Don’t vary the script

[Anonymous]

For a while I have seen (as many of you have) the Church’s need to keep everyone close to the script.

Leadership is scripted.

Teaching is scripted.

I love the correlation idea for a world-wide church.

However, I get frustrated when we hear, “Teach by the Spirit…as long as the Spirit is the script.” I mean, we don’t hear those exact words, but you know what I mean, I am sure.

I am a seminary teacher and we were just taught this – we can sort of kind of “teach” in our own way, but we need to stick close to the worldwide efforts of the seminary program.

The lesson topics cannot vary.

The method of teaching cannot vary.

And I did not agree to simply be a program facilitator.

And I am frustrated.

And I don’t know where to go with my frustrations.

So here I am.

Why are we being asked to be so…scripted in this area?

My husband was a bishop and he has now seen some of the ins and outs of Church politics.

He finally came to this conclusion that I am at.

Ugh.

[Anonymous]

I’ve definitely noticed. As to why, I can only speculate…

I think a big part of it is there are quite a few business types sitting in the big red chairs. When you’re a hammer, everything is a nail. When you’re in a boardroom, everything is for sale. In this case, it’s the gospel (or Covenant Path as they’re calling it) that they’re selling. A product can’t be marketed to a wide audience unless it’s going to be the same product wherever you go to buy it. I think that’s part of why all the lessons in the manual and talks at conference all sound the same, are simple, and have the spiritual nourishment of a potato chip.

I also think it’s a reaction to membership stagnating in America and Europe. My guess is leadership in Salt Lake sees people leaving and doesn’t know how to stop the bleeding, except by doubling down on a message that tries to discourage leaving (“Stay on the Covenant Path.”) Unfortunately for them, I think this will just make more people want to leave. It’s hard to go home from church feeling spiritually fed when deep discussions need to be kept in bounds.

[Anonymous]

I also think that there is some reluctance to have a more nuanced member teach Rough Stone Rolling or the Gospel Doctrine essays (We did have some members of the HQ teach from the essays once a year to the EQ on ward council Sunday but that is VERY different than a seminary teacher doing it with teens).

There also seems to have been problems in the past with people teaching from (so called) “Mormon Doctrine” or other books of a more speculative nature.

The church correlation committee removes the more extreme stuff on both the right and the left and what you have left-over is the middle.

[Anonymous]

Correlation is king. I think they want everyone on the same page doctrinally to avoid splintering and factioning within the church. I can understand that desire but there are cons to correlation efforts.

That said, there’s probably a line of distinction between correlated doctrines and correlated administration. It sounds as if there’s a high degree of correlation in administration as well.

Personally, I feel taking correlation to the nth degree makes our meetings and lessons boring and uninspiring. I don’t need to attend church anymore, I’ve heard everything. Maybe that’s not the function of church, maybe the function is to simply make connections with people, but I find the nature of our meetings makes it harder to do that. It’s harder for me to connect with others when I feel like my thoughts are being policed and measured against the script. Hard pass.

Roy wrote:

The church correlation committee removes the more extreme stuff on both the right and the left and what you have left-over is the middle.

I’d say that the correlation committee leaves us with “a” middle, not “the” middle.

For example:

0C (freezing point of water)

100C (boiling point of water)

50C is “the” middle

5C, 20C, 50C, 80C, 95C; all of these are “a” middle, meaning somewhere between two extremes.

I see a lot more focus on weed pulling on one side of a middle than I do the other. I’d also say that the correlation effort in and of itself is a very conservative thing.

In my opinion, correlation kills inspiration and revelation. If you have to stay on the script, there isn’t a need for such things. In that regard, correlation may achieve a goal of running an organization… revelation and inspiration only come from the top and our job is to follow that script. That might help an organization function more smoothly in a multicultural environment but it makes for some boring, uninspiring, predictable, unfulfilling, etc. meetings. It also crowds out people that don’t fit the strictly defined mold.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I’d say that the correlation committee leaves us with “a” middle, not “the” middle.

For example:

0C (freezing point of water)

100C (boiling point of water)

50C is “the” middle

5C, 20C, 50C, 80C, 95C; all of these are “a” middle, meaning somewhere between two extremes.

I see a lot more focus on weed pulling on one side of a middle than I do the other. I’d also say that the correlation effort in and of itself is a very conservative thing.

Good point. Many ultraconservatives feel plenty comfortable in the LDS environment unless they start going the fundamentalist path. I think that there is more constant discomfort for those more on the progressive end of the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people like McDonald’s. They sell a lot of burgers. And a Big Mac is a Big Mac wherever you go. They’ve correlation the menu for the most part. Sure they’ve changed and adapted quite a bit through the years in response to social pressures but they’re still a restaurant that tries to appeal to the masses by offering correlated junk food. If you’re starving, their product tastes good. If that’s all you eat, you might feel that’s all you need.

The church feels a little bit like McDonald’s to me.

I can find something to eat there but it really doesn’t fill me up, and I usually feel yucky afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Cnsl1 wrote:

The church feels a little bit like McDonald’s to me.

I like the metaphor of McDonald’s for the standardization but, like all metaphors, some aspects fall apart if we zoom in too much.

Rather than “fast food” which is objectively bad for everyone in large quantities, I think maybe a better example for me is if I am lactose or gluten intolerant. The food offered might be “perfect” for another person but not right for me.

In the example of a cafeteria and “cafeteria Mormons” this is not a problem if I can decide and set boundaries for myself on the types of dishes that are right for me and respectfully decline the dishes that are not.

[Anonymous]

I think the Church/McDonald’s metaphor is excellent. They’re both corporate, the same wherever you go and neither is particularly appetizing or nourishing, though many people love it, or at least continue to consume it because it’s what they’re used to. If there is anything special to be found in a particular location, it’s the people (members/employees).

Where I do think the metaphor falls apart, is at least I can ask McDonald’s to take the lettuce off of a burger if I don’t like it. At church, if I try to take coffee out of the WoW, I won’t be accommodated.

Going back to the metaphor, if I rely on McDonald’s for all of my nutrition, it will eventually take it’s toll. I’m much better off eating at home, where I can make much richer, healthier food that suits my needs and tastes. McDonald’s can serve the role of being a place to go when I don’t feel like cooking.

I do think it would be better for the church and the members if it was cafeteria style, with everyone having the ability to come and take a wide variety of what they need, rather than the strict, narrow, simple menu we’re currently offered.

[Author]

Posts