- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
How would you characterize the dominant relationship of a member, to the Church?. Is it:
a) A parternship where members serve the formal Church organization, and vice versa?
b) A client-server relationship where the Church member is there to serve the interests of the Church primarily?
c) A client server relationship where the Church’s aims are at serving the members primarily?
d) A republic or democracy?
e) A monarchy with Church members as subjects?
Ideally, in the minds of the global leadership (and me), I would say (d); in reality, I would say a mixture of (a), (b) and (c) – depending almost entirely on the individual member and the Bishop / Branch President. Hopefully their psyche isn’t like Reuben J. Clark’s as quoted below: Quote:
For example, he said that Mormons should not expect democratic rights in the LDS church. He told the general conference of 1945, “We are democratic in our concepts of the Church, but we are not a democracy; we are a kingdom, the Church and kingdom of God on earth.”125 He later explained this to a missionary meeting: “I hope Brother [Mark E.] Petersen will pardon me–but this is not a democracy; this is not a republic; this is a kingdom of God. The President of the Church is his premier, if you will, his agent, his possessor of the keys. Our free agency which we have does not make us any more nor less than subjects of the Kingdom and subjects we are,–not citizens, Brother Mark.”126 As a reflection of his suspicions about intellectuals, Reuben affirmed that only the LDS president “has the right to rationalize”127 and that only he “has any right to change or modify or extend any revelation of the Lord.”http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpts-elder-statesman/ While much he says here may be agreeable, his comment “Our free agency which we have does not make us any more nor less than subjects of the Kingdom and subjects we are,–not citizens”.
Kingdom–subjects……the analogy seems more authoritarian than I think we would like to see in our modern times. Most kingdoms don’t seem to act like a partnership.
However, in line with my current thinking, I can choose to view the Church-member relationship as a partnership; those who make others aware of this only need suffer a bit of ostracization and loss of status, but not a loss of personal freedom in other aspects of their life.
Fwiw, I agree totally with the quote – without rejecting the partnership model at all. Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, I agree totally with the quote – without rejecting the partnership model at all.
How do you reconcile the two — one dealing with a highly autocratic implication, and the other implying a need for mutual give and take?
I think if it’s a kingdom, it’s more like a feifdom within a kingdom. What matters most and is most impactful is the Feudal Lord (the Bishop) who tries to keep peace and keep the serfs productive. He takes care of the serfs, and they work the land. If there is a battle declared by the ruling family (e.g. Prop 8 or a high profile goal handed down), the Feudal Lords are required to recruit from their serfs for the kingdom, but they all do this to the extent that they choose; some are heavy handed, some barely lift a finger. If you consider the relationship the church has with each member financially… For most it is e, or at least b.
Yeah, we hear the financial report each general conference & what does that tell us about how money was spent? Nothing.
Yet, in order to be considered, “temple worthy”, be fully accepted in the community & be part of your family or friends’ weddings… one must pay up (be a full tithe payer).
And church leaders don’t consult members how the money should be spent, infact they don’t really rely on scripture instructions to use the money to feed, clothe & care for the fatherless, widows etc. Some money collected by the church, is spent for this purpose, but it is not tithing, but contributions to “Fast Offering” or “Humanitarian Services.”
hawkgrrrl wrote:I think if it’s a kingdom, it’s more like a fiefdom within a kingdom. What matters most and is most impactful is the Feudal Lord (the Bishop) who tries to keep peace and keep the serfs productive. He takes care of the serfs, and they work the land. If there is a battle declared by the ruling family (e.g. Prop 8 or a high profile goal handed down), the Feudal Lords are required to recruit from their serfs for the kingdom, but they all do this to the extent that they choose; some are heavy handed, some barely lift a finger.
Nice analogy Hawk,
I believe I have been blessed with some exceptional Feudal Lords a.k.a. Bishops that were generally doing the best they can. Although I hesitate to take this analogy too far because I chafe so at being represented as a serf with the ruling family living off the sweat of my brow.
I think the leadership’s ideal is the King Benjamin benevolent monarchy – a leader who is recognized as the leader but who leads through selfless service and the righteous exercise of authority. That’s my ideal, as well. My ideal certainly isn’t anything that resembles a democracy.
Old-Timer wrote:I think the leadership’s ideal is the King Benjamin benevolent monarchy – a leader who is recognized as the leader but who leads through selfless service and the righteous exercise of authority. That’s my ideal, as well.
My ideal certainly isn’t anything that resembles a democracy.
Enlightened Despotism sounds like it could be closest to your conception. From Wikipedia:
“In effect, the monarchs ruled with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority. Implicit in this philosophy was that the sovereign knew the interests of his subjects better than they themselves; his responsibility to them thus precluded their political participation.”
Naturally this is a political, temporal example, which doesn’t line up entirely with a religious organization, but I think it has many commonalities. Basically, that being a Kingdom is fine, as long as those who administer the kingdom see improving the lives of their subjects as a primary goal. Not bastardized goals that make it SOUND like serving the organization is what is best for the individual…actually seeking to make the lives of the individual better in ways that are meaningful to the individual and the organization simultaneously….
Naturally, I think we fall down on that. You have to rely on the old “The idea is [such and such], but in practice, it doesnt’ work that way”.
Amen. We don’t live up to it in MOST cases, although I’ve lived in wards where it was a reality. It’s amazing when it works – and it works pretty well in more places than those living in places where it doesn’t work realize.
Old-Timer wrote:Amen. We don’t live up to it in MOST cases, although I’ve lived in wards where it was a reality.
It’s amazing when it works – and it works pretty well in more places than those living in places where it doesn’t work realize.
Then I must’ve had a lot of bad luck, because it hasn’t worked in three stakes I’ve lived in. It DID work in one Ward I attended, and was absolutely inspiring.
SilentDawning wrote:
How would you characterize the dominant relationship of a member, to the Church?.
I am going to rephrase the question slightly, “How would you characterize the dominant relationship of
youto the Church? SilentDawning wrote:
Is it:a) A parternship where members serve the formal Church organization, and vice versa?
b) A client-server relationship where the Church member is there to serve the interests of the Church primarily?
c) A client server relationship where the Church’s aims are at serving the members primarily?
d) A republic or democracy?
e) A monarchy with Church members as subjects?
g) Proton (Church)/Electron (Bouncing Amy) relationship – I feel that I am attracted by core doctrines and some people I interact with. At the same time, I am repulsed by other doctrines and people. Most of the time I feel there is a lot of head scratching on both the heads of my leadership and my own understanding of both the doctrines and people around me. However, it is the principles of the Atonement, Prayer/Revelation, and Love that provide the attraction for my electron self and keep me from bouncing off to another proton.
SilentDawning wrote:
How would you characterize the dominant relationship of a member, to the Church?.Is it:
a) A parternship where members serve the formal Church organization, and vice versa?
b) A client-server relationship where the Church member is there to serve the interests of the Church primarily?
c) A client server relationship where the Church’s aims are at serving the members primarily?
d) A republic or democracy?
e) A monarchy with Church members as subjects?
A – ideally. To some extent.
B – sometimes.
C – sometimes.
D – no. Except in Sunday school and F&T.
E – Yes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.