best bet isn’t to agitate for change, but to persuade. . . . Agitation past a certain point really is no longer about persuasion but is more about hurting the church.”

So here are my two questions:

1. How do you persuade members without being accused of leading them into apostasy?

2. How does persuasion reach decision-makers in the Church when they seemingly exist within a bubble?

Clark's a good guy, and unfortunately his leaders don't have his ethics.

wonder what the middle part said, with just the first and last, not sure if he's saying liberal's will have better luck with persuasion, or if he's just noting that their agenda is really to hurt the Church rather than change it.

[_Rosebud]

I just realized I should do make a Wayback Machine capture of this webpage. That's done now. It looks like there were another ten or so previous captures. So, nothing new. But at least I'm sure this can't get completely lost now.

http://www.mormonstoriesgermany.org/sha ... statement/

[Guest]

Does Clark not know how his religious leaders operate?

They have stipulated that they don’t want to hear from the members.
They have stipulated that members should be obedient, even if they think their leaders have got it wrong.
They have excommunicated anyone who openly and publicly registers a desire for the leadership to change direction.
They have a track record of changing, but only when member or external activism becomes a serious threat. Unless or until it becomes a serious threat, they do nothing.

I can only think that Clark, who is reputed to be a ‘good guy’, is being wilfully self-delusional.

Members of the Church are discouraged from making telephone calls or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal issues or personal matters.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... =1#21.1.24

Members who need spiritual guidance, have weighty personal problems, or have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves.

[_Dr Exiled]

It's pretty much impossible to change the brethren from the inside when they define "answers" to prayer that go against them as always being wrong. So, the "inspired" member can't even get out of the gate without a presumption of trying to lead the church down a wrong road. Although maybe Holland would like the wrong road suggestion. He likes equating going down wrong paths as God telling him something.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, Clark is both exactly right and completely wrong here. He is right inasmuch as he recognizes that the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. He is wrong to think that persuasion is going to change anything about it.

But he is not as misguided as those who seek to reform the LDS Church. If you want to remain Mormon, the best way is to strike out on your own. Don't expect anything from the LDS Church. Don't expect not to be excommunicated if you are vocal about your differences with the leaders of the LDS Church.

Look at Sam Young. He was absolutely in the right, but his method for effecting change was bound to end in his excommunication. What does he want here? He wants to change the LDS Church. I don't know. Maybe if enough people throw themselves in front of the cannons over time things will change. I think it would be better to just abandon ship.

As far as I can see, the LDS Church has abandoned any semblance of legitimacy. Why wait to worship God according to the dictates of your conscience? Be a Mormon now in the way you think is right. Don't expect the LDS Church to catch up to you in the next couple of decades.