It certainly appears to me that the LDS church has started receiving more petitions for changes the last few years. Some of that can be attributed to just how easy the Internet allows like-minded people to find each other and with minimal effort organize a petition.
I have only been aware of the progressive Mormon scene a handful of years, but in that time I have seen a few petitions.
There were some that request rescinding the policy requiring a 1 year waiting period after marrying outside the temple before being sealed (here and here).
Anybody paying attention the last few years will certainly know of the huge Ordain Women movement and even much more heartbreaking petitions such as Protect LDS Kids.
In the past we have seen protests against BYU sports in the late 1960s and 70’s due to racial issues and even just a few years ago when BYU sports were looking for a conference to join there were protests against how LGBQ folks were treated.
And just yesterday I found one that I agree with but it makes me chuckle. It is called Ordain Janitors! The site is filled with sarcastic references, a place for “testimonies” on how bad the buildings smell, some (modified slightly, but less modified than quotes in the lesson manuals when referencing Brigham Young quotes) scripture references, an FAQ section that has a suggestion that maybe the church should switch to Roomba robot vacuums, and the following on the home page of the website:
“For behold the porcelain is off-white already to scrub; and lo, he that thrusteth in his industrial vacuum with his might, the same layeth up in store that the building stinketh not, and he bringeth salvation to Saturday mornings of lay members. And professional skill, proper cleaning supplies, time and money, with an eye single to being a paid janitor, qualify him for the work.”
As humorous as this is, it does make me ponder once again how effective petitions are.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it seems to me the top church leadership does not want feedback from the “grass roots.” I do think there is validity that to move the church you have to ask for a mile to get an inch. The church seems to resist any change that originated from the outside. What if instead of the Ordain Women petition a baby-step petition would have been put forward for women to be able to give prayers in general conference. Would that have worked? Or was it because of Ordain Women pushing for the ordination of women to be considered by the top leaders be the impetus for the change in general conference? It does seem that if petitions highlight issues/practices that make the Mormon church look weird or out of step with current culture (such as Protect LDS Children) that some changes are made to try and take the steam out of the petition?
What do you think about the effectiveness of petitions aimed at the LDS church?
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t see petitions on the internet as effective as they are so easy. A quick sign-in, a small personalized note about how one agrees with the topic – that doesn’t demonstrate true convictions for a topic. And since most of the petitions don’t gather much attention beyond those that sign them, I don’t see them as having much force.
Members of the church (and possibly leaders) see the petitions/petitioners as demonstrating lack of faith / having left the church / speaking evil of church leadership. So the petitions become something of a virtue-signalling (both pro and con).
However, I do think embarrassing the church gets the brethrens’ attention. And petitions delivered in person to the COB by a large, peaceful group of people (giving news interviews even) as done by the group asking for’ no minor’s being interviewed alone by adult men’ has much more influence because it requires a response. These people showed true dedication to their cause and the cause is one that meets basic criteria for protection of children. Thus, if the church doesn’t want to appear callous to the outside world, they have to at least acknowledge what is going on.
ReTx – Good points. I don’t expect the “Ordain Janitors” to get much attention by top leaders just by creating a web page. Ordain Women and Protect LDS Children have made a lot of noise and those are the only ones I can think of the last few years that actually provoked any change. For most others, the top church leaders use the “ignore it and it will go away” strategy and try not to even feed any more attention to the causes. By and large that strategy works.
Large number of church members politely and humbly asking for a change is probably the signal God needs to allow that very change.
“…witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/revelation-on-priesthood-accepted-church-officers-sustained?lang=eng
When the saints are ready, the blessing will come. But I make no promise that what you want is on that table (nor that it is not).
Followed by: “All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign. President Kimball, it appears that the vote has been unanimous in the affirmative, and the motion has carried.”
Suppose it was 1948 instead of 1978. The sustaining might have not been so unanimous.
To figure out why petitions are irrelevant for the leadership, consider what the purposes or goals or institutional priorities of the Church and its leadership are. Gain converts? Build more chapels and more temples? Distribute Books of Mormon? Build the investment portfolio? Generate good PR with more yellow-shirt projects? Keep the youth active as they move into young adulthood?
What doesn’t appear on any such list is “making the membership happy.” The leadership clearly feels a deep responsibility to carry on the tradition passed on by prior leadership, sort of a mild, bureaucratized version of ancestor worship. They feel responsible to God to build up the Kingdom (more chapels, more temples, bigger bank accounts). They feel no particular responsibility to the members, either individually or collectively. We are means to an end. The name should probably be changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of the Big 15. It’s not really the membership’s church anymore, although very few members recognize this.
