- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In HPGL today, we were treated to a 40 minute soliloquoy from our HPGL and a member of our SP. During the moments I was listening, the SP expressed frustration with how we don’t have pay and outside incentives to motivate people. How it can be frustrating, but also how glorious and unique our church is in terms of its use of volunteers. I sat there, with my tongue tied. My experience in three organizations (volunteer) indicates we are not much different than any volunteer organization. We have a lot of the same challenges.
I am studying employee engagement in my academic studies, and have been working hard at creating engagement in the non-profit in which I work. I have learned how to reduce what I call “delegation failure” by applying principles from academia and experience, and much of it is a reaction to the experiences I had at church — the conscription model of service, the Unwritten Order of Things, and the idea that you should serve where placed until told to move on to a new calling (which we may not want) — with leaders often failing to consider people’s readiness or passions or simply their native desires.
Yet as a church, we proudly state that we are not of the world, that we should not be fooled or influenced by “learned men”. That Gods ways are not our ways. We poo poo knowledge from the world, even though we have our own team of scholars at BYU doing research. That anti-intellectual thinking was part and parcel of the presentation today. I wanted to say something but kept my mouth shut. it would fall on deaf ears anyway.
Why can’t we embrace hard-earned knowledge gained through scholarly research simply because it was created in “the world”????
To your part about ‘worldly’ knowledge, I bet it’s okay for us to listen to BYU professors because I would imagine people think they only research things that move the church forward. I know GBH was big on educating yourself and going to school. It seems like ‘worldly’ knowledge is anything that the church disagrees with. That’s what it seems to be at least. And the church definitely doesn’t want us researching things that go against the church. I was thinking today too how the church has become prideful in some ways, maybe even many ways, but we’ll go with some ways. Today we talked about how prideful people don’t change a lot and aren’t open to new ideas and others ways of doing things. And when I read what you said about your ward talking about how much better the church is than other organizations at volunteer work, isn’t that the definition of pride? Believing you’re better than others. So that was a thought I had. I think there are people who are open to new ideas in the church but I do see a lot of people going on about how great the church is and how it is the best thing out there, and we don’t change things a lot in the church. Which sounds pretty prideful.
Always Thinking wrote:
I was thinking today too how the church has become prideful in some ways, maybe even many ways, but we’ll go with some ways. Today we talked about how prideful people don’t change a lot and aren’t open to new ideas and others ways of doing things. And when I read what you said about your ward talking about how much better the church is than other organizations at volunteer work, isn’t that the definition of pride? Believing you’re better than others. So that was a thought I had. I think there are people who are open to new ideas in the church but I do see a lot of people going on about how great the church is and how it is the best thing out there, and we don’t change things a lot in the church. Which sounds pretty prideful.Because we believe that the church is divine, we also tend to believe that our way of doing things is inspired down to pretty much every level. My own pet peeve is the primary. We enlist a small army to teach the kids in ways that are not always conducive to their learning level, age groups, or interests. Some primary teachers are truly gifted and wonderful in every way – some others are just awful. There is a curriculum of new songs that the kids are supposed to learn every year. The primary president does not feel empowered to change things. Would the children choose to go to primary if given the choice? My own son prefers to sit in a corner and read rather than attending primary. Admittedly, my son likes reading but the point is that the primary experience can not compete with his book. Do people even care about updating/revamping the primary experience to make it more appealing?
You can tell whether an organization cares about anything by the resources they put into that “something”. You can ask these questions a) What level of Human Resources are committed to assisting with a quality experience?
b) What measurement systems are in place to determine how the organization is doing in this goal?
c) how much money is invested in achieving that goal?
d) What are the habits of the organization that lead to better Sunday experiences overall?
e) Do they select people who have the right disposition for the job they are asked to do on Sunday?
f) What systems are in place to assist with a qualty Sunday experience?
The answers will tell you the extent to which any organization cares about their goals, in this case, the LDS church and the experience on Sunday, or the experience of being a member in general.
When I hear people say Quote:we proudly state that we are not of the world, that we should not be fooled or influenced by “learned men”
I process it as “we should not settle for secular knowledge only, a pretty resume or certificate of degrees or titles don’t give authority to words. We should value spiritual things and believe in mystical things beyond this world and this life.”
In other words, if there are great inventions or medical advancements or advanced investment strategies and statistical predictive models that tend to work really well…great…embrace all that is good and works.
But…seek spirituality, beyond just cerebral thinking, but things that include the heart, mind and soul to enhance our learning.
Others at church can take it as literal as they want to…but I think we are all saying the same thing. The church wants us to be proud we are not atheists that believe in nothing but we can see in this world.
That is not to say that everything outside the church is “the world” because the church is in the world. Many things in the world are in the church. The church uses medicine, inventions for travel, technology, investment strategies, management practices…in many ways our church uses and embraces things that came from outside the church into our religion more than many other religions do. If they lead to building the kingdom…because we believe those things are just things…tools…that help us do the “not of the world” things like salvation and heaven and binding families. They are means to the end.
We are not human beings on a spiritual journey but spiritual beings on a human journey. That kind of thought…that we should remember all those things are good in the world…but they are not the end goal…and so we should prioritize what we value and put our trust in.
I think they are just trying to make the point that religion should play a role in our lives. There is not such a hard line between “in” the church and “the world” realistically in the church. They are just making a point in HPG and reminding us to keep looking upward.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.