I recently read a 1981 Sunstone article written by J. Bonner Ritchie called The Institutional Church and the Individual. The article is as timely now as when it was written, perhaps even more so as the church continues to become more focused on obedience to authority and less on progressing from principle to principle, line upon line, precept on precept. Ritchie is uniquely qualified to opine on this topic as a former soldier and professor of organizational behavior. His experiences as a soldier made him curious about organizational behavior and led to his career choice. The article, based on a speech he gave, talks at length about “organizational abuse.”
He later clarified the term:
My definition of abuse is: when anyone’s best interest is not served by organizational action or policy. And since all people are different, there’s never a time when one policy or program will serve all people’s interests equally.
He mentions the advice he was given by various types of people and what that advice revealed about those who gave it. He was told, variously, that he should:
- Give a careful and rigorous theological talk (not use his signature creative license, but “stick to the script” as it were).
- Establish academic credentials by giving a professional organizational theory talk.
- Trace historical conflicts between individuals and the church.
- Deal primarily with contemporary conflicts between institutions and individuals.
- Focus on potential strategies for the future.
- Relate personal feelings and experiences.
- Remain detached and theoretical, scholarly.
All of this advice reveals more about how individuals approach the organization rather than what the best way truly would be. As Ritchie puts it:
As I look at such prescriptions, I wonder what they reveal about all of us and our agendas? What do they say about our pain or frustration with organizations? What about the attempt to skirt the issues by virtue of academic niceties? And, what about the demand to take on the issues with a gut-level confrontation? What is the process within each of us? Can we back off and identify those forces within us that make us so self-righteous in our apology for the organization or so defensive in our attack on it, so protective of individual prerogatives in light of organization encroachment or so defensive in terms of the right of the organization to dictate? These ought to be some of the questions generated for each of us.
The B.H. Roberts Society was a independent Salt Lake City group devoted to “examing and discussing all aspects of the restored gospel as they relate to contemporary society.” Sounds like the role today’s Bloggernacle fills. Their introduction exposed the underlying tension between individuals and organizations:
lndividual free agency, in its purest form, implies the existence of unlimited choice. Institutions, on the other hand, require a certain level of conformity in order to preserve their identity.
It’s interesting when we hear the shift in Mormon rhetoric away from “free agency” which focuses on the open ability to choose toward “moral agency” which focuses on there being a “right” choice, and being accountable for the choices we make.
How individuals interact with the organization:
While I do not feel we can make organizations safe for people, I think we can help people protect themselves from organizational abuse. By doing so, we can free people to develop their creative potential using the organization as a resource, rather than as a limiting force.
The purpose of organizations:
I would hope that we can make our organizations (especially the Church) more effective tools for noble purposes. This is especially important in a contemporary world where we so often see a dichotomy between a self-indulgent, narcissistic approach to organizations, on the one hand, and the noble dream of the idealist on the other.
He lists several issues that can lead to dysfunction between organizations and individuals:
Individual Responsibility
One of the biggest “cop-outs” you can hear in any organizational context and especially in Mormon culture is the statement, “I will do what I am told, and if it’s wrong, the person who told me must bear the responsibility. I am justified because I am obedient. If I am told to do something that turns out to be evil or inefficient or unproductive,
my loyalty to the organization somehow absolves me of responsibility for the results of that choice.”
Gordon Allport describes religions as either security or growth mindset:
Security religion provides refuge. It builds an ecclesiastical wall which protects from the onslaught of questions and doubts and decisions. Growth religion, on the other hand, forces its adherents to grow, to accept responsibility to assume the burden of proof, to move beyond extrinsic constraints. Growth religion provides not a wall but stepping stones to climb for the purpose of understanding, analyzing, serving, and making choices.
Personal Intellect
In Mark Leone’s book Roots of Modern Mormonism, he observes that one of the strengths and weaknesses of Mormonism is the burden it places on individuals to reconcile their individual views with the organizational norms.
We are told not so much what to believe in detailed theological terms, but rather that we should all be in harmony and that it is up to each individual to get there through prayer or study.
Ritchie explains that within Mormonism we encounter problems due to impatience with each other when one church member violates another’s idea of the acceptable norm. He says there is a predictable tendency toward a “conservative convergence.”
