On SDT’s scale, I am described as a conservative (If I was in CA, I would probably hold my nose and vote for the Proposition; operating on the assumption that the Brethren know something I don’t). However, I would still probably question the Brethren’s decision and I would have sympathies for those who voted a different way. Does this make me a hypocrite? a humble follower? a conservative? a liberal? I don’t rightly know, nor do I believe I fit easily into any of those categories. Labels are handy for quick judgments, but they are lousy at true analysis.

A couple of examples: whether the Church should sponsor Boy Scouts. There are blogs where defending the Boys Scouts will nearly get you shouted off. Yet with Pres Monson being an avid scouter, that program isn’t going anywhere soon.

Another example is the fact that the Church isn’t any more immune to having some of its local leadership being child molesters than the Catholic Church is. In the years since I have moved from Utah, I have seen news articles about bishops and scoutmasters who have been arrested/convicted of molesting children in their care in the area of the Salt Lake Valley where I grew up, including one bishop from the stake next door to mine. And there are law firms who make a specialty of suing the Church over abusive bishops, primary teachers, and scoutmasters.

These are hot button issues to many members of the Church, but as the comments here point out, the Bloggernacle is more concerned about the legacy of the priesthood ban and SSM, neither of which interests me very much. As I said, my quota of indignation only goes so far, and these two Bloggernacle-favorite issues don’t touch me closely enough to warrant the required energy.

No Mormon, of any ideological stripe, ought to grant that the leadership determines what is right by fiat. That does violence to any number of important gospel principles–personal revelation and free agency, just to name a couple of big ones. It would be tedious to haul out the flotilla of quotations from church presidents and apostles that argue forcefully against the idea that all church leaders’ decisions are infallibly correct. Here’s just one:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually

The “or not” in the penultimate sentence is a possibility many so-called conservatives in the church seem to have excluded. There’s plenty of disregarding prophetic injunctions on both sides of the conservative/liberal divide–we all just pick different commandments to ignore. The sooner we all acknowledge this and quit trying to label each other sheep and goats, the more productive our discussions will be.

The difficulty I find is that the church is so SLOW in adopting the positions that I hold dear. I yap and yap on the internet all day, but nothing happens in SLC. I’ve gadflied my Elder’s Quorum into submission, but you’d never believe it by watching the inactivity at the stake level.

I say that mostly in jest, but do find the separation to be troublesome. I’m not sure I’d go back to Nauvoo, where everyone had access to the prophet’s ear, but I do wish the common-man Mormon had at least some access to the inner-sanctum. I understand running things up through the proper chain of authority, but that chain seems to have the “inappropriate content” filters set as high as Ardis’s computer in the COB.

The comparison I’d make is to the presidential election. I have a very strong opinion about the direction I’d like to take the nation, but have learned that the system itself doesn’t always agree with me. However, at least I had a vote, and I’m fairly certain that my vote counted. Change is slow, but my participation is appreciated, and my neighborhood canvassing is viewed as a legitimate part of the process.

I do take comfort in the fact that the church has generally not refused the will of the people if a strong consensus exists on an issue. Yes, it may take 30 years, but things do move. I just wish that I could believe that any action in my life had a perceptible equal and opposite reaction on a higher level.

First, I really dislike that characterization, since I think nearly all members actually “disagree with” (or simply don’t understand) the Church’s official teachings and positions on many things – and because I think the Church has no official teaching or position on far more things than most members realize. I also think it is possible to find a solid middle ground on lots of issues and not be out of harmony with the Church at all.

In fact, I think a middle ground for the Church does NOT require total unanimity of thought and opinion. We haven’t had that type of unified FP and Q12 since the organization of the Church almost 200 years ago. I believe there is a reachable middle ground of common consent and cooperative council, where differing opinions can exist but a unification of action, especially, can be attained. Maybe I’m just too quixotic, but I’ve seen it happen too many times on a local level to believe it can’t happen on a larger scale.

Ray, that’s a good point. We can reach unity on action and figure out a decent way to proceed on most important issues. I think that’s where the hot button issues become separated from the issues that compose the vast majority of the Church’s work and business. The vast majority of what we do in the Church, even the most liberal members would concede, has nothing to do with SSM at all. In matters like preparing a lesson or dealing with welfare needs, we might have differing opinions, but these opinions don’t usually cause us to contend with one another, because both sides can be within the Church’s policies (or, as you correctly and perceptively note, lack of policies). The hot button issues, however, polarize by nature, because they require you to take an up or down vote on the Church position, and there isn’t much room to interpret the Church’s policy as there would be in most of our business.

On these hot button issues like SSM and women and the priesthood, the Church does have a clear position, and a willingness to argue against it implies that you’re willing to argue against Church policy as a lay member, which implies that your view of the Church is at least somewhat different from the bulk of the church membership. The conservative, on the other hand, has to bear the opposite burden, which is that policies with which he personally disagrees he must nevertheless support as being of God, which presumably means that his opinion isn’t. So it’s tough on both sides, but that’s why you’re not going to see compromise there. The liberal (on SSM) member isn’t going to grant that the Church leadership determines what’s right by fiat (and indeed he can’t, or he’d have to change his mind). The conservative (on SSM) member isn’t going to admit that the criticisms have merit, because he’d then have to concede that there’s something we know that the Church leadership doesn’t (which would undermine much of his basis for belief).

Most members, in my estimation, are either conservative on these matters or are like Susan and just don’t much care. Probably the latter attitude is the more helpful

To their credit, they’re pretty quick about granting access if it’s worth the trouble of appealing. But granting them credit for that would interfere with my indignation, so I think I’ll just rant a little more instead.

I read you re: ego temptations; as one of the fallen I feel the pain.