Can I have a say?

Does being born into Mormonism, being raised in it, indoctrinated in it for your whole life give you the right to have a say in its structure. Does any leader have more decision making authority than you, given that you had no input on their being called, other than a negative vote at sustaining?

simple answer is: you have no say whatsoever into LDS church structure. it is a top-down rigidly hierarchal organization that takes its orders from god. you can raise your right hand to sustain, which is more like taking an oath of loyalty to sustain the decision and person in their calling, or you can raise an objection, and follow that up with tangible evidence as a witness of wrongdoing on the part of the sustained person. you cannot voice an opinion–there is no ‘negative voting–and false witness will invoke church discipline.

this is what is meant by ‘priesthood authority’: top down hierarchy.

I agree we have no say whatsoever in the church, but should we given the nature of our membership as I described?

it the model in the temple is correct, then god initiates all action through his word, and it is carried out by the priesthood, who return and report. “should we” have another model? is this a question from a church PoV or from a personal one? The LDS and Catholic churches are rigidly hierarchal — there is not place for a person to suggest anything to the upper ranks of hierarchy. It is what it is. Sure, many are born into it — what difference does that make? priesthood=hierarchy. the greek term for high priest is “hierarch”.

on a personal level, I think most LDS, myself included, have made the LDS church our entire lives — we may think they are free, but way too many of their life-events are governed by the church to ever leave it aside. It is our identity, and as such, governs our very existence and our view of the world about us. Herein is the problem: any ‘thing’ which becomes our identity is a type of idolatry–to relegate my thinking, my devotion, and my sense of self/identity to the church is to rely on the arm of flesh, to pray to a false god, and to render obedience to something other than the true “I AM”. I know these are hard words, but this is how I’m seeing it now as I get more weary of the ‘game’.

There needs to be a personal transition, away from this love/hate/dominance of the church on my psyche, toward a more balanced view — the church is what it is, a tool for culture, sociality, learning, and partaking of spiritually significant and symbolic edification. But my sense of devotion and self — my ‘worthiness’ — is completely distinct and independent of the church, or any church.

Is it unethical to manage the church as it is?

The church is what it is: an organization of men who provide an intangible product: ‘membership’. What we do with that product is up to us. Certainly in the marketing of that product, the church makes claims of the product’s effectiveness: like it is the only way to get the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the only way to be married for all time and eternity, the only way to be happy. Is it ethical to make these claims? Well, if you look carefully, they more or less imply these claims, and allow us to impute them for ourselves — it’s a little disingenuous to be sure, but it is meant well, so is it ethical? I have no idea. I believe that Church Leadership truly believes that the substantive claims of what the church does for the salvation and exaltation of its members are true. Since most of biggest claims of benefit won’t happen until we’re all dead and gone, we’ll never know.

I think we expect to have a say given our strong democratic roots in America…however, this particular organization (the LDS Church) doesn’t tolerate that. I think there is informal listening, but somewhere along the line, a hierarchical apporoach to leadership as deemed successful, took root in our culture, and its here to stay. I agree that we all have a choice — but at what cost? The doctrine with the temple, social stigmas associated with divorce, and even wives who believe they can’t really get full salvation without their marriage makes the cost very high….

I wonder why this thread is in ‘introductions’. It’s an important topic, one that merits careful, doctrinal consideration.

The church is not a democracy. While the church is very supportive of democracy in the secular, political arena, the structures of church government are strictly ‘theocratic’: meaning ‘top down’ from theos/god, through annointed/ordained servants to the people. There is no mechanism at all for a mere member to steady the ark and suggest changes to what is perceived to be the word and will of the Lord.

Personally, I understand this principle, but have a very hard time accepting it.

An example to illustrate:

As I have been in India and China, I have seen and perceived ideas — inspirations i might think, of how the Church might be a lot more effective. To non-Christians, the idea that ‘this is the true, restored Church of Christ’ is as foreign of a concept as anything on earth: Their point of view is more like, “Why restore something that isn’t true or relevant to begin with?” The lesson of Matteo Ricci in China is illustrative: by first seeking to understand the chinese through their cultural structures, you can better teach the gospel of Christ, but it will be in the language and terms of Chinese thought. Ricci became a ‘Confucian Scholar’, and thus was able to convert many, many scholars and people to Catholicism. But Ricci wasn’t a Cardinal or Bishop, only a Jesuit missionary, and when the actual Catholic leadership came into China, they were mortified at the way Jesuit converts had altered the ‘true’ church, and undid everything Ricci did. That more or less ended Catholicism in China.

In my small way, when I first started going to India, I talked to mission presidents, district leaders, and some of the more prominent members about the idea that perhaps we should look into Hinduism and understand what is similar and compatible with the Gospel as an anchor to teaching truth. I got exactly no-where. not at all. Most LDS indians came from christian backgrounds (a legacy of the British Empire), and thus better anchored on the church’s teachings. There are some LDS indians who come from the lower castes (who really don’t have a franchise in mainstream hinduism), but there are very few of the wealthy or connected Indians that have converted to the Church. This does not bode well for ongoing growth and survival of the Church in the non-christian areas of the world.

My point is this: whatever idea I may have is irrelevant to church leadership. All direction comes from the top, and good leaders simply execute what they’re told to do. Leaders are rewarded not for innovation, but rather, enthusiasm in their compliance to the direction set from Salt Lake.

But yet, I continue to try to see if someone might listen. I think, perhaps there are some of the brethren that might listen to reason. The latest obsession with “Follow the Prophet” and the “14F” is a bit destructive to many I know, so perhaps we need to clarify our responsibility for ‘when the brethren speak’. So, doing a google search, “Seeking for myself the truth LDS”, one of the first articles is from Dallin Oaks at a CES Fireside on September 11, 2011. I thought, Dallin Oaks is certainly an advocate of ‘Truth’, yet when I read the article, ‘truth’ is defined as the core dogma of the Church, and as I go through his speech, I find epistemological fallacies in almost every paragraph. If someone with Dallin Oaks credentials continues to drive hard on promoting the church without regard to valid methods of finding truth, then what hope is there?

It’s a bit like Don Quixote de la Mancha…while it might be interesting to think of what the church might be like, it is what it is.

I wonder why this thread is in ‘introductions’. It’s an important topic, one that merits careful, doctrinal consideration.

I must have made a mistake. Maybe a moderator can move it.

I must have made a mistake. Maybe a moderator can move it.

eh… no issues. it isn’t like there is an abundance of posts here…

All direction comes from the top, and good leaders simply execute what they’re told to do. Leaders are rewarded not for innovation, but rather, enthusiasm in their compliance to the direction set from Salt Lake.

I think you are spot on. I had not thought about it but it seems apparent that the current batch of leaders are much more concerned with the appearance of enthusiasm (which seems ironic given their dull talks) than actual innovation.

how i wish it were different. the church did a survey in the 80s around the temple, listened to the 3400 responses, and changed the endowment accordingly — that is impressive. but of course, there are many of the saints that didnt know about the survey, and exmos use the survey as evidence of not being inspired by god.

it really is a no-win proposition for the church–if it listens and adapts, it disaffects the trueblues. if it holds to the rigid hierarchy, it disaffects us. and, like the mclays and so many others, the middle is not very viable. i think they will continue to play to the trueblue base.

cheers!

I also think it’s interesting, Cadence, that most of the areas where you and I disagree the most deal not as much with “ideals” but more with “motives”.

There’s nothing deeper in that observation, but I’ve noticed it more than once. I think it’s worth considering, at least.