Changing The Church The Church Through Changing The Culture

[Give It Time]

If anything would fall under the province of the NOM, it would be this. I know many of us reach the very healthy point where we just accept the church as it is and make ways to maintain limited contact for familial peace or make an exit plan. However, there is the thought that as long as we're here, might as well...

However, I am of the opinion that the doctrines do influence the culture. For instance, if an organization lays down such a policy as the November 5th policy, there will be members who will use that policy to mistreat and shut out gays. Yet, there is nothing in the policy that instructs members to be cruel to our gay spiritual siblings. However, the policy, in and of itself is cruel. Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of leaders coming down and putting a stop to the mistreatment. This is where letting them govern themselves becomes an insidious copout. However, this is a church that doesn't tolerate abuse in any form and using the doctrines and policies to be cruel to one another is spiritual abuse. So, this is supposedly just as much against church policy as two gays marrying. Yet, I certainly don't see anyone facing church discipline for making a statement so cruel it drove my friend to suicide. My friend was taught correct principles and allowed to govern himself. it's not their fault he chose suicide.

The way I see it, that cruelty should have had consequences. If two gays can face excommunication by going against church policy, then members should certainly face some sort of discipline for spiritual abuse. Now, if this were to happen, probably 80% of the callings would not be filled, because no one would be worthy. The church would break down. I maintain this probably needs to happen, because by allowing this to continue, the Brethren are giving their tacit approval and, therefore, implying culture is doctrine.

In my conversation with the bishop, yesterday, we talked some about culture-vs-doctrine. He believes the cultural tent needs to be enlarged. He believes true doctrine needs to be taught, but there needs to be room for respectful discussion and other opinions. I agree, but I also believe that, taken overall, the doctrine and my the culture are the same thing. That is something I learned as a NOM. Mormons in the trenches don't see how A leads to B leads to C and so on. They just see that Z is nothing like A and call Z culture. Yet, Z is the eventual outcome of A. So, if you don't want Z, you need to change something in the alphabet and that's changing the unwritten order of things.

However, we are seeing areas where members are simply starting to ignore some aspects of our doctrine/culture. Earrings is a example. Cola another. I believe tattoos will fall by the wayside sooner rather than later. Even though the WofW is part of the temple recommend interview, I think more and more people will look at the science, read the intro of 89 where it states this isn't meant to be a commandment and come to the conclusion coffee and tea are healthier than soda and start ignoring that part of 89 along with the part about not eating meat.

I'm not looking for widescale change, anymore. I'm not really looking for any. I don't care too much most of the time, anymore. However, I do think earrings is an excellent example of something that was cultural, was considered an aspect of modesty and the members ignored the counsel, because clip-on earrings are agony.

Part of the reason I even want to address this is I have experienced, first hand, the difference simple empathy makes. I have had two recent experiences: one empathic and one mild scolding (though well intended). Since I've been practicing awareness, I was able to see the difference between my behavior after each episode. Yes, I should own my reactions, but it is more work to return to a blissful state after a scolding than empathy and science has proven we only have so much will power. I do want to work with the bishop on increasing empathy and understanding on this and I do believe he sees me as an ally.

So, I'm beginning to see a place for myself in my ward and a way I could be useful and I'm seeking a calling where I'd like to experiment, but if the bishop sees another place I could put my background and experiences to use, I'm willing to go there.

The church is changing. We NOMs and marginalized aren't going anywhere. If anything, we'll grow in number. So, my question is what are your views of the members changing the church through changing the culture? Is it even possible to budge that needle. If so, how much? Is it even worth the effort?

I could go on for quite awhile with that list of questions, but I'd rather open the discussion.

[Phil Lurkerman]

I don't comment much, but feel moved to weigh in on this one.

I hope you are able to assist with some small positive change in your corner of the vineyard should you so choose, but in the big picture nothing is going to change. So, no, the needle will not be budged. And no, it is not worth the effort.

And yes, I am old and cynical.

[Give It Time]

I don't comment much, but feel moved to weigh in on this one.

I hope you are able to assist with some small positive change in your corner of the vineyard should you so choose, but in the big picture nothing is going to change. So, no, the needle will not be budged. And no, it is not worth the effort.

And yes, I am old and cynical.

I think you're so right on the whole thing. Thank you for the good wishes, though.

