[LookingHard]

afterall wrote:

I feel our church leaders do try to do some listening, but may be guilty of staying in their bubble of “the trusted ones” too much.

Often true. And some I think want to listen, but then see it through the only lens they know how, “they just don’t have enough faith”, etc.

afterall wrote:

How many of you have ever been asked to participate in a church survey? The people I know personally who have were clearly handpicked. What kind of survey is that when the participants are handpicked?

Like when I heard something about the 12 bringing in 3 women to ask about how women feel within the church. I had to laugh. I think there are some women that are already screaming how they feel. I am sure there are tons of contented women in the church, but asking 3 of those you would get a different answer than if you asked 3 women that are on the board of directors for Ordain Women!

[LookingHard]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

I don’t know where the balance is between being a listening church and a top-down, prophet-speaks-for-God church, but I don’t think we’ve found it yet. It’s not that I think leadership doesn’t listen at all, but they seem loathe to acknowledge that they do, or to reveal any of the workings of the feedback process.

We have the seeds of it in the councils — we got a lot of training about how you have to listen to your councils, and then make decisions off that. However, I have seen no evidence that this is formalized beyond individual councils at the local, area or world level. For example, I don’t see top leaders listening to the local membership beyond speculation that some of the changes are a result of the bloggernacle.

The idea of a top leadership that listens to the front line people is not new. Corporations do it all the time — and if the church is good at anything, it’s good at acting like a corporation. But the culture doesnt’ allow it.

1) Covenants that promote leader worship and the “Emporer’s New Clothes” phenomenon.

2) When local membership complains about local leaders, it normally leads to a “support your local leaders” lecture and no sense that concerns have been heard and addressed.

3) The emphasis on obedience, and statements like ‘if you don’t accept your local leaders then you don’t accept Christ”.

A corporation often has its leaders fly around to local units, and hold open discussions about certain issues. They can do engagement surveys remotely. All the technology and know-how is there — our church just chooses not to do it openly given the box in which they’ve placed themself by claiming that everything is inspired, that leaders speak for God, etcetera.

I was about to write some of the same points. I am an engineer by heart, but also trained and experienced as a manager for decades in a very large corporation. With those years of working in such an environment I have learned the importance of listening to those ‘under’ you (that sounds a bit derogatory, but not meant to be so). I have seen management chains that do and don’t do it and the fallout below can be night and day. I do agree that leaders have kind of painted themselves into the “don’t bother us, God will tell us if any changes are needed.” Sometimes even if a change isn’t needed, it can be helpful above to know more what is going on. Sometimes a slight adjustment or wording can go a long way. On the other hand, having such a variety of world-wide leaders in the lower levels (bishops and such) I would not be excited about going through all of the “feedback” that would come back.

But having said that, I don’t know how likely almost any message is to get to SLC by just telling your EQ pres or you Bishop – or even a lesser extent your RS pres.

I do agree with your 3 points. In fact one of the biggest changes my faith crisis / transition has made in me is that relationship with how I look at my local leaders as generally quite separate from my relationship with Christ and God. I used to see them almost as one in the same. Now I see them only minorly connected. Luckily I have had some good leaders as of late. They are actually generally quite good about receiving feedback.

[LookingHard]

I think that our church has one thing working different and that is that we are a very participating church. If you are considered, “active” you would think a week of just plop, pray, and pay would be an “easy” week. Many of the callings that we give people are very time challenging.

But in no way am I saying we are not affected by this same phenomenon. I would even say personally I am just TIRED most of the time (work, church, family, home/car maintenance, life). Vacation are often rushed. Such is life. I even had a call that I hinted I would like, but after a dozen years of doing it – I was burned out crisp as overcooked bacon.

[LookingHard]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Someone on W&T pointed out that the polygamous church presidents were the ones with beards. First one with no beard was David O. McKay, whose parents were the first to have practices no polygamy. First of all, that’s horrifyingly recent. Secondly, might this be the real unstated reason the church hates facial hair? It equates it with polygamy, and therefore reminds us of our embarrassing and damaging past?

That was one of the explanations that I heard as to why the church was “anti-beard”. Trying to change the image from freaky looking bearded guys. Now that beards are coming back in, most are wondering why the ban in the first place.

[LookingHard]

I don’t know, but I would assume this site showed up in a newspaper or something else like that and lots of people came to look.

