- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As someone who struggles with a rebellious nature and who hates to be told what to do even in the most gentle terms, I have often found myself looking at the institution of the church and seeing nothing but room for improvement. I’ve never been shy about voicing my opinion to people in a position to make changes either. What I’ve learned over the course of my life is that words – especially confrontational words – are ineffective and often do little more than trigger our natural defense mechanisms. And you know what else? Talk is cheap. Instead, as Gandhi said, we must be the change we want to see in the world. Institutions are often slow to change but institutions are made up of individuals and individuals can experience a change of heart in an instant with the right impetus.
Without providing too much detail, I’ll share a personal experience.
There was someone in our ward with a painful and public past who I was sure would be misunderstood and mistreated. It concerned me so I made a point of being tolerant and of reaching out. I knew that wasn’t enough. I had to really see in this person the inestimable worth that I knew God could see. I had to feel true charity, kinship, brotherly love. After a while, I developed these feelings and the opportunity presented itself for me to speak on this man’s behalf. My bishop was worried about the reaction I’d receive.
I did it anyway. I spoke up for this man to various members of the ward on several occasions.
When I spoke again with the bishop, I let him know that members were unconditionally supportive without exception. People literally thanked me for letting them be a part of bearing this man’s difficult burden. Some openly wept at being asked to open their hearts and I saw more Christlike behavior in those difficult times than I had ever seen before.
I said “Bishop, I didn’t think people would react to him so well.”
My bishop said “They aren’t reacting to him. They ae reacting to you. They see how much you love him and that has softened their hearts.”
You want homosexuals to sit comfortably in our pews? Sit beside them. Love them. Don’t preach to others about tolerance. Be tolerant. You want people who grapple with the “official” church history to feel comfortable speaking out? Create a safe environment for them to ask questions, even if that environment initially only includes your chair and the one next to it. The same principle applies to every aspect of the culture or institution you want to change. Lead by example – you don’t need a “calling” for that.
The general handbook may be slow to change but you will see people’s interpretation thereof become more thoughtful and more Christlike.
Be the change.
It’s subtle.
It’s subversion.
It’s effective.
Amen. I’ve had the same experience in every ward in which I’ve lived. I don’t think it’s coincidental.
mercyngrace, I applaud your methods & the results achieved. Most of us want to be accepted & blend with the rest of the herd.
We want to think about the situation, contemplate our choices & usually do nothing.
(It was smart to talk to the Bishop about what you were going to do as well.)
Mike from Milton.
Cadence wrote: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?… at least in politics I get the chance to vote…But in the church we are expected to have total allegiance with absolutely no say in the decision process either by direct comment or in the selection of the leaders. It is not even as though I joined with full knowledge. Like I said I was born into it. I had no choice until it was to late.No, typical rank-and-file members usually have no say whatsoever in the way the Church is run. The only real votes most Church members can make is to resign or say no to callings, temple recommends, church attendance, etc. However, these votes will typically be ignored by top Church leaders because they see any members like this as weak and lacking in faith and therefore not worth worrying too much about other than trying to get them to repent and return to the fold entirely on the Church’s terms. Regardless of the leadership structure, personally I think lack of honest consideration for most individual members’ true feelings and well-being (in this life) is a major weakness of the Church at this point.
Some cynics accuse the LDS Church of being a profit-oriented corporation but most real business corporations I know of pay at least some attention to things like customer satisfaction and employee morale and turnover. However, LDS Church leaders act like there is no need to pay much attention to members that are not happy with their experience in the Church in part because of the highly questionable beliefs that obedience should magically lead to happiness and that the Church will never be led astray. So it is supposedly Church members’ own fault if they are not happy and it is supposedly their responsibility to try harder to gain/strengthen their own testimony and be more obedient. It’s just the way the Church has evolved so far but I don’t think the leaders will be able to continue to ignore some of the main reasons so many members struggle with the Church quite as easily as they could in past decades because of anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet and the trend of smaller families on average among active Church members.
DA, I agree that such an attitude is common (not dominant, but certainly common) among the thousands of local leaders, but I believe Elder Marlin Jensen when he said that the Q12 and FP are aware and care. I believe the message to listen is being taught, and I see the council to try to work out issues locally as part of that message, but getting everyone at the local level to listen to the council is not an easy thing. You’d think it would be, given the “follow the prophet” mentality – but I think this is a good example of true “cafeteria Mormonism” at work even among the most staunch, traditional, conservative members. Even they tend to pick and choose what to accept and what to ignore.
Fwiw, I’m really glad I’m not a General Authority of any kind.
I think realistically, that no, we do not have a say. Idealistically, you’re damn right we should have a say. It’s our church too.
I don’t care really anymore, but if the church “wants” me to stay, than they will give me a say.
