- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Concrete examples of suggestions that are better would be nice in a discussion like this. Old-Timer wrote:Concrete examples of suggestions that are better would be nice in a discussion like this.
I’d like that, too, Ray. It’s very difficult with LDS theology and doctrine. “We believe a man must be called of God…” is a biggie. Most suggestions for change would have to change some fundamental beliefs as well. Even if there were some sort of evaluation system in place, there would be no way for it to be fair and honest.Frankly I’m not sure it can be fixed.
DarkJedi wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Concrete examples of suggestions that are better would be nice in a discussion like this.
I’d like that, too, Ray. It’s very difficult with LDS theology and doctrine. “We believe a man must be called of God…” is a biggie…
As I wrote my previous post I thought about potential ways to govern a church claiming to be led directly by God but also including some sort of human check and balances. I couldn’t come up with anything good other than to say in theory maybe the Council Model is supposed to be a check and balance. The FP, Q12, and Q70 in theory are all supposed to be equals but it hasn’t been that way for a long time in my view. Presidents are supposed to listen to their counselors.
You could model it so that stake presidents or Q70 could cast a vote of no confidence in the FP or Q12 and start afresh. OR – possibly really treat Q70, Q12, FP as truly equal but separate branches with separate authorities. Maybe one controls finances, one controls doctrine, one controls daily operations. I’m just making this stuff up on the fly.
I said it earlier — I think the church should engage in research about the experience of being a Mormon and let members share open concerns with our culture, our operations, and the extent to which the LDS experience actually increaess well-being. It should be publicized that they do these surveys or focus groups, with results shared, and plans made to improve the experience of being a Mormon. As it stands, they do what they think is best more unilaterally than I am comfortable with, and I feel there is very little input asked from the members. The culture stifles open commentary about what doesn’t work (although everyone is more than willing to encourage gushing about the things that work well, even when they don’t work well).
Financial transparency would also be useful as that would make them accountable.
But regrettably, the one true church concept has created a kind of leadership arrogance that precludes this kind of encouragement of open, constructive criticism.
I also feel the church doesn’t invest enough in making the lifeblood of church experience — Ward level experiences — rich and valuable. Our unpaid ministry makes people stretched to the point they can’t do their jobs properly, and local budgets for Ward events are really, really tiny.
Also, I feel the general handbook of instructions could be re-written regarding callings and releases to ensure they happen on a reasonable timeline, and that measures should be put in place to help members feel good about the time they serve. For example, one of my friends was a Bishop for 10 years. One Sunday, they showed up and released him, and it was over. Other than a handshake and quick, obligatory thanks, there was no praise or anything to help him feel good about this significant sacrifice he made. He wasn’t complaining, as he’s a “toe the line and live within the culture” kind of guy. But I know first hand, the leadership doesn’t communicate the kind of appreciation that sustains commitment over the long term. The only place we do it is in the youth program with recognition awards, and I’m not suggesting that recognition awards is the way to do it either, just that the leaders feel they can call anyone to any position on their own terms, but feel very little accountability to treat their members with appreciation and respect when they release them or don’t “need them” anymore in a position. That lacks accountability, and the handbook should address it.
Not that I’m a manual proponent. But since we have one, and its a primary vehicle for shaping culture, I would recommend they use it to bring more accountabiilty to local leaders in how they use their “free labor supply”. As it stands, I consider it to be abused in many respects.
leadership without accountability – a great topic ! here is one idea: Member Satisfaction Oversight Committee Association (MSOMA).
this committee would be made up of members who generally would be called upon by local leaders to investigate how the members are feeling about the church in general and to see what they can do to improve church life for everyone. this committee would do its research and present its findings to the GA’s in a conference/information session held biannually.
i suggest an MSOMA chapter in each stake meeting monthly. then biannually, one representative in each group would meet in SLC to present their findings to the GA’s who then can decide how to act on improving church life satisfaction for the members.
feedback ? ideas anyone ?
I am concerned this would be far too threatening for the church. It would pit local leaders against the handbook as they tried to make changes. Given the command and control/top down structure of the church, I don’t see it as culturally feasible. Further, the myth that “everything is inspired” and that the average person doesn’t know diddly squat about how to run the church intereferes with bottom-up initiatives like this. The other problem is the covenenants we make in the temple not to talk negatively about leaders (and this expands to mean the church in general) prohibits face to face sharing of concerns. But a large sample, anonymous survey conducted online by the region, perhaps, with results shared with the membership might help. The problem is that policy comes from the very top of our organization – -how would the findings in the survey translate into action at the Ward level? Who would make the ultimate decision about what should be changed?
