- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It occurs to me that the leaders of the church have no accountability to the general membership. I understand how this evolved. It is an oligarchy where all power is held by a few. Those few being chosen by others in power who have a vested interest in perpetuating their own belief system. In this kind of system the membership has no say whatsoever in the policies and practices of the organizations. The members just follow without voice. This is why obedience is so essential to such an organization. Without it the organization crumbles. This may be the most efficient form of leadership because it attempts to limit disagreement and in many cases accomplishes objectives more efficiently. That is until the leaders become corrupt or tone deaf to the needs of the members. Then you have uprisings and an antagonistic membership.
Members of the church want to think God is in charge so it makes everything OK, but I think that just makes it more dangerous. Granted the church is rather benevolent as oligarchy goes, but could that change as they get more and more pressure to change? Will they respond with understanding or lash out with punitive measures?
I think of apartheid in South Africa. For many years the system worked for those in power, the minority. Then due to internal and external pressures it collapsed. I hope the church learns the lessons of history and is not so blind to what is happening around them that it to does not bear the consequences of leadership without accountability.
I agree that the church is an oligarchy, and it’s funny because I only just realized others might think that too. I think it’s like the divine right of royalty, actually. They have to have us believe God is in charge lest we don’t follow them and do all that they say. I suppose accountability comes into play when leaders are sustained. Any opposed by the same sign? I’m sure it happens locally from time to time, I don’t know that it has ever happened when sustaining a member of the Q15, at least not in modern times.
I guess that raises another question, was expressing opposition to someone receiving a calling something that happened more often in church history? “Any opposed by the same sign” almost comes across as a cultural formality with a foregone conclusion, especially sustaining in GC. A hundred people could raise their hands and no one would notice.
Edit: I guess this answers my question:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng Regarding tithing, there is no accountability because there is no transparency, there is only good-faith. Which brings up the question that I’m sure has been discussed hear or may be better for another thread, but should there be transparency in how the church manages its funds? I don’t suspect they are irresponsible with the funds, but I’m sure many would not approve of how they is used/invested. But still, what would anybody be able to do about anyway? nibbler wrote:I suppose accountability comes into play when leaders are sustained. Any opposed by the same sign?
I’m sure it happens locally from time to time, I don’t know that it has ever happened when sustaining a member of the Q15, at least not in modern times.
I guess that raises another question, was expressing opposition to someone receiving a calling something that happened more often in church history? “Any opposed by the same sign” almost comes across as a cultural formality with a foregone conclusion, especially sustaining in GC. A hundred people could raise their hands and no one would notice.
Edit: I guess this answers my question:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng But that’s just it, nibbler – that’s not a real vote, it’s a sustaining. Even if it were a real vote, we’re all to believe they are called of God – how can one vote against God’s will?
FWIW, it is my understanding that indeed there are always a handful of negative votes at GC and they are routinely ignored. I have seen negative votes twice at the local level, both time just one person (different wards and times). In both instances the priesthood leader talked with the person opposed and in both cases nothing changed.
Once in a while there is accountability to the members. Years ago in my stake there was a bishop so obnoxious that the members revolted (this would have been in the 1970’s). They voted with their feet and stopping attending. The SP had no recourse but to release him at the 3 year mark. To save face, they made a big deal about calling him to a stake calling, but everybody knew the real reason. The lesson here is that if enough people vote with their feet and not just their arm, things will happen.
(BTW, this guys is still in my ward, and still offends somebody almost every time he opens his mouth)
Doesn’t the Catholic Church do some type of voting? Maybe the Cardinals vote, like a republic somewhat? I imagine the Q15 vote but not the 70, in which case it’s really just a decision made at a board meeting. I can’t imagine what a general election would look like in the church. Would there be debates? It could get nasty. Maybe some negative mudslinging ads on the Mormon Channel.
:wtf: Still not sure which emoticon is best to express sarcasm or humor.Unknown wrote:Doesn’t the Catholic Church do some type of voting? Maybe the Cardinals vote, like a republic somewhat?
I imagine the Q15 vote but not the 70, in which case it’s really just a decision made at a board meeting. I can’t imagine what a general election would look like in the church. Would there be debates? It could get nasty. Maybe some negative mudslinging ads on the Mormon Channel.
