- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The LDS culture I’ve been exposed to his replete with statements of INDIVIDUAL responsibility for activity, faith, commitment etcetera. If people become disaffected, there is a host of statements that place responsibility soley and squarely on the shoulders of the individual. Here are some examples: 1. “If you feel distant from God, then who moved?”.
2. “You feel distant because you are not keeping the commandments”.
3. “The onus is on you to forgive, not for the Church to apologize”.
4. “We are not tempted beyond that which we can bear”.
5. “Your spirituality is low because you have not been attending the temple”.
6. “You are bored in Church because you are not viewing the meeting through the eyes of service”.
And so on…..
However, I find it hard to believe that everything rests on the backs of the members to make the Church experience work for them. So, my question — to what extent should the Church bear responsibility for creating positive, spiritual experiences in the Church? Or could it be argued that because it is divinely led that, it has no such onus, with responsibility placed on the shoulders of the members?
So who exactly is “the Church” that we can blame? Most of what happens on a day to day basis is local to the ward. We are the ward. If we have a bad experience at Church, do we blame Thomas S. Monson? BTW, I agree that all the listed responses above are horrible, un-christlike and counter-productive. When someone says “Hey, i’m not feeling it here” or “I am not feeling spiritual,” it really isn’t helpful to basically say “shut up and keep doing more of what was failing you. You are the problem! so leave me alone.”
I think we all have to ultimately be responsible for our spirituality and progress. We have to. If we stay as spiritual children forever, having people spoon feed us childish pablum for religion, it will cripple us. God seems to throw us off the dock and hopes we figure out how to swim in this world… just sayin’. That’s how the Big Guy seems to parent
Instead of blame, I say give encouragement. When someone says “Hey, i’m not feeling spiritual, and I feel lost. Can you help me?” Respond: “Come hang out with me. Let’s go find something beautiful and spiritual to drink in.”
I was thirsty and you gave me water -Jesus
SilentDawning wrote:The LDS culture I’ve been exposed to his replete with statements of INDIVIDUAL responsibility for activity, faith, commitment etcetera. If people become disaffected, there
is a host of statements that place responsibility soley and squarely on the shoulders of the individual…I find it hard to believe that everything rests on the backs of the members to make the Church experience work for them… Personally, I think the Church is almost like a machine that has taken on a life of its own with some of the culture and traditions that are deeply ingrained in members’ minds. Because of this, I don’t think you can really blame Church leaders like Thomas S. Monson or even local members too much for any negative side-effects of the Church’s influence because they didn’t really create this system; they have merely inherited it and they probably don’t know any better in most cases.
However, I think the Church is absolutely responsible for our experience whether good or bad in many cases because if the Church was out of the picture then sometimes our experiences would be very different. There is a limit to how much control members really have to resist this influence because even if they ignore some of the Church’s demands and expectations they often have to worry about how other members will react; so going against this pressure is typically easier said than done.
Brian Johnston wrote:So who exactly is “the Church” that we can blame? Most of what happens on a day to day basis is local to the ward. We are the ward. If we have a bad experience at Church, do we blame Thomas S. Monson?
I’m drawing on the McKinsey Seven-S Model of culture development in organizations. They have postulated that culture and behavior is driven by the structure, systems (including discipline, naturalization of people to the organization, computer systems, reporting systems, processes for doing things), the style of leadership, the skills of the people who run the organization, the staffing levels devoted to the local wards, its overall strategy for growth and its allocation of financial resources — all of which creates a shared culture.
So, while ultimately we are responsible for our own spirituality, I think the way our organization treats each of the components above has MUCH to do with our overall experience. In fact, W. Edwards Deming said that 80% of the problems are with the system — which is created through the management of these S-components.
The authoritarian leadership style, coupled with a Ward reporting structure that has the Stake closely monitoring the Wards, rather poor skills in local leadership in many Wards (most of the strong people get nabbed by the Stake), and the scripted processes for doing things in the CHI definitely creates the culture that causes people so much angst. So, I believe there is much that can be done to create a better culture by manipulated.
I was inspired to write this with the current thought that attending other religions has allowed many people here to feel a spirituality they can’t feel at our own Church.
Quote:I think we all have to ultimately be responsible for our spirituality and progress. We have to. If we stay as spiritual children forever, having people spoon feed us childish pablum for religion, it will cripple us. God seems to throw us off the dock and hopes we figure out how to swim in this world… just sayin’. That’s how the Big Guy seems to parent
I agree with this, but only because I have little or no control over the Seven S-components.
Quote:Instead of blame, I say give encouragement. When someone says “Hey, i’m not feeling spiritual, and I feel lost. Can you help me?” Respond: “Come hang out with me. Let’s go find something beautiful and spiritual to drink in.”
My thoughts too. And, as a a follow-up, if I see someone who looks worn out, burnt out, depressed or otherwise unhappy, I NEVER walk up to them and say “Hey, you look depressed”. I reach out with “I really like that color of shirt on you — it looks great!!!”
So, yes, I believe in personal responsiblity, but I also believe the Church has a huge capability to improve the experience of members by its management of the Seven-S components.
