- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Really great comments SD, as usual. Quote:Silentdawning wrote: I think there is a definite place for criticism.
1. There are times when you get REALLY BAD leaders, and it can affect people’s health, self-esteem, inner peace, and activity. In those times, it helps to have a support group who can help you cope, and this often means sharing leaders’ misbehavior.Oh, you mean kind of like after General Conference?
Okay girls. I’ll take my trollish, apostate bad attitude back to some other board like NOM or MDB and leave you to your mission statement.
Thanks to those of you who were patient and tolerant of my “trolling” and for letting me vent a little after another emotionally and spiritual draining General Conference. Sorry to disrupt your stayLDS (community) like i did. I have become much better at keeping my thoughts contained to support forums, rather than discussing these issues with family and at church or social media. …that just never ends well IMO, especially for me in the past, to be honest.
Visit later. I’ll be back….maybe as late as GC Oct 2015.
Out.
Yes, of course there is a place for criticism – and this has been and always will be one of those places. I have communicated criticism here on many occasions – of Church programs and leaders. The latest General Conference commentary is a good example of that. The manner of criticism encouraged simply is different here. This site is no utopia, and everyone here knows it. One way not to communicate criticism with any degree of constructiveness and hope for success is hyperbole and egaggeration, with a scornful tone.
Old-Timer wrote:…
This site is no utopia, and everyone here knows it….
Fixed. Edited.
See you in six months.
Cwald – How am I supposed to get a good night sleep when you aren’t coming back for six months. Who will man the bar while your away. Seriously – re -read the threads and check how many people struggle with the same thing.
I know you’ll do what you want, but we’ll keep a bottle open for you when you return.
I agree this has been a good discussion, mostly taking place when I was not online (my son’s baseball team won 17-7 and he had two hits, a run and an RBI). Sometimes things move quickly around here. I would just say that the church is not the only organization where criticism of leaders is not tolerated. There are cwald’s examples of ISIS and the FLDS church – where criticism may actually result in death (more so in ISIS, but Jeffs and his brothers will at least expel you from the group). Another great example, at least in the US, is the military – there can be fairly severe sanctions for criticizing one’s leaders there, including open criticism of the president. I have also had bosses where demotion or firing were real consequences of criticism or sowing seeds of discord. I don’t like that the church is very top down with almost no recourse or input from the membership – but is that really any different than Catholicism, for example? I do recognize that some churches/religions do have some more democratic processes and that’s great, it’s just not our model. That said, such unlimited power opens the door to abuse of that power and statements like DHO’s. However, as Hawkgrrrrl points out, they do have some limitations within their own ranks, and they still have to work with each other. FWIW, I think the modern structure of the FP/Q12 is more limiting than it was in the early days where JS and BY truly did have unlimited power. Even the way “revelation” for the church is received in modern times is a group effort, not just that of one man. I’m not sure there’s a way to fix it – even the current go-to of “talk to your SP” does not provide a way for expressing concerns because the SP may or may not (the latter seems more likely) push that up the line to the AA, who may or may not push it up to the area presidency, etc.
Taking a break is sometimes a good idea, cwald. That doesn’t mean we won’t miss you.
And I totally agree with Hawkgrrrrl about BRM and I think others who were around in his day (which would include DHO) might follow some of his example. I also see guys like DTC and DFU – I think Christofferson may have been sent with Oaks when speaking about the gays/freedom thing to balance Oaks.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
What is absolutely unhealthy IMO is when being a sycophant or yes man/woman is the only qualification to be heard. Good leaders understand the need to value feedback. I suspect Oaks in fact does value it (that’s what I see when I read the entire text of his oft-quoted talk about not criticizing leaders). Personally, I think McConkie was the one who wouldn’t brook any criticism, and his quotes on the subject are much more unsavory if you ask me. But taking exception to this quote of DHO is certainly understandable.Back in the 60’s my mission president, BKP, told us in zone conference about a meeting he was in with Marion G. Romney. Elder Romney expressed an opinion that Packer new was incorrect so he contradicted him on it. After the meeting he approached him to apologize to which Romney replied that a man that wouldn’t stand up for his opinion wasn’t worth a dam. I guess if something needs to be said, it’s best to say it with a smile but go ahead and say it.
The following posted on my personal blog last week – shortly before this current post was written, interestingly: “Sustaining Leaders Includes Helping Them Know When They Are Wrong”
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2015/04/sustaining-leaders-includes-helping.html cwald wrote:See you in six months.
Hope you come back sooner cWald — don’t think twice if you feel the itch….hope to hear from you much sooner.
🙂 DarkJedi wrote:Taking a break is sometimes a good idea, cwald. That doesn’t mean we won’t miss you.
Count me in on being glad when you return.DarkJedi wrote:And I totally agree with Hawkgrrrrl about BRM and I think others who were around in his day (which would include DHO) might follow some of his example. I also see guys like DTC and DFU – I think Christofferson may have been sent with Oaks when speaking about the gays/freedom thing to balance Oaks.
I had the same thought. And I also thought that Christopherson was assigned the talk he did because he publicly said that a member could be in good standing if they expressed on social media that they were pro-gay marriage.BTW – I heard one comment that someone said that another gay youth committed suicide right after Elder Christopherson’s talk. Any truth to that? I have to assume that since the comment was just in passing and that the blogernacle hasn’t started screaming about it that this must have been something unsubstantiated.
