- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There are many here and in our wards that are declaring that “the Emperor has no clothes” with the added words, “but we are alright with that because we see that the Emperor is still good and we are part of the kingdom”. I have noticed that as we declare our views concerning a host of things ranging from tithing to gay marriage and doing it in the class room and over the pulpit and in firesides that more people are acknowledging some of their own feelings and beliefs. I gave the tithing lesson in priesthood and presented different ideas and there was little push back if any. I heard Jarad Anderson lesson on Mormon Stories SS about tithing and he talked about the different approaches people can take and I think more and more people will be taking the approach to pay on net rather than gross and surplus over every thing. I see that history will be approached differently as times goes on. I see Ray’s openness, DBMormon’s willingness to get his hands dirty, and Wayfarer’s middle way and even CWald’s approach becoming more accepted and even embraced by a larger percentage of church members as well as leaders. Then there are the wonderful women that are expressing their views and concerns to include wearing pants to church and praying in GC, along with many other issues and the church is saying we can do that. It gives me great hope that the work will go forward and that I can be part of it and that there is room for most all of us to be part of it.
I know that we can thank the internet for much of this but also those that have the courage to declare that we can handle the truth and that we want to do our own thinking once we have the truth.
I am not seeing this so far. It is nice if it is occurring — the liberalisation (non-political) of LDS beliefs on these issues — I do not see in our Ward. I do see the Emporer’s New Clothes phenomenon though. In my own geographical Ward, the Bishop has made a number of questionable decisions and also has some personality deficits. We were told yesterday that Sacrament meeting attendance has fallen from 110 to 25 in our Ward recently. Even allowing for seasonality, ebb and flow (each Ward has up and down periods), this shows a huge drop in attendance that seems to have its roots iwidespread discontent with our local Emporer. My family started attending a different Ward as a result of this (and other factors).
When people have mentioned the leadership problems to the SP, it led to visits from the SP to the Ward and talks on supporting your leaders. So, everyone has either voted with their feet or is serving quietly, letting the Emporer run around in his underwear.
or everyone is waiting for the current Bishop’s term to expire and a new Bishop to be called. Those who have been in the Church long enough generally have weathered a bad fit before, and they take the attitude that “this too shall pass”. I wish it didn’t have to be so, and I have seen enough Bishops in situations like you describe be released earlier than the standard length of service to know that continued support in a situation like you describe need not be. It’s sad – plain and simple.
I really do see change happening and coming in the Church – based largely on major societal shifts, generational attitudes and top leadership that actually is aware of it. Local leadership, on the other hand, is a crap shoot – and it is at the local level that the most damage can be done (and the most help, as well).
SD, it sounds like a tough ward to be in. I was thinking more in general terms. There are going to cases where one extreme will call the shots but overall I think things are changing. We shall see. For all of our similarities with a corporation as a church, I’m surprised there isn’t more gauging of the general memberships overall satisfaction with their church experience. Corporations take the satisfaction of their “patronage” very seriously and are constantly trying to improve the experience through surveys and operational improvements. In the case of the LDS Church, I don’t see this happening on a regular basis in the wards. The onus is on the front line members to enjoy the experience whether its positive or not — and be quiet about it if they are not happy. For example, I’m thrilled someone in a world wide training said “The church is not a moving service” in recent years. This emphasis on moving went on for decades to the point members started having a sense of entitlement that the priesthood would move them — and if they didn’t get that support, it was offensive to them. As an HPGL, I eventually implemented my own moving policy, which was then continued by subsequent HPGL’s. It indicated our role a priesthood leaders was limited to calling for volunteers in priesthood meeting on behalf of the person moving. People moving were responsible for raising their own volunteers beyond the announcement, and there was a checklist indicating the things they should do — like have everything boxed up, get their moving van together, and providing two weeks notice to potential volunteers. If I was in the position now, I would have expanded the announcement to Relief Society as well.
The only exception was for people who had special needs, like elderly or physically challenged people — as determined by the leadership. We would consider full service moves for these people if their own families were absent or unable.
I think regular surveys of members across different geographical areas would do much to enlighten the top leadership about what is working and what isn’t. For all the corporate know-how our church possesses, I’ve always wondered why there isn’t more application of the operational improvement principle at the center of influence — the handbook, church bulletins, and the top leadership. Change is slow and laborious as it stands.
I’m glad they re-did the handbook a couple years ago, but I would like to see greater monitoring and more rapid improvements, such as once every 3 years if feedback from the membership indicates there are ways the church as an organization (leadershnip, policies) can perfect itself.
By ye therefore perfect….as your father in heaven is perfect — I think W. Edwards Deming (the quality guru) might have agreed with Christ on that statement, even from an organizational perspective.
Amen on the LDS moving service. Many wards I have been in have implemented similar processes. I am not sure I agree completely with your corporation thoughts because I see how many companies have downsized their products but kept the packaging the same leading many to believe that they are getting the same product. Is it deceitful? Or are they trying to improve their bottom line? Is the church different?
I’m referring to the company that finds, upon talking to customers, that they have an operational problem, such as slow service, high prices, bad decor, or high pressure salespeople. They therefore take steps to speed up services, lower prices, update the decor, or teach their salepeople more effective methods. In our church it might mean that people are not feeling fed at church. Or that they are worn from moving all the time, or they find the experience of a church member too repetitive. Or the lesson quality is declining. If they see these concerns increasing over time, they might then respond by changing policy to address these concerns — that’s what companies do.
