Your thoughts on church leaders

[Sleeping in EQ]

SIEQ, I think I remember you sharing that quote before. It seems to be very relevant to this thread. Interesting find.

Yes, I've shared it before. I figured it had been long enough ago that a reprint wasn't out of order.

[Sullyute]

Given that there actually exists a CK, I'm pretty sure I'm getting in.

If God has any sense of humor He will have you and Seattle Ute greeting people at the gate as they come in just so He can see the look on their faces.

[Moliere]

If God has any sense of humor He will have you and Seattle Ute greeting people at the gate as they come in just so He can see the look on their faces.

If RF and SU get into the CK then God definitely has a sense of humor

[grapevine]

I heard it is how we react to counsel helps us too. Even though people change there mind after grudgingly doing something. Story of Marion G Romney complaining about his lot on building fund before tithing paid it all. Read Moroni than paid more quit complaining.

[RobinFinderson]

If RF and SU get into the CK then God definitely has a sense of humor

Could a 'perfect being' not have a sense of humor? Case closed. SU and I are IN, we will probably be the greeters at the gates, and don't forget that there is NO GOOD REASON for people to wear clothing in the CK.

[Indy Coug]

and don't forget that there is NO GOOD REASON for people to wear clothing in the CK.

Based on Monty Python's Meaning of Life, you may be partially correct.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Permit me to think out loud here....

In most instances, it is convenient for Church leaders to have a conforming membership. This lends itself to absurd misinterpretations of D&C 1:39, ignorance of D&C 107:82, and an overly authoritarian approach to "counsel."

It also leads to a cohesive body of members that can get things done.

Church leaders are no doubt frustrated by overly-zealous members, but it appears they are willing to live with them being overly-zealous. For one thing, these members (think of the bastards on CB), give the leaders confidence that their words will be interpreted with excessive rigidity, and so these leaders have a rhetorical "out" should controversy arise. That these leaders intend this "out" for more independent members is possible, but also might just be something leaders are willing to live with.

Church leaders' insistence on obedience, which is sometimes expressly given and is other times implied, seems to be doing additional rhetorical work, though. In truth, most of what Church leaders say is solid counsel, and especially when the counsel is not too specific. Subsequent generations are always embarassed by the specific shortsightedness of the previous generations' over-zealousness (hence, the decline of McConkie's popularity).

The problem is that most all of Church leaders' worthwhile counsel is hardly unique, doesn't require prophetic claims to establish, and can be found elsewhere with little effort. So the insistence on obedience seems to work the rhetorical "trick" of getting Church members to attribute growth and spiritual well being, to the degree possible, to Church leaders' counsel, and never mind that these principles are often generic.

Some of you may sense that this approach, while not without its plusses, can undercut the notion of restoration that the Church was founded upon. It also can contribute to reactive criticism by more independent Church members, to their marginalization, and to their being unjustifiably resentful of an organization that does much good.

Church leaders and members also have the problem of just being plain stupid. Good general counsel notwithstanding, I think there is a longterm intellectual decline in the leadership at high levels--some of the GC conference talks today are incoherent when compared with talks from decades ago. There is the rise of the raging Mormon simpleton, whose religious thougts are effectively correlated, whose zealousness is abundant, and whose mind is closed. There is the rise of the reactionary Mormon intellectual whose spiritual life gives way to relentless criticism and an un-Christian regard for fellow Church members. There is the decline of contributing converts who realize that the Church doesn't live up to the missionaries' pitch. There is the problem of professional bureaucrats in the COB displacing Priesthood leadership in everything their well-meaning, but corporate, hands can grasp.

Treating councils as places where we can compensate for each others' weaknesses, instead of as spaces where "yes" men and "yes" women are in a state of default obedience, should help. After all, why else would we have councils? If councils are just another rhetorical dodge to soften obedience mongering, we should just forego them and let all of those ward council members enjoy Sunday morning with their families.

So that's me thinking out loud. I'm sure it was inconvenient.

[Moliere]

Could a 'perfect being' not have a sense of humor? Case closed. SU and I are IN, we will probably be the greeters at the gates, and don't forget that there is NO GOOD REASON for people to wear clothing in the CK.

