- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow… what a powerful and complex story from your life Shederlaomach. Thanks for sharing it. I mean that. I read through the whole thing. You seem to be doing a very good job balancing some intense experiences and emotions. I can see why the MADB thing pissed you off so much. Sheder, If you could edit your post to change two offensive words (one of which I was surprised to see Valoel repeat), I would like to share it with some of my loved ones. Would that be okay?
Shedar – that is a huge shame. In my own experience, MPs are like everyone else – some are great, some are good men but ineffective, but you seem to have encountered the worst breed of MP, and worse still, he was able to continue to act that way without being held accountable. Unfortunately, the human church is a mixed bag at dealing with these types of problems. We rely so much on human beings being at their best in the church. If the GA (now a 12) that you met with was having a bad day, jet-lagged, feeling ill, etc., in that moment, he failed to meet the need at the time. Perhaps he was very inspirational to one of the others he met with. Perhaps he has an innate dislike for whistleblowers, dismissing them all as complainers (doubtless, it is common for them to hear complaints in missionary interviews); that could be a personal weakness on his part, a blind spot. I know of another situation that was similar (the numbers & methods part, not the misuse of funds), and the elder reporting it actually did get a personal response from a member of the 12 who addressed his concerns and was grateful for the information. That’s a good point that shouldn’t be dismissed. We’ve all dealt with complainers from time to time. Most of the complaints that are out there ARE stupid and self serving. Most of the complainers, in my experience, are folks with no sense of perspective. So it’s no shock that the Church does not look kindly on malcontents, because most malcontents really shouldn’t be. That said, I think your situation illustrates why the Church is sometimes deficient in these matters. Complaints with substance, evidence, and specific examples should be handled much more effectively and given much more attention. That’s nothing unique to the Church, of course, as virtually any organization has to crack down on most of its dissidents. But this one’s our organization….
Tom, I went back through my posts and did remove the two words I assume that you felt were offensive. I hope I got the words you were thinking of. If not, you’ll have to tell me which ones, and I will change them. Thank you for the extremely polite way you made your request.
Hawkgrrrl,
I wish my bad experiences with church leaders had only been limited to the ones I had related. From your comments, I assume you are referring to John Dehlin’s experience on his mission and his subsequent letter to Dallin Oaks–although it could be someone else entirely. Ecclesiastical abuse and failure to correctly deal with problems are, unfortunately, legion in the church. For example, the–baptize, baptize, baptize and baptize some more–thrust of mission work gave us the baseball and graveyard baptisms of he 60’s. The same techniques gave us the beach party baptisms in Chile decades later. Of course, these abusive programs filled the church rolls with thousands and thousands of non-participating members. The result in Chile was that Elder Holland had to go there and dissolve some two dozen stakes. One would hope the lesson has been learned, but just a couple of weeks ago, I went out with the local mishies to teach a young woman. This young woman was unmarried but had four children from a variety of men. She worked full-time in an adult sex paraphernalia store. She was uneducated and had no background in any kind of religion. As our discussion progressed, it was clear to me that this young woman didn’t possess the background vocabulary to be able to understand the religious concepts the mishies were trying to teach her. Yet still, at the end of the discussion–a very initial, preliminary, first discussion–the mishies challenged this woman to baptism, and she accepted. I was so pi….er, sorry, Tom, irritated with them for their willingness to manipulate this young woman into committing herself to baptism and membership in a totally life-changing church before they adequately and fairly let her know what she was committing herself to. This woman was weak enough and desperate enough that the mishies could easily manipulate her into the waters of baptism, but there isn’t a snowball’s chance in He..er, sorry, Tom–shall we say H. E. double hockey sticks–that she will remain long enough to become a participating member. The church would then add another digit to the official membership, but, in reality, would add one more inactive member to the 8 million plus (and growing rapidly) number of members who have chosen to not actively participate in church. It boggles my mind that the same techniques for growing the church that have been failing and causing grave problems for decades are still being used to exacerbate a very serious problem. And, as an active, participating member, I can’t do a g…er, gosh darn thing about it, as one can never criticize the church’s programs–even when they are failing.
