How to Request Change in the Church

[Anonymous]

A couple of tidbits about the repeal of the ban that I find disturbing when it comes to the Church’s willingness to affect positive social change:

– SWK replaced HBL as the Church President Dec, 1973, but it took 4 and a half yeas before the policy was reversed. The only quorum member replaced during that time was Hugh B Brown, who died in 1975. But Brown is generally considered the to be the one person really pressing for the change.

– The Church announced a temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil in March of 1975, and began construction on it a year later. The total construction took 31 months. The announcement of the policy changes was less than 5 months before the completion of the temple.

In other words, the policy didn’t seem to get to the point of reversal due to a changeover in the Church leadership, but by the pressing logistical need of how to handle a temple in Brazil, when it was basically impossible for a large segment of the Church population there, to determine who was disqualified by their lineage. For more than a century, there was a very small minority in the Church for whom the policy was a major trial. For 20 years, the Church resisted social change while the nation was reversing its racial tendencies. But just when the Church was about to be burdened by its own policy, the revelation came.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Cadence wrote:

The church from my perspective does not have a good track record of making changes that are in the best interest of the members but those that are in the best interest of the church. So if you want change you have to convince the leaders it is in their best interest to do so not yours or the members at large

I think that sums up how I feel about this…I remember a couple conferences ago (a few), JR Holland commented on how the church was going to subsidize couples serving missions — their living expenses. He mentioned how he thought that was pretty nice. At the time, there was a flare-up in leaders approaching older couples in our Ward and stake to get more couples on missions…This told me the numbers of couples willing to serve missions had fallen and they were trying to notch up the numbers. Therefore, they incented the adults with the housing subsidy. A good example of change occurring based on organizational needs rather simply trying to ease the burden on members…

It seems like Church leaders generally have the attitude that members should feel obligated to serve the Church and adjust to its teachings but the Church should not really have to do much to provide value for members or accommodate their preferences. Also, I’m not sure Church leaders even worry that much about consciously pursuing what is in the best interest of the Church as a primary motivating factor because it looks like they are more than willing to act in a way that actually limits the Church’s popularity and overall influence as long as they are convinced that what they are doing is right. For example, the following quote sums up what I see as the main obstacle to real progress or improvement in the Church more than any deliberate maliciousness, self-interest, or lack of empathy (they feel like it is not up to them to change very much).

Joseph B. Wirthlin wrote:

To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise.

Personally I think this inflexible mindset is largely an unintended side-effect of the nearly infallible prophet idea; this makes it very inconvenient and painful for Church leaders to admit or even seriously consider the possibility that the Church could have actually been wrong about things like the WoW, tithing, homosexuality, etc. all this time unless it reaches the point where they almost have no choice anymore because it would be like admitting that revelation did not work nearly as well as they currently claim it should so they have basically painted themselves into a corner. Also, it looks like most of them currently have much more confidence in previous prophets and apostles and especially Joseph Smith than their own judgment and basic common sense as if they think God would step in and make it clear if they should change something and until then they don’t really want to mess with the Church’s established doctrines and policies other than a few minor tweaks like the missionary age change.

[Anonymous]

DA, nothing like taking one difficult sentence out of an amazingly inclusive, loving, caring talk (“Concern for the One” – one of my favorite GC talks of all time) and using the man who said it as an example of rigidity and uncaring unconcern. Using that sentence in that way (as proof of a belief in prophetic infallibility) completely mischaracterizes the man who said it. I know how you feel about the leadership by now, but selective and partial quote mining can be reprehensible – and, although I am positive this wasn’t an intentional instance, it is a terrible, inaccurate statement about a wonderful, loving man.

I mean that seriously. I know how much that sentence rankles when read all by itself – but it is in a talk that is profound and begs members to understand and treat people better who struggle with and leave the LDS Church. If you read his talks in detail, there is no way whatsoever that he believed in prophetic infallibility – and to use that quote to say he did is wrong.

Yeah, my reaction is strong as a result of how much I loved that man, but it is incredibly important for those struggling with a crisis of some kind not to latch onto one sentence like that and ignore the voluminous things someone said that don’t fit that one sentence – or to charge the person who said it with things that everything else s/he said contradicts. It is a perfect example of “making someone an offender for a word” – and it is highly destructive and divisive.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

DA, nothing like taking one difficult sentence out of an amazingly inclusive, loving, caring talk…and using the man who said it as an example of rigidity and uncaring unconcern. Using that sentence in that way (as proof of a belief in prophetic infallibility) completely mischaracterizes the man who said it. I know how you feel about the leadership by now, but selective and partial quote mining can be reprehensible – and, although I am positive this wasn’t an intentional instance, it is a terrible, inaccurate statement about a wonderful, loving man...I mean that seriously. I know how much that sentence rankles when read all by itself – but it is in a talk that is profound and begs members to understand and treat people better who struggle with and leave the LDS Church. If you read his talks in detail, there is no way whatsoever that he believed in prophetic infallibility – and to use that quote to say he did is wrong…

I’m not saying Joseph B. Wirthlin was a bad guy or that “Concern for the One” was a bad talk, I appreciate what he was trying to do; in fact half my point is that I don’t really believe that most Church leaders mean any harm by most of the things disaffected members object to and it looks to me like they act the way they do mostly because they honestly believe in it themselves. So when some Church leaders are suggesting that members should go ahead and pay a full 10% of their income as tithing even if they don’t feel like they can afford it I think the main reason why is simply because they actually believe members will be blessed for this and everything will work out alright if they do not not because they are obsessed with collecting large amounts of money for their own benefit or even the benefit of the Church. I see trying to put myself in their shoes and understand where they are coming from as a way to reduce some of the feelings of blame and frustration when I start to think, “Why do they do that?, it’s not fair.”

[Anonymous]

That is fair, DA. Thanks for the clarification.

[Author]

Posts