Organizational membership carries with it a surrender of alternatives in many respects. I give up the choice of playing tennis and skiing every day from eight till five for some organizational benefits which are important. In the process, I may resent what I have given up, and I may wonder if I haven’t made a bad trade. So I try to justify my organizational involvement, especially if I happen to have a leadership position, by converging on rules, criteria, and procedures that demand compliance by me and others in order to justify the fact that my position is important and worthwhile.
I have often made the observation in discussions on Mormonism that those who are most judgmental or exacting in their standards for others’ behavior tend to be those who most resent their own sacrifices. For example, a woman who resents her choice to remain out of the workforce (or to abandon educational pursuits) because she believes that is the more acceptable choice may be the most vociferous critic of a woman with a career. If she is happy with her choice, there’s no need for her to criticize another’s different choice. Likewise, someone who has chosen not to drink alcohol but who feels excluded from desirable social events as a result may be more openly critical of those who indulge in social drinking as a way to downplay the perceived loss.
Ritchie talks about the problems nearly all organizations face if they continue to become more and more controlling of behaviors, more focused on institutional obedience:
We get more and more control over less and less until finally we have perfect control over nothing. That is exactly the fate of most organizations. That is where systems find themselves as they attempt to dictate all policies, as they become weighted down by bureaucratic rules, with more and more tests of obedience, loyalty, and conformity.
When an organization (or its individuals) become too insistent on having all the answers, dysfunctional leadership dynamics are the byproduct:
This respect for the person who is supposed to give the answers, who is in the position of authority, can be a stabilizing force or can become a kind of adoration which is oppressive and frightening.
The Proper Role of Institutions
Who doesn’t know the three-fold mission of the Church? Or that Pres. Monson added a 4th mission? Or did he? Did it stick? Or does the Church just have one goal: to invite people to come to Christ? Why is there so much ambiguity about something so simple?
Organizations don’t have goals. Whom do you ask about an organizational goal? People have goals for organizations, and people use the mechanism of organizational goals to achieve their own noble or selfish purposes. When we impute an anthropomorphic nature to the organization and give it the dignity of needs, motives, value systems, and goals, we corrupt the process by which individuals control organizations rather than are controlled by them.
He talks about the role organizations play in creating discipline in individuals that can improve their potential, but he points out that it only works if the goal is to transcend that discipline, like in a university education. One can be a perpetual student, but without applying that knowledge and discipline in broader society, it’s not of benefit to either the individual or really anyone. From Hesse’s book Beneath the Wheel, Ritchie notes:
There is nothing so threatening to a professor as having a student who may be smarter than the professor. The teacher’s task, after all, is not to produce extravagant intellects, but rather decent, conforming folk.
If we never rise above the discipline, we don’t achieve our potential.
We start with discipline and the system. We must converge before we can diverge. We must converge to the discipline before we can diverge to the discretionary skill. And the organization, the church, is the means to do that. Unfortunately, many of us end up converged with the discipline as the end.
Imperfect Organizations
He next talks about the problems when we encounter the abuses within the organization.
Our next challenge is to remain positive even after a long series of bureaucratic encounters. Picture a U-shaped curve. We begin at the top, naive, trusting, pristine. Bureaucratic entanglements may disenchant, frustrate, aggravate, and lead us to believe there is a malevolent force operating in this organization which wants to destroy us, to get us; we become paranoid.
His point is that all organizations function this way, and the best we can do is to protect ourselves and others from being ground up in the “conservative convergence,” the efforts of the organization (and its leaders) to protect the institution as an intact organization. Power within an organization is a corrupting influence, and individuals must understand this to be able to protect themselves.
As previously discussed, the organizational process is by nature conservative. In fact, I would argue that a liberal organization is a contradiction in terms. Organizations, including the Church, must have liberal people to survive, but the organizational force is a conserving one. This seeming dilemma was discussed by Clark Kerr, president of the University of California. Responding to a critic who said we must eliminate all “evil” forces in the university, he stated that we can never make the university safe for students, we can only make the student safe for the university You can not make any organization safe, you can only prepare people so they can safely function in the organization.
An important part of this issue is that a person must learn to deal with the power system of institutions. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Those were his main points.
Liberal (or Progressive) vs. Conservative Leadership
Eighteen years later, he revisited his article, expanding on some of his earlier thoughts. He discusses this idea of conservative thinking among leaders (focused on preserving the organization, the status quo) and liberal thinking (progressive thinking to address flaws in the organization and make improvements).
