This is a guest post from Shannon.
I read the post of July 28, 2016 by Stephen Marsh with great interest. I was so intrigued by it that I sent a link for it to several friends. It articulates some real frustrations that many people have with material that comes from Church headquarters in Salt Lake City and highlights some real problems with lessons that may be poorly thought out. One of the people I sent the link to is a close friend that I have known for over 30 years and she is currently one of the members of the Relief Society General Board. She has held this position since being called by Sis. Linda K. Burton at the beginning of her Presidency. She is very active with the Relief Society Board and holds several positions with various committees at Church Headquarters. We regularly have discussions about church doctrine, history and church governance. (I cannot use her name in this article since doing so would require her to get permission from the Relief Society Presidency, which would take some time and would subject this article to review. I have let this blog’s administrator know who it is and they have confirmed her participation.) My friend disputed Bro Marsh’s assertion that
It turns out that the entire 2016 year of Visiting Teaching messages were not drafted or chosen by the Relief Society Presidency but were picked for them and written by the all male correlation committee. As you might suspect, the messages often are mostly men lecturing women on things such as to how to suffer joyfully.
She was a little upset with the post and let me know the reasons why. For all of the time she has been on the Board, the visiting teaching lessons have been prepared by the Relief Society. Her quote, “Visiting Teaching messages are decided on, prepared, written, edited, approved 100% by female leaders and staff. Priesthood leaders are aware of the direction chosen by the General Relief Society presidency.” She went on to say that while all material published in the Ensign and other venues have to be passed through correlation, the committee chair confirms that in four years no changes have been made by them to any of the Visiting Teaching messages. She went on to say that it kind of amazes her that when people find out there are flaws at Church Headquarters it seems like a great epiphany to them. In her opinion, mistakes made by church leaders is no news flash. We have talked many times in the past about what significant changes there have been in Church Administration. Her report is that there is no major decision made today that doesn’t involve female leadership. The presidencies of the Relief Society, Young Women’s and Primary sit on every major committee and she confirms that these women are no wall flowers. They are contributing and are heard just as much as any other person on the committee. Women are empowered now like they never have been in the past as far as general church administration is concerned.
Now, what about that Visiting teaching message? The fact that a group of men or a group women wrote this does not change the problematic nature of the message. Stephen summarizes Elder Christofferson’s story story like this:
The core of the lesson is the story of a woman with cancer, who because of an ill guided surgery, has crippling pain. Doing the daily family ironing caused her such pain that she would have to break in the middle of it to go cry in her room.When her family noticed her pain, what did they do that illustrates the spirit of the Proclamation?
- Take over the ironing so she was not in such pain?
- Trade lawn mowing or other services with another family in return for ironing?
- Wear wrinkled shirts?
- Pool their lunch money to pay for shirt laundry services?
- Let her suffer for a year until they could afford, by saving lunch money, a better tool for ironing shirts?
The point of the lesson is that the Proclamation’s spirit led the family and the father to pick choice 5. That story was used as an example of caring for a family in the spirit of the Proclamation. Notice that it is a story told by a man about what a man did as a lecture to women about how to live their lives. It was held up as an example about how a real man cares for his wife.
I almost never read the Ensign, so without the post from Wheat and Tares I never would have known about this. As I have researched this, I read the talk given by D. Todd Christofferson in the October 2006 General Conference Priesthood session. The story has been changed somewhat for the Visiting Teaching message and in a way that does no service to the women of the church. As I read the talk, I am confident that Elder Christofferson had no intent to portray the women of the church as unimportant slaves or second class citizens whose duty it is to suffer, yet this unintended message raises its head. Where do we lay the blame, or is there any blame to be laid for anyone? I am confident that the writers of the visiting teaching message had no mal-intent. My friend on the Relief Society board was emphatic that there was no malice involved on the part of the writers.
I wonder if there isn’t some way we can deal with talks, articles, lessons or whatever else comes from Salt Lake that we find stupid or demeaning or doctrinally and historically incorrect without dropping F-bombs and throwing our phones. I believe there is something very fundamental to our discussion that is not being recognized or accounted for, and that is the fact that the church is not a fully circumscribed, perfectly homogenized monolith. The Church (whatever definition you may choose for that entity) is made up a myriad of factions. Each faction varies in size and composition and is constantly evolving. This is also true for the leadership of the church. As much as they try to give the impression that they are completely united on all matters and “never is heard a discouraging word”, it is simply not the case. Greg Prince’s two excellent books, Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History and David O McKay and The Rise of Mormonism give lie to that silly notion and those are only two books of many.