Like I said, the way I see it A leads to B... Many members very optimistically believe that those initial letters could never lead to Z, but they do. They honestly do.

[Give It Time]

A little of my Taoist perspective.

Imagine a stream flowing over a smooth stream bed. Pleasant, calming. However, the water is a little too still. It's a little bit brackish. Throw in a small stone (or even place it in quietly) and the water now flows around that stone. The overall course of the stream has not been altered, but some change in how that water flows within that section of the stream has been introduced. With the added movement, the water becomes a little purer and, to describe it poetically, the water starts to sing.

We could all be stones in our streams.

[Corsair]

The church is changing. We NOMs and marginalized aren't going anywhere. If anything, we'll grow in number. So, my question is what are your views of the members changing the church through changing the culture? Is it even possible to budge that needle. If so, how much? Is it even worth the effort?

I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic. I am more inclined to simply make my life more livable for me. I look at the career of John Dehlin and I'm certainly happy for the success and progress that he made. But the pace of change is so glacial and I see little reason to spend effort on an organization with such a thin benefit.

[Give It Time]

God...
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
The courage to change the things I can.
And the wisdom to know the difference.

Basically, I've learned this means, I can't change others, but I can change myself.

I agree and I'm remaining optimistic.

The reason for this is I'm here, anyway. Might as well be productive, even if it's just taking out the trash. I'd rather not be idle (and I'd rather not be sitting in a lesson).

[Palerider]

Referring back to the '76 priesthood revelation. From what I have read many of the "brethren" knew that something was going to have to change. There was enormous pressure from both inside and outside the church on that issue. But leadership could not be seen as buckling to the forces surrounding them. Thus they had to wait for a time when it seemed no one was currently talking about the inequity of the ban and it was only then when they chose to take up the issue and make a decision. In other words, "We'll pretend to do this when we think nobody's looking.

The announcement came kind of out of the blue for most folks which was exactly what leadership wanted. Thereby they could look as if they had freely gone to the Lord to ask for revelation and it had been granted. No outside or inside influence had been instrumental in forcing their hand. Just good old prophets talking to their God.

But in the long run, I don't think anyone actually believed it. How could anyone not think that BYU sports were a major priority for the football/basketball lovin' brethren?? Go Cougars!!! In their heart of hearts, where Mormons fear to tread, they secretly knew what had really happened. But they all played along with the game so that the brethren could save face and still be prophets in the eyes of the church.

But now I think members are beginning to act on some of those secrets they keep in their hearts. The continual erosion that is beginning will take it's toll on the church until eventually someone, some brave soul who can read the handwriting on the wall, will say either we face up to the realities of our own history or we will no longer be a church. We'll just be corporate managers who look out for our bottom line and maybe occasionally throw in some humanitarian aid just to keep our "good name".

[Emower]

So, I'm beginning to see a place for myself in my ward and a way I could be useful and I'm seeking a calling where I'd like to experiment, but if the bishop sees another place I could put my background and experiences to use, I'm willing to go there.

I think this is why a lot of people end up bitter NOM's. Because experimentation has not gone well for us. I dont have the energy to swim upstream for that long.

[Give It Time]

So, I'm beginning to see a place for myself in my ward and a way I could be useful and I'm seeking a calling where I'd like to experiment, but if the bishop sees another place I could put my background and experiences to use, I'm willing to go there.

I think this is why a lot of people end up bitter NOM's. Because experimentation has not gone well for us. I dont have the energy to swim upstream for that long.

All of these thoughts are so good and so true.

As I've thought about it. I'm going to keep this course, but I'm also going to keep to the plan to move. Yours course gives all of us a better opportunity to say goodbye on a positive note. It would be best to keep the timeframe for this short term. I can do this, short term.

[Give It Time]

Referring back to the '76 priesthood revelation. From what I have read many of the "brethren" knew that something was going to have to change. There was enormous pressure from both inside and outside the church on that issue. But leadership could not be seen as buckling to the forces surrounding them. Thus they had to wait for a time when it seemed no one was currently talking about the inequity of the ban and it was only then when they chose to take up the issue and make a decision. In other words, "We'll pretend to do this when we think nobody's looking.

The announcement came kind of out of the blue for most folks which was exactly what leadership wanted. Thereby they could look as if they had freely gone to the Lord to ask for revelation and it had been granted. No outside or inside influence had been instrumental in forcing their hand. Just good old prophets talking to their God.