I blame myself for getting frustrated and angry with the church, which causes me to lose the spirit and be miserable at church. I blame the local leadership who WILL NOT listen to their own prophets and continue teaching cultural doctrines and traditions that damage family relationships and the individual spiritual progress ,and that has made our tribe appear to have more rules and commandments than the Isrealites ever dreamed of.
I blame Pres. Monson and the Q15 for allowing these questionable teaching and doctrines (such as the 14Fs, fornication next to murder in sin, and WoW baptisms requirements etc) to continue to be emphasizes at the local level, instead of just standing up and calling a spade a spade and fixing the problems. I also blame the Q15 for being on the wrong side and years behind the curve, of almost every social issue since BY took over the church.
All three of these combined is the sum of my experience at church.
When I feel the spirit, and feel good with my relationship with God, I typically take credit (not in a prideful way, just in a realization way that what I’m doing is helping me, so I should keep trying to do good). I am grateful for church programs that help me achieve spirituality, but I realize those programs are there to help me … and I am the one that takes the steps, or knocks on God’s door. Because it should be a highly personal relationship with God. The other end of that stick I pick up is that when I don’t feel spiritual, I must be the one to find out how to fix it. The church can be there to help me, but I must do it. It will not help for the church to take blame, I must find a way to do it, sometimes in spite of the church and its programs.
I humbly take credit when things are good, and also take blame for the “not so good” experiences. They go together, and frankly, I don’t want it any other way. I don’t want the church to be my mediator between God and my life.
PiperAlpha wrote:and frankly,
I don’t want it any other way. I don’t want the church to be my mediator between God and my life.This is profound and true, IMO. Now if the church would only agree with the concept. I truly have come to the conclusion that the church can not and will not be a mediator for man and god. So the church can make any claim it wants to about temple ordinances and priesthood, and obedience to authority and having to go through a bishop to get a TR to reach the CK — I don’t believe it, and I reject that doctrine.
Brian had a pretty good chart and explanation, how, JS taught the concept of Man>God>Church. Since correlation, we now have an organization that clearly teaches and pushes Man>Church>God.
I just don’t believe it.
cwald wrote:JS taught the concept of Man>God>Church. Since correlation, we now have an organization that clearly teaches and pushes Man>Church>God.
Help me understand more what you mean by this.
In one case, the Church clearly teaches:
Quote:The family is the fundamental unit in the Church, and home is the most important place for gospel learning. No other organization can take the place of the family. The Church’s purpose will always be to support and strengthen families and individuals in their efforts to live the gospel.
Taken from Church website under Topic: Church Administration
From that perspective, the church supports families and individuals, but does not step in to say one must go through the church to access God. Personal revelation is critical, and the church is there to help one achieve it.On the other side of the coin:
Quote:The priesthood is necessary to administer the ordinances of the gospel….Ordinances and covenants are required for salvation and are available for both the living and the dead.
-Taken from Gospel Principles Chapter 17
It seems to me the church is responsible for receiving God’s will and His commandments and making those known to me and others by teaching and preaching the word. But it is my responsibility to get a testimony of those words and get that revelation directly from God (not through a priest or church leader), and it is my responsibility to feel the spirit.How does correlated church efforts put the church between God and my spirit?
PiperAlpha wrote:cwald wrote:JS taught the concept of Man>God>Church. Since correlation, we now have an organization that clearly teaches and pushes Man>Church>God.
Help me understand more what you mean by this.
In one case, the Church clearly teaches:
Quote:The family is the fundamental unit in the Church, and home is the most important place for gospel learning. No other organization can take the place of the family. The Church’s purpose will always be to support and strengthen families and individuals in their efforts to live the gospel.
Taken from Church website under Topic: Church Administration
From that perspective, the church supports families and individuals, but does not step in to say one must go through the church to access God. Personal revelation is critical, and the church is there to help one achieve it.On the other side of the coin:
Quote:The priesthood is necessary to administer the ordinances of the gospel….Ordinances and covenants are required for salvation and are available for both the living and the dead.
-Taken from Gospel Principles Chapter 17
It seems to me the church is responsible for receiving God’s will and His commandments and making those known to me and others by teaching and preaching the word. But it is my responsibility to get a testimony of those words and get that revelation directly from God (not through a priest or church leader), and it is my responsibility to feel the spirit.How does correlated church efforts put the church between God and my spirit?
I think you are about to open a huge can of worms. Fortunately, I have to go coach a baseball game and have little time to respond. I will get back to you later, but let me just start by these four concepts that blow your assertion out of the water and explains my position.
1. The 14 Fundamentals of the prophets. The leaders ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. (the most dangerous and cult-like doctrine ever preached from the pulpit in GC)
2. The two lines of communication – and if the individual line doesn’t match the priesthood line, than the individual is getting their revelation from satan. (the second most dangerous and cult-like doctrine ever preached from the pulpit in GC)
3. Temple recommends — issued by bishops and stake presidents.
4. Baptism and temple ordinances REQUIRED for exaltation and salvation — and you cannot get those if you do not go through the church authority.
i.e. — the church controls your salvation and your eternal relationship with god. MAN>CHURCH>GOD.