:wtf: Still not sure which emoticon is best to express sarcasm or humor.I don’t know that there’s ever any voting. A few of the Q15 have made remarks in the past about their meetings and other than having vigorous discussion, the only thing they ever really say is that they reach consensus. Consensus doesn’t necessarily mean complete agreement. Having served in two different bishoprics, we never voted and actually didn’t usually have any in depth discussion about things – but things at the local level are generally pretty cut and dried. The closest we probably came was disciplinary councils, where, when deciding the outcome, we would silently pray, then each of us expressed our thoughts on what the outcome should be. Interestingly enough, in every instance (and there were only a few) we agreed from the outset.
I don’t see sustaining leaders as much accountability — perhaps for past actions in the person’s life, but it is more of an attempt at democracy. But that democracy is muted by the fact that we are constantly asked to give mostly unquestioning obedience to leaders — so, often people will not object to a leader being called except in the case of overt sin. The fact that the financials are not transaparent definitely smacks of no accountability. Also, the fact that there isn’t a lot of recourse for members who aren’t happy with the actions of local leadership reduces accountability significantly. I also see that there are few systems that help local and higher-up leaders monitor how well their leaders are performing in the eyes of the members. I would love to see satisfaction surveys in which the brethren measure teh tone of the membership body, how satisfied they are in their church experience, whether they feel their budgets are adequate, and if the experience of being a Mormon is working for them.
There have been so many problems with leaders over the years, and often, the church’s answer is simply for the membership to tolerate it.
So what is the solution? It’s partly the way it is out of necessity. If members could hold leaders, especially local leaders, accountable like some would like then church administration would be little more than putting out fire after fire of personal and petty grievances. It is volunteer work after all. I know that I don’t have the warmest personality, I’m sure I’d get many a complaint filed against me in the church HR department for just trying to do the best I could. A leadership calling for a member that ends up being a bad fit can still provide an outlet of growth for them. It can also be an outlet for people to develop patience, tolerance, and charity toward a leader they don’t like. Speaking purely to the leaders that don’t quite measure up to a certain standard rather than ones that fall into the category of being abusive.
Some more thoughts Sustaining is nothing like having input as to who is picked in the first place. Maybe we should have input at least on the local level who the leaders will be
Members may revolt against a bishop or even an SP and get them kicked out. But there is nothing anyone can do to shake up the top leaders. There is no recourse whatsoever.
What is the solution? Probably move a significant amount of decision making and money to the local level. Some stakes may suffer that way but the church as a whole would be healthier
You make a good point there, Cadence. Most Protestant churches have a local board of some type which chooses the minister/pastor and he or she is accountable to them. There would be pitfalls in that system as well if mixed in with the LDS non-paid ministry and local positions could become more of a popularity contest. Some might argue that in some respects that is already the case. I suppose the same would be true if happened on the higher levels. And voting in a worldwide church would be a nightmare. Honestly, I just think they’d want to be more accountable but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Basically above all, they’re terrified of splits and sects. DarkJedi wrote:You make a good point there, Cadence. Most Protestant churches have a local board of some type which chooses the minister/pastor and he or she is accountable to them. There would be pitfalls in that system as well if mixed in with the LDS non-paid ministry and local positions could become more of a popularity contest. Some might argue that in some respects that is already the case. I suppose the same would be true if happened on the higher levels. And voting in a worldwide church would be a nightmare. Honestly, I just think they’d want to be more accountable but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
The RCs and the Anglicans have a top down system.
As a former Presbyterian, I can tell you however that their system is not that accountable. You more or less get offered a minister, and the congregation has to approve him/her. Just one candidate most of the time.
Agreed that there is virtually no direct accountability. I do think there is a some degree of indirect accountability. What I mean by that is that groups of members can pressure high level leadership to change through the press, through newspaper editorials, social media, etc. With information widely available and a 24 hour news cycle, it is more difficult for the church to hide than it was in even in the 90’s. If the church wants to attract new converts, it has to have a modicum of self-awareness in public perception. If it doesn’t want members to walk away, it has to maintain an reasonable degree of acceptability. These two examples show how little real accountability there is, but I think they show that it’s not non-existant. The slowly evolving stance of the church to gay marriage I believe is partly due to younger LDS members having a more tolerant attitude which somehow filters up. Few of the Q15 have changed since Prop 8. I think the movement for women to have the priesthood would have resulted in excommunications in the 80s and 90s, but I haven’t heard of that happening.
I also believe that the Q15 and Q70 are somewhat accountable to each other. I imagine there’s peer pressure to “toe the line” While this means that things don’t change for the positive quickly, it probably also means that they don’t change for the negative much either.
All that being said, I’m not sure churches would work as democracies. People lobbying for positions (although it does happen somewhat today) would be more prevalent and I wouldn’t want the church functioning like the US Congress, and it seems contrary to how the LDS church started anyways.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.