To what extent is the Church responsible for our experience?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

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.

In a authoritarian church like ours, there is a tremendous amount of power to change that comes from such a top down structure, whether it’s less implicit in structural changes (buildings conforming to certain plans, YSA wards, increased building of local, smaller temples), or program changes (YM/YW, missionary books, manuals, CHI, ), or emphasis (ETB’s powerful discourse that changed the church’s focus on the BOM almost exclusively, current emphasis on temple worship as the pinnacle and goal of all worship). With one caveat: it has to come from the top in this structure. To the extent that the leadership has, through its anonymous surveys of some of the membership, been brave enough to really see how their decisions or clinging to certain doctrines have effected the members, some changes have occurred. (temple changes, being a big one).

This is a billion dollar organization that has no end to its revenue, because tithing is mandatory for other “blessings”, and it invests in commercial enterprises as well based on that “seed money” or donations. Money is power. Yes, we do serve both God and Mammon.

The only other ways members on the bottom rungs can effect change is with their wallets, and their walking shoes (not necessarily in that order). They can politely, but resolutely say, “no, I won’t do that” or “I won’t believe that because that does not seem right”, and back it up with decreased temple attendance, decreased tithing/donations, refusals to attend meetings or accept callings. But you have to have large numbers of individuals able to do that, which means a consensus of opinions. That consensus may already exist, but the church condemns and isolates the skeptic, doubter, and disaffected, making them think they’re the only one (or just part of a handful of apostates) that has any of those feelings, so they tend to keep silent while the membership drones on with what is culturally expected of us. The occasional NOM-ish BP or EQP or SP might have some temporary improvements in their own ward, but the likelihood of them being called to such positions is pretty slim usually due to less orthodoxy at the outset, and has very little effect in the church at large.

There are enough active, prophet believing people in this church that would, at the drop of a hat, move to Missouri if the prophet said so. A prophet outdoes any earthly authority, so we saw in the polygamy days when people gladly went to jail for their “faith”. That’s real power.

And there is the caboose to my rambling train of thought….. :crazy:

Latterday Skeptic

[Anonymous]

DA — actually, you’re right – these things are interdependent — that’s why you have to change several different “s” components or it confuses the culture.

Let’s focus on one problem I have experienced in the Church — frustrating leadership callings that produce few results and lead to burnout. This is due to uncommittted hometeachers, unrealistic measurement standards for what constitutes “success” as an HPGL or EQ President, and a computer system which doesn’t allow you to capture all of the information you need to stop harrassing people. Plus, training tends to be tedious — you are supposed to be at training, or “you’re not committed”, but the training is usually repetitive. I also find the High Councilors weren’t really great coaches either — more of follow-uppers for the Stake.

So, I recommend the following:

Strategy — make Perfect the Saints a priority by allocating more funds to it.

Systems:

a) Improve the home teaching system so you can update your home teaching online in real time. Also, allow Ward leaders to add some simple comments next to members name they visit so you don’t have the relief society president visiting someone the HPGL just got a name removal letter from — or so the HPGL doesn’t have to visit a family who has already been contacted by the RS, welcoming them to the Ward when he’s got 60 families who need addresses verified to clean up the Ward records. Allow priesthood leaders to count letters and visit attemps, and phone calls, in addition to visits (this may already be happening).

b) Reward systems: Make it a more positive experience by writing it into the handbook that people should be given verbal reward and appreciation for what they do. I’m not talking about recognition ceremonies, but I AM talking about an attitude of appreciation, rather than the autocratic expectations will serve because they were told to and it’s all divine.

Skills: Improve the training for priesthood leaders so it’s not so tedious by making priesthood leadership meeetings truly valuable — adopt a workshop format so you can go to one of 5 topics YOU CHOOSE to fit your needs. Base training off a needs analysis. Also, train the HC better in how to support the Priesthood leaders. If I did training the way we do it in the Church I’d be fired. Same with auxiliary leaders.

Structure: Expand the Social Services arm of the Church to deal with a wider variety of problems our Church members face as they try to live the gospel. Half the time I was out in left field trying to help people we couldn’t help, LDS Social Services is booked and turning people away, and we were in over our heads.

Consider a leaner stake and fatter wards in terms of talent committed there.

Style: Adopt a less autocratic style of leadership. Start bringing in apostles that are more collaborative and forward thinking, and let this style of leadership permeate to the Ward level. Stop expecting volunteers to behave like paid business employees.

