Church survey

[Anonymous]

There’s kind of an adage in the church about Satan only having the power over you that you give him. I once made some jaws drop by saying the same thing in a meeting using church leaders in place of Satan. But it is nonetheless true.

I do get how people don’t like to be judged. I also get how some people are more sensitive than others to said judgement, and that I happen to be less sensitive (but was not always so). I agree Carb that we should not be subjected to such judgement as adults, but sadly the church seems to mostly encourage it (consider all the worthiness talk in the latest GC). I can be adult about it even if some leaders can’t.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Carburettor wrote:

Imagine if the results were forwarded to your Stake President or Bishop because you were deemed to be a person of concern — and suddenly you’re called in for a PPI.

I get what you’re saying, but I have an idea of what I might do in that scenario.

If you were called into the stake president’s office and he decided to flex his authority, how likely would you be to:

Scoff:

[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]

Laugh:

[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]

Roll your eyes:

[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]

Facepalm:

[Very unlikely] [Somewhat unlikely] [Neutral] [Somewhat likely] [Very likely]

None of the Above

I would politely tell them where the boundaries in the conversation were and the degree of authority I was willing to give him (basically “hear him out”) in the situation before drawing the conversation back to Christianity and “common ground”. I also know a bit about the LDS religion and scripture – so I can hold my own if going scripture-to-scripture. At the end of the conversation, he would understand that he does not get to define my priorities, while he may weigh in on them, I am the decision-maker. I have the “the biggest level of skin in the game” of how I live my life and the environment I set up for others to live their lives in relation with me.

I hope that I would get out of the situation before thoroughly embarrassing my husband because of my “pride” (aka non-submissiveness/non-compliance – made worse by a gendered expectation of “deferral” and “niceness”). Roy has expressed a similar tactic throughout the years in various posts on the forum.

NOTE: I have spent years in counseling at this point to get to this level of personal authority, and I have “no priesthood” to pull rank with. I also have the rep of “renegade” and “affiliated with handicapped people (one of my siblings was born with serious genetically-induced heart problems, my husband has impressive chronic health problems, and my oldest has a unique set of physical and mental/emotional challenges)”.

I find most conversations at church with people at church (mostly men) go either the way where we find common ground and mutual respect, or they are uncomfortable with me and we get out of conversation with each other pretty quickly. We have the added wrinkle where I attended church far longer then my husband did, and I was “the decision-maker and face” of the family [so “wore the pants in the family?” what if I wanted to wear a kilt instead?] (and I did not have the luxury of hiding that reality to make people “comfortable”).

To be fair, I like conversations about “theory” and “what could be” on a lot of levels and do not do “sports” conversations (either spectator or the “what my kids are involved in” versions).

I tend to friend/be befriended by the most inclusive people, the “marginalized people” (sometimes – and/or the older ladies (usually divorced but not always), and sometimes pragmatic people who need a bit of philosophy in their lives.

SIDE NOTE: I understand that I am considered “less active/inactive” and that my limited participation of essentially “Christmas and Easter and Service Projects” does not fit most paradigms/expectations and makes it harder to “judge me”. I understand that I am “to be courted/rescued and brought into the fold” at best and “tolerated” at worst – so there is that.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

SIDE NOTE: I understand that I am considered “less active/inactive” and that my limited participation of essentially “Christmas and Easter and Service Projects” does not fit most paradigms/expectations and makes it harder to “judge me”. I understand that I am “to be courted/rescued and brought into the fold” at best and “tolerated” at worst – so there is that.

You have reminded me of an LDS paradox right there. We (active members) are so constantly judgy (both overtly and in subtle ways) on account of our being subject to such far-reaching scrutiny — what we wear, what we eat, how we pray, how we spend our time, etc. — that we constantly face pushing people out of activity because they feel they aren’t good enough, they don’t fit, or whatever. And then, the moment they stop attending because we were so awful and uncharitable to them, we are duty-bound to go after them in a bid to bring them back into the fold. It’s almost like a relationship of abuse.

If our church experience could somehow be less demanding, “competitive,” and suffocating, people might feel less judged — or perhaps they’d feel nothing at all. Who can say?

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

If our church experience could somehow be less demanding, “competitive,” and suffocating, people might feel less judged — or perhaps they’d feel nothing at all. Who can say?

The current “worthiness” rhetoric flies in the face of this idea. I may be more sensitive to the rhetoric, but it seems to have gotten relatively frequent mention in the most recent GC. That rhetoric encourages judgementalism and discourages personal agency.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

You have reminded me of an LDS paradox right there. We (active members) are so constantly judgy (both overtly and in subtle ways) on account of our being subject to such far-reaching scrutiny — what we wear, what we eat, how we pray, how we spend our time, etc. — that we constantly face pushing people out of activity because they feel they aren’t good enough, they don’t fit, or whatever. And then, the moment they stop attending because we were so awful and uncharitable to them, we are duty-bound to go after them in a bid to bring them back into the fold. It’s almost like a relationship of abuse.

If our church experience could somehow be less demanding, “competitive,” and suffocating, people might feel less judged — or perhaps they’d feel nothing at all. Who can say?

Church doctrine focuses on “(1) covenant path” and “1 Truth (Our Truth)” as the “way things are”. This has an unintended consequence of pitting individuals against each other in a perceived funnel and inflicting mental/emotional states of cognitive dissonance up to and/or trauma on those (usually the marginalized ones) who can’t meet that expectation (can’t take that path, can’t share that truth).

To change the “church experience” meaningfully, one is actually talking about “changing the doctrine creating the church cultural norms”. But more importantly than that, changing doctrine means changing a lot of what makes the church as an organization unique – with the challenge of loosing more people than it gains in the process.

At best, I think we would have the same situation that the Jews are in with different “branches” of the same religion (eventually). What splitting into 2-3 affiliated groups would do the theology and the budget that the current church has is anyone’s guess:)

[Author]

Posts