I look forward to seeing you and SU hanging out at the pearly gates.

[Tex]

Church leaders and members also have the problem of just being plain stupid. Good general counsel notwithstanding, I think there is a longterm intellectual decline in the leadership at high levels--some of the GC conference talks today are incoherent when compared with talks from decades ago. There is the rise of the raging Mormon simpleton, whose religious thougts are effectively correlated, whose zealousness is abundant, and whose mind is closed.

Nothing like a little building up of tombs of the prophets, with a little garnish on the sepulchres of the righteous. (Except McConkie, that jerk).

Not much has changed in a year SIEQ, and it's good to see you in usual form. Actually, that goes for this entire thread.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Nothing like a little building up of tombs of the prophets, with a little garnish on the sepulchres of the righteous. (Except McConkie, that jerk).

Not much has changed in a year SIEQ, and it's good to see you in usual form. Actually, that goes for this entire thread.

Hi, Tex. You are welcome to use evidence to dispute my assertion of a longterm intellectual decline. Otherwise, I'll just chalk up you're not liking my observation to your usual grumpiness!

Oh yes, and your "correlation" of my quote is classic form. You wouldn't want to emphasize that I actually took a shot at intellecutals in the Church now, would you?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Great post, SIEQ.

[Tex]

Hi, Tex. You are welcome to use evidence to dispute my assertion of a longterm intellectual decline. Otherwise, I'll just chalk up you're not liking my observation to your usual grumpiness!

You mean "evidence" like your litany of gross generalizations, punctuated by a few subjective conclusions? What would like me to provide: a talk from GC that isn't incoherent? An anecdote of a council that actually functioned well? Prophetic counsel that can't be "found elsewhere with little effort"?

Actually, I should apologize. Your bore the brunt of my amusement with this entire thread of anti-leadership hand-wringing (I read to about post 100 and then skipped to the end). How little things change: I keep expecting any minute to wake up in bed with "I Got You Babe" on my alarm clock radio.

[Flystripper]

You mean "evidence" like your litany of gross generalizations, punctuated by a few subjective conclusions? What would like me to provide: a talk from GC that isn't incoherent? An anecdote of a council that actually functioned well? Prophetic counsel that can't be "found elsewhere with little effort"?

Actually, I should apologize. Your bore the brunt of my amusement with this entire thread of anti-leadership hand-wringing (I read to about post 100 and then skipped to the end). How little things change: I keep expecting any minute to wake up in bed with "I Got You Babe" on my alarm clock radio.

Welcome back sir.

[TripletDaddy]

You mean "evidence" like your litany of gross generalizations, punctuated by a few subjective conclusions? What would like me to provide: a talk from GC that isn't incoherent? An anecdote of a council that actually functioned well? Prophetic counsel that can't be "found elsewhere with little effort"?

Actually, I should apologize. Your bore the brunt of my amusement with this entire thread of anti-leadership hand-wringing (I read to about post 100 and then skipped to the end). How little things change: I keep expecting any minute to wake up in bed with "I Got You Babe" on my alarm clock radio.

This would be appropriate. God will force you to repeat this day until you stop treating people poorly and behaving like a jerk.

Now let's say a prayer and drink to world peace!

[Sleeping in EQ]

You mean "evidence" like your litany of gross generalizations, punctuated by a few subjective conclusions? What would like me to provide: a talk from GC that isn't incoherent? An anecdote of a council that actually functioned well? Prophetic counsel that can't be "found elsewhere with little effort"?

Actually, I should apologize. Your bore the brunt of my amusement with this entire thread of anti-leadership hand-wringing (I read to about post 100 and then skipped to the end). How little things change: I keep expecting any minute to wake up in bed with "I Got You Babe" on my alarm clock radio.

If you provide evidence, I'll revise my view. I haven't pointed out talks that I've found incoherent out of appreciation for the difficulty of doing something like giving an address to the entire Church. That doesn't mean, though, that I haven't noticed a drop in thoughtfulness and coherence. And I am someone who has read more than his share of GC talks.

If you'll re-read my post, I'll think you'll find that while I am critical, I am also empathetic. It isn't easy to be a member of the Church, and that includes leaders. Heck, it even includes people like me and you.