This post must begin by acknowledging the current events regarding the excommunication of Kate Kelly. Regardless of how you feel about the excommunication, we should all be mourning together. We should all be grieving. We should all follow our baptismal covenant to comfort each other and bear each other’s burdens. We need to avoid using this as some piece of evidence to prove that our view or approach is right.
The Catalyst
But I digress. This post is not directly the excommunication. It is about an idea which was brought to light in an interview on RadioWest with church spokesperson Ally Isom. First, it’s important to note what Ally Isom from public affairs had to say about the autonomy of the Pulbic Affairs department:
Well first let me be clear that public affairs does nothing in isolation or insulation from our church leaders. We act at their explicit direction. In fact, we have a number of them who chair a committee who sit in counsel with us regularly. They are well aware of our efforts. They are well aware that I’m here today. They are well aware of what the message would be going forward. We do nothing in isolation… [Public Affairs work] is actually a First Presidency assignment and we work in concert with them very closely.
Just a couple minutes after her statement that public affairs does nothing in isolation from the church leaders, there was this surprising exchange (Doug Fabrizio in italics & Ally Isom in bold):
How and where may a member express doubts or opinions in good faith? It seems like what you were saying before is ‘do it wherever you want, but use the right tone, use the right questions… What if you believe, as some women do, that it’s time for the church to give women the priesthood? Where do you express that?
There are many avenues to express that and discuss that.
Where? In public?
No one is questioning your ability to discuss it in a congregation, in a Sunday School class, or in a Relief Society class.
In a congregation a woman can stand up and say that?
She can certainly have the conversation. In my Relief Society we can. I love what Sister Burton just said this very last Sunday when she talked about women.
Now remind us who Sister Burton is.
Sister Burton is the Relief Society General President. She’s a wonderful example. She travels the world. She meets thousands of women and has very personal conversations with them. She says in this really personal way “Women shoulder burdens. We come from so many backgrounds, but we have to be each others’ safe space.” It has to be through one another that we can have these conversations.
So it’s ok for a woman in a Relief Society meeting to stand up and say… you know within the proper context of the lesson or whatever it might be
Yeah, respectfully…
…respectfully…
of course.
“Hey sisters! Let’s talk about the possibility that it’s time now for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that? I mean, there were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away from us. Let’s talk about that.” The church is cool with that?
The conversation is welcome. We’ve had a similar conversation in my Relief Society in Kaysville, Utah. We had a similar conversation about gay marriage in our Relief Society. My daughter in Palo Alto just had a very interesting conversation this very last Sunday. We have those conversations. It is a safe place.
So, we are being told by the church spokesperson that they don’t act in isolation from the First Presidency and we’re being told that Sunday School is the appropriate venue to discuss our faith struggles and our doubts. Earlier in the discussion she said that it wasn’t appropriate to do so in public.
The Plan
How many of you have Sunday School classes like Ally Isom and her daughter? I’ve lived in literally dozens of wards and only one ward came close to having a Sunday School that was as open and understanding as their wards. How would you describe your Sunday School?
In many of the wards in which I’ve lived Sunday School is more ritual performance than collective learning. I mean it literally meets the definition of ritual.
Ritual: a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and performed according to set sequence.”
In those Sunday Schools, we wear our ritualistic clothing (which we only wear on Sundays), we gather together and go through the same 4 manuals on rotation. Additionally, you might hear the ritual words of Sunday School, also known as the “Sunday School Answers.” “Read your scriptures.” “Pray.” But how often are people truly authentic in Sunday School? I think the very fact that in the vast majority of wards you don’t ever hear the gender-ban on the priesthood or same-sex marriage being discussed as possibilities within Mormonism. If you hear someone actually bring up one of those topics the response is often negative towards them and the discussion is very quickly brought back to the manual and the Sunday School Answers.
I’m very glad to hear that some wards are more open and authentic. However, we have to all change our mindset when it comes to Sunday School if we ever want this to happen. We can bring our struggles, our doubts, and our opinions, but we must come with an extra portion of charity. I have the blessing of being a Sunday School teacher in my ward. Last Sunday, I began to lay the foundation for such a Sunday School.