Dallin Oaks’ comment about how one should never criticize a church leader–even if the leader is wrong–is one of my main concerns about the state of the church right now. This GA that I had my bad experience with on my mission might have been having a bad day, but I have heard from other missionaries in the same region who had similar experiences with him. I have no doubt that the leaders, like most people, are happier when they don’t have to constantly deal with problems and complaints. The military has streamlined that process, and those of a lower rank are compelled to follow orders. It does make things flow smoothly, but the church, in my opinion, should never follow the military model. Free Agency is just too important. I think the most damnable heresy in the church is the one where a member is told that if he or she is asked to do something by a leader, and the leader is wrong, and the member is obedient, that the member will not be held accountable for obeying the bad order but will, instead, be blessed for his or her obedience. And the leader takes the punishment. I know that is wrong–with every fiber of my being, I know it is a false and dangerous idea. Sadly, though, that type of thinking has permeated the church so thoroughly that many feel that their only choice is to obey and do whatever they are told, or, they can choose to be in defiance of God and lose their salvation. Free agency, for the people with this mindset, is that they have only two possible choices–they can choose either to obey or be damned–no other option is viable. One recent example of this black/white thinking is the recent earring controversy. David Bednar amplified this problem with his talk on being quick to obey.
I must admit that I was blown away when GBH said, “My role is to declare doctrine,” since every time I heard GBH declare doctrine, he seemed to be denying those very doctrines that are most unique to Mormonism. Frankly, I don’t personally need (or want) a prophet to tell me how many and what type of earrings that I and my family can or can’t have. I don’t need a prophet to tell me what color shirt I should wear, my hair length, whether or not I can have facial hair, and a host of other petty things that make up the bulk of what it seems our current leaders have been most concerned with. Instead, I feel the prophet can and should tell the church what the Lord’s will is concerning moral and social issues that impact society. Yet the church is strangely silent about almost all of the most current societal concerns. I mean, when did the church ever take a position recently about war, global warming, health care for the uninsured, etc? They have only taken strong positions on two hot button topics that I can think of in the last few decades. The Equal Rights Amendment and the recent Proposition 8 controversy are examples of this. My gut inclination would have been to support the ERA and oppose Proposition 8. However, once I studied the issues and prayed about them, I am now convinced that the prophet was absolutely correct. Of course, the prophet will not always be popular with society in general, or even with all of the church members. Still, his calling demands that he relate the Lord’s will. Personally, I find it distressing that church leaders spend so much effort on dress and grooming standards and so little effort on serious societal and moral issues.
Shederlaomach (or, should I say, Frederick), I read through the thread on MA&DB that you referred to. I saw the thread and never even read it until you mentioned it here, because I could tell from the subject that it would just turn into a mess. After the years I’ve been involved with FAIR and MA&DB (I am an acquaintance of the first President of FAIR, from before FAIR existed) I could tell where it was going… (sigh) Anyway, I think if I were that GA I would also not engage you and your issues. After reading your comments, opinions and viewpoint I just don’t think a direct response could possibly do any good for you, the individual responding to you, or for the Church. Particularly in such a limited forum.
Case in point would be all the “why” questions you asked in the course of that thread. There ARE answers. They aren’t easy answers, though, just as the questions aren’t easy. Some things take time, and something a little more that is difficult to define. Love? Compassion? It seems that your experiences have exacerbated what you already see as a troubling situation with the Church as it is in the world today.
Personally, I can’t imagine dealing with all of the Church issues on top of such a difficult example you have been given by individuals (mostly leaders, as I read your comments) in the Church. Yikes. All my life I have been protected from hypocrisy and self-serving in the Church. I cannot think of a single leader — Bishop, Stake President, Quorum presidents, Mission Presidents, etc — all have been just wonderful in my experience. Humble. Loving. etc.
Shederlaomach wrote:Ecclesiastical abuse and failure to correctly deal with problems are, unfortunately, legion in the church.
I am so sorry that this has been your experience. I have only read about it — after over 40 years as a baptized member.
Shederlaomach wrote:For example, the–baptize, baptize, baptize and baptize some more–thrust of mission work gave us the baseball and graveyard baptisms of he 60’s.
