Thursday, June 12, 2014

The Mormons Be Talkin'

The Mormon world is abuzz this week at the announcement that two high-profile church members are apparently facing church discipline. For those unfamiliar with how this works or why this matters, I'll attempt to give a very brief and hopefully accurate explanation for what this means.

The church is very organized. It holds actual records of anyone who becomes a member of it. To become a member of the church, a person has to agree to live according to certain rules, which qualifies the person for baptism, the actual act that triggers official "membership." These rules include things such as agreeing not to drink alcohol or use illegal drugs as well as some less-defined obligations like be kind to others and attend church meetings "regularly." Church membership gives the person an opportunity to serve in various capacities within their local congregation. There are also spiritual benefits that church members believe they receive through their membership.

Once a person becomes a member of the church, there are two ways in which that person can lose church membership. One is by choice. A church member can ask to have their name removed from the church records. The other is by excommunication, a dramatic procedure in which church leaders review a member's actions and determine whether it makes sense to go separate ways. Excommunication means that the person is no longer considered a member of the church and is not allowed to receive church assignments. In most cases, the excommunicated member is still welcome to attend church meetings and church members are encouraged to continue to love and fellowship the person, no matter what happens. The person usually has the opportunity to become a member of the church again down the road if they meet the qualifications mentioned above.

Church leaders regularly explain that excommunication is a rare thing that is supposed to be used as a benefit to both the excommunicated member and the church community as a whole. For example, where a church member becomes a danger to children, excommunication on a practical level can help protect other church members from this person's active participation in their local congregation.

On a spiritual level, church leaders will refer to the general concept of "to whom much is given, much is required." Being a member of the church means that a person has made very strong commitments with God and where church leaders determine that that person is failing to meet those commitments, nullifying those commitments through excommunication in a way acts to protect the person from egregious spiritual consequences.

A lot can be said on that topic. And I don't mean to claim to understand it perfectly. But I think that's the general idea. Interestingly, although one must make certain commitments in order to be baptized and become a member of the church, failing to keep most of those commitments will never result in excommunication. For example, I could not get baptized if I refused to stop drinking alcohol. But starting to drink alcohol after becoming a church member would never result in my excommunication. Excommunication is reserved only for the most serious actions.

The reason the church community is abuzz right now is because the high-profile members who are being threatened with church discipline (note, they have not actually been excommunicated) are at risk because they have been actively preaching teachings that are contrary to official church positions. I won't attempt to summarize their views here (and I don't know that I could if I wanted to) but they generally have to do with the role of women and the treatment of gays in church policy.

The threatened church discipline is the result of church leaders' concern that these members are actively fighting against the church organization and potentially leading others astray. In what I can imagine is a very difficult attempt to keep the organization organized and the message clear, the church believes that it must draw a line in the sand and make sure that its message isn't being clouded by anyone else who preaches under the guise of any church authority.

This leaves a general feeling of uneasiness among many church members, like myself, who wonder where that line in the sand is. Many of us have concerns and questions and even disagreements with the organization about various policies and teachings. I have expressed some of those on Stranger, specifically concerning my thoughts on marriage equality.

The implications of threatened church discipline of these members on the basis of their preaching theological disagreement feels unsettling. And when something controversial and unsettling happens in a faith community, it tends to polarize folks. So many people who also have opinions different than official church teachings suddenly feel like church leaders are draconian Big Brothers who seek to squash anyone who disagrees. And others, defensive of a church they love, might have a tendency to proclaim unabashed allegiance to the organization and alienate the other end of the spectrum through their all-or-nothing rhetoric.

And I can't help this morning but feel like none of this is nearly as simple as a first glance of a headline might make us feel it should be. I can't help but feel that well-meaning church leaders are trying their best to figure out how to help the greatest amount of people get the spiritual nourishment that they need and are grappling with the decisions about how to promote freedom of thought while protecting the structure that exists to aid in the ultimate quest for freedom of thought. And that well-meaning church members with serious concerns and disagreements can still love the church organization and sincerely want to maintain their place in it.

I don't know whether their decisions are right. It feels to me like this might be a mistake. That it could send a message to many that difference of opinion cannot be tolerated. And that that message could push people away for whom church membership is actually a great blessing. But I might be totally wrong about that. And it's possible that there is more to the situation than I understand. And it's possible that the church leaders are making the hard but right decisions.

I just wonder if, in situations like this, we would all do well to avoid becoming reactionary. To actually try to see another side. To view all sides with compassion. And to, above all else, be personally inclusive of others, even and especially when exclusivity is at issue.