The conservative trap is to not even understand that the past needs to be changed. The one who incorporates both aspects realizes you must go forward and change and that you don’t spend time beating up the people who made the organization. If we’ve learned anything from organizational culture, which has become a major field since I gave the talk, it’s that you must honor the past. And one way you honor it is by changing it without hurting those who created it, whether they’re alive or dead.
By contrast, too much progressive thinking can get stuck on rejecting the past as a means to move forward:
It’s kind of a liberal obsession to feel you need to precisely articulate 3 each point of the past to be able to move on to the future.
He decries the idea that organizations can be liberal or progressive and still continue to exist over time. I’m reminded of a funny Jon Stewart sketch in which he talked about how fragmented the Democratic Party was. His “beat reporter” asked a room full of twenty liberals what the most important cause was that they were all working toward, and got twenty different enthusiastic answers.
People ask, “Why can’t we have a progressive, liberal organization?” and my point is we can have progressive, liberal people in the organization, but the organization itself will be conservative. My official off-the-top-of-the-head theory is that an organization can have one in thirteen people who are liberal. If thirteen out of thirteen are liberals, no one’s doing the organizational maintenance tasks. . . You must have some people minding the store. But it’s more than maintenance; it’s conserving, literally, in the best sense of the term, the organization itself. . . . Effective organizational leaders must maintain and manage the conservative/liberal tension. They must conserve the essential organizational values and, at the same time, respond creatively to the needs of the individual and the changing environment.
Ritchie goes on to talk about the difference between effective and ineffective leaders in terms of conserving or progressing the organization:
The worst leaders are low in both–they neither conserve anything nor change anything, and there are many of those. Then there are those who are high on liberal and low on conservative–they want to change lots of things. They are the real crusaders. Then there are those who are high on conservative and low on liberal. Those are the ones who want to conserve everything. The really good leader hangs on to the things that need to be conserved and changes the things that need to be changed.
Most strategic leadership involves these two aspects of work: the maintenance of the organization (bureaucracy), and what should be ditched or improved (new projects). To Ritchie’s list of good and bad leaders, I would add that those who conserve the wrong things about the organization and make bad changes are probably the real worst ones, not the ones who neither preserve nor change the organization. Devolving an organization results in a surge of attrition.
Questions:
- Do you like his definition of organizational abuse? Have you seen examples where this occurred?
- Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge the tension between the institutional church and the needs of individuals?
- Do you see a good balance of conservative and progressive leadership in the church? When have you seen it at its best and worst, either locally or at higher levels?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
“…even more so as the church continues to become more focused on obedience to authority and less on progressing from principle to principle, line upon line, precept on precept”
You know, there’s a lot here to discuss, but this statement is so demonstrably untrue in my personal experience that it’s hard for me to get past. I can’t tell if it’s sort of the premise of the piece (ie., the reason it’s written), of if it was just supposed to be some semi-parenthetical snark. Obedience to God always has been and always will be important in the church, and I don’t think that should change. However, when it comes to obedience to church authority, I think there’s more flexibility now than there ever has been. Emphasizing the first (obedience to God) is not the same thing as consolidating the second (obedience to church authority), at least in practice. Historically, emphasis on the second was far greater than it is today.
“the church continues to become more focused on obedience to authority ”
“Emphasizing the first (obedience to God) is not the same thing as consolidating the second (obedience to church authority), at least in practice. Historically, emphasis on the second was far greater than it is today.”
It would be interesting to see a serious study of the bases for these two contrasting viewpoints. In addition to the possibility of increasing or decreasing emphasis from the First Presidency and Apostles generally on obedience to church authority, I wonder if the contrasting views might also be affected by local leadership and church subcultures in various places — or by the particular authorities speaking to the subject or the particular occasions of their speaking on it. I think I’ve seen a great deal of variation [moving both directions] over the last 6 decades, and as between various authorities (cf. Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson), and in varying wards and stakes.
Obedience has become a trigger word for me. The emphasis where I am feels extreme.
The low point:
“I will do what I am told, and if it is wrong, the person who told me will bear the responsibility”
This is what the bishop told his counselor who pointed out the inaccuracies/misleading material contained in “Six Consequences If Prop 8 Doesn’t Pass” when it was presented to adults and youth 12 yrs and older by stake leaders to all the wards in our stake during the Sunday meeting bloc.
(The counselor ended up resigning from his position when even the stake leaders couldn’t/wouldn’t acknowledge problems with the material).