Quote:
Back in the 60’s my mission president, BKP, told us in zone conference about a meeting he was in with Marion G. Romney. Elder Romney expressed an opinion that Packer new was incorrect so he contradicted him on it. After the meeting he approached him to apologize to which Romney replied that a man that wouldn’t stand up for his opinion wasn’t worth a dam. I guess if something needs to be said, it’s best to say it with a smile but go ahead and say it.I do think, however, that it’s best to give such feedback in private unless the correction is for something that is about to happen, in the meeting, that is wrong (such as correcting the leader who is calling the wrong speaker next).
As a teacher, I used to have students who would call me out in front of the class about things they were not happy about. Not welcome — I would much rather they spoke to me personally about it. Same with my colleagues — some have taken our managers to task in meetings, and I find that rude an in appropriate.
Now, I do think it’s appropriate to ask leaders hard questions in public — particularly when they call a meeting for “open communication reasons” but it’s never personal criticism — it’s more about policy, operations, or general criticism of how we, as a group are doing to meet our organizational goals.
As far as I’m concerned, Church leaders absolutely should be criticized. In fact, it looks like one of the main reasons the LDS Church is currently such an intolerant and demanding sect, to its own detriment, is precisely because Church leaders have been able to get away with asking for so much without much resistance from the majority of active members while most of the members that are not as easy to tell what to believe and do have typically voted with their feet and been largely ignored or dismissed by the leaders as if they were the ones with a problem. But now it looks like at least some of the criticism is getting back to the big 15 because Elder Cook, Holland, Ballard and others have recently made comments that sound like a direct reaction to common criticisms from the DAMU. Even if their reactions have typically been very defensive at least they have been forced to acknowledge some of these issues that it seems like they wouldn’t have even been aware of before the internet was around. That’s why I like to provide what I would call “constructive criticism” as if these guys were reading it directly where I don’t call them names or push unrealistic ideas such as that the Church should just go away overnight but simply explain why I disagree with some of the things they have said and suggest what they could have possibly done better even working from a fairly orthodox Mormon perspective.
Even if they don’t ever listen to some of these criticisms it still makes me feel better to say something about it instead of just leaving it alone mostly unchallenged. About the only good reason I can think of to not get carried away criticizing the leaders is simply that it seems like a waste of time to some extent because it is typically much easier to make a positive difference for yourself by simply saying no to things like tithing, temple recommends, callings, etc. on an individual basis rather than feeling overly frustrated waiting and hoping for major changes to come from the top down. That’s why I don’t really expect much out of the Church anymore even though I still like to criticize the leaders whenever I feel like they deserve it.
LookingHard wrote:BTW – I heard one comment that someone said that another gay youth committed suicide right after Elder Christopherson’s talk. Any truth to that? I have to assume that since the comment was just in passing and that the blogernacle hasn’t started screaming about it that this must have been something unsubstantiated.
I recently talked with a friend that works with affirmation and they told me that suicides among LGBT members are above the average suicide rate and that there’s a small spike in suicides right after each conference session. They also informed me that there were a few suicides after this most recent conference.
This most recent general conference did lean quite heavily on protecting the interpretation of a traditional family.
Dark Jedi wrote – Quote:I don’t like that the church is very top down with almost no recourse or input from the membership – but is that really any different than Catholicism, for example?
Didn’t a cardinal or some high up get demoted by the Pope for making a opposing comments about the Pope’s policy?
I am going to say this extremely carefully, since I want NO misunderstanding whatsoever about this comment – and this is NOT an admin note but just a personal comment from me as a participant: Suicide within the LGBT population overall, in every sub-segment of our society, world-wide and in the United States, is a serious issue, and statements condemning LGBT people contribute to the suicide rate. That rate is higher in populations that actively speak against LGBT activity, and I think that should be obvious, but the rate is higher than average even in populations that do not speak as actively against such activity – simply as a result of the overall messages that are given in our society, the internal conflict of not fitting in and being misunderstood and the unspoken, subtle, but clear messages that are sent unintentionally in so many ways.
We have a problem in the LDS Church with this, and it is a serious issue. As one of the organizations that speaks and has spoken regularly about homosexuality and LGBT activity, the rate within the LDS Church is higher than the national average. As I said, that is a serious issue; in fact, imo, it is one of the most serious issues I see, personally. However, it is nowhere near an issue that is exclusive to us or even to generally conservative religious cultures. It is a human issue, which is why I spend most of my effort working to help individuals in my own sphere of influence understand the issues more clearly, openly supporting and loving LGBT people I know, and actively supporting measures that will make the greatest impact across society – most of which are legal issues.
I am not trying in any way to excuse or minimize the scope of the issue within the LDS Church, but I just want to make sure that, even if we criticize leaders for this, we do not do so in any way that makes it appear to be uniquely their problem or suggest that they are uniquely unaware of the issues. It might seem like baby steps to people who want huge change immediately (for very good, legitimate, valid reasons – like lowering a suicide rate), but the movement I have seen in this area over the last 10-15 years is not minor. It is significant – and the leadership should receive recognition and praise for what has happened, even as they receive criticism for areas that still need improvement.
The calling of Elder Christofferson alone is a big deal, given his family’s place in this discussion. What we need to guard against, imo, is unrealistic expectations on him to make massive changes quickly. Those expectations, when not realized, can be crushing, as well.
Quote:
The calling of Elder Christofferson alone is a big deal, given his family’s place in this discussion. What we need to guard against, imo, is unrealistic expectations on him to make massive changes quickly. Those expectations, when not realized, can be crushing, as well.It also may be good to remember that he is a Junior member of the team, and in all human endeavors treading wisely is important. My guess is he measures his steps carefully. I know for a fact he does a lot of work behind the scenes to open up dialogue about faith crisis and LGBT issues.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.