David, I understand and agree with what you said. All I’m saying is that there can be unity in many things even if there isn’t yet unity in all things. I often bite my tongue in class discussions because I just don’t think the disagreement and debate my view will initiate is worth making the comment. (Sometimes I do interject if I think it is important enough.) In most cases, the areas where we see things differently just aren’t important enough to me to jeopardize where we really are united.

Bob, There is room for multiple paradigms within the Church, but we are left to work out the balance of individuality and unity on our own. I’ll take that over the alternative any day.

While I in theory agree with your assessment of the situation in #44, I think in practice it is much different than you portray for the vast majority of church attending LDS. The actual social practice of the church contradicts what the theory you espouse says. I know the obvious retort is, “Well change it!” but it is not so obvious. Social practices take on a life of their own and can divorce themselves from texts and doctrines. The real problem is that those involved in the social practices rarely even notice the disconnect. The fact of the matter is that I think in most cases the situation you described where you like RSR and your fellow LDS parishoner thinks it is blasphemous is the norm. Assuming that is the norm, what kind of unity is there when your fellow parishoner thinks you read garbage, and probably will reap a bad reward for doing so? Unity is nice in theory, but I think there has to be something behind the unity, and if your fellow saint thinks you are going to hell (taking it to a logical, but extreme conclusion) what kind of unity exists?

I am not saying the LDS church is unique in this. This is simply a fact of social life. Tocqueville noticed that while the USA has the most protections for freedom of speech he found that other countries actually had more free speech in practice. While you can say anything you want in the USA, you are marginalized and in a sense lose your ability to speak because no one will listen to you (when was the last time you saw a communist and a libertarian debating on CNN?). Something similar happens in the church. Sure, you can say lots of things, but many people find that what they have to say is simply not appreciated (like annegb was saying) and no one will listen. If no one will listen to you, because you have become marginalized, where is the unity?

I have no solution to this problem, nor do I claim to know for a fact that it is a problem.

It’s probably my manner, also, though. One time I defended Lot’s wife rather stridently and it just made everybody mad. I couldn’t see how nobody could understand how hard it was for a mom to leave her children even if they were total sinners. I thought God was rather hard on her.

If you can’t express those things yet openly in those groups, hopefully you can in this one.

Frankly, I don’t think the Church wants you to hold onto incorrect assumptions, close RSR and blindly follow others’ beliefs. Even as an institution, it has been willing to scrap incorrect assumptions and accept new paradigms. What it warns against is abandoning foundational principles of the Gospel in favor of alternative philosophies, running willy-nilly after the intellectualizations of man and publicly fighting against Priesthood leadership and authority. I know *so* many faithful members who disagree about *so* many things – which is the way it should be, imo, as long as they remain united in the faith and in their commitment to each other, their fellow man and the Church.

If your own perspectives and beliefs put you at intellectual odds with a portion of the membership at large, welcome to my world (and the worlds of many others). It hasn’t stopped me (and them) from serving visibly in the Church and enjoying the blessings of the Restored Gospel. That’s part of the paradigm shift that happens with many – that there really can be a fulfilling marriage of spiritually connective unity and intellectually divergent individuality. I can read RSR and bless Bro. Bushman for having strengthened my testimony by writing it, while I worship next to someone who views it as blasphemous – and not see that as a problem in the moment. I can believe in various political ideas, while worshiping with others who disagree with many of those ideas – and not be concerned unduly about it. The Church encourages unity of thought about very few things, in reality, and even in those cases it recognizes various levels of understanding and perspective.

Think about the temple recommend interview questions. Not one of them asks about what we think about the topic – how we construct our own paradigm concerning the question. Rather, all of them simply are basic yes/no questions – essentially, “Do you accept this basic tenet of the Restored Gospel and try to live this basic principle?” The details of how you get there and how you construct your world-view outside of the questions never is addressed. Those things are between you and God.

I experienced a paradigm shift this year when a couple spoke in our ward who are widely regarded as non-traditional, therefore perhaps not as high up on God’s list as the rest of us.

As I listened to them, I realized they knew the Lord and I further realized that it doesn’t matter half as much how “active” one is, if one is a bishop or the janitor who cleans the church, it’s the direction we are looking.

Because even that bishop is failing in some area. Perhaps you guys knew that already, but I didn’t. I did a lot of comparing based on outward appearances of activity. Not so much anymore.

I haven’t said that in Sunday School, though.