In our our area, there does not exist a good balance between conservative and progressive leadership IMHO.
And, I don’t think dwindling attendance numbers troubles the devout. It just provides reassurance they are the “chosen,” the “valiant,” “on the right path” etc
My sincere compliments, Hawkgirl. I LOVED this narrative and the careful thought behind it. Many of your observations have helped solidify some of my feelings (and attitudes) regarding the organizational church; with which I have become increasingly frustrated – and at times – angry. Please forgive the length of the following. It is a letter I recently sent to my Stake President. Perhaps you’ll find it interesting and helpful to the ongoing discussion.
“I No Longer Need You (In the Kindest Possible Way)
After years of life experience (some bad – and others joyful) combined with extensive, careful reading and study (and yes, combined with prayer and a seeking for the divine) I reached the life changing conclusion that I no longer need you. Now please don’t misunderstand me, I think many of you are good people (and I could most likely enjoy your friendship) but I simply don’t need you – or anyone else like you – telling me what God’s word means to me and how I should live my life.
To put it more concisely, I don’t need (and I certainly do not want) anything further to do with the “corporate church”. I’ve come to abhor the corporate bureaucracy and all of its resulting programs, assignments, meetings and endless busy work. I’ve come to understand that I don’t need any of this nonsense in order to worship Christ; and I do not need any white middle aged men in business suits acting as intermediaries between myself and God. In fact, I find most of modern Mormon cultural and doctrinal “add ons” to the teachings of Christ to be an abject distraction and a monumental waste of time. Mormonism has become a burden – not a help. And, it’s simply getting worse!
You know, I really do (generally) enjoy my neighbors, friends and members of my Ward family. And, I’d like to continue worshipping Christ with them. However, I’m starting to think that there really is no longer a place for people like me in the LDS Church.
Now, before I proceed I’d like to convey the reality that I’ve already completed much of the traditional Mormon “Checklist”.
• Priesthood Ordinations
• Full Time Missionary Service
• Temple Marriage
• Family Born in the Covenant; and all Married in the Temple
• Full Tithe Payer; all of my life
• Historically Accepted All Church Callings
*The irony is – after all of this – I’ve never had what one would describe as a spiritual experience. In fact, I’ve felt “the spirit” more while watching a move like Saving Private Ryan, than I ever have in an LDS Chapel.
At this stage of my life, I only want ONE THING from Mormonism and that is a spiritual, enjoyable and positive Sacrament Service. Period! I want to take the Sacrament, think of the creator and listen to some beautiful music; along with an uplifting, timely message for today. I beg you to please stop the mind numbing repetition of “the same old narrative”. One feels as though we should simply start chanting – and dancing with snakes!
What I no longer want any part of:
• Worship of Joseph Smith. Man oh man, have I ever had a belly-full of this.
• Worship of General Authorities. They’re people just like everyone else. They are not some kind of “higher beings”, deserving of adulation. The
only difference between “us and them” is that they are being paid (quite handsomely) through a stipend and other church provided – lifetime –
benefits; which the common lay member will never see.
• Either we’re a church of Christ or we’re the Church of Joseph Smith. Personally, I want no part of the latter.
• Home Teaching – both giving and receiving is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. This program is a relic from the past (long gone) and has become just
another way to shame and control people. The reporting requirements for Home Teaching alone are just like some used by the most onerous
sales organizations in the country!
• Meetings, Meetings, Meetings. For the love of Heaven, if this is a mirror image of the Celestial Kingdom – I’d “rather be with the sinner’s than the
saints”.
• I will never again clean buildings owned by the LDS Corporation. This practice DOES NOT represent service; but servitude. The LDS Corporation
has plenty of money and resources to have their buildings professionally cleaned. If necessary, they can certainly pull monies from their Real
Estate division. I will simply focus on being a good neighbor and friend!
• Any talk, lesson, article or commentary which attempts to cover up, whitewash, sweeten, or obfuscate the remarkably messy (and sometimes
ugly and cruel) true Mormon history – I’m walking away from; even if this kind of “pretty little lie” comes from our rock stars in SLC.
The LDS Church is contracting and hundreds of people are walking away every day; you know this, I know it and even Elder Oaks knows it; as per his declaration during the most recent Mission President’s Seminar at the MTC. The dike is breaking and the flow of information and truth is literally blowing the old church away. The tighter LDS Leadership squeeze, shame, preach down too and pound on the members – the smaller and less significant the church will become; as it is already becoming as we speak.