With that in mind, what of the Church in general? I am sure all of the readers of Wheat and Tares and readers of all of the rest of the other blogs are well aware that they are in the minority of church membership. I wish I knew what the real number is, but my experience is that 80% of the regularly attending church population could not care less about understanding our church’s history, doctrine, or theology. They see no problems, they believe that faith and ordinances are all they need, they just want to go to church each week and “learn about Jesus”, feel love and be happy. The only real difficulty is that malcontents, like me, keep bringing up “controversial subjects” creating headaches and unhappiness. For this large group, the visiting teaching message in question was just fine and for every letter that the Ensign received taking issue with the visiting teaching message, they probably received ten that loved it. The bulk of the people who work for the church in the bureaucratic positions are of this type and the majority of General Authorities come from similar backgrounds (kind of depressing, isn’t it?) On the other hand, there is a contingency with the church hierarchy who think much more like Wheat and Tare people, including some General Authorities. There is a constant push and pull, give and take going on inside The Great and Spacious Building (my title for the church office building) about direction, curriculum, magazines, web content etc. and it never stops.
I was just re-reading and article by J. Bonner Ritchie published in the May-June 1981 issue of Sunstone Magazine. The article, “The Institutional Church and the Individual: How Straight the Gate, How Narrow the Way”, has a couple of lines that I think are relevant to our topic. He recounts a very intense discussion he had with his mother on a particular doctrinal point. “As my mother went through a series of arguments, I think she felt that she was teaching me a very final truth. What she was in fact doing was teaching me a process in which questioning is important, in which debate is useful and fun. A process in which having a different opinion is not a reason to reject, but a reason to discuss. Pg. 29 (emphasis mine).
Ritchie has challenged us with a lofty goal. It is not easy for me – I come home from church some weeks just cursing a blue streak. I cannot believe it is possible for a group of otherwise very nice and sincere people to be that ignorant, bull headed, and stupid. Those of us out in the hinterlands don’t have the luxury of knowing any curriculum writers or magazine article writers personally so that we can have a more charitable view of them and their product. We are left to guess at motives and context and we try to make sense of what at times seems confusion and foolishness. I put aside the Visiting teaching message because I don’t believe that teaches a true principle and I must base my beliefs only on what is true. We would all be better off if we could say to ourselves, “It is true?” instead of, I will believe it because it comes from an approved source. Elder Deiter F. Uchtdorf in his October 2013 conference address “Come join with us” told the whole church that sometimes leaders of the church don’t know what they are talking about (my paraphrase). The test that anything that anyone says must pass is – Is it true? Is this a true principle? My challenge in the future is to not get angry, just put aside the untrue. Fortunately, my friend made me stop and reassess my initial reaction and in so doing I hope I have closer to the truth.
How can we could be more charitable toward church leaders who may give inelegant examples in their talks?
Wheat & Tares 
Follow the example of Levi Savage.
I think you are seeing micro examples of “kindness” rippling in personal families. I understand. (I am aware of the depression rates in LDS women). It is a valid concern but I have no anger about it. The ironing woman in the story could have helped herself by doing the same other solutions you wanted her husband to think of. At least he tried to do something to help, even if it didn’t look like the best choice.
I focus more on the macro misdirection of kindness. I find it in politics and modern secular culture in the form of acceptance for everything and in the process, division if groups and silencing of discourse. The damage is greater. The LDS Church has managed to navigate and protect its messages in this divisive world. I love that.
@jenonator
“The LDS Church has managed to navigate and protect its messages in this divisive world.”
What does this statement mean, exactly. It seems to me that every time the LDS church delivers a message, the general public and many members rip the message to shreds. Internally and externally, the LDS church’s POX, for example, is about as divisive as it gets. I don’t see the LDS church as any great bastion of stability and moral rectitude. Quite the opposite.
More charity for bad examples? I see this like the famous “jellybean jar” analogy in a marriage. Over time, when a partner does something good, a jellybean goes in the jar as a sign of earned trust. When a partner does something bad, a bean is withdrawn. The goal is to keep a positive balance of earned trust.
The LDS church, at present, has an overdrawn trust account. I’d be a lot more charitable about the occasional bad example, but the LDS church has a long, long history of misleading new converts (“milk before meat”) and the regular membership. Even the thought of a “correlation committee” or “strengthening the members committee” ought to be a huge red flag.
If the LDS church wants people to feel more charitably inclined toward it, it needs a lot more jellybeans in its jar.
“How can we could be more charitable toward church leaders who may give inelegant examples in their talks?”
The charity you seek needs to come from both sides, include a dialogue, and be personal.
1) Increase transparency.
All church content should be signed by the AUTHORS and any EDITORS (e.g. correlation). No more anonymous manuals, webpages, essays, lessons, articles, policies, church-wide announcements, etc. This is actually an integrity issue. If President Monson isn’t tweeting, then the tweets should come from whomever is doing it, not his twitter account. If some church historians wrote the essays, they should be named. Period. Did the RS Presidency and board write the VT messages? Their NAMES, titles, and organization should be fully cited.
