- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The following is a combination of two things I wrote on my personal blog this week. They weren’t written with each other in mind, but as I saw them tonight it struck me how related they are. They aren’t profound in any way, but they sum up how I feel about understanding others, especially within the context of the Church, pretty concisely: First:
Quote:If I really want to understand fully anyone who is different than I am in any way, that understanding can’t be merely academic or philosophical or theological. It must be personal. I don’t have to experience their actual lives, but I do have to experience their actual selves.
Second:
Quote:My ideal Bishopric or Stake Presidency (or any presidency) would be a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent – a BIC, a convert and someone who had been inactive for a stretch – someone with grown kids, someone with young kids and someone with no kids – etc. I believe the best decisions are the ones that include multiple perspectives – and multiple perspectives can’t exist in a monolithic organization where all the “minority members” are either silent or gone.
Those who view things differently than the majority are needed desperately in the Church, and those in the majority need to value the differing views – not just tolerate them.
Seeing as how many members go inactive and fall away, it would be a great idea to seek out those who have returned to get their perspective and put them in to leadership positions where they can influence local ward and stakes. I know this isn’t completely true, but it does have a ring of truth to it: Someone who has gone through a crisis of faith can understand those who are faithful and do not doubt. They’ve been there before. Often times though, the reverse is not true. Those who have never experienced some crisis of faith or struggled with doubts can not understand those who are having those experiences. They haven’t walked that path.
I agree with Brian on this. There are times when I’ve seen policies developed that are clearly egocentric to a particular mindset — at the exclusion of all else. At the overall Church level, the one year waiting period for people who get married outside the temple is a case in point; it entirely ignores the plight of worthy converts who have non-member parents. I also find the ego-centric approach often leads to pat answers that are satisfying only to the ego-centric way of thinking. However, I have seen a number of shining examples of diversity coming to the fore in certain contexts — such as Mother’s day, for example, where the Church has moved toward a model that tries to include all women, not just mothers. This is sensitive to those women who can’t have children, for example.
I wish we had more of that all-inclusive thinking.
Brian Johnston wrote:Seeing as how many members go inactive and fall away, it would be a great idea to seek out those who have returned to get their perspective and put them in to leadership positions where they can influence local ward and stakes…I know this isn’t completely true, but it does have a ring of truth to it:
Someone who has gone through a crisis of faith can understand those who are faithful and do not doubt. They’ve been there before. Often times though, the reverse is not true. Those who have never experienced some crisis of faith or struggled with doubts can not understand those who are having those experiences.They haven’t walked that path. That’s a big part of the problem in my opinion, there isn’t really that much organizational balance and diversity because the Church seems to value and promote an extreme level of conformity and discourages too much individuality. Sure the Church welcomes people with different ethnic backgrounds, national origin, occupations, personal interests, etc. but when it comes to religious beliefs the Church acts like any minor differences in opinion should not exist at all and are basically not acceptable for active members.
Most members that don’t agree with one or more doctrines the Church emphasizes (WoW, tithing, chastity, the restoration, temple marriage, etc.) currently end up leaving or becoming inactive and the ones that don’t often feel like they need to keep quiet about their disagreements most of the time in order to fit in. It looks like one result of this is that most of the top leaders that come from this relatively isolated background and culture probably have a limited perspective of what life outside the Church’s influence is really like and it’s hard to expect them to understand skeptical opinions about some of these doctrines very well when the answers provided by the Church are all some of them have ever seriously considered.
I had a conversation with a member of the Church recently, and he said all the room for individuality is in organizing activities. I tend to agree with him. If you’re the creative type, you can do a lot in that respect….so, in that sense, there is room for individuality. I’ve been in wards where individuality wasn’t appreciated much, and I’ve been in wards where individuality was appreciated greatly. What tended to be the difference? Room for individuality depends almost entirely on the local leadership in the units, but the biggest factor that affects local leadership tends to be the diversity of the membership. A more diverse membership tends to necessitate more tolerance of individuality – especially if those who are the most different than the “cultural Utah norm” refuse to leave. They don’t have to be confrontational in any way, but hearing their voices makes a difference – to widely varying degrees.
That, perhaps, is the worst result of those who are different leaving. It solidifies the “norm” and lessens the likelihood that individuality will be appreciated and encouraged. I’m not “blaming” people for leaving if they feel different (and I LOVE Elder Wirthlin’s point in “Concern for the One” that it is the membership’s responsibility to act in a way that encourages those who are different, those who are tired and those who have strayed to return), but I am saying that leaving only exacerbates the problem about which those who leave complain.
Intolerant people who prompt people to leave contribute to our inability to build Zion, but so do those who leave. I know for a fact that my own insistence on staying actively involved has been a blessing to others who might have left or faded away into inactivity without my voice, and I am glad I stayed for that reason even if there had been no other benefits for me. There have been such benefits, but still that would have been enough.
I’m not saying I have been responsible for the fact that my last two wards, especially, have been and are wonderful wards – but I am saying I have been and am a PART of the reason. I speak up and contribute in a unique way, and that helps others feel comfortable doing so, as well – especially those who see things similarly, but even those who don’t. I talk openly about the need to value diversity, and the diverse appreciate that and respond. I am seen as totally faithful and not a threat or a challenge in any way (since I am faithful and am not a threat), so “The Church” where I live is not seen the same way it is seen in other units.
Again, I’m not alone in that, but I AM a part of it. Granted, I don’t face this to the degree that cwald has described in his unit, but I have been in situations where I appeared to be the only voice saying what I was saying – only to have someone come up to me afterward and thank me for saying it.
I believe that is worth considering – truly contemplating and internalizing.
