The standard for the Kilogram has changed from a tangible weight that one could hold in their hands, to a measure of magnetic force related to Planks constant. It has gone from real to abstract. I see this same thing happening in Mormonism. Back in Joseph Smiths time, they had the Prophet himself who they could talk with, shake his hand, and ask questions. There was a book of Mormon, a hard tangible object they could carry with them. There was a seer stone, another tangible object that people saw.
As a youth growing up in the church, I had a very hands on religious experience. GA’s, usually Apostles, would visit our stake yearly, and we could shake their hand. Once our Bishop took the youth to Utah for a summer trip, and after visiting Temple Square, he took them to the church office building (the old one), took the group into the fore, and asked the receptionist if there was a GA that could visit with the youth. An apostle was found and spend about 15 minutes chatting it up with the kids. (I don’t remember who, I missed the trip but had to hear the stories over and over when they returned!). This would have been circa 1973.
We had a welfare farm in central California (Fresno area), that grew grapes for raisins. Each year in late August, we would go out and pick the grapes and lay them on drying papers next to the vines. Then 3-4 weeks later (depending on weather) we would go back and roll the papers and then throw the bundles into a moving trailer pulled down each row. In the spring we would prune the vineyard. (You may insert your own scripture allegory here)
Today, we rarely see an Apostle in person, and when one does visit, there is not time to actually shake his hand. You can’t walk into the Church Office Building with your MIA group unannounced and ask to speak to an Apostle, there are no more welfare farms, and less and less people are carrying a BofM in their hands (it’s on their phone). One could say this is due to church growth, and is a sign the church is true! But like with any organization that grows, something is lost.
That personal interaction with Apostles is gone, and not only does that hurt the member, but I believe it hurts the Apostles as they don’t get the feedback from the members that they once did. They don’t get first hand accounts of things that are not working in the church. Instead they have to wait for it to bubble up via the “chain of command”.
So, do you see a less tangible church? What changes have you seen as the church grows into a world wild organization that have made the church more abstract, and less tangible?
Wheat & Tares 
That original platinum-iridium alloy kilogram was stored in a controlled environment, under 3 separate bell jars with different key holders, and still as of 2012 was believed to have lost weight. Hence the need for a change. No one would have been permitted to handle it. About as accessible to the ordinary mortal as the gold plates.
The ratio of apostles to members is different. This means most members will not meet with apostles, but it does not mean apostles meet with fewer members.
Bill, what I initially thought you would dive into based on your intro was the curent line of Church History as reflexted in the LDS Gospel topics which, in turn, are a response to the Internet which has allowed swidt access to information contained in the ever-expanding library of books on Mormon history.
In my mind, much of what the Church teaches has gone from concrete and real (e.g., Native Americans, First Nations, and Polynesians are literally Lamanites, the Book of Abraham is a literal translation, Joseph Smith was physically visited by heavenly beings) to metaphysical and uncertain. Metaphysical and uncertain may fit the historical evidence better, but it certainly is a far less grand and special vision of Mormonism than I had growing up. That’s certainly a loss in my eyes.
Apologies for the spelling.
E-
Since the church tells us there are more Mormons overseas than in the US where most GAs are, there probably isn’t that much difference in the per capita ratio. But that’s rather literal when the larger and more important message is that , however many Mormons there are, they are forbidden to even write to anyone higher in rank than their Stake President. When they appear among the faithful to give talks they insist on not being recorded. When they deign to answer questions they cherry pick them so as to leave the most thorny issues that individual Saints have to live by as murky as ever.
The fact is, authorities have chosen to be remote.
Hedgehog, good point. Maybe better said that one could “theoretically” hold the kilogram if they let you! Also, Not a Cougar, those are great examples of things lost in the church (Lamanites, translations, etc)
I recognise that the church is a monolithic organisation that requires teams of bureaucrats to run it. I am a little concerned that the D&C states that the apostles are meant to be travelling ministers, but they don’t really travel much anymore.
@alice: I think that the last thing apostles should be doing is answering thorny questions (within reason). You don’t want to increase people’s dependence on them. But they should be out exhorting and teaching in person, not just twice yearly in marathon conferences reading from tv prompts.
Hey Bishop, The vineyard in Madera is still running and active. It’s still hot, dirty, and satisfying (only because we only have to do our assigned rows and not doing it day in and day out).