2) Start a dialogue. Is it any wonder we scream and rant when we have no voice, no input, no communication with the great and spacious building? I don’t know how, but there are technological options for opening a dialogue. Simply opening up ‘comments’ on church webpages for manuals, policies, conference talks, etc. would be a start. Forums with GASs (outside of the Mormon corridor) might be another option. Anything. Start up the RS magazine again and let women from across the world contribute. Start a blog (with open comments), tweet about big issues. Talk to OW and similar organizations when they petition for an audience.
3) Take corrective measures to stop GA worship, to be egalitarian. Part of the reason GAs are being ripped down, is because they are positioned above. A little egalitarianism might go a long way. GAs could fly coach, eat and sleep at members’ homes, stop receiving “stipends”, free tuition, and other perks, and they could stop nepotism in the GA ranks, just to name a few things. We should refrain from treating them like royalty and remember that they are our brothers and sisters, not our masters. I like the idea of re-naming them “servants” instead of “leaders”. It might help us all remember our places.
Why should we even consider being remotely charitable to people who haven’t been charitable to us?
The news that female leadership is involved in all major church decisions is bittersweet. As a feminist, I wanted to cheer at that news, but I am heartbroken to think that the women ok’d the POX.
I had hoped that the primary presidency and board would have advocated on behalf of the children- their central stewardship.
For many LDS woman like the one in Elder Christopherson’s example, ironing is not just a chore, but an expression of meaning and worth. This is a little hard to understand, in a new era of ubiquitous female education and equal opportunity. But for a traditional stay-at-home mom of a certain era, to “free” her from responsibilities we see as onerous would be an even greater burden for her. She needs to iron, because that is how she expresses her love.
Ironing is a kind of cultural, monastic practice. It serves no utilitarian purpose. It is a ritual we use to dignify our bodies and the bodies of our loved ones. It follows in the tradition of God making coats of skins for Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. It is an expression of love, care, and devotion to the art of living. When I was a missionary, I gave many 1st discussions to Italian housewives who ironed while we talked, even ironing socks and underwear! Socks! There are millions of women around the world who iron their socks.
A housewife once asked a Rabi, “I really want to embark upon a spiritual practice, but I’m a busy mother and have no time.” The Rabi said, being a mother is the greatest of all spiritual practices. You don’t need to have time to pray or meditate. Just fold towels in a loving way, that is your spiritual practice.
Elder Christopherson’s story illustrates this intrinsic understanding from the perspective of the dutiful housewife. It is for a new generation to question these roles for their own lives. But we should not demean what seems like pointless and sexist duties, which are actually very important rituals for the women who participate in them.
While VT-ing last week, I hesitatingly mentioned Christofferson’s story (being open about my husband and I raising our eyebrows when we first heard it). Of course the gut reaction of the girl we taught was, “Why couldn’t the husband pick up an iron?!” But… we could all ultimately agree the intent of the message was about trying to serve and be nice to family members, which was a worthy message even if the story didn’t strike an effective chord. Then we got into a useful discussion of how tensions between two family members make family events miserable for all others (two of us have examples of MIL/DIL issues among siblings).
The conversation ended up working out better than expected. (Two of us are fairly new in the ward, so we’re still getting to know each other. The girl we teach is single, I’m similar age and married, and my companion is an older widow, so we have very different experiences and opinions.) It ended up we could agree that we weren’t wild about the story without assuming someone was attacking the church, losing their testimony, or suggesting that an apostle wasn’t inspired. We could all find a good underlying message (charity towards family members) to focus on, even though the story itself was problematic. I feel like even if people end up not liking a leader’s “inelegant” example, trying to understand and appreciate the intent of the message is the most charitable response. The problem is when no-one ever points out to a leader that their story is not as effective as they think it is. If they are earnest about getting across a message, I assume they’d want to know that something they are doing is counter-productive.
I’m impressed. I was wrong on my conclusions.
On the other hand, I now know I can’t share articles from the Ensign with people without vetting them first or I run the risk of getting sworn at.
Unfortunately, many posters here have no desire to be either charitable or honest towards the church.
“I am confident that the writers of the visiting teaching message had no mal-intent.”
I very much agree.
I’m just not sure how to overcome how tone deaf some seem. Any ideas? It is not so much “inelegant” as “tone deaf” — and with the secondary messages.
I have no prescriptions, just descriptions, and wish them the best.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mortimor, especially bullet item number one. So much, so very, very much would be different if we valued transparency.
‘Tone deaf’ is an accurate description, and whilst I personally identify with Nate’s description of ironing, that’s because I know I have a choice, and choose something lovely on the radio to listen to as I iron a few items. I’m under no pressure, knowing that my husband would and has done this task, or not done it, in the past.
