Is Protesting Valid Communication?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well that's for sure; what  have you found to be a better way for the First Presidency to "nip problems in the bud, before they become monsters out of control?" One, on the local level per your examples (frustrations and personalities leading to apostasy), and also for the types of areas brought up in the OP (policy, systems, common individual offenses). An ecclesiastical management structure is already in place, so leaving inspiration, skills and personal worthiness aside, what systems would you use to ensure the efficient prevention and management of social and moral problems by those serving within the priesthood order?

Leaders need to go into leadership prepared to find ways of obtaining frank and open declarations of dissent, especially from the least of these among us.  They need to be self-aware and open to criticism (sometimes spouses are good sources).  They and their colleagues should eschew group-think.

Hugh Nibley had a lot to say about poor leadership in his "Leaders to Managers" (http://www.zionsbest.com/managers.html ), and there is a good recent TED talk on this subject at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAEFEXvcBg .

 

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Leaders need to go into leadership prepared to find ways of obtaining frank and open declarations of dissent, especially from the least of these among us.  They need to be self-aware and open to criticism (sometimes spouses are good sources).  They and their colleagues should eschew group-think.

Hugh Nibley had a lot to say about poor leadership in his "Leaders to Managers" (http://www.zionsbest.com/managers.html ), and there is a good recent TED talk on this subject at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAEFEXvcBg .

 

I would just work on figuring out what God wanted and ignore the unwashed masses.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I liked the UFO nut claiming that the US government was not taking the UFO threat seriously enough and the staffer is worried that they might be spending any time at all on it. I also liked the safe highway for migrating wolves idea. Seems a harsh joke now with the current administration about to begin wholesale wolf slaughter again.  

My favorite was the Cartographers for Social Justice (or something like that) arguing that our map system, with north on top, unjustly favors north America and Europe.

[rockpond]

On 4/11/2019 at 8:03 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Whether it's Harold B Lee pioneering the church's welfare program as a stake president, Emma Smith seeking changes that resulted in the WoW, or something more controversial like protests, that over time have helped to shift church and leadership opinion in areas such as feminism, race relations, BYU honor code violations, or protecting children by calling for an end to one-on-one interviews with minors, the church has a history of bottom-up leadership towards change. I suspect many here will take exception to my characterization of bottom-up leadership including protesters, but that's really what I want to discuss. As I'm watching/reading about protests at BYU-I regarding the honor code I'm seeing a kind of anger expressed by many staunch members about the method of communication. I am seeing many comments like "I agree with the changes they're asking for, but they're doing it in the wrong way. They should go have an adult conversation with the leaders if they want to effect change." It's not too many years ago that this would have been my comment too, but now I'm more ambivalent.

For many in the church there seems to be a strong aversion to the entire concept of protesting. People will readily agree that Emma did well in taking her concerns to the prophet, thus culminating in the WoW, but that wasn't "protest". Lee is likewise credited for being a change agent as he worked from within the system to create something new and good, but that wasn't "protest". There are many differences between Emma, Lee, and modern day protesters, but the one I have been thinking about is the modern lack of access the average member has to decision makers. Emma was married to the prophet: easy access there. Lee was a SP at a time when the church was much smaller, in a place where he had access to top church leaders. Today, most of us don't have that access, so we don't really have the opportunity to take issues of concern directly to top leadership who has the ability to make official change. I think many within the church feel that they have no voice and therefore no ability to reach decision makers. Going to the bishop and SP doesn't meet the need for access in a church of 16 million people. 1 bishop out of 35,000 bishops is nearly as inconsequential in having his voice heard as any other member.

In lieu of access to decision makers, members seem more inclined to turn to protests to have their voices heard even though most membership views protests as ineffective/inappropriate.

I'm curious if anyone is aware of any study/writing done on the subject or protests in the church. IMO protests seem to be the only way sometimes for people to be heard, yet is has a stigma attached to it that seems to make it counterproductive in some ways. But it could also be argued that protests on race, feminist issues, honor code issues, child protection issues have had some impact, even if the impact isn't immediate. Thoughts.

 

It isn't surprising to me that we're seeing more protests as the church has become larger and top leadership has, out of necessity, insulated themselves somewhat.  I think that the inability to communicate with those who have the power to make changes in the church is leading to protesting.

From where I sit, most of the LDS-related protests over the past decade or so have had some sort of positive impact.  I can't prove that, of course, but the timing of changes seems to suggest such.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My favorite was the Cartographers for Social Justice (or something like that) arguing that our map system, with north on top, unjustly favors north America and Europe.

No, it was more that the projection commonly used is flawed and they are actually right. Map nerds are still funny.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Leaders need to go into leadership prepared to find ways of obtaining frank and open declarations of dissent, especially from the least of these among us.  They need to be self-aware and open to criticism (sometimes spouses are good sources).  They and their colleagues should eschew group-think.