The danger in a survey is that people often complain without reinforcing/praising what they do like. Always tell your leaders what you do like. It buoys them up, and supports them, but also makes negative criticism easier too.
SilentDawning wrote:I said it earlier — I think the church should engage in research about the experience of being a Mormon and let members share open concerns with our culture, our operations, and the extent to which the LDS experience actually increaess well-being. It should be publicized that they do these surveys or focus groups, with results shared, and plans made to improve the experience of being a Mormon.
I was going over this post and just wanted to say that i was polled about my opinion of the church after converting in 2011. I was sent an email about 3 mths or so after i was baptized asking me all sorts of questions. It came from church headquarters in SLC. I was asked about everything from how well the missionaries did on the lessons, what i thought of the bishopric, they even asked me if i were to leave the church what would be the reason why. To be honest, alot of the questions focused on members leaving. It really got me to thinking about the weaknesses of the church. It made me wonder…they must have a problem with members leaving high numbers if they are trying to figure out in advance what to address to stop it. Did anyone else know about this poll that was done a few years ago?
I didn’t know about the poll, but new member retention has been a big problem for quite awhile. I remember around that time i started to become real dissatisfied with the church. There wasnt a single adult program and i left briefly for several months. Then the local leaders started one. It hasnt really went anywhere (you have to have single adults to begin with). But it was nice that they tried. I remember telling my family that single adults must be the biggest group that have left the church. When i started researching it last Fall, i found out that out of 350 single adults in our ward…only about 20 are active. Mostly widows and single moms. It seems that the biggest group of inactive adults are men. Which is very disheartening. And that was just the info for my ward. It didnt include ysa or married people. Old-Timer wrote:Concrete examples of suggestions that are better would be nice in a discussion like this.
To start with we need to have some means of financial transparency. Without it we are just to blind to what leadership is really doing. It would force the leaders to answer for how they were managing the church.Develop clear guidelines as to what church monies can be spent on. To deviate from this would require some kind of approval process. Again all of this has to be open information
At the ward level there could be a committee that selects the bishop. The bishops select the stake president. The stake presidents select the seventies. The seventies select the apostles. They all have power to remove someone if needed. Make it a bottom up system instead of top down. It would not be as efficient as what we have but at least it would introduce accountability.
The truth is, since the original church corporation was dissolved in 1890 by the US Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds Tucker act, Church leadership does not have any accountability to the membership. In the old church, you were a voting member, common consent meant something, and if you were a bishop you held property in the church. Now, in the new version of the church, you are basically a customer or patron, and everything belongs to and is managed by the COB. Reflexzero wrote:The truth is, since the original church corporation was dissolved in 1890 by the US Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds Tucker act, Church leadership does not have any accountability to the membership. In the old church, you were a voting member, common consent meant something, and if you were a bishop you held property in the church. Now, in the new version of the church, you are basically a customer or patron, and everything belongs to and is managed by the COB.
And that is the problem. Members believe they belong to a church but in reality they are no more than paying customers. The only vote they have is with their feet.
When you look at it this way it is surprising retention rate is not lower than it already is.
Cadence wrote:And that is the problem. Members believe they belong to a church but in reality they are no more than paying customers. The only vote they have is with their feet.
When you look at it this way it is surprising retention rate is not lower than it already is.
Right. Another example is the centralized curriculum. It is your responsibility to find meaning or relevance in the curriculum, because the curriculum is designed to support the Church. The content and quanlity of the lesson material has no direct relationship to how much you learned or enjoyed the lesson in Sunday school. You will have that same lesson again in 4 years.
I’m pleased to hear there was a survey given to someone about their experience in the church. I hope it was something systemic rather than at the Mission level, a;though that would be a step in the right direction too. In my experience, I wish the church would simply admit when they are wrong and drop the arrogance that comes from the one true church concept. I still maintain that a church which claims to have a divine head, special connections to divinity, etcetera, should be held to a higher standard than any temporal organization. But in my experience, the church avoids accountability more than a lot of other organizations I have dealings with. Sad, but true.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.