Lesson Learned About Ark-Steadying?

[wenglund]

In a now locked thread, robuchan thoughtfully considered:

I am guilty of ark steadying in this case, you're right. The image of the church is very important to me, and I know I should trust the brethren on this, but it's a temptation to try to speak for them. I know they are doing what they need to do to protect the image of the church by firing Peterson, and I trust that they will continue to take measures against him if necessary. I should just back out and let them run the church I guess. I should just back out and let them run the church I guess.

Aside from the dubious assumption that the Church fired Dr. Peterson to protect its image (as opposed to the President of MI making an editorial change in line with the new direction he wished to take that organization), you have an excellent idea! Rightly putting one's trust in the hands of people who are qualified, in the know, called of God, and who are in a position to receive guidance from the Lord and implement his will, is a good and workable thing.

Perhaps just as good, is one can also then take all the thoughts, time, energy, and concern one may have wasted down the road in illegitimately minding the Lord's business, and re-allocate it to where it rightly belongs and is most needed, in minding one's own business. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

What if it's Gerald Bradford who is "steadying the ark"? Hmmmmmm?

[wenglund]

What if it's Gerald Bradford who is "steadying the ark"? Hmmmmmm?

There isn't a problem steadying one's own ark. Duuuuuuuhhhh.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[treehugger]

What if it's Gerald Bradford who is "steadying the ark"? Hmmmmmm?

as wade states, it is ok to steady ones own ark, so given that Bradford was fully within in authority/right to steady the ark he was instructed to guide - we can have a clear and unambiguous picture of who the ark steadiers are with regard to the Bradford/MI/Peterson incident.

Edited July 16, 2012 by treehugger

[ShawFanX]

What if it's Gerald Bradford who is "steadying the ark"? Hmmmmmm?

All well and good. My interest is in the narrative now being bandied about that the Brethren have quashed apologetics due to some gnawing fear that allowing it to continue will somehow come between the Church and its desire to domesticate itself with regard to the surrounding secular culture.

Loran

Edited July 16, 2012 by ShawFanX

[wenglund]

as wade states, it is ok to steady ones own ark, so given that Bradford was fully within in authority/right to steady the ark he was instructed to guide - we can have a clear and unambiguous picture of who the ark steadiers are with regard to the Bradford/MI/Peterson incident.

I think you may be confusing dismay with ark-steadying. It is not ark-steadying to express dismay over the unceremonious dismissal of the first mate who has served honorably and admirably for 23 years, nor is it ark-steadying to express dismay that a venerable aircraft carrier may be turned into the good ship lollipop.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I think you may be confusing dismay with ark-steadying. It is not ark-steadying to express dismay over the unceremonious dismissal of the first mate who has served honorably and admirably for 23 years, nor is it ark-steadying to express dismay that a venerable aircraft carrier may be turned into the good ship lollipop.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't se how that term "ark steadying" can be used in this context as BYU is not the church.

[robuchan]

I think you may be confusing dismay with ark-steadying. It is not ark-steadying to express dismay over the unceremonious dismissal of the first mate who has served honorably and admirably for 23 years, nor is it ark-steadying to express dismay that a venerable aircraft carrier may be turned into the good ship lollipop.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You sure about that? I think it might be ark-steadying.

[treehugger]

I think you may be confusing dismay with ark-steadying. It is not ark-steadying to express dismay over the unceremonious dismissal of the first mate who has served honorably and admirably for 23 years, nor is it ark-steadying to express dismay that a venerable aircraft carrier may be turned into the good ship lollipop.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No I am not not confused. I understand the difference between expressing dismay and telling someone else how to do their job.

Edited July 17, 2012 by treehugger

[Closet Doubter]

This whole concept of "Ark Steadying" bothers me. From the responses above, it appears it is Ark Steadying if someone else does it but it is just expressing feelings if I do it. Wasn't the Church set up with a basic principal that everything will be done by common consent? What we call common consent (raising of hands without any time to consider what we are raising our hands to) would not be considered common consent under most circumstances.

I have worked for supervisors and managers who would not accept feedback from their staff. They were the most incompetent supervisors and managers I have ever worked with. The managers and supervisors that seek input from all levels and consider the input when making decisions are usually great managers.

This idea that if we give constructive feedback to our leaders in areas that are not part of our current calling, is ark steadying and we shouldn't do it is a terrible organizational concept. I don't believe the Lord is an incompetent manager and therefore I don't accept this concept (that giving feedback in an area not in our calling is wrong) comes from the Lord.

There!!!! Now I am an ark steadyer

[ERayR]

This whole concept of "Ark Steadying" bothers me. From the responses above, it appears it is Ark Steadying if someone else does it but it is just expressing feelings if I do it. Wasn't the Church set up with a basic principal that everything will be done by common consent? What we call common consent (raising of hands without any time to consider what we are raising our hands to) would not be considered common consent under most circumstances.

I have worked for supervisors and managers who would not accept feedback from their staff. They were the most incompetent supervisors and managers I have ever worked with. The managers and supervisors that seek input from all levels and consider the input when making decisions are usually great managers.

This idea that if we give constructive feedback to our leaders in areas that are not part of our current calling, is ark steadying and we shouldn't do it is a terrible organizational concept. I don't believe the Lord is an incompetent manager and therefore I don't accept this concept (that giving feedback in an area not in our calling is wrong) comes from the Lord.

There!!!! Now I am an ark steadyer

Giving constructive feedback is fine as long as one remembers you aren't seeing the whole picture and understand your feedback may be rejected.

[wenglund]

This whole concept of "Ark Steadying" bothers me. From the responses above, it appears it is Ark Steadying if someone else does it but it is just expressing feelings if I do it. Wasn't the Church set up with a basic principal that everything will be done by common consent? What we call common consent (raising of hands without any time to consider what we are raising our hands to) would not be considered common consent under most circumstances.

I have worked for supervisors and managers who would not accept feedback from their staff. They were the most incompetent supervisors and managers I have ever worked with. The managers and supervisors that seek input from all levels and consider the input when making decisions are usually great managers.

This idea that if we give constructive feedback to our leaders in areas that are not part of our current calling, is ark steadying and we shouldn't do it is a terrible organizational concept. I don't believe the Lord is an incompetent manager and therefore I don't accept this concept (that giving feedback in an area not in our calling is wrong) comes from the Lord.

There!!!! Now I am an ark steadyer

You can call yourself whatever you want. However, to me, an ark-steadier is far more than someone pragmatically and sensibly providing occasional constructive feedback to one's local religious leaders. Rather, it is people who can't just offer feedback and let it be, but who continue to press their cause and won't reasonably take no for an answer, thus suggesting they mistakenly believe they know better than the Lord and his chosen leaders what is best for the Church. It is people who don't just offer their feedback in private, but typically press their causes in public, often in venues such as this where the powers that be, who are in a position to make changes, do not participate--in other words, they do a lot of wasted hand-wringing and verbal gesticulating with people can't informatively say one way or the other or do anything about it. It is people who don't just offer feedback on occasion, but who have built a reputation as predominately whiners and complainers, and/or whose posts tend to be negative against the Church and its leaders or its apologists, and who ironically get quite animated if the least criticism comes back their way or in regards to something they favor. In short, the ark-steadiers are often wannabes who may feel aghast and slighted that they have yet to be chosen as leaders or widely appreciated for their supposed contributions, and/or they care less about about affecting improvements and more about denigrating the Church, etc..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 17, 2012 by wenglund