How does your Church handle dissent?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Just curious if any of our non-LDS friends can describe how your Church handles dissent from within. For example if intellectuals start exploring or researching claims of the organization, and reach conclusions that run counter to prevailing thought, for example, or offer theoretical ideas that run counter to prevailing doctrine, or even speak out against leaders.

How much tolerance is there for such dissent in your Church? How is it dealt with?

[RipplecutBuddha]

Members of the LDS church are free to believe what they choose to believe. In order to be a member in good standing, they must confess acceptance of several key doctrines and practices of the LDS Church. For example, they must accept the General Authorities as proper authority chosen by God, and inspired by God to lead the church. They must accept the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as the Word of God. They must accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. They must agree to pay 10% of their annual increase to the church as tithing. And so on.

Now, as this site demonstrates, there is a great variety of belief from one member to another even within the structure of LDS doctrines. As such, there is a measure of dissent present in each of us. If, however, a person's beliefs cause them to essentially preach against established LDS doctrines publicly, or to preach against the LDS leadership, their membership could be in jeapordy. If public statements against the church don't stop, excommunication is usually the result.

This makes sense to me though...why be part of a church if you don't agree with what the church is teaching? If you disagree strongly enough to preach against it..why not just leave of your own effort?

At the same time honest investigation of the church is always welcome no matter who it is. One of the hallmarks of the LDS church is that the leaders from Joseph Smith to today have always told us that it is our personal duty to find out through our own efforts what the truth is, and who is sharing it.

With regards to an individual who is showing strong dissent with the LDS church, their bishop will usually meet with them to try and determine how to help the person find answers to their questions, or find out what caused the dissent in the first place. The focus always starts with helping the person regain their faith in, and acceptance of, the doctrines they question. This process can take some time. If that part doesn't work, the next step is meeting with the Stake President for the same reason; help the person work through their questions and regain their faith. If that also fails, ie. the person is adamantly opposed to any resolution, or cannot refrain from public statements, the Stake High Council will meet for disciplinary reasons, hopefully with the person present, to determine whether or not they should be excommunicated.

If the decision to excommunicate the person is made, that is the extent of the LDS Church's involvement. The church claims no other form of punishment beyond removing someone from their records.

Edited May 10, 2011 by RipplecutBuddha

[Suzie]

This makes sense to me though...why be part of a church if you don't agree with what the church is teaching? If you disagree strongly enough to preach against it..why not just leave of your own effort?

I suppose we should state what exactly means to preach against the Church.

[Guest]

Just curious if any of our non-LDS friends can describe how your Church handles dissent from within. For example if intellectuals start exploring or researching claims of the organization, and reach conclusions that run counter to prevailing thought, for example, or offer theoretical ideas that run counter to prevailing doctrine, or even speak out against leaders.

How much tolerance is there for such dissent in your Church? How is it dealt with?

In Catholic faith, you go by the Catechism. If a Catholic has issues with policy/doctrine he brings it up with his priest. If a priest/bishop/cardinal has ideas that run counter to prevailing policy, he takes it up with his superiors. If the Pope deems it worthy of discussion, they go to Council.

Members spewing anti-Catholic stuff are encouraged to repent.

[prisonchaplain]

My church is led by a pastor who is ordained with an organization that has a published Statement of Fundamental Truths. Every year he (and I) sign a paper that documents that we still believe and proclaim these fundamental truths. I suppose you could call this our "non-negotiables."

If the leadership were to start teaching contrary to any of those doctrines, the lay-leadership might actually look to dismiss them. We have offices that would help us walk through this process, should it become necessary. Likewise, if lay-leaders were to start teaching in opposition to these fundamental truths, the pastors could dismiss them.

If all of the leadership convinces the congregation that a fundamental truth is not true, and the are strong enough in this, the entire church might leave the fellowship. It has happened.

Having said all that, in most cases, church discipline is not about a fundamental truth, and dissensions are handled by the leaders and those involved, usually through counseling. Ultimately there will be reconciliation, or the disaffected will leave the church.

[Guest mormonmusic]

So, Anatess -- are there changes to the Catholic doctrine that have percolated up from the rank and file members of the Church? Do concerns ever make it all the way to the top and effect change? Or is this a pipe-dream?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Having said all that, in most cases, church discipline is not about a fundamental truth, and dissensions are handled by the leaders and those involved, usually through counseling. Ultimately there will be reconciliation, or the disaffected will leave the church.

Ok, let's say a scholar does research, and produces data that challenges a fundamental doctrine. Peer-reviewed assessments of the research validate it, and the finding goes into widespread publication. How might your organization react to such a published finding? If the scholar is spoken to, and encouraged to recant his findings, but continues to stick to the result of his scholarly research, could this conceivably lead to discipline? And what are the levels of discipline that could be applied?