Petitions don’t work because they come from the membership and leaders don’t really care what the membership thinks as long as the members keep writing checks and put their butts in the pews on Sunday. Petitions don’t work because they are generally directed at making the Church better for the members, and the leadership doesn’t care about making the Church better for the members. The leadership sees sacrifice as a good thing — so the tougher it is on the members, the better it is for the members! The only case where petitions work is if they generate enough bad PR so that leadership needs to respond — to protect the reputation of the Church, not to benefit the members.
Dave B – On your comment of ” It’s not really the membership’s church anymore, although very few members recognize this.”
I kind of disagree with this. I think for almost all members it is at least sub-consciously accepted that the leaders determine where the church is headed / doctrines. They don’t accept that someone can say, “It is my church too!” When your average member hears one of the VERY few people saying “It is just as much my church as the Q15” they usually will be shocked as such blasphemy. They don’t realize this used to be a bit more of the norm in the early church.
I think we are somewhat on the same page, but the way you said it didn’t quite sound right to me.
I guess I see many of the changes made recently as signaling that the brethren do care what the membership thinks. The need for a new hymn book, condensing priesthood quorums, revamping ht/vt, updates to women’s garments, those are all things that have been suggested/discussed by the bloggernacle long before p.nelson took office and began to implement them.
Dave B whines a bit about the following: “What doesn’t appear on any such list is making the membership happy.”
Perhaps it is on your personal list. No? That’s because neither you nor I can make anyone happy! Happiness is a state of mind. No mechanical procedure makes a person happy. Some people find it, many do not. A church can help, but so can the Lion’s club.
“The leadership clearly feels a deep responsibility to carry on the tradition passed on by prior leadership”
I am grateful for that. If weekly changing non-traditions is more to your liking, try the Episcopalians.
“They feel responsible to God to build up the Kingdom (more chapels, more temples, bigger bank accounts).”
That is among their duties. Mine too for that matter.
“They feel no particular responsibility to the members, either individually or collectively.”
I regret not myself being that omniscient to know what other people feel; it has been a bit of a handicap in my life. I can see only what they DO. Most of the bishops I have served as clerk were concerned about their responsibility to the members and took actions to provide goods and services, which at times I helped deliver.
I cannot know your feelings but I can see what you are doing here.
“We are means to an end.”
I am that end (so are you, in case you were wondering).
“The name should probably be changed to The Church of Jesus Christ of the Big 15.”
I wonder what should be your name?
“It’s not really the membership’s church anymore”
It never was.
“although very few members recognize this.”
So it seems.
“Petitions don’t work because they come from the membership and leaders don’t really care what the membership thinks”
That seems approximately true. The engineer of a locomotive is looking ahead at the goal and for obstructions, not behind to see if the various cars and wagons are still attached.
“as long as the members keep writing checks and put their butts in the pews on Sunday.”
As well as one other day of the week typically Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays. Choir practice. Temple work. Weddings and funerals.
“Petitions don’t work because they are generally directed at making the Church better for the members”
Can you imagine a church that reacts and changes every time a petition comes along? It would be changing almost daily! Oh, well, many do that. They tend to be weak and highly fragmented since this congregation does and believes this thing, but the other congregation does something else entirely. Then, within a congregation begins to form schisms, and half the congregation wants this, but the other half wants that.
Then within those halves start to appear schisms!
I kid you not. One of my ancestors, husband and wife, are buried in adjacent cemeteries (near Pelican Rapids, Minnesota) of the Lutheran church because the congregation got into a snit and a split over something.
Left to choose for yourself you quickly find that the only path to happiness is for you to be the head of your very own church with followers that you allow to follow you. It’s called Facebook.
“The leadership sees sacrifice as a good thing”
Apparently also God and Jesus Christ. I think even the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands sacrifice.
Speaking of which:
Our Pasta,
Who art on our plates,
Swallowed be thy meatballs.
Thy serving come,
Thy food be yum,
On forks as it is on spoons.
Give us this day our daily sauce,
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trample on our lawns.
And lead us not into low-carb diets,
But deliver us some pizza,
For thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce
For ever and ever.
R’Amen
(source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster )
Thinking about locomotives and trains; the locomotive does not care that some of the carriages would rather go this way or that way. It isn’t a train unless they are all going the same way; it does no good if they all do not go the same way.
Obviously the carriages have to be dragged along, some resist being pulled and might need bearings or brakes checked and repaired.
