- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is something that every person in a leadership position has to grapple with, whether at church, in the workplace, or even just talking to your kids. Communication is more than just a two-way street with a wide median. The speaker intends to say X, and various listeners hear Y, Z, Q, and M. Because people imbue church leaders with so much authority, their words are given extra power. For someone who is skeptical of authority, it’s easy to find the flaws in what the speaker says or even what we suppose the speaker intends. For those who revere or fear authority, they may not only be unquestioning or uncritical but they can also misunderstand the intention or have an overly simplistic view of what the speaker is saying. I think this is an issue that is very important to many of us.
I have a friend who shared an incident he observed. In England, several visiting apostles were greeting local leaders (SPs & bishops). Someone asked E. Oaks if the SPs should be using TR questions to interview bishops, and E. Oaks smiled and said that was a great way to do it. At that point, E. Packer rested his hand on E. Oaks’ shoulder and said, “That’s a fine idea, but we don’t want to make that a rule. When we say something like that, it has a tendency to become a standard church practice, and we need to be careful to avoid making statements that are just an opinion but can be taken as a pronouncement.” E. Oaks immediately deferred to E. Packer as the more senior apostle. But as a result, all 4 apostles there for the visit met first thing the next morning (at 6:30 because they already had an 8:00 meeting) to further discuss the matter.
Personally, I found it enormously comforting that the apostles, especially the two in question, would be so careful about the impact of their words. So I thought I would share that story with all of you.
Another reason I would never aspire to a leadership position…I would think i would be walking on egg shells about everything you say. You are sooo right. President Gordon B. Hinkley was reported to have visited 60 different countries. I don’t know how many different languages, how many dialects or even how many hand gestures he had to adapt to. Even in the English Language, there is a “generational divide” in language and custom. The word, “Bad” in the younger generation actually means “Cool” to my generation. Now translate that using a dictionary.
Thanks for sharing Hawkgrrrl. What a great reminder. I think even the most vicious anti-mormons must recognize that the leaders of the church sweat bullets over the words they say. I have a great amount of compassion for them because of the situation they are in. To answer the post’s question, yes and no. I think the Apostles certainly do recognize that the vast majority of the TBM world (and ironically, the anti-mormon world) considers their worlds to be infallible, doctrinal exposition. I tend to think they are saddened by this. On the other hand, I think they have a tendency to create this atmosphere as well, even if it is unintended. Additionally, as hawk alludes to, they can’t possibly know how every member will receive their words and they likely can’t even place themselves in the situation of someone like me (struggling with faith, etc.).
In either case, I’m with Heber. I’m glad I’m not in that position, and I would live a happy life if I never got there.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Personally, I found it enormously comforting that the apostles, especially the two in question, would be so careful about the impact of their words.
All the more reason to believe that Elder Holland’s talk was meant to convey the message that the majority of TBMs are taking it, rather than the way only a nuanced reading can take it. Clearly they are concerned about how their words will be taken and take much effort to make sure they are sending precisely the message they intend (with the caveat that some will be able to take additional meanings from it no matter how carefully or precisely they couch it.)
Fwiw, I think it kind of proves that Elder Holland tried to make certain his words could be understood by those who aren’t going to lead the pep rally as not condemning them for their own private struggles. I think he knew the people you mention, MisterCurie, AND those on the opposite extreme would take it exactly how they expected almost no matter what he said – so I think he was careful to be forceful but use a very narrow focus in the words he actually chose so his actual words wouldn’t alientate those in the middle. Of course, that wasn’t totally successful, but it can’t ever be. I really do think, however, that he tried to be both passionate in his defense and careful to tackle only one subset of those who reject the Book of Mormon. I understand completely that those who reacted negatively have a brutal time understanding what I’m saying, but I really did go back dispassionately and try to parse very carefully his exact words in their entire context, looking for exactly what his words meant when devoid of personal interpretation – and I think lots of people would be shocked at just how narrow the actual focus was when dissected that way. Frankly, that kind of analysis is a strength of mine – but it drives some people nuts who are more prone to emotional reaction.
MC – Well, there are kind of two aspects to this story about Oaks & Packer. Oaks was making a remark, personally unaware of the possible consequences of his words (it becoming a pronouncement). Packer, as an observer in a similar situation, noticed the possible problem. But I don’t believe that happens all the time either. What I found comforting was: – that it is on their minds, at least some of the time, and taken quite seriously
– that Packer & Oaks specifically had a lengthy discussion about this topic as both have a tendency to fall into this trap (Oaks – white shirts, Packer – funerals / unwritten order of things)
– that there was respect yet constructive feedback among the Q15 – it wasn’t non-confrontational or “brushing under the rug”
But you could also note that despite all that, this tendency to command others “in all things” is still there, and even when not intended, there are plenty of types in the church who are looking for a to do list from the higher ups so they can work their way to salvation and keep score.
The general authorities are mostly at Fowler level 3. Most of their audience is level 3 too. What we hear and interpret depends on our past experience and current level of development. For example, an aunt of mine was found of reminding us at conference time: “Listen to the general authorities, especially the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as if Jesus Christ himself is speaking. After you die and you’re being judged, you’ll have to pass by this generation of leaders; you will have to answer to them how you treated their counsel before you’re admitted to the Celestial Kingdom.”
