- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
OK, so I’m kind of with Mom on this one. What do mass resignations, or any resignations in protest, really do? I honestly think the church doesn’t care from the “good riddance” point of view. What’s a few hundred or a few thousand resignations mean? And those church statistical reports that we’re not even going to hear in GC any more, do we know they count those resignations? They talk about numbers of converts and children of record baptized and give us a total membership, but do we know they subtract the resignations from the total membership? A few months ago they took steps to limit information about discontinued units (branches, wards and stakes) on various websites. The only reason I can see they needed to worry about something very few people even knew about or looked at was image. A similar thing is playing out with missionaries. There was the age change and the surge and great predictions of how many more missionaries we’d have in the next decade – predictions that are not coming to pass. Currently we have about 5000 more missionaries than pre-change, almost all of the 5000 more are sisters. Not that there’s anything wrong with more sister missionaries, that’s probably a good thing because I think sisters are more effective in many cases. But that wasn’t the prediction. From a church “corporate” point of view, this too shall pass, just like Ordain Women and Kate Kelly are now a tiny footnote and in 100 years probably won’t even be that.
I think one of the things these kinds of resignations do is leave the rest of us to fight the battle with fewer numbers and fewer advocates. I count myself fortunate my children are grown, although we have recently had conversations about their experiences (and not surprisingly to me, one of our bishops was probably out of line). My married son (still childless and not planning on pregnancy at this time) is adamant that if these kinds of interviews are still taking place when his children do reach the age there is no way he or his wife won’t be there (he does concede that if the child would like another trusted adult there it’s OK with him).
What I’d like to see is policy similar to TR interview policy (which I recognize is sometimes violated). Since many of these interviews are actually TR interviews, only those printed questions should be asked. I applaud the recent institution of set missionary application questions. I think there should be set youth interview questions as well, and if the youth is not interviewing for a TR I think the questions should be more general and free of probing of any kind. On the other had, I do find it difficult to figure out why we do these youth interviews and other churches I am familiar with do not – even those with youth ministries. (From what I can see the youth ministers in those churches get to know the youth by being with them and doing things with them. What’s wrong with that approach?)
As some of you know, I’m on a hiatus, or “sabbatical”, or something like that from church activity right now. I have not resigned. While this has been good for me for now, I’m open to the possibility of things changing in the future. But I also realize now that I’ve stepped away, I no longer have a credible voice from within to try and effect change. Already, I’ve quickly become an outsider, a non-trustworthy voice. Anything I tried to do or say now would be viewed with suspicion by fellow members. I wonder if a lot of this wave of resignations is people who have already stepped away physically but haven’t removed their names yet. People who no longer have the capital to effect change from within, and seeing Sam ousted may be the impetus for that final resignation.
If that’s not the case and lots of people still attending have resigned, I agree with mom that it’s self-defeating to the actual cause of protecting children. But if it’s a lot of people who are no longer “in” enough to be a voice, then this may be the only way they can think to be heard anymore – with their feet.
mom3 wrote:
I have one question though, how do having all these resignations help Protect the Children?This initially started to protect kids and youth during interviews. Now what happens? If everyone who had a stake in the initial agenda leaves, was the effort worth it? What about all the children left behind?
I think for most that leave it isn’t just this one issue. This is the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back and they feel that resigning at this point gives their resignation a bit clearer signal to church leaders. It is kind of like church history (at least for me). It isn’t the history itself, it is the leaders handling of history and the suppression of it that irks me.
And I think for those that leave – they are giving up on the church. I assume mom that you wouldn’t give the same advice of “stay in it in order to improve it” to those in Scientology. I would assume that most people have a line that once crossed they feel it is better to leave and that might spur change faster than staying in. I have to admit that if my wife wasn’t a TBM, I would at least be considering resigning. I am here at “StayLDS” for that reason. The more I see of how the church responds, the less I feel inclined to stay and try and help it. There are other organizations that would welcome me to contribute to them. I like how SD is a good example of that.
Does the civil rights movement succeed with just MLK Jr. or just Malcolm X or do both play their roles? People leaving play their role, people staying play theirs. IMO
bothcamps are utterly voiceless in the church. Leave, your voice mostly doesn’t matter; stay, your voice mostly doesn’t matter, there are too few voices at church that do matter, that’s the issue. Having both camps brings about change in different ways. Fear of change – this is where the people staying can help.
