The Courage This Change Took

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Years ago, when they revamped the Handbook of instructions, someone said it wasn’t revelation, simply the current leadership’s best understanding about how it should all work. THAT is a good example of church change.

…

I think as Mormons we might take a similar approach if we want to keep the phrase “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” credible. The leaders are people, and they make the policies. Let’s acknowledge they are imperfect and keep our testimonies intact in the process!!

The challenge with that is, it only works for policies either no one will notice, or no one will care about if they did. But if there are policies the Church leaders feel they should implement, even if they’re unpopular, people will have a much harder time following. I imagine if PoX had been presented as policy, and “what we feel is best”, there would’ve been a lot more room for people to feel outraged. I think, even at the local level, it wouldn’t have been followed. “Revelation” is a trump card, and people are more willing to follow it than “we talked about it, prayed, and felt it was a good idea” (which is how revelation usually works, I believe).

Callings are another thing which wouldn’t work if it weren’t for revelation. A lot more people would turn down positions or callings they didn’t feel qualified for, or simply don’t want to do. And for a select few, you’d have the sudden “office politics” of trying to get into the top callings… I mean, more than we do already.

I’ve never understood the phrase “the Church is true/perfect, but the people aren’t”. Last I checked, the Church was the people. Or at the very least, the Church is the top leadership. There is no discernible disconnect between the two. If the prophet makes a Church-wide policy change, and in hindsight it was a really bad idea, that means the Church wasn’t perfect. But… in the case of PoX, whatever the policy happens to be was right all along.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Years ago, when they revamped the Handbook of instructions, someone said it wasn’t revelation, simply the current leadership’s best understanding about how it should all work. THAT is a good example of church change.

…

I think as Mormons we might take a similar approach if we want to keep the phrase “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” credible. The leaders are people, and they make the policies. Let’s acknowledge they are imperfect and keep our testimonies intact in the process!!

The challenge with that is, it only works for policies either no one will notice, or no one will care about if they did. But if there are policies the Church leaders feel they should implement, even if they’re unpopular, people will have a much harder time following. I imagine if PoX had been presented as policy, and “what we feel is best”, there would’ve been a lot more room for people to feel outraged. I think, even at the local level, it wouldn’t have been followed. “Revelation” is a trump card, and people are more willing to follow it than “we talked about it, prayed, and felt it was a good idea” (which is how revelation usually works, I believe).

Callings are another thing which wouldn’t work if it weren’t for revelation. A lot more people would turn down positions or callings they didn’t feel qualified for, or simply don’t want to do. And for a select few, you’d have the sudden “office politics” of trying to get into the top callings… I mean, more than we do already.

I’ve never understood the phrase “the Church is true/perfect, but the people aren’t”. Last I checked, the Church was the people. Or at the very least, the Church is the top leadership. There is no discernible disconnect between the two. If the prophet makes a Church-wide policy change, and in hindsight it was a really bad idea, that means the Church wasn’t perfect. But… in the case of PoX, whatever the policy happens to be was right all along.

By using the trump card of “Revelation”, it usually gives the automatic preset of the following assumptions:

1. The individual questioning the change or announcement is questioning both the authority of the prophet (which you have to have a testimony of in order to get a temple recommend) and the lord (temple recommend again)

2. The individual questioning is not just accepting the information with faith (first principle of the gospel?), but is seeking for more. To some, faith should be adequate. For others, the truth is mandatory.

3. The individual questioning may have a history of not believing in leadership decisions as revelation and could have other problems (temple recommend)

Essentially by questioning anything claimed to be revelation, it puts you into an awkward situation where people can assume further sinful desires or imperfections that could disqualify you from a recommend or callings, etc.

I view the church as the people as separate. The church is a concept of the gospel being put into action by people, to me. The church has the opportunity to represent the will of the Lord. But the church isn’t baptism, or the priesthood, etc. So when the church makes decisions that are disagreeable or are policies, it is easier to see it as the human leadership of the church guiding the church (vehicle) so that the gospel can continue to help others.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Years ago, when they revamped the Handbook of instructions, someone said it wasn’t revelation, simply the current leadership’s best understanding about how it should all work. THAT is a good example of church change.

…

I think as Mormons we might take a similar approach if we want to keep the phrase “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” credible. The leaders are people, and they make the policies. Let’s acknowledge they are imperfect and keep our testimonies intact in the process!!