But in the long run, I don't think anyone actually believed it. How could anyone not think that BYU sports were a major priority for the football/basketball lovin' brethren?? Go Cougars!!! In their heart of hearts, where Mormons fear to tread, they secretly knew what had really happened. But they all played along with the game so that the brethren could save face and still be prophets in the eyes of the church.

But now I think members are beginning to act on some of those secrets they keep in their hearts. The continual erosion that is beginning will take it's toll on the church until eventually someone, some brave soul who can read the handwriting on the wall, will say either we face up to the realities of our own history or we will no longer be a church. We'll just be corporate managers who look out for our bottom line and maybe occasionally throw in some humanitarian aid just to keep our "good name".

What's in bold is one of the trust statements I've read about our brethren and sistren in a long time.

I think you make a good point. This is one of the reasons that I think the more effective and efficient route to change in the church is through political office. Change the laws, change the tax loopholes and the church will change.

[MoPag]

Maybe instead of focusing on changing the culture, which as many previous posters have stated is nearly impossible, maybe we should focus on helping the people in our sphere of influence within Mormonism. We obviously can't just tell them that the church is full of sh*t, and therefore the culture is too. But we can try to counter-act the sh*t that the church throws at them and hopefully get them to think more critically about the culture.


When I taught primary I basically ignored the (sh*t) manual and spent a large chunk of my class time letting my kids talk to me about their lives and problems. I'm still friends with all my primary kids and a few of them have even sought me out at church to tell me things that were bothering them that they didn't want to tell their parents. When I did teach something, it was usually about being a good person, bearing ones another's burdens, comfort those in need of comfort, etc. I think that was my way of preparing them against the "us vs. the sinful world" mentality they will encounter later in the church. So hopefully when they see others in the church belittling people who don't have "good standards" they will remember that Sister MoPag said we should be love everyone, even if they don't dress the same way we do or even if they drink coffee etc. I hope by doing this I have frustrated the teaching to culture flow:

A Drinking coffee/wearing and immodest clothes are bad.
v
B People of the world drink coffee and wear immodest clothes.
v
C People of the world are bad.
v
D In order to keep the spirit we must stay away from bad things.
v
....
Z A culture that is self-righteous and clannish.

[Give It Time]

Maybe instead of focusing on changing the culture, which as many previous posters have stated is nearly impossible, maybe we should focus on helping the people in our sphere of influence within Mormonism. We obviously can't just tell them that the church is full of sh*t, and therefore the culture is too. But we can try to counter-act the sh*t that the church throws at them and hopefully get them to think more critically about the culture.


When I taught primary I basically ignored the (sh*t) manual and spent a large chunk of my class time letting my kids talk to me about their lives and problems. I'm still friends with all my primary kids and a few of them have even sought me out at church to tell me things that were bothering them that they didn't want to tell their parents. When I did teach something, it was usually about being a good person, bearing ones another's burdens, comfort those in need of comfort, etc. I think that was my way of preparing them against the "us vs. the sinful world" mentality they will encounter later in the church. So hopefully when they see others in the church belittling people who don't have "good standards" they will remember that Sister MoPag said we should be love everyone, even if they don't dress the same way we do or even if they drink coffee etc. I hope by doing this I have frustrated the teaching to culture flow:

A Drinking coffee/wearing and immodest clothes are bad.
v
B People of the world drink coffee and wear immodest clothes.
v
C People of the world are bad.
v
D In order to keep the spirit we must stay away from bad things.
v
....
Z A culture that is self-righteous and clannish.

I like this. I want to share a few thoughts on this. I talked to my therapist about recent developments. We're just going to see how things unfold (very Taoist). Anyway, in voicing my plans for my desire for what I wanted to do in my calling that I wanted (should I get it). I could see she wasn't pleased, but it was the end of our session and we will meet again, before long. However, I've been thinking about this in terms of the Taoist concept of Wu Wei (non-doing). One interpretation of wu wei is not forcing my will on others.

In reference to my analogy of the rock in the stream, the rock doesn't do anything. It doesn't try to pump the water in any certain direction. It doesn't try to dam the water. It is wu wei (non-doing) Yet, by it's very presence, it does alter the flow of water that comes in contact with it. It does stir things, just a bit. I was thinking that my presence, my simple presence and what my imperfect life may contribute to the conversation will be enough to stir the waters just a bit. In my talking to people, if someone confesses issues, I will simply give them a hug and let them know they aren't alone. Since they are someone who is more inclined to move by facts than by faith, I will tell them they can know for a fact, I care.