[LookingHard]

good points nibbler – and even “in the church” can hold a WIDE range of beliefs and behaviors.

nibbler wrote:

In reading the older topics on this site I see a completely different cast of characters that also had very valuable insights. Many have moved on from StayLDS. Who knows whether they transitioned away from the church as well. It would be interesting to know.

I had this same thought, but I figured most of them we don’t know why they stopped posting.

Did they

– Just not need the support from the site anymore?

– Left Mormonism?

– reverted back to TBM’s?

– lost interest in the whole topic?

– Died?

I guess if I was ambitious, I could look at bit at the membership that did comment a reasonable amount, but no longer have any comments and send a sampling of them a private message and just ask out of curiosity. Not really sure if I feel like that is in my place to do – kind of overstepping the boundaries a bit. I would be interested to know.

[LookingHard]

nibbler wrote:

Arguing semantics? I can do that.

There was an overwhelming feeling of restlessness peculiar to high priests group meetings. :angel:

Better than my HPG meetings where it is generally :yawn: only to be occasionally be disrupted by one of the guys that lost a few bricks due to a stroke.

[LookingHard]

Roy wrote:

I am reacting against an extreme interpretation of Viktor’s words. An interpretation that would suggest that everyone/anyone can be happy if only they set their mind to it.

I think I bought in a bit to this flawed interpretation. But dealing with a much less than perfect relationship for quite a while, I finally realized that the other person had their mental limits and I had to realize I had a limited ability to deal with their limitations. Once I finally reached that point, the relationship didn’t improve, but I was able to finally have some peace. This peace allowed me to look at the situation more rationally and I stopped trying to fix everything (which was often driving me into depression when I would push for years with no results).

[LookingHard]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I find it fascinating how Mormons behave when we are the minority vs. how Mormons behave when in the majority. Two completely different approaches.

I heard it quoted as “we can be like salt. we are great when sprinkled a bit here and there, but when we become a majority we are not so great” So maybe there is more to the “ye are the salt of the earth” parable

[LookingHard]

alltruth wrote:

As I read your post I found myself thinking “I bet this is how the leadership of the church feels, too.” Leading any organization is challenging, and I thank you for your efforts here. I hope you can find a way to resolve the tension you feel about your dual roles here on the forum…

True. I have found one thing that tempers my frustration with leaders is to put myself in their shoes. I appreciate just how much time they put in. This helps MOST of the time, but sometimes it does not when I think, “I would NEVER do that!” Which might be true, but I might do some other different bone-headed action.

[LookingHard]

Interesting post that touches on “you should have known.” It also touches on the generation(s) before that started correlation didn’t see the fallout for a generation raised in that. We may also be blind in preparing our kids/grandkids for their faith crisis.http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/the-next-generations-faith-crisis/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/the-next-generations-faith-crisis/ Makes me think a bit.

[LookingHard]

I think I found next week’s FHE lesson. Thanks for passing it on.

[LookingHard]

I believe it was a policy in the general handbook of instructions, but in the last revision the policy is gone (except temple workers from what I understand)

[LookingHard]

SunbeltRed wrote:

I don’t think its a terrible idea to be well groomed. The big issue with this is taking away the religious exemption.

Exactly. I sure hope BYU leaders don’t decide to dig in their heals on this one. This isn’t a battle even worth having. Let’s hope that it is just a few days and sanity will prevail.

Part of me wants to tell my kids attending, “give it to the man!” – but the other side of me says, “watch what you do at BYU as some staunch TBM’s may turn you in and get you in all kind of trouble for doing something that is NOTHING at another university.”

[LookingHard]

Roy wrote:

The school sdministrators might view themselves somewhat like chaperones of silly, unruly, mistake prone teenagers that must be protected from themselves.

Wait – I thought that was BYU-I where they don’t fully believe in freeagency?

I thought the caffeine ban was lifted, but it looks like what I had heard was just a mistake http://utahvalley360.com/2014/03/27/new-byu-president-doesnt-mean-new-policy-about-caffeine/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://utahvalley360.com/2014/03/27/new-byu-president-doesnt-mean-new-policy-about-caffeine/ I know my son wouldn’t touch the stuff before he went to BYU. Then he sent me a video of them stacking empty cans to completely cover someone’s dorm door. Almost every can was caffeinated.

I think the desire for being clean shaven is due to the churches investment holdings in Gillette and Bic.

[Author]

Posts