I think there certainly is something lost in a growing organization in which the leaders are increasingly unable to visit all of the members. Such is the nature of growth and the passage of time. As a percentage of the population, fewer Americans will ever meet the POTUS (no great loss at the moment). Fewer people have an opportunity to own land. It’s sad, but inevitable.
As far as apostles having a chance to meet with members, I do know that at least several apostles regularly meet with people who have no particular leadership role. I have witnessed it in visits for regional and Stake conferences, and I know two people who have been invited to Salt Lake to meet with apostles in their offices. I don’t know the precise circumstances of each of those meetings, but it would appear that at least some attempt and maintaining a connection to membership is being made by at least some apostles (the apostles in the experiences I witnessed were Holland, Bednar and Rasband).
I don’t know how representative these people were of the membership generally, but personal contact will become increasingly important, and Area presidencies will likely have to take on an increasingly active and probably more autonomous role.
Thanks, Dsc. I also know of Elder Oaks having such meetings, in homes and otherwise, with persons of no particular leadership role. I suspect others also do this, though it may be that it happens more often where stake presidents request/suggest it in connection with advance planning for stake conference visits. GAs other than apostles have also done the same.
On the other hand, I have also seen visiting GAs and area authorities treat even informal contact with members of no particular leadership role as opportunities to judge and instruct rather than to learn of or allow expression of “grass roots” concerns.
Not all the authorities have chosen to be remote, nor, it seems, does any particular authority always choose to be remote.
No one can do everything at once. I seem to recall a copy of a letter from Heber J Grant essentially complaining — that long ago — that if the Brethren were to respond to all the inquiries they get, they could do nothing else.
Still, there was often a lot of value in personal contact with rank and file members that is no longer possible to the extent/percent it once was. — All the more reason why stake conference visits should be arranged to facilitate that and the visitor’s learning of concerns at least as much as the visiting authority’s training local leaders and instructing congregations.
Nicely done, Bishop Bill…and great topic. Personally, I’m a big fan of Dr. Greg Prince and his writings. In an interview with Doug Fabrizio (Radio West) I thought his perceptions on this matter (involving Boyd K. Packer) to be insightful; to me at least.
– The Savior taught that “if ye are not one, ye are not mine.” Yet Packer often acted alone rather than in a coalition with other like-minded conservative leaders. Elder Oaks referred to Packer, saying once, “you can’t stage manage a grizzly bear.” Packer was likely was polarizing even among the apostles because he frequently overstepped the bounds of authority by interfering in the purview of other apostles. Prince said, “Where he saw something that was not in accordance with his worldview, he didn’t hesitate to fix it.”
Packer led by edict, not consensus, and was very top down in his approach. He is quoted several times as saying, “I am here to teach, not be taught.” Prince noted the contrast with “trickle up revelation” that was prevalent in the church in the 1950s and 60s. Several grass roots initiatives were later embraced by the entire church. This mostly stopped since Packer was ordained an apostle in 1970.
He intervened with church historian Leonard Arrington’s work even though church history wasn’t in his purview because he didn’t like his approach. Arrington felt that the history should tell itself. Packer felt that the dogma should dictate what was told. Arrington was a professional historian with a Ph.D in History. Elder Benson and Mark E. Peterson both took offense at the approach Arrington took. Elder Packer intervened two years into Arrington’s tenure and wrote a letter to the First Presidency to complain about Leonard Arrington. Prince said “He really pushed back against the idea that the data should drive the story. To him, the dogma should drive it.”
Not a Cougar, a really significant comment I think, which goes some way to accounting for my malaise with things as they currently are. I should have been careful what I wished for, I’m no longer clear about what I’m even supposed to believe. Before, I just had a hard time believing it. These changes signal big shifts in culture, and I wonder how that will play out over time. Interesting, but I’m not feeling safe.
The ‘dogma as driver’ model at least gave us a divine narrator. I hated that at the time, but now find myself quite cut adrift. Who do I believe about what? and for how long? Maybe I’ve lived too long for anything much to make sense. I’m glad of the changes, but with them come the realisation that I have wasted a lot of my family’s precious time. All those hours of our lives stuck at church complying with what we as parents thought was best for our kids that could have been spent in so much less dismal pursuits!
And it turns out it was not written in stone.
After additional thought, I would concur that an increase in “trickle up” revelation would be a very good thing for the current health of “the Church”; and may (in fact) save it over the long term. My concern is that the opinions of members, containing any kind of sincere – and constructive feedback – has been suppressed (and sometimes stamped out) and that it’s going to be really tough to open up these lines of communication quickly enough. I sincerely hope they can….