Hugh Nibley had a lot to say about poor leadership in his "Leaders to Managers" (http://www.zionsbest.com/managers.html ), and there is a good recent TED talk on this subject at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAEFEXvcBg .

 

That sounds more like a personal approach than a systems one (and one that opens one up to revelation! 😊 …though a good system can indirectly facilitate inspiration by freeing up one’s personal / psychic wherewithal…).

How would this personal approach have helped the situation in Mexico or France, or today, help address the OP issues? It seems it actually did, with President Smith giving personal attention and the parents contacting Salt Lake leaders… I already suggested that technology and organization are plusses, but these are not personal attributes as you seem to suggest here.

Nibley’s point seems to more support the idea of using inspiration and Spirit (leadership) than management (systems). So, how would the First Presidency better use either approach in handling the two types of “monsters” (apostasy and policy)?

A well-put together leader could go either way indulging a protester, but from what I know of charity, he would probably rather seek to hold to the common ground we have as children of God than to argue. News about a protest, or watching out his window, or written and signed petitions, the same attitude I imagine.

Depending on the environment and the expediency of the situation, he may appeal to either policy or to love (where have we seen that before? 😊 ). It seems that to prevent expediencies, leadership needs to be sustained in the first place, but that, I believe, ain’t gonna happen across the board, and they would rather face the consequence of people’s agency than prevent them from using it.

(I have an aversion to yotubes so I skipped that one).

[Wade Englund]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Protests are not exactly a hallmark of fascism.....unless the protestors are getting run over or shot.

This ignores the considerably greater instances where protesters  have resorted to shouting down speakers as well as  committing acts of violence sufficient that college and venue administrators are given lame and biased cause to cancel otherwise peaceful speaking events. And, that is on those rare occasions when campuses allow opposing views to be voiced--a silent form of fascist-like protest.

This doesn't even take into account the the cyber protests that give lame and biased cause for social medial giants to ban and  demonetize and otherwise censor opposing views.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SouthernMo]

I keep thinking about this topic.

Maybe the primary question is: “Is Protesting Effective Communication”

If a protest works, then it works.

I remember about a year ago, i saw about 20 people marching while chanting “This is what resistance looks like!”  I had no idea what their purpose was. Less effective communication, I think.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Protests are not exactly a hallmark of fascism.....unless the protestors are getting run over or shot.

Umm. Have your read about brownshirts protesting communist party meetings in the 30's. Literally fascism rose with protests. And while communists aren't quite fascist mainly due to rejecting nationalism they tended to do the same thing.

Protestors on the far right and far left are basically aping what was going on in the pre-war era.

Edited April 12, 2019 by clarkgoble

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

This ignores the considerably greater instances where protesters  have resorted to shouting down speakers as well as  committing acts of violence sufficient that college and venue administrators are given lame and biased cause to cancel otherwise peaceful speaking events. And, that is on those rare occasions when campuses allow opposing views to be voiced--a silent form of fascist-like protest.

This doesn't even take into account the the cyber protests that give lame and biased cause for social medial giants to ban and  demonetize and otherwise censor opposing views.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know of one really bad protest in which protesters took the cargo off a ship in Boston and threw it in the water!  Those revolutionaries were horrible, had wicked aims, and the results were ungodly.

[changed]

Great thread!

I think those in the church believe the US constitution and government were inspired by God - that Kings are bad, and "for the people, by the people" is a good way to do things when leadership is flawed.  Well, the church leadership is flawed - ask and receive - so it is up to the "people" to ask and receive.  The last shall be first - and many who are first will be last.  

The most loving, selfless, humble, praiseworthy people I have met in the church have NOT been in leadership positions.  (quite the opposite, the "leaders" - lino - leaders in name only -  I know are the ones who are NOT loving, helpful, or in any way seemingly led by God...)  lino Church leaders tend to be "too busy" to help anyone with anything.  lino's are hypocrites, full of big words, and no action, avoid any real work - pharisees, and Sadducee. 

Those without callings tend to be the ones who are actually helpful, concerned, and loving - so I define "leader" quite differently than how some define "leader".  

Those who stand up for children?  Want to institute policies to prevent child abuse?  These are the true leaders in the church.  

Those who stand up against racism?  Those who stand up for any group who is marginalized?  These are the true leaders in the church.  

 

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by changed

[Wade Englund]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I know of one really bad protest in which protesters took the cargo off a ship in Boston and threw it in the water!  Those revolutionaries were horrible, had wicked aims, and the results were ungodly.

There are a number of false equivalencies that could be trotted out to miss and obscure the salient point. But, why?

Maybe the question answers itself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bluebell]

Just now, changed said:

Great thread!