The challenge with that is, it only works for policies either no one will notice, or no one will care about if they did. But if there are policies the Church leaders feel they should implement, even if they’re unpopular, people will have a much harder time following. I imagine if PoX had been presented as policy, and “what we feel is best”, there would’ve been a lot more room for people to feel outraged. I think, even at the local level, it wouldn’t have been followed. “Revelation” is a trump card, and people are more willing to follow it than “we talked about it, prayed, and felt it was a good idea” (which is how revelation usually works, I believe).

Couple things on this

1) We have so much leader worship, emphasis on obedience, etcetera, I think most Mormons would follow policy even if objectionable. If they are against it, they will keep their mouths shut in face to face settings. And if they don’t follow it on a mass scale, that’s great feedback on how good the policy was in the first place.

2) If the leaders are ambiguous about whether the new practice is revelation or mere policy invented by the people, the average member will assume it’s revelation.

3) The more expansive our reliance on “revelation” to convince people to do things, the more we paint ourselves in the corner — particularly if the bad so-called revelation happens in the same lifetime of one of its proponents, or even within a couple decades of its reversal. Reliance on the revelation trump card hurts us in the long run as it makes us less able to change as needed, and to correct the decisions made by PEOPLE leading us.

If I were in leadership, I would never call anything revelation unless God or Christ himself appeared and said it to me, or some other extraordinary thing happened to convince me it was direct from God. No taking strong impressions, or mere ideas, and labeling them as revelation when the evidence for it being revelation is weak.

4) For me, the church and its people are essentially one. No people, no church. So the statement “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” has no meaning to me. To me, it’s simply a way of church members and leaders dodging responsibility when things go wrong. If something is great — it’s the church. Something is awry, THOSE DARN IMPERFECT PEOPLE!

I prefer, “The church isn’t perfect and neither are the people, although at times, each can be very inspiring”.

[Anonymous]

I had an interesting conversation with my somewhat orthodox wife last night about this reversal. I shared that I was extraordinary happy that they reversed course on something I felt in my bones was very wrong in 2015 up to now. It nearly forced me out of the church back then, and only didn’t because it did not overtly harm anyone super close to me. If it had, I would have been gone. I do feel terrible for those that this “policy” harmed. And I wish that it never had been.

So, anything that promotes inclusion, I’m all in favor of. I also agree that this took more courage than I have. I finally had to go offline yesterday because the vitriol was incredible.

My own feelings are complex, and I may keep them packed up and may simply be grateful that this is a move in the right direction, as I see it.

[Anonymous]

SD:

Quote:

“the statement that the prophet would never lead us astray”

And so far, he hasn’t! It’s our leader worship that has led us astray. He can only lead us where we are willing to go, after all.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

SD:

Quote:

“the statement that the prophet would never lead us astray”

And so far, he hasn’t! It’s our leader worship that has led us astray. He can only lead us where we are willing to go, after all.

Interesting take HG, but I think the statement’s original intent was to inspire confidence that the Prophets words will always be correct , and that no one would be led down the wrong path by following the prophet — and I shall risk, and say, almost blindly following the prophet.

And yet, we have a priesthood ban that harmed millions…

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

So, I was around and substantially impacted by the March 1982 Policy of 18 month missions for Elders. It was reverted in December, 1984, 2.75 years later; less time than it took to revise the Nov 15 policy (just under 3.5 years).

As far as I could tell, people took that in stride. It made sense to undo it. What I came away with from that affair was the idea that the Church could make and rescind policy and it was fine, and that every action wasn’t the express command of God (which was healthy).

I heard the following argument in our local culture:

“At that period in time, they had a bunch of wayward spirits ready to go on missions and 1.5 years was the most they could handle.”

I think the reason was akin to lowering the price of a product. Lower price increases demand. So, they thought if they made it 1.5 years, it would be less of a cost, more people would sign up, so we’d increase our missionary force. What they found was that most missionaries hit their peak baptisms in their last six months. So, just when missionaries were getting effective, they finished their missions, leaving all that potential unused.

I know that was true for me….I saw more people baptized in the last six months of my mission than I did the first eighteen months combined.

[Anonymous]

SD:

Quote:

“What they found was that most missionaries hit their peak baptisms in their last six months. So, just when missionaries were getting effective, they finished their missions, leaving all that potential unused.”