Level 3 preaching runs the risk of being overly dogmatic, close-minded, self-righteousness, judgmental, and intolerant. It can a positive side too, however. Many good things can and do result from organizational stability, feeling of service to a noble cause, and sensing one has a higher purpose in life. Talks can also foster integrity, responsibility and discipline.
I think this encapsulates what happens when the authorities speaks. Level 3 preaching resonates deeply with Level 3 development. The real problem, from a Level 4-5 perspective is that, as Fowler states, “The expectations and evaluations of others can be so compellingly internalized (and sacralized) that later autonomy of judgment and action can be jeopardized.” That’s what many of us struggle with.
I now listen with a more critical eye and take what resonates with me and treat the rest with respect, but to be honest, much of it is trite, ethno and egocentric, and boring. The choir does far more for me than most of the talks!
gtb – so true. I think many of us feel similarly. Although I also am finding that in more recent conferences (the last 2 or 3) the dogma is fading a bit. Perhaps it is going out of fashion. There seems to be more focus on sharing personal spiritual experiences. Or maybe I’m just hearing things differently. hawkgrrrl wrote:There seems to be more focus on sharing personal spiritual experiences. Or maybe I’m just hearing things differently.
I have been thinking that same thing, HG. It seems that when I was confident in Stage 3 it was all literal and all true, then the talks with spiritual experiences were more evidence to confirm my belief and I enjoyed the good feelings of a good story. However, since I’ve been more open-eared towards paying attention to what is really being said, I find they aren’t really saying a whole lot, just “feel good” stuff, IMO. I have wondered a lot if this is just the way I listen to conference now, it was always like that but it met my needs, or if they have shifted based on the changing landscape. I should go back to prior conferences and reread things to see what I think may be the same or different. Has anyone else done that and seen a shift at all?Quote:The general authorities are mostly at Fowler level 3.
Be careful over-generalizing.I know you said “mostly”, but I think you’d be surprised how much of a Stage level mix there is in General Conference – and I think we MUST take into consideration the audience before assuming the leadership is at the same level as the audience. I also believe nearly all of them are a mixture of the classic stage theory, depending on the issues, just as all of us are.
As I look at the current apostles, I honestly think there is a decided majority that is not Stage 3 generally – and there is ALWAYS at least one (generally two or three) that absolutely aren’t Stage 3 by any definition. Elder Wirthlin is perhaps the best example in the last 10 years, but Elder Andersen certainly is in that same category – and I think Elders Cook and Uchtdorf also are WAY beyond Stage 3. On a particular issue, sure; but, overall, nope.
In a small way it’s comforting, but also highlights another problem. I don’t believe Church leaders should have to be so careful with their words. I think the types that Hawkgirl mentioned… hawkgrrrl wrote:plenty of types in the church who are looking for a to do list from the higher ups so they can work their way to salvation and keep score.
are slowly killing those poor men. And imprisoning the rest of us. They seem to resemble the Pharisees that Jesus kept butting heads with. Building a hedge around the law isn’t good for anyone. I would go so far as to say these scorekeepers are acting in an evil manner. There’s something just a little screwy about wanting to impose rules on others.
In the BoM, prophets emphasize the distinction between God’s words and their own. They say “Thus saith the Lord,” as opposed to “I say unto you.” This clears up just about everything for me.
Giving people a to-do list helps up to a certain point — the bare minimum effort. That’s the problem with religious checklists. People start to worship the list. If I just do x, y and z then I have done enough to pass. So guess what happens? Yeah, they focus only on doing x, y and z and go no farther. That is the Mormon definition of damnation: a limit. Jesus gave a very simple checklist for people to work on … well, simple in terms of items to do. He said to be perfect (whole and complete) like God.” One item. Easy peasy, right?
😈 I still consider this a valuable spiritual concept. It doesn’t get me all agitated like it used to, feeling like a failure. I think we move along when we are ready and want to. I’m not so attached to this life being a one shot final exam.
In priesthood meeting yesterday our lesson danced about the point that these “checklist” items are really just suggestions to get us moving in the “right” direction. Yes they are “important” because doing * something* is important to break the inertia and get you moving toward your “goal.” In the end it’s the actual “becoming” that is the goal, and we should keep the checklist items in proper perspective. I’m with Val (and Ray has said this), it’s all about becoming “whole” or “complete.” In the context of Matt 5:43-48 I like to sum it up: “Love ye therefore perfectly, that ye may become complete, even as your Father which is in heaven.”
Orson wrote:In priesthood meeting yesterday our lesson danced about the point that these “checklist” items are really just suggestions to get us moving in the “right” direction. Yes they are “important” because doing *
something* is important to break the inertia and get you moving toward your “goal.” In the end it’s the actual “becoming” that is the goal, and we should keep the checklist items in proper perspective.
Well said, Orson. I was reading John 7:17 yesterday as well, and thinking along these same thoughts. Some things become important when we are doing them, and then we start to understand them as we’re doing them. I think that is faith.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.