I found this story so offensive, that this family whilst trying to do their best, were so blind to their own capacity to relieve the suffering of this woman. At no level do I want to condone the assumptions implicit in this story, that women should so identify with domestic tasks that they suffer in silence, or that men are so entitled to not participate in domestic tasks that it is unimaginable that they can or might participate in them.I find that shocking.I didn’t discuss this with my visiting teaching sisters, but responded to their needs rather than privelege the message.
Stephen, I agree with your assessment of tone deafness. I know several people who work for the church and they have no concept they are tone deaf. They look at themselves as faithful servants engaged in a righteous cause against an evil world. They insulate themselves by thinking they are being in the world but not of the world, which justifies their not reading some of “those books”, watching bad television or movies etc. It makes them mental juveniles. I have no idea how to overcome this kind of stupidity and naivete. It is so powerfully entrenched. Deitrich Bonhoeffer was spot on. The greatest problem with the world is not evil, it is stupidity. Evil knows its wrong, stupid doesn’t. (my paraphrase)
ji: Well, good thing you’re here to set the example of charitableness.
Hawk, couldn’t have said it better. Ji is charitable only to church leaders and nobody else.
You know, when someone says:
“I cannot believe it is possible for a group of otherwise very nice and sincere people to be that ignorant, bull headed, and stupid.”
I have to say, I can believe it is possible.
The question is how much do they care that they are tone deaf and what will they do about it?
Did your friend give any suggestions about what they were doing to overcome the tone deafness?
How are they dealing with things such as: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/09/elizabeth-smart-is-speaking-out-against-the-mormon-church.html
(note that even Daniel Petersen is agreeing with Elizabeth Smart on this one).
I’d love to know.
“How can we be more charitable toward church leaders who may give inelegant examples in their talks?”
Not calling them “the tall and spacious building” might be a good start. It’s hard enough for some people to stay positive (precisely because of the reasons discussed in this post) that “jokes” like this only fuel the very fires that you’re trying to control.
In the same way that most people ignore what I have to say because of my tone and approach, it’s probably pretty difficult for church leaders to listen to a lot of the otherwise well meaning feedback that bloggers and sunstoners have for them.
Quote:
“Not calling them “the tall and spacious building” might be a good start. It’s hard enough for some people to stay positive (precisely because of the reasons discussed in this post) that “jokes” like this only fuel the very fires that you’re trying to control.”
That is very well said.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
Hanlon’s razor may sound cynical, but it really helps me not overreact to people. Generally speaking, people aren’t out to get us, they’re just stupid…or ignorant, or insensitive, or whatever else. Much of the latter can actually be improved with dialogue or even just trying to visualize the other’s perspective. I think it’s fine to point out stupidity or ignorance, but it’s nice to do it gently and to be somewhat tolerant of defensiveness. Nobody likes having their stupidity pointed out and generally acknowledged, especially if their intentions were good.
Hawkgrrrl,
You’re welcome. “Charity never faileth.” I recommend it.
@stephen
“I’m just not sure how to overcome how tone deaf some seem. Any ideas?”
Much more diversity at the top. My gut feeling is that there’s a trickle down effect when the highest levels of leadership are white Americans of advanced age. It doesn’t surprise me when anecdotes (and values) are framed in 1950’s terms. Ironing sounds tone deaf to those of us who grew up with wrinkle-free fabrics and laundry service. Personally, I haven’t touched an iron in years.
Just imagine how screwed up we’d be if we *weren’t* led by revelation!
I’d recommend you follow your own advice ji.
This post is a good reminder to me that some things are not worth getting upset about.
On the other hand, some things really warrant a harsh response.
I think Shannon Flynn nails it. This church makes a virtue of willful ignorance by calling faith and/or “being in the world but not of the world.” It’s a remarkably entrenched phenomenon. I remember trying to share a few documented, historic facts (not my opinion/interpretation) that anyone could easily google about a church issue in sunday school and I was literally shouted down. You can’t argue with zealots, in part because they don’t even realize they’re zealots. As Annie Savoy said in Bull Durham: “The world is made for people who aren’t cursed with self-awareness.” She could have been talking about this church.
This, of course, makes it very difficult to act charitably towards folks who mistake the path of ignorance for the strait and narrow path of faith. However, I try to meet people where they are, difficult as that is, because Jesus said we should. If we’re only nice to people who are just like us and who are our friends, we have no reward, i.e. we’re just like the Pharisees.
I’d like to chip in. My wife used to attend church with me, did her visit teaching and was a part of our ward. This year, after four months of lessons on the proclamation on the family she quit visit teaching and told her visiting teachers not to come. She no longer goes to church.
Honestly, what made the difference is those lessons. Those changed her into someone who used to be Mormon. I’ve lost my family and my wife forever because of those lessons. Whoever takes credit for them can answer to God for my loss of a temple marriage and a wife who has decided she can’t take having a proclamation that was issued without a single woman being involved made into a year of lessons for visiting teaching.
Your friend can take that to heart and know that her pride of authorship and pride in her work coming up with lessons like that cost me everything.