- Fear of not changing – driven by people that leave in an official way.
LookingHard wrote:
And I think for those that leave – they are giving up on the church.
Right, the thought process may be: if the church isn’t going to change to protect all children I’ll leave to protect the few I have stewardship over.
mom3 wrote:
I have one question though, how do having all these resignations help Protect the Children?This initially started to protect kids and youth during interviews. Now what happens? If everyone who had a stake in the initial agenda leaves, was the effort worth it? What about all the children left behind?
People don’t leave to enact change within the LDS Church. They leave because they’ve given up hope for change.
nibbler wrote:
People leaving play their role, people staying play theirs. IMObothcamps are utterly voiceless in the church. Leave, your voice mostly doesn’t matter; stay, your voice mostly doesn’t matter, there are too few voices at church that do matter, that’s the issue.
I think this is also part of the factor. What happens, when change is absolutely needed, but your voices fall of deaf ears? Or when people actually do hear your concerns, you get ex-ed for it? You can either stick with a broken system, or you can leave.
I am trying to stick with the broken system. I know eventually things will change; maybe in the next 200-300 years the Church will be “just right” for someone like me. But we all have to make decisions based on what’s best for us and our families here and now.
Good Morning from the Left Coast – Thanks for all the answers posted. I have read them. I have a full day, when I get back I will add my thoughts.
I believe that there is a trajectory for many individuals that stand up publicly to make a change in the church and it usually leads outside of the church. This to me seems quite natural really. Once you become a public figure for change you will likely receive more and more exposure to stories of “church abuse.” At the same time the organizational church is likely not treating you very well. So – you have reason to believe that church leaders make mistakes that hurt people and that they do not act for God in many respects. Even if you manage to get the church to change in some small respects (impressive), as your position evolves and your exposure to examples of church abuse increases you will likely believe that more change is needed. Church members and leaders then ostracize and persecute you and your family for doing what you feel to be right.
You either continue to push forward until you get exed or you resign. That appears to be where all the momentum is headed.
Who are the individuals that seem to defy this trend? Jaunita Brooks, Joanna Brooks, Jana Riess, Carol Lynn Pearson, Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Richard Bushman, Fiona Givens and Terryl Givens, Eugene England, Richard Poll….etc. How do they balance pushing just hard enough to get some change without pushing so hard as to make themselves outsiders?
Roy wrote:Who are the individuals that seem to defy this trend? Jaunita Brooks, Joanna Brooks, Jana Riess, Carol Lynn Pearson, Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Richard Bushman, Fiona Givens and Terryl Givens, Eugene England, Richard Poll….etc. How do they balance pushing just hard enough to get some change without pushing so hard as to make themselves outsiders?
I think the answer is very simple, and I think it exactly opposite of Young, Kelly, Dehlin, etc. Those named above express their opinions in a calm reasonable manner, they make no demands, and most importantly they never say or even imply that the leadership is wrong of off base. Saying “I disagree with the gay policy because I think it is unfair” is way different than saying “The gay policy is an abuse of power, I demand to meet with RMN and that the policy be changed today, and here are 5000 signatures of people who agree with me.”
I think the time frame in which we would like to experience change factors into our approach. Some may wish to see change in the short term, something that happens now or soon. Others may be satisfied knowing that things will eventually change, even it it takes 100 years. It’s hard to fault people that want to see change in the short term. From their perspective they are saving lives. The sooner the change the fewer people get caught up in the storm.
I can’t fault anyone for having had enough and wanting to leave. I’ve been close, myself. Here is why I think, in general, staying provides a better platform to affect change, for those who can manage it:
1 – the people I reach by staying are my acquaintances in my local ward. The people I can reach by leaving are Church leaders in SLC. The latter has already made the case that they alone drive change. Therefore, from their own point of view, they are not going to change a major point of “doctrine” or long-standing policy. People at the local level may not have any voice in the short-term, but by slowly changing elements of the culture, I believe there can be an indirect effect on a number of issues. I have already seen local people change on topics that the Church Leaders won’t budge on.