I suppose it takes humility. And I believe humility is selflessness in its purest form. It's a challenge for many. It's certainly a challenge for me as I find myself shaking my head in frustration at news that feels unsettling at first blush. But surely we make the world a better place when we succeed in this.

~It Just Gets Stranger

33 comments:

  1. Here is a great article that explains church discipline in detail:

    https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think one of the problems with this world is that we are all very reactionary. Something bad happens we react fast without thinking and end up, more often then not, making the wrong choice. Take any kind of threat to the USA for example, and big brother comes along and needs to put camera's everywhere, pat down everyone going on a plane, start scanning everyone, and basically start treating every citizen like they're a possible criminal. Same with parents and their kids. Your child does something wrong out in public or even at home, and we will sometimes flip out on them rather then sit back and find out why they did whatever it was they did, or realize, Hey...they're kids, they're supposed to act like that, or discipline them correctly, in a calm manner. You can see it just about any part of life. People are impatient and want action THIS VERY SECOND! Instead we need to learn to be calm and think about what it is we want to do and how we should go about doing it.

    "Patience, for a Jedi it is time to eat as well" - Yoda

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was going to post an opinion to start a discussion (not an argument, because I know I definitely don't know enough about how things work in the church, and definitely have my own questions that maybe others may have answers to) but I got to the end of this post, and I realized that it doesn't matter, not here at least. This isn't the place for such discussions. You have spoken eloquently and thoughtfully, encouraging positive discussion and learning, together. I appreciate that, and I hope others will as well. I hope that this situation doesn't tear members from each other, that we can come together in understanding and love, even among our differences. Thank you Eli.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a very well worded, direct, yet gentle bit of wisdom. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nothing good comes of being reactionary. Sometimes the best thing you can do is just take a step back, and calm yourself before diving back in and looking at a subject, in a calm, compassionate, rational manner. Thank you Eli.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reactionary is a great word to use. It's hard not to be so, but so important.

    There is a LOT to this story that the general public doesn't know about, I can guarantee. And the only reason that it's gotten national headlines is because the people involved wanted it to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the church keeps these things private. If people choose to make it known publicly, in the press, then that's their decision, usually made for their own purposes (to gain sympathy, to appear a martyr, or even just to tell their own side of the story). The problem, of course, is that the church will have little to say in response and cannot tell the other side of the story, because the leaders will respect the individual's privacy. But someone saying they support gay marriage on their blog is very different from staging protests on Temple Square even when formally asked to refrain and, when they disobeyed the request, to leave, evangelizing false doctrine even after cease and desist letters from church headquarters, and then amping up for a new form of attack, in their "six discussions" that encourage women to recruit their friends for the cause and to hold their own study groups on this "doctrine."

      The average person with doubts, questions, or unorthodox opinions has nothing to worry about. Apostasy doesn't occur until you publicly, and repeatedly, preach against church doctrines, and instead of stopping when warned, intensify your efforts.

      Delete
    2. BINGO.
      -not the same Anonymous, a different one.

      Delete
    3. Yes, this. It's going to the question of whether you affiliate with or support groups whose teachings are in opposition to the doctrine of the Church. Those who are formally a part of this group/movement were told directly that their actions are in opposition to fundamental church doctrine, and they increased their efforts at dissension instead of stopping. If I can provide a scriptural comparison, it feels very like the dissenters in the Book of Mormon who would not be quelled by anything short of jail/death, and their controversies ultimately contributed to a long drawn out war because the people were so divided and weakened. (Not saying death/jail is the answer here--but excommunication makes sense as a response to open dissension.)
      a different Anonymous yet. ;)

      Delete
  6. So many thoughts. Where to begin . . .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everything about you is so damn agreeable! i appreciate your level head, your empathy, and your honesty.