[RipplecutBuddha]

I suppose we should state what exactly means to preach against the Church.

I'm not really sure why you think this. The previous paragraph pretty much sums it up well in my own way of thinking.

[Guest]

So, Anatess -- are there changes to the Catholic doctrine that have percolated up from the rank and file members of the Church? Do concerns ever make it all the way to the top and effect change? Or is this a pipe-dream?

Oh yes it does. Hence, the ever popular Council of Nicea... and more recently ecumenican councils named Vatican Council I and II that changed a lot of the practices of the Roman Catholic church.

[prisonchaplain]

Ok, let's say a scholar does research, and produces data that challenges a fundamental doctrine. Peer-reviewed assessments of the research validate it, and the finding goes into widespread publication. How might your organization react to such a published finding? If the scholar is spoken to, and encouraged to recant his findings, but continues to stick to the result of his scholarly research, could this conceivably lead to discipline? And what are the levels of discipline that could be applied?

Since we are speaking of doctrine, if a clergyperson published a book or essay critical of one of our fundamental doctrines, chances are the individual would resign his/her credentials. After all s/he could no longer believe and publically proclaim our doctrine. I imagine the credential could be removed if the person refused to resign, but most people, in good conscience, would voluntarily do so, if they could no longer support our doctrine.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Since we are speaking of doctrine, if a clergyperson published a book or essay critical of one of our fundamental doctrines, chances are the individual would resign his/her credentials. After all s/he could no longer believe and publically proclaim our doctrine. I imagine the credential could be removed if the person refused to resign, but most people, in good conscience, would voluntarily do so, if they could no longer support our doctrine.

This is exactly what I would think is the case regarding the LDS church, though I know situations have come up in the past where the individual had to be forced out.

[cofchristcousin]

My denomination was born in dissent, and we have kept that up. It's a strength, it's a curse. We have members that range from literalist to just as far the the left. People publish without reprisal, as far as I know. There are some issues that were/are being resolved from a bottom up influence, and vise versa. I have a feeling that some of this wide ranging sharing is going to be reigned in some, and Priesthood will need to use the WE Share document as their public theology in ministry.

[Guest mormonmusic]

That's an interesting read. The link here (referenced in the We Share) document answers my question very well. Historical scholarship is actually encouraged, and your Church appears to have a strong tolerance for divergent thinking. Is that an accurate assessment based on this short read below?

Community of Christ website

You also imply there are disadvantages to this approach however -- care to elaborate?

Edited May 13, 2011 by mormonmusic

[cofchristcousin]

Not all members grasp that diversity is allowed, so there can be that tension, especially locally. It's gets better when you meet and discuss beyond the local congregation. We have members that see Joseph Smith, Jr with a reverence equal to the LDS, and all across the spectrum to not thinking about him at all, to seeing JS as a farce. Most are somewhere in the middle. But there can be tension.

There is tension in the ambiguity of things, but there are blessings in the freedom to explore, and be challenged by new ideas, and to find genuine respect and love for people that seemed outside the lines.

[Guest]

Not all members grasp that diversity is allowed, so there can be that tension, especially locally. It's gets better when you meet and discuss beyond the local congregation. We have members that see Joseph Smith, Jr with a reverence equal to the LDS, and all across the spectrum to not thinking about him at all, to seeing JS as a farce. Most are somewhere in the middle. But there can be tension.

There is tension in the ambiguity of things, but there are blessings in the freedom to explore, and be challenged by new ideas, and to find genuine respect and love for people that seemed outside the lines.

I don't understand how you prevent the church from becoming Man's church instead of God's church in this setting... unless the basic principle of the church is God is who you think He is.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, my sense is that all Christian churches assume that the Holy Spirit is bathing their processes with anointing. The Catholic church teaches that the Pope and hierarchy are authorized by God and led by the Spirit. Your church teaches the same about the President and the Apostles, etc. Likewise, fellowships like the CoC and most evangelical fellowship pray and believe that their "democratic procedures" are, in reality, directed by God.

Alternatively, it matters not whether there is a highly centralized structure, or a very decentralized one, based on members voting--if God's not in it, it's "man's church."

[Guest]

Anatess, my sense is that all Christian churches assume that the Holy Spirit is bathing their processes with anointing. The Catholic church teaches that the Pope and hierarchy are authorized by God and led by the Spirit. Your church teaches the same about the President and the Apostles, etc. Likewise, fellowships like the CoC and most evangelical fellowship pray and believe that their "democratic procedures" are, in reality, directed by God.