The locomotive isn’t all-powerful; it would take only a dozen or so carriages to decide to stop the train. They cannot make it go where they want, but they can certainly stop anyone and everyone from going; perhaps feeling some pleasure in stopping the mighty train. (Snowpiercer comes to mind).
“The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” That can be extended to all religious institutions and practices: the point is to benefit men and women, not to build up the institution. God doesn’t save churches, he saves individuals.
I think you need to ponder this principle, Michael 2, before you leap to your knee-jerk defense of the party line. You may be proud of the fact that the Church can buy another ranch in Florida with the money they save from having “volunteer” women clean the toilets in our chapels on Saturday mornings rather than hiring janitors, but I think it is shameful.
Michael 2, happiness is an emotion. It’s a chemical reaction in the brain that comes and goes. Even the most peaceful, happy people don’t feel it all the time. It’s influenced by our actions (including mental actions—thoughts) and our environment. Some people have brains that don’t carry out the happiness reaction as much as others, and that’s called depression.
You’re right that we can’t open up the literal heads of the figurative heads to read their thoughts. But generally in an organization of this size, the official policies are pretty accurate reflections of the prevailing opinions among leadership. Actions reflect thoughts and emotions.
Their job may not be to make us happy, but they do have a responsibility to protect their flock. That is unless we assume that the highest levels of leadership have given up on any pastoral duties. And assuming they still accept those duties, responding to petitions or loudly expressed opinions would go a long way. They wouldn’t have to do everything that’s asked. Even responding to it with “we’ll pray about it” or “we respectfully disagree” would validate the perspectives without making the church reactionary. It would also open the door for lots of new teaching opportunities, chances for us to join their understanding of God’s will.
Dave B. writes “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”
Precisely so, and because of that I often go to movies on Sunday. And because it was made for me, and not me for it, I also decide when it is and how often; a couple times a year seems sufficient.
“leap to your knee-jerk defense of the party line.”
Thank you for recognizing my value as the dissenter here. Dissent is good; yes?
“You may be proud of the fact that the Church can buy another ranch in Florida…”
I have to admit that searching out Church ranches isn’t one of my hobbies; thank you for directing my attention. It looks interesting: http://www.deseretranches.com/
“… with the money they save from having volunteer women clean the toilets in our chapels on Saturday”
I wonder where those volunteer women disappeared to when it was my turn to clean toilets?
“but I think it is shameful.”
Shame seems to govern your life. A week ago I discovered an interesting phenomenon about elephants. They can be chained with a relatively delicate chain. The elephant could easily break they chain, but they don’t, because in their minds the chain cannot be broken. There’s hardly any point in me suggesting you break your chains, because in your mind they cannot be broken. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqlkHzKoPPU
There actually was a marginally successful movement called “Let Women Pray.” It wasn’t even very long ago. It was, I think, a letter writing campaign instead of an online petition. Too bad it didn’t seem to last.
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56116507&itype=CMSID
Michael 2, I shudder to think of all the things I didn’t know about elephants and locomotives before you came here to share your wisdom.
Giant Sigh…. Michael 2, didn’t you read my last comment about elephants and chains? (Not to mention avoiding making huge judgments about people you don’t actually know?)
The vast majority of the time, learned helplessness (ie. elephant remaining in a chain it could easily break) is a sign of abuse. If you are suggesting Dave B has picked up a thought process that he can’t rid himself of due to Learned Helplessness, who is his abuser?
I had to go looking for the references, Rockwell. I had stopped reading someone at “Dave B whines a bit about the following: ‘What doesn’t appear on any such list is making the membership happy.‘ ”
That isn’t “dissent”. It isn’t argument or conversation. It’s pettiness and it doesn’t belong here.
Alice, I’m sorry to have made you read through that. It was the “whine” that caught my eye, too. Perhaps I should have said so directly rather than making a sarcastic comment… I risk becoming that which I mock.
alice writes “That isn’t dissent. It isn’t argument or conversation. It’s pettiness and it doesn’t belong here.”
I was unaware that dissent has an approved form; ejecting dissenters comes in many forms.
ReTx asks “If you are suggesting Dave B has picked up a thought process that he can’t rid himself of due to Learned Helplessness, who is his abuser?”
Good heavens, if I knew THAT I’d be in a much better position to help!
Rockwell writes “I shudder to think of all the things I didn’t know about elephants and locomotives before you came here to share your wisdom.”
Thank you for the appreciation. I try to introduce a variety of metaphors or analogies to keep things interesting.
ReTx, the level of animosity and misrepresentation I see from Dave B is, in my opinion, typical of a person that needs and wants some sort of justice, revenge, equalization; catharsis but knows it is impossible for any of several reasons (like your abuser is dead and beyond justice). You end up stuck with that negative energy.