    -K.A.M.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not a religious person. I claim Atheism when pressed to claim something, but mostly I just have never felt the need for religion in my daily life. I've been reading stranger for almost two years now, and I really enjoy the unique perspective with which you take on controversial topics. It always seems to come from a place of understanding and compassion for other human beings and their struggles, and without an agenda- other than perhaps inspiring people to open up their hearts and minds to ideas that might go against what they believe in. (And as far as agendas go, that's a pretty respectable one to have!) I guess I wanted you to know that this blog has helped expand my own tolerance, and that even if unsettling things are happening in your faith community, you've created an online dialog among people who just want to be great human beings-regardless of personal beliefs. I am so very glad you have a place where you feel comfortable expressing your thoughts about these controversial topics, and that all of these people who respond to you do so with the same compassion you show.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, Eli. I have been thinking a lot about this issue as well. I always get a kick out of people using the phrase 'in my humble opinion'. Lately, all I hear is "I'm right and you're wrong" or " If you don't agree with me then you're racist, sexist, a homophobe, intolerant, uneducated, a prude, old fashioned, a heathen, etc..." There is no humility involved in those discussions. It is difficult at times to see someone else's point of view. Especially when it may be seen as an attack on your faith. I also think that reacting too quickly can be harmful in most situations. However, if I ever find myself questioning the ability of the man I have sustained as prophet, seer and revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, then I am truly lost. Whenever I start relying on the learnings of men I am usually disappointed. When I can accept in the grand scheme of things that 'man is nothing', then my perspective shifts to things eternal and I can better understand and manage the world we live in. It is my hope that we can come together in unity, love and forgiveness and stop this polarizing chaos. I love the gospel and my Savior, Jesus Christ and I know that all things are possible through His grace.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Um, I'm LDS and completely at a loss (then again, I avoid the news and live in Eastern Canada)...what's going on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate Kelley from the founder of Ordain Women and a man (I don't remember his name off the top of my head) who has a podcast that often supports Gay rights and other concerns people might have with the doctrine of the Church have received a letter notifying them of Disiplinary action if they do not cease their actions. They are the ones who took this to the media, the Church is always private about Disiplinary action for the benefit of the person who the action is taken against.

      Delete
    2. His name is John Dehlin. You can read what he is about here: http://mormonstories.org/john-dehlin/

      Delete
  11. I'm not feeling too reactionary right now, which is surprising as it's usually my default response to something like this. Rather, I feel shaken and sad. I'm not affiliated with either party, but I'm grieving and wondering, like you, where exactly that line in the sand is, and whether it draws me out or circles me in.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for this perspective. This actually left me feeling much more calm.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My mind and heart are heavy this week. It is a dark, sad, emotion filled day for the 'discipliners' (I imagine), disciplined, and others when even the idea of excommunication comes up. I have decided to come to the same conclusion you did in this post. May my heart be filled with compassion, to all involved. May I align my thoughts and actions with those of a perfectly loving and fatherly God. May my responses be motivated by humility and a grace-giving life. May I see the situation from the eyes and soul of each "pair of shoes", with that understanding may I have greater love, concern, and care for each of them. And lastly, may experiences like this unite us as a community, as a race, and as a family.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You have such incredible, well-thought out opinions. Loved reading this and all your posts. You just have such clear wisdom. And the perfect blend of humor and meaningful conversation. Very well-put. Long live Q of C.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you, Eli, for a well written post (yet again, of course), and thank you to all of the commenters for taking Eli's advice to heart and not turning this into an ugly, heated, attacking debate like every other mention of this topic has created (that I've come across, anyway). Both sides have their reasons for their actions, and we need to be respectful and be willing to listen to those who may not feel the same way we do.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I loved reading the comments as much as I loved reading this post. Eli you always have such a great perspective on life. Such beautiful, and well thought out thoughts from everyone full of compassion and love for one another. When do we start holding hands and singing Kumbaya??? TOTALLY KIDDING!!!! But I appreciate everyone that has posted here so much. Thank you for such a thought provoking and calm discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with the others. This post and comments section is refreshing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wonderful post. Thank you so much for this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I just wonder if in situations like this, we would all do well to avoid becoming reactionary. To actually try to see another side. To view all sides with compassion. And to, above all else, be personally inclusive of others, even and especially when exclusivity is at issue."

    THIS. This is so well put. I think I need to run this through my head about 500 times a day. Thank you for this and thank for the whole post. And thank you to the commenters. This has been really good for me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If only everyone involved in every conflict would just stop, read Eli's blog, and then say, "Well - twice up the barrel, once down the side." Forget peace talks in the Middle East. We need all world leaders to meet Eli at "The Porch" this weekend and every war in the world would be over immediately. (And Paul Simon would be there, of course.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. This post was so sweet. It made me cry! And I'm not even a Mormon. But I appreciate the sage advice.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I appreciate the thought you put into these things. Your post is an example of not being "reactionary."

    ReplyDelete
  23. I've never understood the inner workings of this Church, or any church for that matter.

    Speaking as an excommunicated Mormon, I can only say...well, I am very happy to be a devout Christian who claims no 'religious' affiliation.

    It's too often that people get in the way of the message Jesus brought to Christians.

    It's sad, but I wish the best for all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Fantastic thought put into this, Eli. I have read so many opinions on this subject from both sides of the "Mormon" aisle and this has been the most thought out, purposeful piece on the subject. Kudos.

    ReplyDelete