I personally know a gentleman who lives in my neighborhood who was what he calls a “popcorn” baptism. He was baptized in England in the early 60’s as a child and he had no lessons and basically no idea of his commitment after baptism. Yet, he is quick and emphatic in declaring it was the best thing to ever happen to him in his life. Eventually a Home Teacher looked him up and he learned about the gospel. He rejoices that he was ever baptized, regardless of the circumstances at the time.
It’s really a beautiful testimony.
I wish you the best and hope this site helps you to express and perhaps resolve, eventually, your difficulties.
HiJolly
HiJolly, Thanks for your comments. I often wish that I had not had the negative experiences with church leaders that I have had. It would be much easier to for me to think that all is well in Zion and Zion prospers.
HiJolly wrote:Anyway, I think if I were that GA I would also not engage you and your issues. After reading your comments, opinions and viewpoint I just don’t think a direct response could possibly do any good for you, the individual responding to you, or for the Church. Particularly in such a limited forum.
I disagree with your opinion here. For example, in Dallin Oaks’ talk about criticism, he recommends taking the problem up privately with the offending person, as I tried to do with my MP, or to talk to the person in rank above if talking to the person in private fails. I tried both, and they both failed. As I said, the fallout of my disastrous mission experience certainly was the background for several RMs and local members to leave the church. D&C 121 warns clearly about unrighteous dominion and what the results will be.
As far as your example of your friend who was a “popcorn baptism,” I don’t get your point. If you baptize enough people, surely some will stay. But retention will be horrible, as it currently is. GBH mentioned the harm that it done when people are baptized and then fall away. I assume you know that talk. The point is that the inspired leadership has steered the church onto the rocks. The church is no longer even keeping pace with the population growth–in terms of percentage of population. We are falling behind. In private, our leaders are worried. In public, the just insist that all is well and growing steadily. It most certainly is not.
Shederlaomach wrote:HiJolly,
Thanks for your comments. I often wish that I had not had the negative experiences with church leaders that I have had. It would be much easier to for me to think that all is well in Zion and Zion prospers.
I don’t see why. You seem pretty intelligent and well-read. So, why do you say you would think “all is well in Zion” etc. if you had had my experiences? *I* don’t. There is much good in Zion. Very much good. I am confused as to why you would say what you have said here.
Shederlaomach wrote:HiJolly wrote:Anyway, I think if I were that GA I would also not engage you and your issues. After reading your comments, opinions and viewpoint I just don’t think a direct response could possibly do any good for you, the individual responding to you, or for the Church. Particularly in such a limited forum.
I disagree with your opinion here.
For you to disagree, it seems to me you would need to show that addressing your concerns would be helpful in some way. Can you describe a scenario in which there would be a positive outcome? What would it have taken to give you satisfaction? How could you know if such actions would be reasonable for a GA to take? Can you view the situation from the GA’s POV? The Church’s? When do the needs of the ‘whole’ surpass the needs of the individual? Of *which* individual?
Shederlaomach wrote:For example, in Dallin Oaks’ talk about criticism, he recommends taking the problem up privately with the offending person, as I tried to do with my MP, or to talk to the person in rank above if talking to the person in private fails. I tried both, and they both failed.
You must have had an idea of what would have had to happen for ‘success’. What would that have been like? How could all parties have come out of the situation with ‘success’?
Shederlaomach wrote:As I said, the fallout of my disastrous mission experience certainly was the background for several RMs and local members to leave the church. D&C 121 warns clearly about unrighteous dominion and what the results will be.
Right. I agree that it was a very bad situation. I have a friend who’s son left the Church right after his mission, for similar reasons. Tragic.
Shederlaomach wrote:As far as your example of your friend who was a “popcorn baptism,” I don’t get your point.
The point is, the glass is not half-empty. Examples given of ‘bad’ things happening can often, paradoxically, result in ‘good’. My friend is a case in point, and I am sure that there are many others. God IS in His heaven, He DOES rule in glory, mercy and love; We need to have confidence in His plan and in His ways.
Shederlaomach wrote:The point is that the inspired leadership has steered the church onto the rocks.
I completely disagree. No, all is not well. I know that. I am at peace with that. I do all that I can to improve things, and I fail often. I am at peace with that, too.