I think those in the church believe the US constitution and government were inspired by God - that Kings are bad, and "for the people, by the people" is a good way to do things when leadership is flawed.  Well, the church leadership is flawed - ask and receive - so it is up to the "people" to ask and receive.  The last shall be first - and many who are first will be last.  

The most loving, selfless, humble, praiseworthy people I have met in the church have NOT been in leadership positions.  (quite the opposite, the leader I know are the ones who are NOT loving, helpful, or in any way seemingly led by God...)  Church leaders tend to be "too busy" to help anyone with anything.  Those without callings tend to be the ones who are actually helpful, concerned, and loving - so I define "leader" quite differently than how some define "leader".  

Those who stand up for children?  Want to institute policies to prevent child abuse?  These are the true leaders in the church.  

Those who stand up against racism?  Those who stand up for any group who is marginalized?  These are the true leaders in the church.  

 

 

I just wanted to say that this has not been my experience.  The leaders in my ward right now are absolutely wearing themselves out trying to serve and support those around them (both members and not).  It's crazy to me that you've never known any leader who has sincerely and humbly loved the people, but if that's true then I think I would run far far away from where you have live.  I've been in five states and it hasn't been my experience with my wards/branches in any of them. 

Also just wanted to say that sometimes people get confused and start to believe that "they agree with me!" is synonymous with  "good leader."   In the church most members seem to want the same things but we can disagree about the best way to accomplish them.  If someone disagrees with how you want to accomplish something (general you, not you personally) that does not automatically put them in the 'false leader' camp.  Believing or espousing that adds to the 'us vs. them' mentality that so many people decry even while they are acting in ways that further entrench that mindset into our church culture. 

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

There are a number of false equivalencies that could be trotted out to miss and obscure the salient point. But, why?

Maybe the question answers itself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You seem to be very anti-protest. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Most American members of the church that I know embrace the American revolution as inspired and wonderful.

Maybe you don’t see the American revolution as a good thing?

My only point is that we tend to embrace the methods if we agree with the message and purpose, but attack the methods if we disagree with the message and purpose.

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I know of one really bad protest in which protesters took the cargo off a ship in Boston and threw it in the water!  Those revolutionaries were horrible, had wicked aims, and the results were ungodly.

I'm a fan of the American Revolution but I can't be the only person who has trouble with the Boston Tea Party.

There were lots of bad things in the American Revolution (look at treatment of loyalists or the failure on the Plains of Abraham when Canada was invaded). The aims were good but like any war there were lots of excesses along the way. One can't say, "well this was in the Revolutionary War therefore it was good..."

Edited April 12, 2019 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Have your read about brownshirts protesting communist party meetings in the 30's. Literally fascism rose with protests. And while communists aren't quite fascist mainly due to rejecting nationalism they tended to do the same thing.

Protestors on the far right and far left are basically aping what was going on in the pre-war era.

Those were not so much protests as thuggery. And while I do not want to play the false equivalence game the predominant German political parties all had “enforcers”. The Nazis were just better at terror. We (meaning most western nations) have thankfully have not sunk that far that our parties have legitimate organized thugs using terror.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

This ignores the considerably greater instances where protesters  have resorted to shouting down speakers as well as  committing acts of violence sufficient that college and venue administrators are given lame and biased cause to cancel otherwise peaceful speaking events. And, that is on those rare occasions when campuses allow opposing views to be voiced--a silent form of fascist-like protest.

This doesn't even take into account the the cyber protests that give lame and biased cause for social medial giants to ban and  demonetize and otherwise censor opposing views.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If only everyone would be reasonable and just let the Nazis speak..........

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If only everyone would be reasonable and just let the Nazis speak..........

We should let them speak. I love that we can explore all ideas openly in a civil society. I trust that through discourse, the best ideas will rise to the surface. 

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Those were not so much protests as thuggery. And while I do not want to play the false equivalence game the predominant German political parties all had “enforcers”. The Nazis were just better at terror. We (meaning most western nations) have thankfully have not sunk that far that our parties have legitimate organized thugs using terror.

It did seem like we were headed in that direction with some of the antifa and anarchy protests and neonazi groups. But things appear to have calmed down a great deal. Plus everyone is so hyperaware of what happened in the 30s that I can't see it getting out of hand despite all the over the top rhetoric in the press. Europe I still worry about though. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

We should let them speak. I love that we can explore all ideas openly in a civil society. I trust that through discourse, the best ideas will rise to the surface. 

Okay, thanks for the laugh. I am hoping the sarcasm was intentional. If not I apologize for mocking you.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It did seem like we were headed in that direction with some of the antifa and anarchy protests and neonazi groups. But things appear to have calmed down a great deal. Plus everyone is so hyperaware of what happened in the 30s that I can't see it getting out of hand despite all the over the top rhetoric in the press. Europe I still worry about though. 