That makes it particularly galling that women only serve for 18 months rather than 24 like the men. I have often said men should serve 18 months so that it’s equal, but my husband agrees with you that the last 6 months are when he really got a command of the language and figured out what he was doing. Of course, back then, women had a leg up with 3 years of college under our belts and a bit more maturity than the average 19 year old Elder. But it is frustrating as a woman to be constantly encouraged to do the easy things, then looked at as if we can’t handle things.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

SD: “What they found was that most missionaries hit their peak baptisms in their last six months. So, just when missionaries were getting effective, they finished their missions, leaving all that potential unused.” That makes it particularly galling that women only serve for 18 months rather than 24 like the men. I have often said men should serve 18 months so that it’s equal, but my husband agrees with you that the last 6 months are when he really got a command of the language and figured out what he was doing. Of course, back then, women had a leg up with 3 years of college under our belts and a bit more maturity than the average 19 year old Elder. But it is frustrating as a woman to be constantly encouraged to do the easy things, then looked at as if we can’t handle things.

As an 18 month missionary who was out when it was changed back to 24 months (I had the choice to stay if I wanted, of course) I call bull on the last six month …er…well, bull. I am galled by that as much as you are Hawk.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

SD: “What they found was that most missionaries hit their peak baptisms in their last six months. So, just when missionaries were getting effective, they finished their missions, leaving all that potential unused.” That makes it particularly galling that women only serve for 18 months rather than 24 like the men. I have often said men should serve 18 months so that it’s equal, but my husband agrees with you that the last 6 months are when he really got a command of the language and figured out what he was doing. Of course, back then, women had a leg up with 3 years of college under our belts and a bit more maturity than the average 19 year old Elder. But it is frustrating as a woman to be constantly encouraged to do the easy things, then looked at as if we can’t handle things.

Would they let you extend a mission back then if you wanted? It was hard enough that I wouldn’t have wanted to, I think, even if I was getting effective at 18 months, but I wonder if women were given the option to extend if they wanted? Still not a solution to the problem, but something I have wondered about.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

There will be cognitive dissonance because of this quick reversal. I have no doubt, shelves are going to break. And I doubt most of those who’s shelves “broke” when the Nov 2015 policy came out, aren’t coming back.

No cog dis for me, since I never accepted it. I agree with your second comment, but it will bring back some and also help retain those who are troubled by it.

I notice the endowment wording has been changed recently. Those who have been through recently will have noted the ref.

The most offensive part of the 2015 policy (was it really that long ago?!) for me was punishing people for things that they didn’t do. In this case children, who may not even be biologically related to the parent concerned. The church can attack LGBT all it likes, but they excluded people by association. It was a very badly thought out policy.

Personally, I lay the blame partly at the feet of extreme gay rights orgs. Some of them deliberately targeted LDS chapels for vandalism, went in for sexualized displays in F&T services (heavy petting, tongue kissing etc) and a number of other things which alienated potential supporters in the church, and besmirched the reputation of LGBT members. I suspect if these campaigners hadn’t done some of these things, then we may have seen progress earlier. Thank God for LDS LGBT orgs though they redress this balance.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

SD: “What they found was that most missionaries hit their peak baptisms in their last six months. So, just when missionaries were getting effective, they finished their missions, leaving all that potential unused.” That makes it particularly galling that women only serve for 18 months rather than 24 like the men. I have often said men should serve 18 months so that it’s equal, but my husband agrees with you that the last 6 months are when he really got a command of the language and figured out what he was doing. Of course, back then, women had a leg up with 3 years of college under our belts and a bit more maturity than the average 19 year old Elder. But it is frustrating as a woman to be constantly encouraged to do the easy things, then looked at as if we can’t handle things.

Would they let you extend a mission back then if you wanted? It was hard enough that I wouldn’t have wanted to, I think, even if I was getting effective at 18 months, but I wonder if women were given the option to extend if they wanted? Still not a solution to the problem, but something I have wondered about.

No, only males could extend and then only if they had more than a couple months of their 18 left. And yes, there was a good amount of judgement. I did not extend, my companion did.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Of all the moves yet by RMN this one was the riskiest. I wish all of us well.

Although he genuinely frustrates me at times, I’ve got to applaud him (as well as the rest of them) for this. I can’t help but wonder, though, who actually spearheaded the effort for change.

[Author]

Posts