Shederlaomach wrote:The church is no longer even keeping pace with the population growth–in terms of percentage of population. We are falling behind. In private, our leaders are worried. In public, the just insist that all is well and growing steadily. It most certainly is not.
It’s Ok, Shederlaomach, really. The more you bend your intelligence into Christ-like love, compassion and service, the better the Church and the world will be. Drastic, instant and obvious solutions often disregard the needs and/or the capacities of the individual.HiJolly
Quote:The church is no longer even keeping pace with the population growth–in terms of percentage of population. We are falling behind. In private, our leaders are worried. In public, the just insist that all is well and growing steadily. It most certainly is not.
I think this is an issue, but it seems to me that it isn’t really important for any one person. The leadership might be concerned about expanding the institution’s reach, but consider how various sorts of people might react to that nugget:
TBM from Sandy, Utah: “Well, nothing can stop the work of the Lord’s Church. The world will be less receptive to the truth, but that’s just another sign of the end times.”
Anti-Mormon: “Further evidence that the Church’s lies are no longer persuasive.”
Local bishop: “Our ward is growing/shrinking/staying the same for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the growth in the rest of the Church. We lost five families when the GoodYear plant laid off a bunch of workers who had to move, we gained a convert, and we have some others who have drifted out of activity. All I can do is respond to those needs as best I can, and I guess that means welfare and fellowshipping.”
Questioning member named Gabe on StayLDS.com: “Well, I know the Church doesn’t meet the needs of some. But if the Church just isn’t working for people, maybe it isn’t so bad if they leave. What’s bad is folks not having the knowledge that there’s an option for them, that they don’t have to choose between being a cookie cutter Mormon and an apostate who must leave the community. Maybe it’s evidence that we need to become responsive, but I knew that already.”
So I think how we interpret that factoid is basically entirely determined by our prior commitments, as is our response to it. TBMs and antis won’t change at all, local leaders will still have the same issues they’ve always had, and questioners or “borderlanders” are just given a little more evidence that suggests that the Church isn’t a one size fits all family.
As for the other stuff, let’s be nice
HiJolly, I really have no desire to get into an argument with you, and I often think we are not connecting and are misunderstanding each other. Have you ever ever read Roger Sapp’s essay on “Honoring the Truth Teller?” Here is a link:
http://www.harvestnet.org/teachings/truthteller.htm I think if you read Sapp’s ideas you may see where my concerns for the church lie. I see the church has been devolving into a very totalitarian gerontocracy where very old men make all the major decisions, refuse to listen to criticism, and try to spin and cover up the truth. A couple of decades ago, our church really was growing. Now it isn’t. Why do you think that is? It is not that people are completely turning away from religion, or the JWs, SDAs, AoGs, and Pentecostals wouldn’t be gaining millions of new adherents. If people haven’t changed, and the gospel hasn’t changed, then church must have changed. Sadly, I think it has. And not for the better.
In my world, I have seen most of my friends, a lot of my relatives, most of my former mission companions, and most of my children lapse into inactivity. When I talk to them about it, I hear the same complaints–the church is boring, the church is irrelevant in their lives, and the church’s leaders are lying to them about the church’s past and not being honest about things now.
Unlike, most organizations, the church really doesn’t have any system in place for loyal members to express concerns. I think the example of Chile is classic. A problem was created and allowed to perpetuate itself for decades. When the church finally took action, it was done in almost complete silence from official channels. And, that silence allows the exact same problem that caused the disaster in Chile to perpetuate itself in other places.
It seems to me that when the growth of the church has stagnated and that once-loyal members are leaving in droves, that the problem needs to be addressed honestly and dealt with in a manner that will correct the problem. Think of THM’s first talk. He asked for those members who have left to come back, but he didn’t provide any changes to the status quo. I’ve read many former Mormon’s comments that they feel nothing is changing, so the things that turned them away from the church in the first place remain unchanged, so why should they go back? Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that doctrines or things of eternal value can or should be changed just to make the church more palatable, but other things can be. If boring manuals, inane speakers, dirge-like music–or a host of other things of no eternal value–are turning people off to the gospel, why not change those things?