Here was how I started Gospel Doctrine this week:
I wanted to start off by sharing a little bit of something that I wish we could make happen more as we gather as saints to discuss and learn gospel truths. I love the way the School of the Prophets was set up to start each meeting. In Section 88 we can read about that. The teacher comes in early and prays that the spirit can be there. Then when each additional person enters the class, there is a ritual greeting that would take place. The teacher would get up and with uplifted arms salute the person entering the room saying: “Art thou a brother or brethren? I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen.”
I feel like that’s just such a beautiful way to start out a meeting in which people are going to be commenting and learning together. It establishes the fact that there is a true bond between you, a bond of love and friendship, which is the foundation upon which you can have more understanding. This is especially true if you’re discussing things with each other and there are differences of opinion. When you come into it with this basis of love and understanding, then it makes it easier for us to hear these differences in opinion and to seek greater understanding of others’ views.
I’m sure some of you have been watching the current events taking place with the church recently. A church spokesperson this last week pointed out that, first of all that church spokespeople are given assignments personally by the 1st Presidency and say the things the 1st Presidency wants them to say. The spokesperson said that Sunday School, Relief Society, and Priesthood Meetings, are the places in which members can discuss the things that they have questions about or are struggling with. Two specifics which were mentioned by the church spokesperson were women and the priesthood and same-sex marriage. So these are topics where there are big differences in opinion, but it was explicitly said that the places for discussing these things are Sunday School, Relief Society, and Priesthood Meeting.
That’s why at the beginning of class, I really wanted to emphasize the importance of having the foundation of love and understanding, because without that I’m not sure that any discussion of those issues would bring about much understanding or learning from the spirit. My plans today don’t involve discussing either of those issues, but I just wanted you to know that because that statement is out there, should any of you feel moved to bring any questions you might have, or if you’re struggling with anything, that this is a safe environment for discussing those things. I would urge all of us to listen and to discuss things together in the spirit of love and understanding, that we can learn from the spirit, and grow closer to each other and to God.
However, saying this and doing it are two very different things. Many people find it impossible to even discuss their concerns and doubts with their family, let alone with others in their congregation. Part of the reason for this uneasiness is that there are mixed messages in Mormonism regarding doubts and concerns. On the one hand, we have talks from President Uchtdorf and Elder Holland telling us that it is ok to doubt.
It’s natural to have questions… There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions.
Be as candid about your questions as you need to be… Hope on. Journey on. Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith.
On the other hand we are told that questioning our leaders is “the road to apostasy.”
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. – Ward Teachers’ Message for June, 1945
The definition of apostasy is not clear in our church. If you’d like an example, listen to that interview with Ally Isom. You’ll hear her claim that the church has made it clear what constitutes apostasy while also claiming that whether or not a given action is apostasy is different for each individual. Is that clear enough for you?
In a “living” church that sustains its leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, all our doctrinal beliefs come from them. So to some extent to question some aspect of the doctrine or policy is to question the leaders. I think that some in our congregations hear about some doubt or questioning and immediately respond by saying “you just have to have faith and take those first steps into the dark,” or “you just have to trust that God is leading his church and our leaders are doing what God wants.” While very well intentioned such statements often come off sounding like the undertone is “you just need to have more faith and then you won’t have those problems.”
So how do we address this? How do we prepare ourselves to have enough understanding to be able to have sincere authentic dialogue without speaking past each other? I’m not sure. I think that going into it consciously giving others the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are well intentioned is a major step. But is it enough? Do we need to have a larger shift in how we as a church understand doubt, how we understand what constitutes “sustaining” our leaders, and how we understand apostasy?
I’d like to hear from you readers. How is your Sunday School? What steps must we take to make our Sunday Schools the places to discuss our true thoughts and opinions? Is it enough to emphasize love and understanding with fellow class members, or are there additional steps we need to take? How can we make this happen?
Sunday School is not a safe place. Neither is Relief Society.
It’s a safe place only to say exactly what is expected by the curriculum writers as an answer to anything. It is a safe place if you hold the same political and religious views as the ward leaders and a majority of the ward members.
Otherwise, absolutely not. A very unrealistic thing to say and said out of desperation (Isom)
Thanks for your input. As I said in the post, of the dozens of wards I’ve lived in, only one had a Sunday School that was a safe place. It took some time for it to become that way, and it required several people to make themselves very vulnerable by being incredibly honest and authentic. It took time. I don’t think it is possible to achieve in many wards, but I’d like to hope that we can help more wards become safe places for honest discussion.