The BP came to my house, and out of the blue asked me to accept the calling of Ward Clerk. Blew my mind, since I am less active now and after all the crap I went through with church. Well, I told him okay, I can do that and I would do it. Than he tells me that the SP says I have to have a TR in order to have the calling, and asked if I would be willing to get a TR. I said, and I quote, “no way in hell. If you want me to serve in that calling, I will do it, but you take me for what I am and what I believe – what you see is what you get…”
So, anyway – I will define my own Mormonism and how I participate. If the church doesn’t like it they can always kick me out. Or at least run me out like they did last time.
cwald, I have no issue with your answer – but I wonder if you thanked the BP for extending an offer, since, from what you’ve said of him, he’s a good guy who probably would love to be able to work with you. Just a thought that hit. Please don’t let your TR stance affect your relationship with your BP any more than it must. (If I’m out-of-bounds with this comment, let me know.)
I thank the BP many many times, for a number of things related to the church. We had a three hour conversation – And no, you are not out of bounds with the comment. However. My point is, the church wants my service and needs my help. Fine. But it is a slap in the face to me when they then say I have to have a TR. Do they want me or not?
What I told him, is that I would love to help him out. But if the SP says that I need TR, and if he doesn’t think so but has to follow the SP orders, than I guess neither of us have a say and we are both out of luck.
So to go back to the OP. Do I have a say? Does my BP have say. Nope. Should the BP have a say? Yeah, I think he should, but does he really?
jwald was in on this conversation. She made the comment and I agree. “Why not just let him have the calling? Why do you need to put the noose back around his neck? It’s just going to make him miserable. Why does the church need him to have a TR? Is all about control?” I kind of got riled myself. I said something like, “so if I drink tea and can’t get a TR, the SP is worried that I’m going to steal money? Give me a break.”
The other thing that jwald pointed out was, is it possible that BP wants me to take the calling JUST SO I WILL GET A TR – regain my testimony and activity in the church? Perhaps. Since the temple is the pinnacle of Mormon worship, and really the end-goal of our church attendance. Maybe the church leadership is just using the calling to manipulate me in an attempt to control my belief and behavior?
Perhaps that is a question for another thread. But, why? Why does the church think I need to have TR to take this calling? Are they scared that I lost my integrity and honor and morals, along with my testimony? I don’t’ get it. Which is fine. But if they want me to serve in the church, they are going to have to give me some say in how that takes place.
AND – I am in the unique position where the church needs me a lot more than I need it. The rest of you saps probably don’t have that luxury.
Old-Timer wrote:cwald, I have no issue with your answer – but I wonder if you thanked the BP for extending an offer, since, from what you’ve said of him, he’s a good guy who probably would love to be able to work with you.
Just a thought that hit. Please don’t let your TR stance affect your relationship with your BP any more than it must. (If I’m out-of-bounds with this comment, let me know.)
Ray, I love you. You’re a little too much some times, but I still love you!for the record, is it policy that most callings require an active TR now? Can you please state what the policy is?
wayfarer wrote:Old-Timer wrote:cwald, I have no issue with your answer – but I wonder if you thanked the BP for extending an offer, since, from what you’ve said of him, he’s a good guy who probably would love to be able to work with you.
Just a thought that hit. Please don’t let your TR stance affect your relationship with your BP any more than it must. (If I’m out-of-bounds with this comment, let me know.)
Ray, I love you. You’re a little too much some times, but I still love you!for the record, is it policy that most callings require an active TR now? Can you please state what the policy is? My question exactly! I looked in the CHI, and could find nowhere where it states that a Ward Clerk needs a TR. Is it in there, or is this just the SP riding my butt after the fiasco from last Spring? I don’t know —- they made me get TR to do the whole EQP thing too – so maybe I’m just not finding it.
Shortly after I joined the Church, the Bishop called me to be his Financial Clerk. I don’t think I was in the Church six months. I didn’t have a TR. At the time I was going through a divorce & I think he wanted to keep me close. I’m glad he did.
This calling gave us the opportunity to have talks on a weekly basis beyond the normal chit chat at church.
Mike from Milton.
CWald, I hope they let you take the calling because it’s absolutely the best calling in the church. You don’t have to be religious, you have a nice defined set of things to do that aren’t just busy work that really need to be done, you get to go to BP meetings but you don’t have to make any decisions or say anything, and you have an office to hide out in so you don’t have to go to class or quorum meetings. I’m a clerk in our branch and have been a clerk 4-5 times over the last 40 years and believe me there’s nothing better. The only downside is trying to get a statistical report from a lazy auxillary secretary but that’s another story. Good Luck. GB, do they make you keep a current TR? Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, I’m really glad I’m not a General Authority of any kind.
Ray, do you think you would need to do things differently as a GA? Even things you do outside your official calling (such as blogging)? Could you briefly describe how a GA calling would change your actions?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.