SilentDawning wrote:1. “If you feel distant from God, then who moved?”.
2. “You feel distant because you are not keeping the commandments”.
3. “The onus is on you to forgive, not for the Church to apologize”.
4. “We are not tempted beyond that which we can bear”.
5. “Your spirituality is low because you have not been attending the temple”.
6. “You are bored in Church because you are not viewing the meeting through the eyes of service”.
And so on…..
However, I find it hard to believe that everything rests on the backs of the members to make the Church experience work for them. So, my question — to what extent should the Church bear responsibility for creating positive, spiritual experiences in the Church?
Hi SD,
When I first introduced myself here you posted the following: “It sounds also like you have an “internal locus of control”, which means that you think everything that happens to you is you own doing. I was that way at one time, but have adopted a more external “locus of control” which says that sometimes bad things just happen — and they would happen whether I was there or not.”
You are absolutely right. The U.S. is an internal locus of control nation and the LDS church is an internal locus of control church. I wonder though if your question, “to what extent should the Church bear responsibility?” is still an internal locus of control question that has the assumption that individuals and organizations can exert some control over the future and can manipulate events.
I think it would not be a terrible stretch to say that Mormonism is an American religion and that many of the ideas and underlying assumptions are also American/western. But it would be difficult to ask “to what extent American culture should bear responsibility?” Perhaps because American culture is so decentralized and conceptual that it is difficult to give it human characteristics like responsibility.
I do not disagree with your thought. There are many things I wish the church would do that would make my own participation more engaging. But I think it is worthy to note that this is based on the assumption that the church has the power to change itself. I think there could be an entire thread on the limitations on the church’s ability to direct change, what that change would look like and what it would take to get there. I feel that change is a certainty, I am less certain of our (or the church’s) ability to shape what form the change will take.
Quote:I feel that change is a certainty, I am less certain of our (or the church’s) ability to shape what form the change will take.
Why do you think they are limited in their ability to shape the form the change will take?
PiperAlpha wrote:cwald wrote:JS taught the concept of Man>God>Church. Since correlation, we now have an organization that clearly teaches and pushes Man>Church>God.
Help me understand more what you mean by this.
Piper, follow this link
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1967&p=29710#p29710 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1967&p=29710#p29710 Now, here is an example of the Church enacting a structural policy to try to improve the experience of the members: http://lds.org/church/news/single-adults-leaders-see-benefits-of-ysa-ward-reorganization?lang=eng This is the kind of thing I’m talking about when I refer to the Church’s ability to effect change that has a large impact on the good of all.
What do you think about these changes Sam? SilentDawning wrote:…I’m drawing on the McKinsey Seven-S Model of culture development in organizations. They have postulated that
culture and behavior is driven by the structure, systems…the style of leadership, the skills of the people who run the organization, the staffing levels devoted to the local wards, its overall strategy for growth and its allocation of financial resources — all of which creates a shared culture…I think the way our organization treats each of the components above has MUCH to do with our overall experience.In fact, W. Edwards Deming said that 80% of the problems are with the system — which is created through the management of these S-components. The authoritarian leadership style, coupled with a Ward reporting structure that has the Stake closely monitoring the Wards, rather poor skills in local leadership in many Wards (most of the strong people get nabbed by the Stake), and the scripted processes for doing things in the CHI definitely creates the culture that causes people so much angst. So, I believe there is much that can be done to create a better culture…I was inspired to write this with the current thought that attending other religions has allowed many people here to feel a spirituality they can’t feel at our own Church…So, yes, I believe in personal responsiblity, but I also believe
the Church has a huge capability to improve the experience of membersby its management of the Seven-S components. That would be great if the top Church leaders were fully aware of some of these problems and potential solutions. However, one problem with making wholesale changes is that there are interdependencies in the structure that would make it difficult to change one thing at a time and still expect it all to work very well. For example, some members feel overburdened by callings so the obvious reform seems like it would be to simply scale back and reduce some of the unnecessary work. However, these callings sometimes serve the additional purpose of motivating less committed members to attend the meetings when they don’t really feel like it by exploiting their sense of duty that they need to be there because others are counting on them. So if some of these members didn’t have a calling they would probably be more likely to become inactive because the meetings are often not very pleasant by themselves.
Similarly, the combination of temple marriage and the WoW serve the practical purpose of separating active Mormons from “the world” and then family ties are used to effectively bind them to the Church. For example, if most active members didn’t believe these doctrines were quite so important then they would be more likely to marry a non-Mormon or Jack Mormon and this would decrease the chances that they would remain active in the Church and/or pass these traditions on to their children.
It looks like some of these doctrines and policies basically work as shortcuts or quick fixes they have stumbled onto that help retain members without ever having to address some of the fundamental dissatisfaction issues many members have with the Church. The puzzle would be to figure out how continue to attract and retain enough members to survive without depending so much on these manipulative tricks that still work to some extent. Personally, I think they should soften their approach and try to make peoples’ association with the Church a better experience even if they end up losing members beacause of it simply because it would be more ethical but I don’t think most TBMs would see it that way at this point because to them the Church represents God’s will and eternal salvation so they don’t really want to compromise much.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.