Let’s say you’ve got someone like me. Lots of negative experiences in the Church, having done just about every leadership calling, and just tired of it all for a while — maybe a long while. Is that simply a characteristic that is worthy of the kind of respect for diversity that Wirthlin is talking about, or is that simply unrighteousness/selfishness etcetera that as a Church we don’t want to condone? Quote:Is that simply a characteristic that is worthy of the kind of respect for diversity that Wirthlin is talking about?
Yes. I read his talk as saying that we as a people need to understand and respect people in the situations he mentioned to accept them regardless and make a place for them in the Church that will work for them. If that means making a place for someone like your description that includes “rest”, so be it.
I get the concern that can cause for many leaders, since, “It’s OK if you’re tired to opt out of time-consuming callings,” can be a very scary thought organizationally – but it’s the right thing to do. Also, anyone who is willing to contribute should be respected and valued for whatever they can contribute.
I know that’s not reality in many units, especially the small ones that need participation badly, but it still is the ideal, imo – and it is what I take from Elder Wirthlin’s talk.
Quote:I get the concern that can cause for many leaders, since, “It’s OK if you’re tired to opt out of time-consuming callings,” can be a very scary thought organizationally – but it’s the right thing to do. Also, anyone who is willing to contribute should be respected and valued for whatever they can contribute.
I know that’s not reality in many units, especially the small ones that need participation badly, but it still is the ideal, imo – and it is what I take from Elder Wirthlin’s talk.
As a leader, I wouldn’t want to preach that over the pulpit — definitely — because there are people who are simply lazy and unwilling to put themselves out for whatever reason. And they will use that loop hole from Wirthlin to excuse themselves from serving. However, it’s a relief to hear it for someone like myself who has put in a lot of time over the years (like many people) and are just kind of fed up with it for the time being and juggling several other responsibilities, after a long period of overdrive.
Now, how do you reconcile this — if you’re a leader in the Ward or Stake, charged with achieving certain goals like activation, endowed members with TR’s, young men serving missions, new converts, etcetera, and you have capable people who simply are too tired or unwilling to serve, as well as pressure from the people above you to achieve those goals, how do you mediate between those two extremes?
This is something I ran into as an HPGL. Had a rabid HC always breathing down our necks about the numbers and leaving us feeling we were never doing well enough. Meanwhile, the brethren in the quorum were reluctant to do much. I felt stuck in the middle and for a while was always trying to motivate them. It was frustrating because nothing really changed the entire three years I was in the calling. The people who were originally willing, stayed willing, and the peole who were unwilling, stayed unwilling, for whatever reason. And this in spite of humbly seeking the Spirit, giving spiritual lessons, holding PPI’s etcetera.
If you follow Wirthlin’s advice, as a leader you just have to be happy with whatever you get from the people you are leading and say “fooey” on all the “lengthen your stride” initiatives that the flock are not willing to embrace. However, that doesn’t fit well with the pressure you get from the people above you — particularly at Ward conferences and HC visits.
Quote:How do you mediate between those two extremes?
Do your best to love truly and not exercise unrighteous dominion – or, in the words of a wise man I know:
Quote:If you follow Wirthlin’s advice, as a leader you just have to be happy with whatever you get from the people you are leading and say “fooey” on all the “lengthen your stride” initiatives that the flock are not willing to embrace.
What’s the worst that can happen? You get released and have more free time to spend on other things.
😆 Last Saturday we had a stake appreciation dinner for “seasoned” (old) members. I got talked into going. It was first rate, great food, served by the YW/YM, who then sat with you and asked questions about your life. The entertainment was wonderful, and not to long. The hall was packed, everyone in Sunday dress, all the men and boys in white shirts/ties. My partner and I arrived a tiny bit late. I wore a black shirt, with my chest, arms and hands covered with silver/turquoise necklaces, bracelets, rings (plus my new sports coat). My partner wore dark slacks with a brilliant Seminole top and silver bracelets. She has her doctorate and the given name Muscogee. The stake president jumped up to greet us (diversity welcomed). Five of the young servers rushed to seat us and sit with us. Rather than tell about our lives, we shared Native American stories. I told of “Ishi,” American’s last wild Indian, who appeared from the California forest 100 years ago this year. His aunt and sister had disappeared two weeks earlier while he was hunting. He was in mourning, starving and heartsick. He figured the strangers in the valley would kill him and he would join his beloved ancestors. Instead, the ranchers fed him and he became famous until TB took him eleven years later. He would never tell his real name. He said he had none, that the shaman (holy man) was killed before his birth and no one had the right to name him. His anthropologist called him Ishi. Eventually as he lay dying he told his professor friend, “Ishi go, you stay.”
The young people listened to every word. The BofM was never mentioned. No missionaries were to be seen. My partner is Methodist and I often worship with her. It was a wonderful evening. We laughed and shared and were talked about (old friends from forty years of local attendance were there and carefully taking notes). If only the (LDS) block could be the same way…
Very cool, George. Thanks for sharing. Thank you George, that touched me. When I said, “If only the (LDS) block could be the same way…,” I was lamenting that the stories which make up our lives, are but little accepted or taught in our faith community. We are duty bound to acceptance of one narrow spiritual quest (the restoration), when there is so much more richness in the commonality of our human experience. We need to explore and elevate and learn about it all. It is through the refractions/reflections of the rainbow, we build our universality, and become one in love. I find Jesus in my story of Ishi, and a thousand other points of light… I doubt my message is clear in what I suggest here, in my complaint. Please forgive my sputter.
So we need to find ways to share them in the Sunday meetings in a way that is not scary for the more traditional members. It can be done, but it takes practice and effort and patience – especially if you live in a unit like cw described.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.