If one is trying to read credible histories, you know, by recognized historians, one encounters in research that at least one woman author/historian Fawn Mckay Brodie, who wrote a biography of Joseph Smith and later was a history professor at UCLA, was excommunicated by the Church; Juanita Brooks, who wrote about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was apparently never excommunicated for her scholarly work but both she and her husband suffered through shunning. (Brodie’s opinion that Joseph Smith was a fraud caused her trouble with the Church leaders. Brooks’ carefully researched conclusions that Brigham Young had fomented the massacre by his histrionics and paranoia somehow did not get her excommunicated, but stirred up the ire of her fellow Mormons.) These facts by themselves speak volumes about the value placed on true history, research, and members holding unpopular opinions by the Church leadership and congregations. This kind of treatment does not bode well that there will ever be a climate of open discussion within the LDS Church or its people on the whole. Instead, it shows evidence of a very controlling type of leadership that will never accept the possibility of open debate on issues that accurate history or even good sense raise questions. This is probably at the core of many persons’ sense of deep mourning.
Can we get a link to that Ally Isom statement?
I couldn’t find a transcript anywhere online, so I transcribed those statements/interchanges from the interview with Doug Fabrizio.
http://radiowestallyisominterview.blogspot.com.ar/
Thank you! I knew there had to be a transcript somewhere!
I think the only time I’ve said an unpopular opinion in SS was when I pushed back on the idea that the story of Abraham and Isaac was a good model for obedience, which I said didn’t sit right with me and makes me uncomfortable. Afterwards, I was bombarded by well-intentioned members trying to set me right and one lady who actually agreed with me. So I think that speaking up in SS can result in a good discussion, but you certainly have to be prepared for it.
As for the asking questions/doubts rhetoric, the implication I get from it is that you can ask questions and have doubts as long as afterwards, you eventually arrive at the same conclusion that we did, which is that we’re right and this is the way things are supposed to be.
“you can ask questions and have doubts as long as afterwards, you eventually arrive at the same conclusion that we did, which is that we’re right and this is the way things are supposed to be.”
Precisely. You hit the nail right on the head.
I’m in Ally’s stake in Kaysville where she serves as a Relief Society instructor. When she talks about having “these conversations” in her Ward, I can assure you that it is not a discussion, but rather a very peripheral comment or statement by someone in the class. It certainly wouldn’t qualify as a “discussion.”
I once commented in a SS lesson that I didn’t have a testimony of home teaching, but I had a testimony of “love thy neighbor”. My point being: sometimes, by looking to the principle behind an awkward church practice we’re struggling to implement, we can realize what really matters most and not get lost on details or record-keeping.
The instructor obviously didn’t appreciate my comment and tried to get another comment as soon as possible.
I can only imagine the ruckus that would be created by an attempt to openly discuss anything like female ordination or gay marriage.
I think every Latter-day Saint would recognise what Ally said as complete and utter bollocks and a play only to the non mormons.
What does it say when our leadership are more concerned with how the world views them than how they fellowship and serve their congregations?
I feel like if the groups were smaller. maybe if the relief society would separate like the elders quorum and high priests do, then it would be easier to bring up “controversial” topics if it felt a bit more intimate. Relief society is not set up for discussion, it’s set up for the women to he talked at for an hour.
Have had a few sunday school classes that felt safe, but they were always a small group.
In teaching gospel doctrine, I’ve tried to have our class be a safe place, but more often than not, it’s really not. One lesson, on the creation, I brought up that the Church doesn’t have an official position on evolution – before the discussion couldn’t get any farther our Bishop stopped me and said ‘now, be careful…’ Needless to say it was a buzzkill on any meaningful discussion on the topic. I appreciate that the woman from public affairs thinks sunday school, etc are appropriate places for difficult questions, but in my experience, it’s more a place for straight-from-the-manual lessons and easy questions and answers.
Every Sunday lately I have tried to come prepared to raise alternative viewpoints from a faithful context. It is incredibly frightening for me to raise any issues, and when I do, I often feel like I don’t belong or that people see my views as contrary to God’s. But I try to do it anyway. For one thing, nobody in my home enjoys my venting about church lessons, particularly when I stayed silent and did nothing to make the lesson better. There isn’t much I can do simply based on how the lessons are taught, but I actively look for a moment to chime in, and try to do it with tact.