Which church leader was it that said the church doesn’t issue apologies?
I think there would be a greater degree of understanding if we ever heard leaders say something to the effect of “I understand some have interpreted my statement as meaning this, but that was not my intent.” or, “I misspoke” or “we were wrong,” “we have gained greater light and knowledge on this issue” or even admit they’ve made mistakes as leaders, in general terms.
One problem within the church culture is that of authoritarians and authoritarian followers. Authoritarians believe in absolute obedience, submission to one’s own authority and rigid unthinking adherence. I’ve had authoritarian follower leaders who have point-blank told me that they will follow their leaders and if there is an error the blame will lie with their superior ie the “thinking has been done.”
I also am not persuaded when we have leaders declare they “know what you are going through.” I wouldn’t say that to a friend, let alone people I didn’t know. I think there needs to be greater diversity–not just culturally by country but profession, education etc.
I think it would be great if, instead of the leadership in General Conference sitting on the stand, to have only the speakers and presidency sit on the stand.
Bro.Sky
I agree–if we are just nice to those who make it easy we are no better than the Pharisees. One reason why I continue attending church is to exercise those “nice” muscles–trying to have an open heart and mind. It us hard and obviously I need more practice.
I would encourage people to not lose hope.
I wasn’t upset with the ironing story because I sensed the time and place it was coming from, and the love in that household. But what is being seen as an overreaction to a inelegant example is really, for me, the exploding of other emotions at the end of a little story’s fuse. Women in the church have a lot on low simmer: temple inequities, renewed justification of polygamy in the essays, inner conflict about raising their girls in a patriarchal church, etc.
Let’s talk about the important inelegances that we’ve been breathing in our whole lives. Think about the cascading effect of changing our temple experience. Or the increased dignity afforded us if we could clearly state that polygamy is over in mortality, not just set to “off” for now. And the confidence we could have that we were doing right by our daughters. I think it’s not talking about the mountains that leads us to fighting and dying on the molehills.
Suranon,
many if us resonate with your frustrations and pain. The tone deafness in the church may be naive, but it hurts others. Take heart though, the story hasn’t ended, the game isn’t over, nothing is permanent. Love will prevail, eventually.
If it helps, think of the allegories by JRR Tolkien (Ring Series) or CS Lewis (Narnia series) -the most hopeless moments of battle. Remember that there will be a sunrise. There is another chapter. Reinforcements are coming.
Our eyes will yet see the sun rise.
Ruth: “Women in the church have a lot on low simmer: temple inequities, renewed justification of polygamy in the essays, inner conflict about raising their girls in a patriarchal church, etc.”
A hearty amen to this! Some acknowledgement from the leadership that they even recognised this could go quite a long way…
I think that much of the leadership doesn’t feel it. They believe that those who do feel it are a tiny portion of the church.
It appears they lack a drive to understand or communicate with that part of the community.
Not that they don’t conduct focus groups and try sometimes and yet, the tone deafness is massive.
I love this post and the comments after.
For me, the three hour block can often be a challenge. (Glad to know I’m not the only one who finds Church makes them want to curse up a storm.) When a fellow congregant realized I was not your typical TBM, he asked how I made it through the three hours of services. My response was, “When someone at Church makes a stupid/ignorant/insensitive remark, I have one of three options: ignore it, in which case it’s on me to get over it; speak up; or leave.” Deciding between speaking up and leaving is generally based on how calm I can remain in my response.
Mortimer…
Egalitarianism would be a huge step in the right direction. Ultimately, I would like to see a soft meritocracy. An excellent model is church service projects. Even authority-minded leaders tend to loosen up at these projects and let people step up with their particular skills and desire to help. I recognize that order and formality is needed in other church settings, but I wish the spirit of service projects could be embraced more fully elsewhere in the church.
Tom Irvine,
Thanks for that wonderful gem of insight! I agree, the spirit of service has a unique way of dissolving inequalities.
Some scholars call this phase in Mormonism the “maintenantive peiord”, (after the building period, migratory period and revelatory period). For generations now we have been in a holding pattern, a status quo. We are focusing on perpetuation instead of the second coming. We have too much time which we devote to policies, worshipping GAs, building artificial social structures, putting one above another. If we were to gear up and once again try to eradicate poverty, obliviate hunger, clothe the naked, bring about world-wide peace in order to usher in the millennial era, I think we would find our missing egalitarianism. The work we are encumbered to do is no less consuming than the trek, yet it barely tickles our memory and is quickly shuffled under the carpet as we try to mainstream ourselves.
Ruth:
Thank you for such beautiful words. Your posting captured the situation so well. I moved from simmer to boil this past year.
Shannon:
I am the thrower of Iphones and f-bombs from the original posting. The LDS church is my culture, my history, my people, and was my religion. But how can I show up on Sunday and be involved in an LDS congregation while not believing that past polygamy was of God? I believe the current non-power of women is a man-ordained rule. And I don’t think Christ would be okay with the withholding of baptism of any child.