We spend 80% of our time in training and classes. Yet we have no dedicated or formal mechanism for ensuring lesson quality and teaching skills are good. It took them 30 years to figure out the moving was wearing on everyone. Stuff like that.
Glad to have you back SD. Missed your bluntness. church0333 wrote:There are many here and in our wards that are declaring that “the Emperor has no clothes” with the added words, “but we are alright with that because we see that the Emperor is still good and we are part of the kingdom”.
Hi, I’m curious. Are you referring to an actual “saying” using the emperor analogy, like a Facebook share that is making the rounds, or are you summing up an attitude you’re seeing? Is the Emperor the bishop, the prophet, Joseph Smith….? Thanks.
Ann, church0333 can speak for himself, but I doubt highly he actually says it – and I certainly wouldn’t phrase it that way in any comment I would make in any setting. The phrase has too much baggage to be understood by most people in the sense in which I think church0333 means it. I meant it in reference to the church as an organization. I don’t say it out loud. What I mean is that we can declare that the church is flawed and not perfect like people have said in the past. Leaders have said that JS had many flaws and I see more and more of the brethren saying that the church has to answer some tough questions and declaring their own faults to some extent. I have said over the pulpit on more than one occasion that the church is not perfect, that the priesthood ban was wrong and things like that and I have had some push back but overall many people have agreed. I think that when one person speaks out it give others who feel the same support to also speak up. Ann, I am glad you asked.
I agree with church333 — it is better to say the church is imperfect and so are the people. Individuals always seem to want to argue over what “the church” means which is a frustrating thing to sidetrack. Point is, I think the church would be better off knowing its warts and faults, and acknowledging them. Then people wouldn’t feel such a letdown when the inevitable happens — leaders and prophets make mistakes.
church0333 wrote:I meant it in reference to the church as an organization. I don’t say it out loud. What I mean is that we can declare that the church is flawed and not perfect like people have said in the past. Leaders have said that JS had many flaws and I see more and more of the brethren saying that the church has to answer some tough questions and declaring their own faults to some extent. I have said over the pulpit on more than one occasion that the church is not perfect, that the priesthood ban was wrong and things like that and I have had some push back but overall many people have agreed. I think that when one person speaks out it give others who feel the same support to also speak up.
Ann, I am glad you asked.
Thanks, church0333. I don’t know your opinion on the issue, but, for instance, do you think someone could say over the pulpit that the church is not perfect and that polygamy was wrong? (
Notsteering this thread towards a discussion about it, but just wondering where you think people are.) My apologies if I already related this, but in R.S. the other week the lesson began with a recounting of a family reunion/meeting at the end of Lorenzo Snow’s life. No one has said Thing One about his wives this whole year. Not that they would or should. But I leaned over to my friend and said that it would have been a large gathering since he had eight or nine wives. She quietly said, “That is so hard for me. Always has been.” I said that my thinking was simple now. Polygamy was at best a well-intentioned mistake. She looked me in the eye. I’m pretty sure she is like I used to be – discounting her own strong beliefs and feelings because “The Church” tells its story its way. She said that she liked my attitude. I sensed a lot of relief. We’re both totally mainstream Mormon moms, but we have an extra little bond now. I think we need to speak our minds.
My sister was recently brought in and brought low by her bishop after some ward busybodies (Surprize! They were also women!) printed off reams of her Facebook posts about treatment of LGBT members. They were out for blood and the I think the poor bishop just wanted them off his back. But if more people expressed their probably middle-of-the-road view about LGBT members, my sister at the extreme would not look
soextreme and the busybodies would cool it. Ann wrote:do you think someone could say over the pulpit that the church is not perfect and that polygamy was wrong?
No. I don’t think that would be a good idea. As I recounted recently, I gave serious thought to this during a F&T meeting… although I would have said something about being more receptive and inclusive toward gay people. I don’t think it is a good idea to say polarizing things from the pulpit. Polarization works against progress. I much much much prefer the one-on-one opportunities, like the one you described with another woman:Ann wrote:I said that my thinking was simple now. Polygamy was at best a well-intentioned mistake. She looked me in the eye… She said that she liked my attitude. I sensed a lot of relief. We’re both totally mainstream Mormon moms, but we have an extra little bond now.
Love this. And I think in the long run, this is the most effective way to make positive changes from within. If we stand in the parking lot and shout, no one will listen. But I believe we can moderate the dialog greatly, by being open and pleasant and respectful.Ann wrote:I sensed a lot of relief.
You know, that’s exactly my expectation when some of these things are lifted. There was a collective sigh of relief when the priesthood ban was lifted. It will be the same someday (I hope) with polygamy. Many assume that the Church would collapse if we ever acknowledged such a big misstep… I don’t see it that way at all. I think that, on the contrary, there are many good, wonderful, faithful people that can find no comfort when the Church is so unflinching about its own infallibility, and wind up disillusioned. If the Church could ever own its own history responsibly, and work to resolve its errors, I think it would seem more approachable, and more like us. And I don’t see any reason why removing the nail would have to leave a hole.Quote:And I don’t see any reason why removing the nail would have to leave a hole.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.