So, I suppose to underscore the point in a closing summary – I really don’t need you or the Corporate Church in my ongoing worship of Christ. As for the “saving ordinances of the Temple….I’ve started to ask myself “Is the great creator of heaven and the earth REALLY going to ask us to use some ancient, “secret” Masonic handshakes in order to be embraced by him?” The thought of this truly “makes reason stare”! (Especially when you find out where these ceremonies really come from.)
So what to do:
Well, I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the reality that the organizational LDS Church is not going to change to better meet the needs (emotional and physical) of its’ members; the culture (and benefits to the leadership) are just too ingrained. So, I’ve just decided to “worship according to the dictates of my own heart” and if the local leaders don’t like it – I really don’t much care.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and for reading my narrative. I have, and continue to wish you well from a personal standpoint.”
Martin: I always appreciate your thoughtful and kind comments. For me, and in my opinion only, there has been SO MUCH emphasis given to “follow the brethen” (No, matter what)….and Obedience, Obedience, Obedience that I’ve come to despise the word. Obedience to God is one thing – obedience to the church and it’s culture is another thing entirely. I support the first, but sprint away from the latter.
Boiling down Ritchie’s position to one sentence: Mormons need to develop a more reasonable view of the Church as an institution. Don’t hold your breath.
The B. H. Roberts society was the sort of elitist institution so typical of that generation of LDS scholars like Ritchie. That’s also how CES types think, sharing lots of info relating to problematic LDS history and doctrine internally (they’re not all blockheads) but never, ever teaching it to their young students. The Internet and blogging has democratized that whole discussion in the last ten or fifteen years. The general reaction from this much wider audience is not to write a Dialogue article as early scholars did or hide it from the kids like the CES does, but to complain about it (Millennials are great talkers) and if it doesn’t get better to leave.
That older generation saw problems and wrote articles. For the Church, they were basically harmless. The new generation sees a problem and wants reform, and will try to do something about it. For the Church, they are dangerous, which is why “church discipline” has become such an active topic of discussion in lock step with the explosion of the Internet, blogging, and social media.
Very interesting post. Honestly, at first I was turned off by his definition of organizational abuse. It seemed extremely general, to the point of being ineffectual. But in reading the balance of this post, it became a very useful perspective. The notion of organizations being inherently conservative rings true to me. You can totally commit heresy in a roomful of godless liberals who mistakenly assumed everyone in the group was on the same page. Been there. Done that. Fled Ann Arbor, Michigan under cover of darkness.
(I love Ann Arbor and am mostly joking on that last sentence.)
The above said, I appreciated how Ritchie asserted both conservative and liberal forces have valid parts to play in a healthy organization. I think my takeaway is that risks for individuals are inevitable; therefore the best you can hope to do is equip individuals to be healthy and responsibly navigate institutional risks.
Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge tension between individuals and their church? I think it tends to be difficult to acknowledge weaknesses or flaws in any institution from which the participants derive emotional comfort.
I appreciate this post so much. I feel like the number of members for whom this conservative institution and focus on obedience to GAs, policies, and strict boundaries work is really starting to shrink. I feel like (hope!) we will reach a tipping point so that the members who seek a more inclusive, less insular, more Christ-centered, less patriarchal Mormon church will become a majority. It is so hard for me to stay, but I have hope that God has patiently let this church falter and struggle to this point. I try to believe that He has watched us make major mistakes like denying Black men the priesthood or exiling our LGBTQ , not to watch the church wither and die, but to evolve and develop into Zion. And I’m not sure that this church is the only church with the potential to grow into Zion. I just know this church has brought so much good into my life, despite the pain and anger.
works not work 🙃
Great post and comments. I love the insights presented here. I think that too many members have an unrealistic idea of what the Church is and what it can do for them. If there is a conflict between what the individual needs and what is good for the institution, the institution will act in its own interest every time, even at the risk of causing great harm to the individual. This is true not just in the Church, but in business and government as well. You don’t go to HR and think that they are going to do what is best for you, they are going to do what is best for the company, even if it comes at great harm to you. But, when enough people recognize this, change can happen. An example we are seeing right now are Bishop’s interviews. People seem to be realizing that having a man speak with youth one on one about sexual matters is totally inappropriate and many people are taking matters into their own hands, either coming with their children to interviews or asking that children not be asked these questions. I would guess fewer people are also going to their Bishops for counsel or to confess sins, because they realize they are just guys with day jobs doing the best they can. All of a sudden, the Church loses a lot of control over people and start doing what seems best to them. I see this as a positive change. If this trajectory continues, a bishop’s role will likely narrow and people will start seeing trained counselors for problems. That’s my hope at least.