You alter even those compoents of the Seven S’s and I think you would have a much different Church.

Would we lose all the TBM’s? Probably not — in fact, you might end up keeping people who join on the strength of a testimony only to find they have joined someting akin to a business that expects stellar results on a shoestring.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Shifting that locus of control for me has been a major challenge of the last year.

In reading the book “The Shack,” I came across a passage that I transplanted almost entirely into my own notes. I wrote-

“Agency is not unencumbered. There are many trammels: genetic heritage, DNA, metabolism, birth order, personality, events in formative years, social influences, indoctrination, habits formed into synaptic bonds in the brain, addictions, circumstances nationally, politically, economically, in addition to advertising, propaganda, paradigms and many other inhibitors.”

And this doesn’t begin to describe my limitations in controlling events and people outside myself. But in accepting that loss of control it also opens a Pandora’s Box into a frightening world of uncertainty.”

The above passage discusses limitations on individuals to determine their own destiny and fortune. Similarly, the church is bound by limitations of history, cultural assumptions, doctrine, groupthink, etc. Where did the culture and doctrines come from? How do they define us? How free is the leadership to declare departures from previous direction? How ready is the general membership to discard old paradigms in favour of that new direction? I believe that in the examples of the most dramatic and painful changes made in our history (post JS), the church didn’t so much choose to change as much as the landscape forced it into changing.

Now an important question at this point would be to ask, “How then do we (or I) help the church into changing the way I want it to?” The answer might be that you can’t. That anything you might do alone would be too insignificant unless it was accompanied by the rising tide of cultural and social change. But then you would be riding the tide of and participating in change rather than controlling it or directing it, you would become a part of unfolding events.

An internal locus of control can be extremely motivating and can be quite effective outlook for living your life. I think that one advantage of an external locus of control is an improved ability to relax and enjoy what is. I would say the choice of perspective is up to you, but given the topic – is it really?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DA — actually, you’re right – these things are interdependent — that’s why you have to change several different “s” components or it confuses the culture…Let’s focus on one problem I have experienced in the Church — frustrating leadership callings that produce few results and lead to burnout. This is due to uncommittted hometeachers, unrealistic measurement standards for what constitutes “success” as an HPGL or EQ President, and a computer system which doesn’t allow you to capture all of the information you need to stop harrassing people. Plus, training tends to be tedious…I also find the High Councilors weren’t really great coaches either — more of follow-uppers for the Stake.

Style: Adopt a less autocratic style of leadership. Start bringing in apostles that are more collaborative and forward thinking, and let this style of leadership permeate to the Ward level. Stop expecting volunteers to behave like paid business employees.…You alter even those compoents of the Seven S’s and I think you would have a much different Church…Would we lose all the TBM’s? Probably not — in fact, you might end up keeping people…

I would be tempted to scrap home teaching/visiting teaching altogether or at least not expect every active member to do so many visits every single month because it looks like any payoff from the current program is very low compared to the overall inconvenience of it. For many of these members, active or not, one visit per year would probably be just as good or better than being bothered every month.

Rather than giving the impression that the Church cares about them it is just as likely to make people feel like the Church wants to hassle them as much as humanly possible. I think it’s hard for many members to feel very motivated about this because in the back of their mind they know that it’s mostly pointless busy-work that is not likely to make much of a positive difference so giving them a guilt-trip about it and telling them to try harder to achieve better results isn’t going to help much.

[Anonymous]

Latterday Skeptic wrote:

…In a authoritarian church like ours, there is a tremendous amount of power to change that comes from such a top down structure, whether it’s less implicit in structural changes (buildings conforming to certain plans, YSA wards, increased building of local, smaller temples), or program changes (YM/YW, missionary books, manuals, CHI, ), or emphasis…it has to come from the top in this structure.