Alternatively, it matters not whether there is a highly centralized structure, or a very decentralized one, based on members voting--if God's not in it, it's "man's church."

No, PC... I see a difference here. There's a difference between a church who claims God is leading them than a church where there's leadership (I would suppose they believe he is led by God) but where the members can go their own way outside of that leadership.

For example, the part about Joseph Smith. Either he is a prophet or he is not. That's a basic principle that you can't really say - God says he is a prophet but you can believe he is not a prophet, or even the flip side to that, God says he is not a prophet, but you can treat him like a prophet if you like...

Do you see what I'm saying?

[prisonchaplain]

I do...but then again...prophets are not perfect. Some Popes made questionable decisions. As soon as we accept that members can disagree with some of the church's history, or practices, then the question becomes how much divergence is okay? Now we are in the gray zone that so many find uncomfortable. God can handle human disagreements. When they get too serious, schisms develop. One church might be wrong and the other right. Or, they got too proud, and God might not be through with either of them...

[Guest]

I do...but then again...prophets are not perfect. Some Popes made questionable decisions. As soon as we accept that members can disagree with some of the church's history, or practices, then the question becomes how much divergence is okay? Now we are in the gray zone that so many find uncomfortable. God can handle human disagreements. When they get too serious, schisms develop. One church might be wrong and the other right. Or, they got too proud, and God might not be through with either of them...

I'm not sure I understand...

Yes, Popes/Prophets may be fallible but the doctrine stays the same. Right? I mean, if a Prophet is so wrong that he leads the entire church astray, that's one thing. The members can remain clear in conscience on judgement day because, they don't know better.

But, if a Prophet is going the correct way, but it's okay for members to follow/not follow and all differing beliefs are welcome in fellowship... what if enough members go the opposite way the Prophet is going? Do you then change core beliefs? This is what I'm wondering - how you prevent that from becoming a Man's church than God's church (regardless of whether what you thought God said was right or wrong).

[prisonchaplain]

This is where the non-negotiables come in. For LDS, the Articles of Faith might be a starting point. My church has a similar set of doctrines. Those who believe or proclaim doctrines contrary to those are really out of fellowship. They can be removed from membership. I understand your faith has a formal procedure for this. In my fellowship, if it's a member, they usually just leave. If it's a pastor, they'll either resign, or have their credentials as ministers removed.

[Guest]

Okay, that makes sense.

As always, thanks PC for your unending patience and knack for making me see through the muddy water.

[estradling75]

This is where the non-negotiables come in. For LDS, the Articles of Faith might be a starting point. My church has a similar set of doctrines. Those who believe or proclaim doctrines contrary to those are really out of fellowship. They can be removed from membership. I understand your faith has a formal procedure for this. In my fellowship, if it's a member, they usually just leave. If it's a pastor, they'll either resign, or have their credentials as ministers removed.

Interesting.... Back to the initial question then... Does the Church of Christ have a set of non-negotiables? It sounded like it might not..

[RipplecutBuddha]

yes, it does. The baptismal interview is one example, the temple recommend interview is another.

Both contain questions about what you accept doctrinally, as well as things you agree to do as a member of the LDS Church.

Wait....you said Church of Christ...not the LDS Church.....ignore me now.

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting.... Back to the initial question then... Does the Church of Christ have a set of non-negotiables? It sounded like it might not..

At the end of the "We Share" link was a set of basic beliefs. I would think these would be theirs.

[cofchristcousin]

The basic beliefs at the end are to be the non-negotiables of public ministry. People can and do have private beliefs. More like..." I just don't get the idea of the trinity, but I will not challenge the statement in my ministry." That person would likely not address the trinity in their sermons, or in a class they might have a variety of people present different christologies while also affirming the church's statement.

We believe that ever age of the church discerns and seeks to be God's church, but they are also limited by the knowledge they have at hand. Previous and other nation's cultures did not have the same knowledge base and maybe a more restricting climate than we have today in the West. We acknowledge that we also have blindspots, and seek to hear and do what God is calling us and leading us to do in thiz place and culture and time. For instance, what the Spirit is moving the people in Africa to be and do will be different than the issues facing us in the US. Africa is battling witchcraft, superstitious forms of christianity, widow cleansing, and poverty and violence. In the US we face divisive political and religious rhetoric, a new era of poverty because of the economy, and questions on immigration, who is our neighbor? how do we address homosexuality, drugs and alcohol? etc. God's movement will call the us church to different ministries and emphasize different messages of truth than the African church. That's where the enduring principles found in the We share statement come in. Those are our common calling of life as we see it in Jesus' lifestyle, and the way we hope to live no matter how widely our beliefs and cultures vary.