As far as your asserting that nothing good could have come from my talk with the GA, I can tell you that I can easily envision a scenario where the GA would have looked into the things the MP was doing that were out of harmony with the gospel. The GA could have told the MP that he needed to cease doing these things and apologize to those he had offended. And then they could have instituted a new missionary program that would have been in harmony with the gospel. The missionaries would have been happy. The members would have been relieved. And the investigators would have been exposed to the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ. What would be the downside of that scenario? I can just tell you that what really happened was terrible. Tons of missionaries went inactive. Many members quit. Few new members joined the church. The church looked stupid. It was a total disaster. Decades later, the church is still stagnant in that country.
Your “glass half full” thinking and that good things come from bad idea is rather unconvincing to me. If a bus that is poorly maintained with no brakes carrying a load of school children plunges off a cliff and all aboard the bus die, and the school district decides to buy a new bus with better brakes, I think that the negative outweighs the positive. Just because one can always find some positive in a bad situation, doesn’t mean that the situation is overtly positive. Baptizing millions of people and having a few handful remain active is not a great situation. In theory, at least, the church has belatedly started to make efforts to only baptize those who are truly converted. I am amazed that you can see your “popcorn baptism” survivor as such a positive thing when compared on balance to all of the other lives damaged and destroyed by those abandoned programs. Surely, you can see this.
I would reply to more of your assertions, but I honestly can’t see the logic behind much of your reasoning. Maybe I am just dense, but you would have to explain it differently in order for me to understand.
Gabe, I’ve read your latest post few times. For me the situation is like the one described in John 6: 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.
I believe that this church really is the restored church of Christ. It has the restored doctrines, additional inspired scriptures, and the priesthood. No one else does. There is really nowhere else for me to go, and I have looked.
Gabe P wrote:
Questioning member named Gabe on StayLDS.com: “Well, I know the Church doesn’t meet the needs of some. But if the Church just isn’t working for people, maybe it isn’t so bad if they leave. What’s bad is folks not having the knowledge that there’s an option for them, that they don’t have to choose between being a cookie cutter Mormon and an apostate who must leave the community. Maybe it’s evidence that we need to become responsive, but I knew that already.”
I believe that the choice is complicated by the absolute truth of the restored church. I would walk in a minute if I could have found a source of truth and salvation elsewhere, but no one else has it. Of course if the salt loses its savor, we have a problem. I think we have a serious problem that is developing in the church. I agree that the church needs to become more responsive. I knew that too, but I see the opposite thing happening. And that is my dilemma.Interesting point. How “absolute” is the truth of the Church in your view? Do you think all of the doctrines that have been revealed are perfect and true? Or would you simply say that there’s no other institution we can join that can provide salvation? It seems that your problem isn’t doctrinal, but with the leadership. That’s a legitimate position, but I wonder if the leadership can be as misguided as you say if you have a conventional LDS understanding of doctrine. Obviously, prophets aren’t perfect in our doctrine, but you seem to be saying that they’re mismanaging the Church to the point of incompetence. Now, maybe that’s true, but how do you reconcile that with the idea that the prophet won’t lead the Church astray?
Gabe P wrote:Interesting point. How “absolute” is the truth of the Church in your view? Do you think all of the doctrines that have been revealed are perfect and true? Or would you simply say that there’s no other institution we can join that can provide salvation?
It seems that your problem isn’t doctrinal, but with the leadership. That’s a legitimate position, but I wonder if the leadership can be as misguided as you say if you have a conventional LDS understanding of doctrine. Obviously, prophets aren’t perfect in our doctrine, but you seem to be saying that they’re mismanaging the Church to the point of incompetence. Now, maybe that’s true, but how do you reconcile that with the idea that the prophet won’t lead the Church astray?
I am not sure exactly what you mean by absolute, but I believe that the church is the restored church of Christ. I have no doubt about the truthfulness of the concepts that have been revealed. Of course, the LDS church really doesn’t have much that can be called “doctrine” in the Catholic sense of the word. I also don’t think any other institution can provide access to salvation, since no others have the restored priesthood.