There is no safe place in church to express doubts or engage in critical thinking in regards to church doctrine and policies. That is why it is taking place on the Internet.
I would *love* for church to be a safe place for discussion and even debate. Wrestling with hard questions and entertaining new or even heretical ideas is how I feel the spirit. But when Ally Isom said that church is the appropriate place for conversations like this, rather than in public, it was not a description of how things are (obviously) or a prescription of how things should be. It was merely a way for her to deflect the question.
The fact that the PA office works closely with the Brethren won’t be enough to justify to local leaders to allow this kind of conversation at church all because of this interview. She is not a church leader, and ironically enough, as a woman, none of her words can ever be considered official. I think most members give PA spokespeople and even leaders a “pass” during press situations, knowing that spin is part of the game. To most Mormons, legitimate directions concerning what kinds of discussion can or should be held at church would come from conference talks from actual leaders.
The larger issue in my mind is that although *I* would relish free discussion, conversation, and speculation, it would make sooo many church members I know deeply uncomfortable. They would not feel the spirit while I would. Therein lies the real problem. For so many of us, what spiritually feeds us, spiritually hurts others, and vice versa.
I think it was Elder Oaks that said something to the effect that church teaching could be better if only we had more capable teachers. Let’s face it, most called to teach know only as much as the manual provides and they are not trained to handle tough questions or conduction groups discussions. Also, sometimes those who bring up tough questions already have an issue with some of the answers and they are looking to “score points” instead of engaging in a good discussion. And then, of course, is the typical situation in which most people do not like uncomfortable situations. They come to be inspired and motivated to do better and not to be reminded that there are many unanswered questions. I have been a SS teacher for several years and have developed a good relationship with my class members and I bring difficult subjects up, provide history and often tell my class members when we don’t have answers or where there is debate within the church on some issues. Because the bishopric–all good men and friends–don’t attend my class regularly their periodic presence sometimes stifles the discussion. I tried to keep going regardless of who is there–including members of the stake presidency–but then I am a recognized scholar and have built up trust. Not everyone can do it. My sense is that is can be done but only if the leaders of the ward provide the landscape for it. As bishop I never shied away from tough questions and I tried to train my teachers to handle tough situations, but I was only partly successful. Also, there is the danger that some of these discussion turn into complaint sessions about church leaders and doctrine and the reality is that we don’t come to sunday school for that. We come to be instructed with what is the “standard” gospel of the church. so, I don’t think it can be done very well often, but it is done and it can be done well if everyone is willing to put a effort to reason together.
Here is how things are in my ward’s Relief Society.
A few months ago, my wife was asked to teach, and she did so using a newly published book which Shari Dew co-authored.
My wife presented some of the information in that book relative to things Joseph Smith said to the RS shortly after it was organized and contained in the RS minutes; that he intended to make of the RS a “kingdom of priests.”
It was not a safe place.
At least one of the RS members was enthused. Others were offended. One made a bee-line to our bishop to complain about what my wife had taught. Our bishop took no action.
Not many weeks later, our bishop’s wife taught something along similar lines.
Shortly thereafter, the Stake RS Presidency called a meeting with our bishop’s wife to let her know she needed to stick to the manual.
Our bishop’s wife was offended and quit her calling.
This is how safe it is to talk about women’s issues in our Relief Society.
yep, same thing happened to me. But I was released. Not safe space. Stick to the manual I was told.
I just ended a stint as a Sunday School teacher in a largish international branch. I tried to make it a “safe place”, although I wouldn’t have thought to use that phrase. I taught a lesson on the history of the end of the priesthood ban, tried to lead a discussion on whether the Old Testament held contradictory views on whether Balaam was a good guy or a bad guy, and tried to lead a discussion about how to approach Old Testament violence (that assumed we should find it problematic). All of these got some push back–especially Balaam and Old Testament violence, but I was fortunate enough to have a branch presidency that didn’t seem bothered by the fact that I routinely threw the manual out the window. That said, I didn’t feel comfortable disagreeing when the other teacher taught Sunday School or in Elders Quorum. As other commenters have pointed out, it really depends on the leadership, the teacher, and the class. I do my best to push boundaries in Sunday School and Priesthood now, but often sit there frustrated.