“My official off-the-top-of-the-head theory is that an organization can have one in thirteen people who are liberal. If thirteen out of thirteen are liberals, no one’s doing the organizational maintenance tasks. . . You must have some people minding the store. But it’s more than maintenance; it’s conserving, literally, in the best sense of the term, the organization itself. . . . Effective organizational leaders must maintain and manage the conservative/liberal tension. They must conserve the essential organizational values and, at the same time, respond creatively to the needs of the individual and the changing environment.”
That was a very interesting point.
I’m still thinking on it.
Love your comments, felixfabulous. I think you’re observation about the “loss of control” nails it! When you start to see the activities and expectations of the corporate church (locally and otherwise) through the prism of control, and different levels thereof, it’s a fairly major paradigm shift for one to experience. As I’ve started to kindly “push back” on some of the expectations – and simply saying No, Thank You – to other things, it’s telling to watch the reaction of leaders who expect immediate and blind obedience. I too, so hope for some positive change so I (and my family) can simply worship in peace and in restful repose; rather than constant anxiety and in a defensive posture.
Like Jake, I too was uneasy with Ritchie’s definition of abuse. It was too vague and just because an organization chooses something that conflicts with your well-being, doesn’t imply that the organization abused you. However, as the post went along I think I see what he meant by his definition. I’m still not sure I’m in agreement, but I think I can see where he was coming from.
I wish there wasn’t such a demarcation between liberal and conservatives within the church. There should be both. The church needs both. But there is a risk of polarization and “othering” that must be overcome for the church to benefit from both perspectives. There is so much both sides have in common. Perhaps those commonalities can be the focus as we respectfully hold in tension our differences, learning from one another.
Most certainly the world needs both conservatives and progressives, but I don’t know if one can really put a ratio on the ideal ratio of conservatives to progressives needed. If we consider a spectrum ranging from extremely conservative to extremely progressive, I would say we need a good base in the middle—who can see the benefits and limits of both—but provide balance. Where would Jesus and Joseph Smith fall on that spectrum?
As soon as I saw this post I immediately thought of the famously redacted 1984 general conference talk by Ronald Poelman, which is of a similar time period and deals with similar subject matter. In the uncensored version, Elder Poelman suggested that the organization and programs of the Church can actually be an impediment to individual spiritual progress–needless to say, this ran afoul of some of the more conservative apostles. It’s fascinating that there was awareness of the Church’s growing organizational obedience emphasis even back then. Thanks for sharing this.
Stephen – Jonathan Haidt agrees with your stipulation that we need both progressives and conservatives. If you have all of one you have issues.
Lois: Both Jesus & Joseph Smith were radically change-oriented. They were certainly progressive / liberal by the descriptions given by Ritchie in this article. One thing we often noted in my experience as an executive, though, was that the person who makes the radical changes is not the same person who runs the organization afterward. You can’t lead the revolution and then push the papers to maintain the revolution. They are different skill sets.
Cody: I agree that the term “organizational abuse” as he lays it out sounds much more inflammatory than it is in practice. For example, when our bishop told our son that he couldn’t pass the sacrament because his sleeves were rolled up, that would fall into the definition of “organizational abuse” he lays out here because the bishop is putting his own view of how the organization needs to be protected (from an adolescent’s forearms?) ahead of the interests of the individual (the teen who is offended by the suggestion that he’s not up to scratch). Personally, I don’t think that was “abusive” so much as really really dumb. I shrugged it off. I suspect my son was pretty deeply offended, though, so maybe it was “organizational abuse.” But I wouldn’t put that in the same category as true abuse like withholding financial support from someone for unfair reasons or encouraging a woman to stay in a dangerous marriage or asking inappropriate sexual questions in an interview for prurient reasons. Those clearly rise to the label “abuse” for me. But I suppose it’s all on a continuum, and from the perspective of sociology, maybe the fact that it’s all a matter of degrees means they are the same kind of thing (putting the institution ahead of the individual) if not equal in severity. And of course, institutions will always preserve themselves at the expense of individuals. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and the needs of the many are deciphered by the few at the top, either correctly or incorrectly.