In other words, MoPag, something very similar to what you did. Wu Wei.

[oliver_denom]

Culture is multifaceted but if I were to zero in on the one which would make the most difference, its the question of authority. What many of us would like is a religious pluralism within the church, meaning that there could exist multiple interpretive frameworks all within the same organization. Instead of believing that there is only one correct way to believe, and that all others are false, you would believe that yours is one of several correct versions, each with their own upsides and downsides. Within a system like this, as within a democracy, everyone would be free to worship as they will while at the same time respecting that right for everyone else. The definition for what a Mormon is would become broad enough to cover a wide spectrum of belief and practice.

The central problem we face is that Mormonism doesn't want to be pluralist. It wants a single and absolute source of authority. This more than anything else forms the core of what the religion is and wants to be. For a long time I wanted the religion to be something else, this Sunstone article from Don Bradley does a good job laying out that vision: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/141-32-41.pdf

Unfortunately the church didn't go in that direction, and I think we can blame Brigham Young and polygamy for that. When Young left the country to form his theocracy, one can easily see why authority and absolute obedience became the cornerstone of the church. When you're managing families down to the most intimate levels and commanding people to sacrifice their lives to settle new areas and cross the plains in the dead of winter, then you can't have people second guessing. By the same token, if you're asking this of people, then you can't very well second guess yourself without spiraling into hell. They needed that same absolute obedience and authority to stop polygamy. The church's fate seems to have been sealed in this one respect. It was fired and formed under a strict and literal theocracy. The way back to a previous version, a place where we diverged from the early church, seems impossible.

Until members of the church are able to actually believe and feel down in the cockles of their hearts that they are no better than any others, and that god can inspire people independent and even in opposition to the church hierarchy, they won't be able to reach the type of pluralist vision we would prefer.

[Linked]

Culture is multifaceted but if I were to zero in on the one which would make the most difference, its the question of authority. What many of us would like is a religious pluralism within the church, meaning that there could exist multiple interpretive frameworks all within the same organization. Instead of believing that there is only one correct way to believe, and that all others are false, you would believe that yours is one of several correct versions, each with their own upsides and downsides. Within a system like this, as within a democracy, everyone would be free to worship as they will while at the same time respecting that right for everyone else. The definition for what a Mormon is would become broad enough to cover a wide spectrum of belief and practice.

The central problem we face is that Mormonism doesn't want to be pluralist. It wants a single and absolute source of authority. This more than anything else forms the core of what the religion is and wants to be. For a long time I wanted the religion to be something else, this Sunstone article from Don Bradley does a good job laying out that vision: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/141-32-41.pdf

Unfortunately the church didn't go in that direction, and I think we can blame Brigham Young and polygamy for that. When Young left the country to form his theocracy, one can easily see why authority and absolute obedience became the cornerstone of the church. When you're managing families down to the most intimate levels and commanding people to sacrifice their lives to settle new areas and cross the plains in the dead of winter, then you can't have people second guessing. By the same token, if you're asking this of people, then you can't very well second guess yourself without spiraling into hell. They needed that same absolute obedience and authority to stop polygamy. The church's fate seems to have been sealed in this one respect. It was fired and formed under a strict and literal theocracy. The way back to a previous version, a place where we diverged from the early church, seems impossible.

Until members of the church are able to actually believe and feel down in the cockles of their hearts that they are no better than any others, and that god can inspire people independent and even in opposition to the church hierarchy, they won't be able to reach the type of pluralist vision we would prefer.

This is similar to the "Church is True" mindset often seen in church. The LDS church without that mindset is a completely different church. The church legitimizes its authority and the authority of all officially called volunteers (is that the right word?) by claiming it comes directly from God himself. The church is built on that claim. Without it there is not a compelling reason to sacrifice what the church demands. Without it the LDS church would no longer be the LDS church.

Brigham Young may have perfected the authoritarian prophet role, but it started with Joseph Smith. A number of the "revelations" in the D&C are God telling people to do what Joseph wanted. He may have meant well, but he asserted authority from God as needed to get his way.