You are an optimist. I envy you.

Edited April 12, 2019 by The Nehor

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, thanks for the laugh. I am hoping the sarcasm was intentional. If not I apologize for mocking you.

How do you interpret the first amendment?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Great thread!

I think those in the church believe the US constitution and government were inspired by God - that Kings are bad, and "for the people, by the people" is a good way to do things when leadership is flawed.  Well, the church leadership is flawed - ask and receive - so it is up to the "people" to ask and receive.  The last shall be first - and many who are first will be last.  

The most loving, selfless, humble, praiseworthy people I have met in the church have NOT been in leadership positions.  (quite the opposite, the "leaders" - lino - leaders in name only -  I know are the ones who are NOT loving, helpful, or in any way seemingly led by God...)  lino Church leaders tend to be "too busy" to help anyone with anything.  lino's are hypocrites, full of big words, and no action, avoid any real work - pharisees, and Sadducee. 

Those without callings tend to be the ones who are actually helpful, concerned, and loving - so I define "leader" quite differently than how some define "leader".  

Those who stand up for children?  Want to institute policies to prevent child abuse?  These are the true leaders in the church.  

Those who stand up against racism?  Those who stand up for any group who is marginalized?  These are the true leaders in the church.  

 

I like your thought about "kings" versus leadership of the people. I'm of the opinion that every leader should be accountable to the people they lead, whether in the church, in government, education, or the workplace. Accountability is a good thing. Therefore lack of accountability is generally a bad thing.

However, I think you are being way too harsh on most leaders. Sure, there may be a few that fit your definition of a "lino" BUT I would defend most leaders because 1- they didn't ask for the job  2- they are doing the best they can, even with their own personal flaws 3- they do spend a LOT of time helping others, even if that isn't always in one-on-one situations 4- sure leaders are hypocrites, but so is everyone else (that's because we're all flawed) 5- most leaders (and anyone serving) is doing so with good intentions.

It's true that leaders are kept very busy, sometimes with administrative issues, but I've never been one to discount administration/management in favor of only ministering to the one. Both are necessary and good. And I will agree that there are many good Leaders who don't hold callings.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That sounds more like a personal approach than a systems one (and one that opens one up to revelation! 😊 …though a good system can indirectly facilitate inspiration by freeing up one’s personal / psychic wherewithal…).

How would this personal approach have helped the situation in Mexico or France, or today, help address the OP issues? It seems it actually did, with President Smith giving personal attention and the parents contacting Salt Lake leaders… I already suggested that technology and organization are plusses, but these are not personal attributes as you seem to suggest here.

Nibley’s point seems to more support the idea of using inspiration and Spirit (leadership) than management (systems). So, how would the First Presidency better use either approach in handling the two types of “monsters” (apostasy and policy)?

A well-put together leader could go either way indulging a protester, but from what I know of charity, he would probably rather seek to hold to the common ground we have as children of God than to argue. News about a protest, or watching out his window, or written and signed petitions, the same attitude I imagine.

Depending on the environment and the expediency of the situation, he may appeal to either policy or to love (where have we seen that before? 😊 ). It seems that to prevent expediencies, leadership needs to be sustained in the first place, but that, I believe, ain’t gonna happen across the board, and they would rather face the consequence of people’s agency than prevent them from using it.

(I have an aversion to yotubes so I skipped that one).

Leaders often have aversions to this or that, based on apriori conceptions, which themselves are enemies of being open to new ideas or to change.  I like the story of Pres McKay being willing to ask why Black Africans could not hold the priesthood, and actually making a serious search of Church archives for any authentic revelation on the subject -- there wasn't any.  However, his commitment to unanimity among the Brethren was such that a word from his long-time colleague and friend Joseph Fielding Smith was enough to stop him from opening up a Black African mission.

Closing the barn door after the mare has gotten out is not leadership.  Staunching the flow of blood in an emergency is no substitute for regular training to avoid accidents.

Your comments here all seem to miss the point that there need to be avenues for the gathering of intel on what is actually happening out in the boondocks so as to avoid big problems.  Leaders often do what most organization men do:  They make each other feel good with groupthink, wait for problems to get out of hand before dealing with them.  They follow the path of least resistance, and tend to listen to people who will give them predictable opinions.  They don't think outside the box.

When people don't listen to me, and things later come a cropper, I don't feel any sense of Schadenfreude.  I just get sad and wonder whether my opinions are worth expressing -- even if correct.

You didn't read Nibley carefully.  I attended that 1983 speech, and witnessed some of the Brethren on the dais looking discomfited.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would just work on figuring out what God wanted and ignore the unwashed masses.

WWJD?