Roy wrote:

…the church is bound by limitations of history, cultural assumptions, doctrine, groupthink, etc. Where did the culture and doctrines come from? How do they define us? How free is the leadership to declare departures from previous direction? How ready is the general membership to discard old paradigms in favour of that new direction? I believe that in the examples of the most dramatic and painful changes made in our history (post JS), the church didn’t so much choose to change as much as the landscape forced it into changing.…“How then do we (or I) help the church into changing the way I want it to?” The answer might be that you can’t. That anything you might do alone would be too insignificant unless it was accompanied by the rising tide of cultural and social change…one advantage of an external locus of control is an improved ability to relax and enjoy what is…

The problem is that the only ones with the power to implement lasting changes in the official policies and doctrines, emphasis in lessons, temple and baptism requirements, directions passed down to bishops and stake presidents, etc. apparently don’t really want to change anything significant for whatever reason. Maybe they think everything is fine the way it is or that this is the way God wanted it and/or they feel constrained because they worry about what others think and expect out of them so they are afraid of suggesting anything radically different. Sometimes it is more convenient to just go along with the established system rather than try to fight it similar to Darth Vader getting sucked into supporting an evil empire. The following example given by Boyd K. Packer gives a better idea how things really work for some of these top leaders and where their loyalties are focused sometimes:

Boyd K. Packer wrote:

…Elder Lee had agreed to give me counsel and some direction…what he told me has saved me time and time again. “You must decide now which way you face,” he said. “Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their causes or you represent the Brethren who appointed you. You need to decide now which way you face.” then he added, “some of your predecessors faced the wrong way.”…In time, I did understand, and my resolve to face the right way became irreversible.

One of the early lessons was also my first lesson in correlation. The seminaries were sponsoring speech contests., They were very successful — much better than similar contests sponsored by the Mutual Improvement Association. It was an ideal gospel-centered activity for seminaries. They were succeeding beautifully…We were instructed to discontinue them!

There was something of an uprising among the teachers…The teachers wanted Brother Tuttle and me to plead their cause before the Brethren. The logic was all on our side. Nevertheless we remembered the counsel of Brother Lee, and really, just out of obedience, we declined…Finally I could see that the very success of the program was an enemy.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

There was something of an uprising among the teachers…The teachers wanted Brother Tuttle and me to plead their cause before the Brethren. The logic was all on our side. Nevertheless we remembered the counsel of Brother Lee, and really, just out of obedience, we declined…Finally I could see that the very success of the program was an enemy.

See, when the culture precludes leaders who are close to their constituents presenting their perspective and pleading their case to their leaders, then we have a problem on our hands. And if programmatic success is viewed as a counter-movement rather than something the organization can potentially learn from and embrace, then we have a problem. Did I say that I think we have a problem?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

There was something of an uprising among the teachers…The teachers wanted Brother Tuttle and me to plead their cause before the Brethren. The logic was all on our side. Nevertheless we remembered the counsel of Brother Lee, and really, just out of obedience, we declined…Finally I could see that the very success of the program was an enemy.

See, when the culture precludes leaders who are close to their constituents presenting their perspective and pleading their case to their leaders, then we have a problem on our hands. And if programmatic success is viewed as a counter-movement rather than something the organization can potentially learn from and embrace, then we have a problem. Did I say that I think we have a problem?

Yes.

On the very slim chance that a GA ever reads this thread, let me repeat, what, will probably eventually get me excused from the tribe, but is nevertheless, 100% accurate in my world,

Quote:

when the culture precludes leaders who are close to their constituents presenting their perspective and pleading their case to their leaders, then we have a problem on our hands. And if programmatic success is viewed as a counter-movement rather than something the organization can potentially learn from and embrace, then we have a problem.

I use to be angry about this. Now I am just sad for the tribe.

[Anonymous]

I’m disturbed by it…..like Ben Franklin said — there is a difference between being good people, and being good [insert denomination here, like].

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

There was something of an uprising among the teachers…The teachers wanted Brother Tuttle and me to plead their cause before the Brethren. The logic was all on our side. Nevertheless we remembered the counsel of Brother Lee, and really, just out of obedience, we declined…Finally I could see that the very success of the program was an enemy.

See, when the culture precludes leaders who are close to their constituents presenting their perspective and pleading their case to their leaders, then we have a problem on our hands. And if programmatic success is viewed as a counter-movement rather than something the organization can potentially learn from and embrace, then we have a problem. Did I say that I think we have a problem?

I recently read a quote that I find very applicable here and is similar to the one by Ben Franklin:

H.L. Mencken wrote:

The plain fact is that education is itself a form of propaganda — a deliberate scheme to outfit the pupil, not with the capacity to weigh ideas, but with a simple appetite for gulping ideas ready-made. The aim is to make “good” citizens, which is to say, docile and uninquisitive citizens.

[Author]

Posts