2 – And this is going to be a parable. A local Priest wears an orange shirt when blessing the sacrament. The YML and BP both see him in the hallway after SM and remind him gently that he should wear white. Next week, he’s wearing forest green. BP and YML now talk to the boy’s dad. Next week, he’s wearing a gold shirt. This time, he goes into the bishop’s office with the BP and YML. They explain to the boy that he needs to wear a white shirt. The boy says that actually, that’s not a requirement, maybe you should read the handbook again. The BP says, I understand, but in our ward, we wear white. If you can’t wear a white shirt, I can’t let you participate in the sacred ordinance. The boy leaves the office, starts a facebook group, gets a bunch of signatures, sends and email to the BP and YML stating that he is NOT going to wear white and he’s talking to his friends too. Next Sunday, none of the priests have a white shirt. The BP and the YML bless the sacrament. The next week, most of the deacons are not wearing white. Escalation, threats of action, frustration arise. Eventually the boy resigns from the Church. From that moment forward, wearing of a non-white shirt is equated with faithlessness, being deceived by the Devil, disobedience and rebellion. Therefore, now all our boys will wear EXTRA-white shirts to keep them from becoming apostate, like that boy last year. My point is that when you resign over an issue, then that issue rises to a higher level of disobedience/apostasy in the view of the members of the Church.
3 – I don’t think “us vs them” is a good way to win friends or promote meaningful discussion. We all the time complain about the Church’s “us vs them” mentality, and then we do it ourselves sometimes.
Quote:I can’t fault anyone for having had enough and wanting to leave. I’ve been close, myself.
Here is why I think, in general, staying provides a better platform to affect change, for those who can manage it:
1 – the people I reach by staying are my acquaintances in my local ward. The people I can reach by leaving are Church leaders in SLC. The latter has already made the case that they alone drive change. Therefore, from their own point of view, they are not going to change a major point of “doctrine” or long-standing policy. People at the local level may not have any voice in the short-term, but by slowly changing elements of the culture, I believe there can be an indirect effect on a number of issues. I have already seen local people change on topics that the Church Leaders won’t budge on.
2 – And this is going to be a parable. A local Priest wears an orange shirt when blessing the sacrament. The YML and BP both see him in the hallway after SM and remind him gently that he should wear white. Next week, he’s wearing forest green. BP and YML now talk to the boy’s dad. Next week, he’s wearing a gold shirt. This time, he goes into the bishop’s office with the BP and YML. They explain to the boy that he needs to wear a white shirt. The boy says that actually, that’s not a requirement, maybe you should read the handbook again. The BP says, I understand, but in our ward, we wear white. If you can’t wear a white shirt, I can’t let you participate in the sacred ordinance. The boy leaves the office, starts a facebook group, gets a bunch of signatures, sends and email to the BP and YML stating that he is NOT going to wear white and he’s talking to his friends too. Next Sunday, none of the priests have a white shirt. The BP and the YML bless the sacrament. The next week, most of the deacons are not wearing white. Escalation, threats of action, frustration arise. Eventually the boy resigns from the Church. From that moment forward, wearing of a non-white shirt is equated with faithlessness, being deceived by the Devil, disobedience and rebellion. Therefore, now all our boys will wear EXTRA-white shirts to keep them from becoming apostate, like that boy last year. My point is that when you resign over an issue, then that issue rises to a higher level of disobedience/apostasy in the view of the members of the Church.
3 – I don’t think “us vs them” is a good way to win friends or promote meaningful discussion. We all the time complain about the Church’s “us vs them” mentality, and then we do it ourselves sometimes.
This ^^^^^^^.
I had collected my thoughts but On Own was more gracious and articulate.
The only thought I add, is that I have seen change come from within. It didn’t change doctrine as much as practices. I watched my mom and other local stake leaders overturn the original block program plan of cancelling all midweek activities. When they first petitioned for the change they were met from all sides with “The Prophet has spoken ….” But they were gently persistent. In time the message was heard. Little by little change occurred. To be fair the new block program was still young enough that it was bendable, but the effort proves things can change from the bottom up.
Two piece garments were much the same way. The road a bit longer but the system was affected by long gentle efforts.