The idea that the prophet can never lead the church astray is not doctrinal or scriptural. The scriptures do warn us not to put out trust in the arm of flesh. Also, if you believe LDS scriptures and the Bible there have been numerous instances of the church falling into apostasy, and we are told what to expect in an institution that is apostate or falling into apostasy. I never said the leadership of the church is all misguided. I have just seen clear examples of the abuse of power and unrighteous dominion the Lord warned us about in scripture. We are told that a person (or church) will be known by their fruits. We are further warned of false prophets that will come and liars who are apostles. I doubt if God would give us scripture warning of such things if he didn’t think we needed the information was necessary. That said, I don’t think the church has fallen into apostasy, but I fear things are heading in that direction.
Shederlaomach wrote:HiJolly,
I really have no desire to get into an argument with you, and I often think we are not connecting and are misunderstanding each other.
Apparently so.
Shederlaomach wrote:Have you ever ever read Roger Sapp’s essay on “Honoring the Truth Teller?” Here is a link:
http://www.harvestnet.org/teachings/truthteller.htm I think if you read Sapp’s ideas you may see where my concerns for the church lie.
Thank you very much for the link to those wonderful articles. He is articulate, sincere and obviously knows a great deal about group psychology. Very nice! —and I hasten to add, I didn’t need the articles to see where your concerns for the church are. You’ve been prolifically vocal in that regard, I daresay. To what end, I wonder… Hopefully some good can come of your concerns, but it a bit difficult for me to see it at this point.
I have had a bit of concern for the Church myself in years past. Group psychology concepts really aided me in gaining appropriate understanding of the issues and the behaviors involving Church governance, as did a stint in a Bishopric of a dysfunctional Ward. What a ride that was! Of course the Spirit also helped me gain perspective and an outlook agreeable to the Gospel when considering the men and women in the leadership of the Church.
Shederlaomach wrote:I see the church has been devolving into a very totalitarian gerontocracy where very old men make all the major decisions, refuse to listen to criticism, and try to spin and cover up the truth.
Ouch. That goes way beyond seeing the truth. Can you see it?
In the article linked to above, the author says “This means that the truth-teller must have sincere concern for the person and organization that he is speaking to. This is where truth telling becomes an expression of love. ” I guess I’m having trouble detecting ANY love coming from you.
Shederlaomach wrote:I would reply to more of your assertions, but I honestly can’t see the logic behind much of your reasoning. Maybe I am just dense, but you would have to explain it differently in order for me to understand.
Yeah, now we’re both just cherry-picking comments and venting our spleens. I can’t see any good coming of that, so I guess I’ll agree that I don’t see any reasoning coming from you, either.Hope you can find satisfaction and joy somewhere, somehow.
HiJolly
Well, I hear you about prophets being fallible and the examples that abound, but there are certainly scriptures in our canon that suggest that the basic direction of a true prophet will always be sound. For example, the excerpts following OD 1 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 ). At the least, one can make an argument that the scriptures don’t clearly make the argument that prophets can lead the church astray in a fundamental way.Additionally, there’s a fair argument that the examples of apostasy in the ancient church primarily concern the wickedness of the people (who refused to listen to true prophets) or secular leadership leading the people astray. Anyway, I think the prophets recently have certainly taught the doctrine that a prophet who leads the Church astray will be removed. (Of course, there are obvious reasons why they might say such a thing.)
But anyway – I think all that is beside the point. If you feel pain over the leadership’s decisions, I’m with you. I understand what you’re saying. It’s probably more important to you because you seem to have a stronger testimony of the uniqueness of the Church. But I really don’t feel that you’re ever going to see that pain lessened by a change in anyone or anything other than yourself. It’s fine to be upset about the leadership (and I am very much upset about many things that go down in the Church), but they’re probably never going to change. If they were to be as open and honest as you and I would like, they would almost certainly alienate more people from the Church than they would please. They don’t have any practical incentive to teach people to defer to them less, and if we assume that they’re reasonably honest in their convictions, they don’t believe that’s what God wants them to do. When we combine that with novice lay leadership and the correlated standardization of many Church policies and practices, you get an organization that will infuriate guys like us.
I used to be extremely angry with Church leadership and, to an extent, still am. But I feel that they’re usually just talking to a different group of people. The Church is pretty much always behind the times and that’s by design. I don’t claim to know how to run the Church better, but I’ve figured that it’s probably just best to unplug from the policies and practices that aren’t in harmony with how I do things.
- The topic ‘Mormon Apologetics Board’ is closed to new replies.