How to avoid being passive aggressive in the church?

A couple of other threads made me think about this. My question is – how can we avoid being passive aggressive in the church when situations almost encourage it? Let me give some context and some examples.

Last night at training the stake presidency made another demand on bishopric time by asking that we attend two meetings that we don’t need to attend. The bishops were unanimous in their opposition to attend both meetings and the stake president agreed saying “I don’t know why bishops have to be there either but they’ve been asked to.” We voiced our opposition but in the end our choices were to a) go because we’re told b) choose quietly to skip the meeting c) publicly say we’re not going to attend which would be interpreted as hostile and not supporting high church leadership.

Go with A). This isn’t passive aggressive because you’ve already voiced your opposition to attending, so your non-attendance is not INDIRECT hostility.

If you haven’t openly stated you won’t be there due to its poor use of time, I think you can object to the priesthood leadership asking you to go, and indicate your reasons. I would also indicate other valuable activities in which you want to participate during that time. It’s easy to describe how you’ve been burning the candle at both ends and your family has been indicating its’ time for more balance. That meeting detracts from it, so in your mind, you’re attending to “gospel matters at home”. Even Christ encouraged picking the “better part”. End with the ways you ARE supporting the church, the SP or whoever is asking for the attendance, and affirm your support for core activities.

Note — I found that when I sent an assistant to Priesthood meetings by the Stake, I’d say “what was the outcome of the meeting?”. And my assistant would say “The Stake President wants us to do [one thing listed here]”. All that travel time, hymn-singing, listening, boiled down to ONE action item. Totally not worth it!!!

When someone is sustained at church we are given the opportunity to oppose the calling – but I believe publicly voting to not sustain is bad form. In a business environment I’d usually would take the manager aside and quietly express my concerns in private. At church it seems the choice is speak now in front of 200 people or don’t complain about it. It seems a better solution would be to ask to sustain and not ask about opposition and to have previously set expectations that opposition to any calling should be expressed in private.

I would approach the calling leader after the sustaining and explain the concern in private. Address the relationship issues with the person that might ensue if you opposed publicly. Address any other concerns about having to object publicly if they ask why you didn’t. I might even say that you didnt’ want to raise questions in the mind of members about whether the call was inspired…Could be an indirect teaching moment to the priesthood leader about the questionable nature of public opposition

We place too much value on the mechanistic sustaining. People get released on short notice all the time, so objecting after the sustaining is a non-issue to me.. The SP or BP can be creative in how to best remove the unsuitable person, if they are even deemed unsuitable at all. I wouldn’t be so bound by the forum the church dictates for opposition. A private objection is kinder on the person being called as well, as the WHOLE STAKE OR WARD doesn’t have to know there is a concern — and start making judgmental assumptions about sin.

The first time we go through the temple we are given the opportunity to leave instead of making covenants. But I think that being with family and friends in the temple for the first time creates almost irresistible pressure to participate even if we’re uncomfortable and don’t know what’s going on. I believe it’s coercive. So if I don’t really like what’s happening, the most logical choice seems to be acquiesce in front of family and friends and quietly ignore the covenants in the future. I felt extremely uncomfortable walking around half naked when I received my endowments years ago before the changes but felt forced to do it. I didn’t want to make a scene.

To me, this is the same problem with real estate contract signings. They give me the HUD as I sit at the table with a moving van outside, homeless. Talk about putting myself in a position where I can’t negotiate or act freely!!! I always INSIST on the statement of what I must pay being sent to me 3 days in advance of the closing. This allows me to correct errors and even delay closing. Also, I make sure there is overlap between my old place and my new place to allow myself this flexibility.

Applied to the church, adequate preparation is the key, If people have been properly prepared, they should know the commitments they make in the temple. I was told that the commitment to give everything I own to the church was part of the temple ceremony before I went into it. Kudos to the man who gave it to me.

For me, the key is to be direct about your reason for not complying. Firm, Fair, Friendly, and bring the objection to a soft landing. You have to not care about what others think, though. And draw your esteem from being true to yourself, from the time you gain that would have otherwise been invested in the meeting, etcetera.

I really like that you want to avoid passive agressiveness. I absolutely detest it, just as I do watered down statements of why people are not happy!

I noted the high PDI (power-distance index) being one possible cause of Mormon passive-aggression. Likewise, Malcolm Gladwell pointed out the pitfalls of high PDI cultures, particularly when he shared the story of the Korean Air flight in which the flight attendants were so conflict-averse that they allowed the captain to fly into the side of a mountain rather than being direct about the danger when the captain was initially surly about feedback. When those in power are authoritarian and it’s unacceptable to question them, people divest and become passive-aggressive in the face of the futility of influencing desired changes.

I read that book too…and did see how people who trust their leaders are finally willing to speak up when it is clear danger is imminent…but then it is too late…they assumed the leader knew something they didn’t. A dangerous scenario.

…and how do we look at prophets?

I wonder if I was passive aggressive when I left our Ward a few years ago. I didn’t tell anyone we were doing it because we were unhappy — we made up a plausible excuse. Does that qualify as “not” passive aggressive, since it was diplomatic? We did tell people we were leaving.

I think that is passive-aggressive. Diplomatic would be more like saying to your bishop in private, “Hey, this isn’t working out for us. We just aren’t fitting in here,” and then leaving.

To me, a) or b) is fine, depending on the situation.

Sometimes, passive-aggressiveness is the only good alternative, relatively speaking. After all, it’s not ideal, but, in many cases, it works.

Not going is not passive-aggressive; it is passive avoidance. Sometimes, it is hypocritical, but other times it actually is the best option. If you have said that you aren’t sure you will be able to go and voiced objection to going, not going actually is the more “authentic” option, in a very real way.

Every choice has the potential for negative consequences. I try to weigh the probable consequences and make a cost-benefit choice – then accept that it really was my choice and live with the consequences.