On most of the excommunication processes that have happened I have seen the black and white and not let it worry me. This effort I believe has a huge piece of caring for our flock behind it. I wish that the parties involved had both made changes in tactic because of the value of the issue.
How much help do we need as a culture to view not obeying local and general leaders as being disobedient and rebellious? Does it take full on sedition to make people think that way or is it the default position when someone disobeys? I get it. In your analogy I’d take the position of, “Well, I guess I won’t be blessing the sacrament then.” But I’m generally of the opinion that people at church need me to bless the sacrament far more than I need to bless the sacrament. If they run out of people with white shirts they’ll eventually have to adapt.
Also, different policies have different levels of importance. Many people have been patiently waiting for the day of 2 hour church but the change is not imperative so we continue to patiently wait. Concerns over safety of children is a different matter. Children are being harmed while we wait for the change.
If you were sitting in class and noticed a fire but the teacher didn’t notice, and every time you tried to warn people about the fire the teacher reprimanded you and said, “Don’t speak until you raise your hand and I call on you.” Then the teacher made you sit there for a few minutes with you wiggling your hand in the air just to drive home the point that you talked out of turn you might eventually reach the point where you scream FIRE and run out of the building taking as many people that will come with you.
Quote:Also, different policies have different levels of importance. Many people have been patiently waiting for the day of 2 hour church but the change is not imperative so we continue to patiently wait. Concerns over safety of children is a different matter. Children are being harmed while we wait for the change.
If you were sitting in class and noticed a fire but the teacher didn’t notice, and every time you tried to warn people about the fire the teacher reprimanded you and said, “Don’t speak until you raise your hand and I call on you.” Then the teacher made you sit there for a few minutes with you wiggling your hand in the air just to drive home the point that you talked out of turn you might eventually reach the point where you scream FIRE and run out of the building taking as many people that will come with you.
I agree. That’s why the reactions make me sad. Sam was on to something that has fire in it. Not every Bishop crosses line, but plenty have. The fact that some reply came from church headquarters supports this. Maybe it was too little, too late. And maybe I am too much a pacifist, but I think it is a key issue and needs to continue being discussed. Sam (and other’s around him) had the ability to keep things balanced enough to open those conversations.
In our local area no one has heard about Sam or his efforts. You had to either be in a faith transition or living in Utah to know about it. My husband had to explain it to our Bishop. Yes a letter came out. Some Bishop’s read it. Other’s didn’t. They had no clue why it is in place.
Now Sam is gone. And everyone who knows the story and has decided to leave is gone. So did that fire actually get taken care of? Or is there still a fire, that no one is putting out.
I could spend hours complaining about the upper leadership. But they now can easily cross this off the list. Are children safer now?
Sam isn’t gone because of his stance. He was cut off because of how he did it. His issue was also not ignored. No one pulled a dump truck up in front of him to cut him off. He got response. The hose was just too small. I wish he could have found a less “bold” way to make his statements and keep the conversation going.
Just when I think my soapbox platform is solid – some TBM topples me. My husband has a co-worker who is devout as the day is long. At the end of the day the co-worker stopped by my husband’s desk and said, “You know a lot of church stuff, right?”
Husband said, “Yes.”
Co-worker, “What’s the Sam Young deal?”
It was like a missionary golden question moment.
So off my soapbox I go. I hate packing it away. Don’t worry I promise to drag it out in the future.
Thanks for all the input. I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
I do just want to make sure I’m clear on one point. I understand and I support those who do leave over policies/doctrines. I first gave serious thought to resignation in 1997, and the issue at the time for me was polygamy; not only its past practice, but also the current acceptance of its past practice and even doctrine. How can I be part of a Church that not only did this to women in the past, but continues to preach it to women today? Ultimately, I decided to stay. I later came to StayLDS, which I never would have found if I had resigned, and here, I’ve been able to experience a much more rewarding FT (for me) by staying. Additionally, I’ve been able to share views of many fringe topics with faithful members and leaders and I feel like I’ve made some inroads.
I have had other experiences with nearly leaving. The November Policy was one. But, I’m still here. I reserve the right to resign in the future, if I just can’t stay over some policy or doctrine and I feel a kinship with those who have or will.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.