Stephen: I was actually quite surprised by his view that only 1 in 13 need to be pushing for progress for the organization to remain healthy. I tend to agree with Lois that it only works if you have a bunch who are really somewhere in the middle, trying to preserve the right things, but to change what is truly in need of reform (rather than cockeyed idealists, seeking revolutionary and disruptive change).
It is easy to find fault. It is easy to be cranky. It is much better to take what one has and make the best of it. I believe God is at the helm and will remake what is currently lacking in the church at some point in time of His choosing.
I don’t attend church with the primary goal of getting something for myself each week. I go with the idea of giving and sharing. With this attitude I’ve found that I find something to enjoy more often. When I backslide on this approach, I begin to feel like Lefthandloafer described his experience.
Jared: Your comment, while a nice enough sentiment, has nothing to do with the post. Did you read it?
Truly – in a spirit of kindness – I ask myself “after giving to the Church year after year, decade after decade, isn’t it really okay to once in a awhile ask for something in return?”
Angela C, great comments. I read this quote a while ago and think it shows the tendency for organizations to start out as progressive and change-oriented and get more conservative over time. “Founders are typically generous, visionary, bold, and creative, but the religions that ostensibly carry on their work often become the opposite: constricted, change-averse, nostalgic, fearful, obsessed with boundary maintenance, turf battles, and money. Instead of greeting the world with open arms as their founders did, their successors stand guard with clenched fists.” –Brian D. McLaren, The Great Spiritual Migration
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventualy degenerates into a racket. Eric Hoffer
Angela C–you asked if I read the post before commenting. Yes, I did.
My comment was influenced by what I read in the comment section.
Jared: “It is easy to find fault. It is easy to be cranky. It is much better to take what one has and make the best of it. I believe God is at the helm and will remake what is currently lacking in the church at some point in time of His choosing.” Framing this in terms of the post (Ritchie’s article), it sounds like you are content with the status quo and do not wish for any human progressive work in the church, that no change at all is fine with you. But since all organizations are human (even if you don’t want to credit it), that does mean that systems will fail a portion of people and require human intervention to protect those vulnerable individuals. For example, if the “policy” is that no boys can pass the sacrament without a white shirt, and a boy doesn’t have one or means to obtain one, what would you do? That’s one of the types of question posed by the article. Being content with the status quo with regards to change doesn’t get any of us off the hook at dealing with the individuals for whom the status quo is harmful. All organizations have casualties. Even Christ was ready to turn away the Canaanite woman at the well.
“You can’t lead the revolution and then push the papers to maintain the revolution. They are different skill sets.”
This is such an interesting point to me, Angela, in light of the fact that both Jesus and Joseph Smith died fairly young, and it was their followers that did the work of organizational management to make their religions continue to work. I wonder what would have happened with either Christianity or Mormonism if their founders had lived longer.
(This point seems pretty obvious, so I’m sure someone else has raised it before, but it’s just now occurring to me.)
Angela C-
I just saw your followup comment.
For over three decades, I have been associated with a very large organization. During this time, I have agitated for change many times. I have learned how to manipulate, massage, and lobby for change when I thought it necessary. I bring this up, so you will know that I have experience dealing with the intricacy of a bureaucracy. I’m familiar with organizational behavior and how it can be punishing to segments of society and how long it takes to get changes made.
With that as background, I see the church as being different from other organizations in that it is an inspired organization. Therefore, I approach it differently than other organizations. I have faith that Christ is the head of the church and accomplishes His work of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of those who make and keep covenants. He accomplishes this in many ways, he calls fallible leaders to accomplish His work. He permits mistakes and even evil to be part of His earthly organization. Why? Because of the laws He established for a fallen telestial world. The Book of Mormon gives many examples of what I have described above. One example is how the Lord dealt with the people of the city of Ammonihah, both those who were for Him and those against Him. I won’t go into detail, I assume you are
knowledgeable about this Book of Mormon account.
What I take away from this account that applies to many of the grievances that are voiced in the bloggernacle follows.
The Lord’s ways are not mans ways.
I wonder why the Lord let those who responded to the missionary efforts of Alma and Amulek (men, women, and children) go to their deaths screaming in pain as they were burned alive. That isn’t a happy ending. Some who read this account find ample reason to lose faith in how the Lord does things. Those who choose to view this from an eye of faith realize that God allowed this horrible loss of life to accomplish His purposes (they are outlined in Alma 14). Alma explained that those who died in the fire were received up unto Christ “in glory”.