Last year, a Sunday School teacher very emphatically stated that he was tired of cafeteria members. People needed to be either all in or all out. We have to choose. I have chosen to leave. I am not particularly happy with that choice, but the LDS church has no place for people who lack full belief — other than to show up and be very quiet. Silence is interpreted as full agreement. That would be a lie. For a church that teaches its people to be honest and to be willing to stand up for what they believe, there is literally no cultural mechanism set up to express doubts and concerns. Walking away is the only option that the church gives.
About being more charitable and understanding towards the leadership: All the power is in the LDS hierarchy. They can be as punitive as they want. They have essentially unlimited resources. They have the ultimate power and connections. They excommunicate as they want. They control the LDS press. They release stories to make themselves look better. They publish books to pad their pockets. And I am supposed to be more charitable towards them? Just. No. They are losing the trust of the membership. They need to work hard to gain that back. With earned trust, charitable thoughts become easy to obtain.
our prophets no longer prophesy. We have no leaders. Rather, we have a self-perpetuating hierarchy of senior management that presumes the titles of prophet, seer, and revelator. This was presaged decades ago by Nibley in his “Leaders to Managers – the Fatal Shift” speech at BYU. “Revelation” is now dumbed down and redefined to refer to any policy that is agreed upon by the 15. (Hence the BKP statement that the POF meets the definition of revelation and the similar RMN statement re the POX.) Yes, we are in a maintenance period, and our gerontocracy is likely to keep us there for a very long time.
Ritchie writes about “a process in which having a different opinion is not a reason to reject, but a reason to discuss.”
Where is this discussion? If I thought it was happening I could be more sanguine about this whole thing. Bring up one of these subjects in class, in conversation, in a talk, in a TR interview and you are immediately suspect, shut down, or shooed away.
Ruth, that was nicely said.
Amateur, you hit some very good points.
We need charity and kindness given to expect it back. If trust has not been earned then asking for it as our guest poster does rings painfully out of place.
Leaders create the environment they are in. If they extend kindness and charity, they receive it.
I’d forgotten that in thinking about this.
I thought we were encouraged to show charity and kindness to everyone?
Stephen, You seem to have missed the point. The charitable and/or more understanding attitude is for us, not the “leadership”. I am an active and believing member. I have had more run ins with the General Authorities than anyone else in this group has. ( I can show you my scars). My point is to help people to stay active, not leave. I hope to cast a little less blame and look inward a little more. I fully acknowledge that people have been hurt and misjudged. However,the old testament tells us that we cannot return evil for evil. I want to give people every chance that I can.
“the old testament tells us that we cannot return evil”
You must have skipped Leviticus.
Quote:
“Stephen, You seem to have missed the point. The charitable and/or more understanding attitude is for us, not the “leadership”. I am an active and believing member. I have had more run ins with the General Authorities than anyone else in this group has. ( I can show you my scars). My point is to help people to stay active, not leave. I hope to cast a little less blame and look inward a little more. I fully acknowledge that people have been hurt and misjudged. However,the old testament tells us that we cannot return evil for evil. I want to give people every chance that I can.”
End Quote.
Shannon, I had not looked at it as General Authorities giving people scars and our need to just see them as a road block and a stone of offense in the way between us and Christ and in need of more kindness and charity than they show us or lead with. That is a fitting reproof for my mistake.
I get the message that it is a waste of time to expect leaders not to go on witch hunts or to not excommunicate an Avraham Gileadi or abuse others. That we cannot be protected from the leadership, or from those who benefit from them is a good lesson for us to have been taught, and I appreciate your honesty in explaining that when I missed it.
I have stayed active. The entire post and thread came about because I was reaching out to someone who had left the church and it backfired terribly on me.
I do try to give people every chance. If you’ve read things I’ve posted or comments I’ve made (beyond the one that you’ve taken the time to criticize — with solid facts that show where I was very much wrong I will note — and that I’ve acknowledged), you will see that.
Anyway, I very much appreciate the insight that this gave to everything.
And to learn that the entire year of visiting teaching lessons based on The Proclamation on the Family (which was drafted and approved completely without female involvement — we have the word of a member of the relief society presidency on that in her autobiography), was the idea of members of the relief society — and did not come form the correlation committee (which remains all male, or has there been an unpublished change?).
I’d like to ask, the “Teachings of …” series — does that still come from the correlation committee?
Don’t know how many other comments or questions you can answer, and I again want to thank you for correcting me where I was wrong. I think we would all be better off with correction from time to time.
Anon, http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-9.htm may be the quote she was looking for, though she may have meant http://biblehub.com/proverbs/20-22.htm. Both are wise to remember.