The authority of the church as inspired directly from God is so ingrained in the church I don't know how one could try to change it without immediately being called out as a heretic. You can get away with supporting LGBTQ+, or being a Democrat, or loving science and still be considered TBM by TBMs, but the authority of the church is the central nerve and if it is touched the indoctrination shields instantly go up.

[didyoumythme]

You are quite optimistic in your hope for change. I wish that members would stop worshipping leaders and holding to every word they say as if from God's own mouth, but unfortunately this can't change. The Mormon church is rooted so deeply in the principles of obedience and modern revelation that it can't change. Leaders will never admit that what they say from the pulpit it opinion, even if science and proven fact prove them wrong in the future. The needle may move locally and temporarily, but only in tiny ways. I don't see widescale change happening unless an apostle goes rogue and denies truth claims, or the church's financial status is threatened in some way.

This is a great article about how church doctrine directly influences church culture -

http://zelphontheshelf.com/mormon-cultu ... -doctrine/

[Palerider]

What many of us would like is a religious pluralism within the church, meaning that there could exist multiple interpretive frameworks all within the same organization.

As long as the church adheres to the Biblical standard "till we all come in the unity of the faith" they will be forced to resist an "all roads lead to Rome" approach.

But a true unity of the faith could only occur if there were real prophets and apostles leading or Christ himself reigning.
So leadership props up the church and their position with the fake version of unity which is called UNIFORMITY.

Thus the white shirt, dark suit, single peircing, temple garment, little if any facial hair, short haircut, legalistic bull that makes everyone appear to be united.

In reality it's like a binky that gives a child a shallow type of comfort but zero actual nourishment.

[wtfluff]

In reality it's like a binky that gives a child a shallow type of comfort but zero actual nourishment.

[Give It Time]

I'm sure none of you are surprised by this. I've changed my mind.

I went in and talked to my bishop about changing my VT from someone who constantly uses language that implies I'm inadequate: have faith, forgive, so glad to see you here at this time (the third hour). To one that says more empathic and healing things: I'm so sorry you carried that alone.

I told him some work I'd be willing to do in the vineyard that is dirty, unpleasant and will protect the testimonies of others.

We talked a bit about my getting a temple recommend and that's where things went a little bit south. I wrote about it on another thread. I've been thinking about, not just what he considers rules and what he considers guidelines, but the fact that he will not get out of his head that I have unrepented sin and I need to take care of it. I'm not perfect, but there's no unrepented all out sin.

So, the bishop has a different shame script. I don't think he's a bad guy. I don't think my soon to be former VT is a bad gal. Just one can only expect so much from Mormons.

I will be attending a little more. It will be less than the original increase I was considering. The temple recommend has been placed on a back burner and the heat turned to low. It used to not be on the stove, at all. So, that's an improvement that no Mormon would ever accept, but it's my spirituality and I own it.

So, thanks for the discussion. I do get these brief flashes of optimism. Then reality hits and reality is something I've learned to face.

[Corsair]

I will be attending a little more. It will be less than the original increase I was considering. The temple recommend has been placed on a back burner and the heat turned to low. It used to not be on the stove, at all. So, that's an improvement that no Mormon would ever accept, but it's my spirituality and I own it.

Overall it sounds like you are taking charge of your own spiritual development. I applaud this and wish you well on how you decide to be part of a faith community. Let us know how it works out and how you adapted both yourself and possibly the organization to make it work.

[Give It Time]

I will be attending a little more. It will be less than the original increase I was considering. The temple recommend has been placed on a back burner and the heat turned to low. It used to not be on the stove, at all. So, that's an improvement that no Mormon would ever accept, but it's my spirituality and I own it.

Overall it sounds like you are taking charge of your own spiritual development. I applaud this and wish you well on how you decide to be part of a faith community. Let us know how it works out and how you adapted both yourself and possibly the organization to make it work.

Will do. It won't be that much more. There have been days when I would have liked to have gone, but my son's not attending would have made me a church widow and the questions as to his whereabouts did nothing but tell me I was making him look bad by attending when he didn't. And he's the one with the testimony! So, I've stayed away. Someone in the ward has well and truly stabbed him in the back (my son seems to have a target on his back in this ward), every though they meant well, my son feels betrayed, the bishop knows it. I can attend in my own whim, now.

I am taking charge of my spirituality and it feels good.