I exercise faith, and I hope I always will, that those grievances that many in the bloggernacle have will be made up to them if they will wait on the Lord and endure faithfully by calling upon God, and asking for the strength to put up with those things that gnaw at their faith.
The Lord puts obstacles and burdens on His followers for a reason, to try their faith and patience.
When I have been called on to deal with the downsides of the church I have taken my grievances to the Lord. He in turn has given me comfort and strengthened me. He will do the same for any who will do the same. By choosing to walk by faith I have made friends with Christ.
Jared: “When I have been called on to deal with the downsides of the church I have taken my grievances to the Lord. He in turn has given me comfort and strengthened me. He will do the same for any who will do the same.” Ya know, this reminded me of something that happened on my mission. We had a really bad mission rule that was preventing our success. I could kind of see why we had the rule, the thinking behind it, but it had some extremely negative side effects. I had always thought we should just put our faith in the our leaders and in the church, and I took my concerns to the Lord in prayer. Nothing changed. I kept at it for months. Nothing changed. If anything, missionaries who were in charge of enforcing the rule doubled down it and criticized anyone who didn’t like the rule as being lazy and faithless. Finally, when I was training a new sister, I became so frustrated with how the rule impacted her and our new converts that I wrote to the President about the rule, explaining what the rule was doing to us in the field.
Within two weeks, the rule was changed.
Jared, Angela, Thanks for your reports. I have had personal experiences of both types, as well as experiences of finding no comfort and no change. “He will do the same for any who will do the same” is simply a false generalization from Jared’s reported personal experience. I have seen that kind of false generalization encourage some people and cause serious damage to others. For some it is better to trust rather that the Lord knows us as individuals and will not treat us all the same because we are not identical. There may be better ways to encourage others than to set out a general standard that could not be better designed to facilitate depression and its negative effects when a person’s experience proves that either she is a failure or the standard is false.
One of my stupid European mission rules was to keep going back to the same doors [weekly] until we were actually told “no” 6 times. Reporting the predictable result — anger as well as rejection — accomplished no change. But the stupid instruction faded away as missionaries took responsibility for ignoring it and the mission president lost interest. Sometimes it seems that hoping for fade-away is not an uncommon approach to changes of both direction and doctrine — with varying results.
Angela C & JR-
Angela, I would have done the same as you did on your mission. I would have written a letter as well.
My comment above was about “those grievances that many in the bloggernacle have”, things that won’t be changed by writing letters and protesting. Things like women and the priesthood, gay temple marriage, and things discussed in the “essays”. The best way to deal with those things is to take them to the Lord and ask for help bearing the challenges they present to you. I have a number of these kinds of issues, I have never written about them, but they are on my mind and in my prayers.
Jaren, but isn’t one person’s “things that won’t be changed by writing letters and protesting’ list the next person’s call from God list to work for change? I don’t know that the line between the two is terribly eternal.
ReTx-
If we don’t turn to God in faith about those things that trouble us then we run the risk of losing faith and turning into a dissenter. Take a moment and look up “dissenters” in the Book of Mormon. I get 20 hits. When I expand search to include all related words, I get 50 hits.
The following verse of scripture bears testimony to what happens when followers of Christ fall away. The reason for their sin and transgression can start for many reasons. We’re taught that one of the primary reasons is finding fault with church leaders.
30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.
(Book of Mormon | Alma 24:30)
Errr, where did I say we shouldn’t turn to God in faith in solving our problems? if you look at people who feel deeply devoted to a cause, it’s usually because they turn to God and felt they had a calling from him.
“Turning to God in faith” is all well and good, but who are you turning away from, and why?
When “gay marriage” was just an abstract political issue I read about in the Ensign, and had maybe been challenged once or twice on, it was easy for me to be reassured that we were doing the right thing. And to generalize, from my own experiences as a bisexual person, about what people I’d never met ought to do, and what had “caused” their attractions.
When Prop 8 became something that massively hurt the people I cared about and had befriended; when I sought out gay Mormons’ perspectives only to find poignant recollections of suffering; and when I read up on FAIR about the circumstances that led up to the end of the Priesthood and temple ban …
… then, when I prayed and asked God “why, really why, does it have to be this way?” the answer I received was silence.