All, it is really too bad that the Church will not allow people like AmateurParent who have been told “Walking away is the only option that the church gives” if they can’t be all in.
I wish it were otherwise.
Anon, I did not skip Leviticus. I did misspeak my self. I meant to quote 1 Peter 3:8-9. “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous. Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing;knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.” I will keep this counsel.
Excellent.
“My point is to help people to stay active, not leave.”
Shannon, this is everyone’s goal, I imagine. You’re closer to the powers that be. What do they think is causing people to leave? I’m asking sincerely.
Stephen, first of all, my post was not intended as an attack on you. The administrators at Wheat and Tares formatted and added some material to my post. I tried to be clear with them that this was not an attack on you. Just clarification. Second, I am not privy to many thing that happen at the COB. (BTW, it was a long time church employee who I first heard call it the Great and Spacious Building.) But I have read a number of things that give some insight.
As to the Teachings series, that was produced in the beginning as a direct response to claims that were being made at the time that the modern leaders were now teaching a different gospel that what had been taught by past prophets.This series was put in place to attempt to show that the teachings haven’t changed. (I don’t have an interest in debating that premise here and now. You can decide for your self.) Daymon Mikel Smith wrote his Phd. dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania and it is titled, “The Last Shall be First and the First Shall be Last – Discourse and Mormon History.” Staring on page 262 Smith lays out the process for preparing the manuals. This describes the year 1999 and I assume it still is pretty much the same.(Though it may not be anymore.) It is fascinating reading and lets one see the nuts and bolts of what I described earlier. The Church is not a monolith. It is complicated, multi-factional and an endless series of compromises between individuals of varying backgrounds, education, intelligence levels and outlooks.
As for the Proclamation on the Family. That was produced at the time that the Supreme Court of Hawaii was considering changing the law regarding same sex marriage. It was and is a political document. In my view that makes it neither evil or holy. The Church wanted to stake out a clear theological position on what the leaders at the time considered fundamental Mormon doctrine regarding these subjects. The Q15 see themselves as the definers of doctrine and it is their responsibility to do so. There was much debate, writing and re-writing among themselves, attorneys, legislators. I have no idea what the gender composition was. I must add here that this is what I understand about this subject, and I have been brief, maybe too brief. But I am not a spokesman for the church. (BTW, I am a 59 year old man, not a woman.) I may have got some things wrong and would be happy for the correction. Coming from a history background I hold to truth and accuracy above all else. I agree with Denis Prager, ” First tell the truth, then give your opinion” I would be happy to clarify further in the future.
Mortimer (9/9 2:57) “I am heartbroken to think that the women ok’d the POX.”
Some of us don’t think that, despite overstatement by Shannon’s source. It has not gone unnoticed that not one of the other 14 senior Brethren has supported RMN’s claim of revelation for the POX. It seems far more likely that this December 2015 report is more accurate as to how it came about: http://www.themuss.net/articles/2016/1/5/mormon-lgbt-policy-prompts-anger-resignations-and-fresh-concerns-about-aged-leaders-1
Misperceptions and overstatement on the part of Shannon’s RS source and RMN do not help the growing trust problem. In any event, there does not seem to me to be any real need to take literally any generalization like “that there is no major decision made today that doesn’t involve female leadership.” I suspect that if female leadership had any knowledge of the POX before it hit the internet, they would have been as surprised at the proposed policy as most of the 15 other than RMN seem to have been, according to the cited article. The whole November 2015 debacle might have come about just as described by R.B. Scott’s sources described in that article. At least 2 other “connected” persons I trust have told me that reports from their “inside SLC” sources matched the reports cited by Scott (they could have been the same sources). But, unfortunately, for me this must remain in the category of rumor or, in Scott’s case, typically confidential-source journalism.
The closest I’ve yet learned of any possibly official backing up from RMN’s statement is its recent, unexplained deletion from the seminary curriculum on Prophets and Revelation. I’m grateful for at least that much.
Shannon, I’d love additional essays by you.
I didn’t feel attacked at all, I just wanted to be clear that I was acknowledging being wrong, not trying to argue that I wasn’t.
JR // thanks for the link.
” few days after the decision, the First Presidency had advised regional leaders that while the court had not altered the church’s view of same sex marriage it affirmed that “those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate….””
Puts that in context.
“by the all male correlation committee” not quite, Maurine Procter is a know curriculum correlation member.
Ruth, I will get back to you on the question of people leaving. I am going to try to pull in someone who has some very valuable experience in this subject.
Really lovely thought provoking post. It kindly challenged my thinking. Thank you
Thanks.
“I thought we were encouraged to show charity and kindness to everyone?”
I thought so too. I wish you’d just practice what you preach ji.
Jpv–thanks for the update that the executive committee now has a woman on it.
Things have changed since 2015.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2862868-155/at-least-one-key-mormon-committee
I do. I recommend it to you, too.