Hmmm… Again, publicly judging/condeming someone who you don’t know at all is not helpful to them, to you, or to the greater good of the other members of this board. You might think of not doing it.
Otherwise you will end up banned. And not because you have a differing viewpoint (ji has been here for years and regularly disagrees with posts/comments) but because direct personal attacks are unkind.
ReTx writes “but because direct personal attacks are unkind.”
All it takes is to equate a different point of view AS a personal attack. Suppose I describe a certain shoe. Suppose that shoe happens to fit you or someone else. Is that a personal attack? It can be. If you happen to not like certain shoes being described, and you say so, then to continue to describe that certain shoe is provocative. But if the blog is *about* shoes, then how can it decide that some shoes are not to be described?
Because it isn’t about shoes. That’s just the paint job. Why does a certain person set up a strawman argument that the reason the church has a ranch in Florida is because women volunteer to clean toilets? It suggests that if the church either (1) didn’t have women cleaning toilets or (2) didn’t have a ranch in Florida everything would be wonderful!
Why are these elements important? Is it okay for men to clean toilets? Perhaps a ranch in Montana? No ranch anywhere? The disciples of Christ already went down that road, rebuking Mary, she should have sold the ointments that she used on Jesus’ feet, and given the money to the poor. That’s when Jesus rebuked the rebukers, saying the poor will always be with us (its a bottomless pit, see the Iron Law of Wages). Mary’s choice, at that moment, was more correct.
I mentioned once a certain doctor in Los Angeles actively opposing LDS back in the days of Compuserve. He ridiculed many aspects of Mormonism. I closed the door, one by one, on each of his ridicules by taking them at face value, peeling back the paint on that paint job.
Eventually it came out that as a teenager he had been masturbating and he had the misfortune of having a stake president for a father. His shame and guilt was enormous and he had no one to talk to about it and eventually blew a fuse, figuratively speaking, and decided that his religion was the cause of his problem.
So I responded plainly at that point and went over the grand and glorious atoning power of Jesus Christ. Others tend to trivialize or try to say, “that wasn’t a problem” when for this good doctor it WAS a problem. He felt guilty and you cannot remove guilt by simply declaring that what he has spent a lifetime believing was a cardinal sin, isn’t. What you do is attack the GUILT directly by the only power that can really do that; the power of God through Jesus to remove your guilt.
It apparently worked since I’ve never heard from him since.
So back to this blog. Everyone here is either doing something by it or wasting time. I have a goal of understanding groups and understanding my own religion by exploring the edges or fringes of it, knock off some accumulated lint and dust. I can do both at the same time here. Challenging strongly held beliefs is uncomfortable and it is interesting to see whether persons will face the challenge or swing Mjollnir, the BanHammer.
There is a difference between an unkind difference of opinion and an unkind personal attack. One follows the rules of this board, one does not.
And with that, I’m done.
Michael 2, you have moved from being mildly obnoxious to making unwarranted personal attacks — which is unacceptable in any forum. Good-bye.
My thanks to the regular commenters who have put up with Michael 2 in this and other threads over the last week or two. Don’t feed the troll.
Rockwell makes a good point about the Let Women Pray campaign being *briefly* successful.
We have had, I think, three Conferences in a row with NO prayers by women in a general session. And in a way, it’s actually MORE painful now. Since women were briefly allowed this privilege, we know that it’s not doctrinally forbidden. It’s just that the men in charge don’t think it’s all that important for women to pray in Conference.
I apologize to all for bringing a spirit of contention to this forum. I did not discern my own darkness.
“Rockwell makes a good point about the Let Women Pray campaign being *briefly* successful.
We have had, I think, three Conferences in a row with NO prayers by women in a general session. And in a way, it’s actually MORE painful now. Since women were briefly allowed this privilege, we know that it’s not doctrinally forbidden. It’s just that the men in charge don’t think it’s all that important for women to pray in Conference.”
My wife hates praying in front of others. Maybe the actually sisters serving on the general boards aren’t all that eager to pray at General Conference?
Or maybe when you’re outnumbered 10:1 on the stand (or whatever the ratio is), it’s not particularly remarkable that you don’t pray except in the General Relief Society meeting. 5 sessions each conference, 10 prayers. With the gender imbalance in the general counsels of the church, and proportional representation in GC prayers, that means you get 1, maybe two women praying each conference. I’m sure the statisticians out there could say how likely 3 sessions without a female giving a prayer is due to chance. My guess is they’d need more data.