This is what I was working from:
Quote:
“Three top Mormon women officers were added this week to high level, previously all-male LDS Church councils, which oversee budgets, curriculum, missionary work, temple rites and family history.
But church spokeswoman Kristen Howey has confirmed that at least one significant panel remains exclusively male: the Correlation Executive Committee.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ top decision-making body is made up of the three-member First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles — by definition, all males.
That group approves policy and doctrine, while overseeing the three primary councils (Priesthood and Family, Missionary, and Temple and Family History) that now include the following female officers: Relief Society President Linda K. Burton, Young Women President Bonnie L. Oscarson and Primary President Rosemary M. Wixom.
The Correlation Executive Committee is among many in the third tier of committees and includes two Mormon apostles, other LDS general authorities (males) and some male staffers. No women.
This team evaluates manuals, hymns, software and other materials disseminated to the faith’s members — basically, anything with an LDS Church logo. The Utah-based church’s Correlation Department includes staffers who are responsible for the evaluation process. These staffers — some of whom are women — submit their work and recommendations to the executive committee.”
JR, thanks for the article. The “behind the scenes” gossip hasn’t turned up any evidence that the primary was involved in the pox and since its implementation, the primary (to my knowledge) has not given any counsel for handling the children. Of course one rule of corporate leadership is to tow the line and appear cohesive, never contradict a fellow leader in public.
We do know that the RS was not consulted when the proc on the family was created and delivered in conference. Cheiko Okazaki wrote about the stress the RS felt in receiving it blind even though it specifically detailed women’s roles. (Sorry, need the citation.) she also voiced frustration in the roll-out of the RS/PH Prophets Curriculum, which removed the RS curriculum.The RS was not consulted on that either. It’s taken almost two decades of yearly books (about men, with hardly any mention of wome or quotes by women) for us to see the impact that has had in women.
So, we have evidence that the RS has been left out of major church decisions. However we also have more recent evidence that the Primary president was in the center of the Boy Scout debacle of Aug 2015 when the church almost severed its 100+ year relationship with the scouting program over the BSAs new leniency toward LGBT leaders and scouts) and generated some national bad PR. The primary GP and YM GP sit in the BSA board.
Many saints will point out the story about the brethren stopping their discussion to specifically ask the women in the room their opinions re: the change in age for sister missionaries. While the sentiment is good, the story illustrates to me the fact that women in GA meetings aren’t naturally included in conversation, effort needs to be taken to silence more vocal and powerful men and extract women’s input. That indicates to me that female voices in those meetings are hardly regular or naturally integrated. (I do give the women credit though, the fact that they can even play ball with the male GAs is a miracle. A bachelor’s degree in education and a background as a SAHM hardly prepare one to sit on a board with dozens of men who have half a century of experience in corporate leadership careers in law, etc. it takes years to sharpen those leadership and corporate skills, and most women don’t have that experience, and they aren’t left in the saddle long enough to learn.) It’s hard for me to swallow an assertion that women’s voices are regularly incorporated into “all” decision-making process, especially since we know that PH rank will always supersede their “opinion”.
Every way I look at it, I think that women in GA positions have daunting challenges. You couldn’t pay me to trade places with any of them.
Shannon Flynn 9/11 at 7:54 PM
“[The Teachings] series was put in place to attempt to show that the teachings haven’t changed.”
Shannon, you’ve cited page 262 of Smith’s dissertation on the process of producing the Teachings manuals. I can’t find it there in the on-line pdf copy I found. Is there a typo in your page number? Maybe I found the wrong version of the dissertation. Can you give us a link?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the quoted purpose were indeed the purpose in the minds of some. If so, it was either ignorant or a purpose to prevaricate. One can’t purport to give an overview of BY’s teachings and omit polygamy. Elipses have been used, not only to adapt grammar or omit irrelevant information, but also to drastically change meaning. E.g. Lorenzo Snow — “I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.” The elipses replaced “who has means.”
The Teachings series should be named “Teachings of _________, a Man Who at Some Point, Not Necessarily Prior to These Teachings, Became the President of the Church, Selected According to What the Unnamed Authors/Editors Want to Talk About, and Abridged Without Regard to Whether the Abridgment Changes the Man’s Meaning, All Without Any Attempt to Provide an Overview of the Man’s Lifetime Teachings or of His Teachings While President of the Church.” I guess that title was just too long for the cover.
JR, I am working from a hard copy of the dissertation that I purchased and had signed by Daymon. The part I am talking about starts at chapter 13. “Thoughts on and in History.” I hope that makes it easier to find.
ji, I could provide countless examples of where you don’t show charity (like comment 11), but I’ll refrain.
Ruth, I hope this gets to you. Have a look at this article about why people are leaving churches in general. I am convinced that the Mormon church is not a lot different than most other american churches. http://www.sltrib.com/home/4390034-155/why-most-people-leave-religion-they.