Agitating Properly

[mapman]

What is the proper way to have a dialogue with the general authorities to discuss problems with policies in the church?

Do you think that the current system is what is best for the church?

From my point of view, there isn't really any way to have dialogue about these things right now except through channels outside the church structure. Trying to go up the church hierarchy rarely works, as local leaders aren't likely going to question the way things are. In my opinion, the false doctrine of never questioning anything general authorities do that permeates our culture is something of a perpetual motion machine. It means that if you have concerns they won't get up the chain, and doing so may decrease your chances of ever being in a position to help make changes. If you think that there are better ways of having dialogue, they won't be listened to. If you decide to try to work around the proper way of doing things you are seen as being against the church. The only way that change happens now a days is top down.

I think that this is unhealthy for the church. The account of Zelophehad's daughters illustrates the value of being able to have actual dialogue with church leaders. The problem is that our rapid growth resulted in increasing distance from the top. I really don't have any idea what the answer is. I'm not personally comfortable with doing petitions and things like that, but it seems to me that the current options are not working.

What do you think?

(Disclaimer: I have not had the chance to be in any significant leadership positions in the church, so my perceptions could be off.)

Edited February 1, 2013 by mapman

[sunstoned]

The Church is a top-down, authority driven organization. almost all communication is from the top down. There is no real mechanism to have a dialog or push suggestions up the hierarchy. Don't believe me? Write a letter to a GA. It will be kicked back down to your Bishop.

This is the type of organizations that were common in the US up through the 1950's.

[Saints Alive]

Your questions are supposed to go to local leaders and if they have questions or don't have an answer they can ask the person above them.

I can understand the frustration, I have encountered more than one leader that is... Lets just say... Less than receptive to anything, no matter how small, that challenges the status quo.

[Garden Girl]

Your questions are supposed to go to local leaders and if they have questions or don't have an answer they can ask the person above them.

I can understand the frustration, I have encountered more than one leader that is... Lets just say... Less than receptive to anything, no matter how small, that challenges the status quo.

If it was my bishop, and I was getting nowhere with him, I'd go to the Stake Pres... if he didn't respond, I'd go to the area Seventy. At each level I'd tell them that I had tried to deal appropriately with my local leaders but was not receiving satisfactory responses... and I wouldn't give up. If all else failed, I'd finally write to a GA and explain each step I'd taken, what had been the outcome, and that I had been trying to follow proper procedure, etc etc

GG

[Hamba Tuhan]

The only way that change happens now a days is top down.

In order to avoid apostasy, the only way change can happen is 'top-down'. That's because priesthood authority, priesthood keys, and stewardships are real -- not just nice ideas or outdated organising principles -- and therefore revelation works in a top-down process. That doesn't mean, however, that ideas and/or information always originate at the top. In fact, revelation seldom seems to operate in an informational vacuum (see for example the chapter headings to many of the revelations in the D&C). Consequently, my bishop has repeatedly told me that one of his greatest fears is members who won't share information or ideas with him for whatever reason, including a misguided sense of 'decorum'.

The problem, however, is with the notion of 'agitating': it implies that we've figured out the solution and wish to impose it on the rest of the Church. The correct procedure is to share helpful and honest information without presuming that we somehow have a special conduit to God, see the entire picture, etc. As Garden Girl already explained, this sometimes means providing input to higher authorities.

Case in point: When I was serving as stake exec sec several years ago, our stake president was, in my opinion, incorrectly imposing restrictions in relation to issuing new temple recommends which were not supported by Church policy. I offered him my feedback, but it went nowhere because he was convinced this is what he'd been trained to do, so then I spoke to the president of our temple. He shared my concerns and therefore passed the info along to the area president. At the very next training meeting for stake presidents, this issue was addressed directly. Problem solved.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

The Church is a top-down, authority driven organization. almost all communication is from the top down. There is no real mechanism to have a dialog or push suggestions up the hierarchy. Don't believe me? Write a letter to a GA. It will be kicked back down to your Bishop.

This is the type of organizations that were common in the US up through the 1950's.

In the 50s, letters sent to the GAs were often answered by the GAs, IIRC. It is only in more recent years when the size of the Church itself grew too big that it became SOP from what I've heard to 'kick' the letter back down.

I am thinking that it might be wise to set up a church department dealing with the questions where standard questions could receive a set reply that had been written by a GA or where comments of various GAs were collected and then sent and questions about changes could be answered with a more or less form letter saying something along the lines of due to the demands on GAs' time no one will be able to directly respond to your concerns, but that they have been entered into a database where such concerns are categorized and analyzed so that when the need is seen as becoming significant enough to address, the information will be there to search (as well as contributing to the knowledge that a problem has reached a certain level where it needs to be addressed).

[volgadon]

In the 50s, letters sent to the GAs were often answered by the GAs, IIRC. It is only in more recent years when the size of the Church itself grew too big that it became SOP from what I've heard to 'kick' the letter back down.

I am thinking that it might be wise to set up a church department dealing with the questions where standard questions could receive a set reply that had been written by a GA or where comments of various GAs were collected and then sent and questions about changes could be answered with a more or less form letter saying something along the lines of due to the demands on GAs' time no one will be able to directly respond to your concerns, but that they have been entered into a database where such concerns are categorized and analyzed so that when the need is seen as becoming significant enough to address, the information will be there to search (as well as contributing to the knowledge that a problem has reached a certain level where it needs to be addressed).

I think it was a Truman Madsen lecture that described how President Joseph Fielding Smith's second wife had to wait an hour for her call to go through to him due to the high volume of people calling in about this and that question.

[Yep]

What is the proper way to have a dialogue with the general authorities to discuss problems with policies in the church?

Do you think that the current system is what is best for the church?

The system is the same as it has ever been. If you want change, get the Lord's people to ask the Lord for it persistently. Just be careful, God knows what is best.

An example for this is the OT, read up on how Israel came to have a king. The people wanted things done differently, because the people wanted it God gave it to them.

Another example is Joseph Smith, Martin Harris and the first pages translated.

God will let things be how we want them, we will have to suffer the consequences of not trusting him to do it right and believing we know better though.

Edited to add:

We may believe that God will not let the prophet lead us astray, but I am sure we are allowed to screw things up ourselves.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Yep

[Buzzard]

The Church is a top-down, authority driven organization. almost all communication is from the top down. There is no real mechanism to have a dialog or push suggestions up the hierarchy. Don't believe me? Write a letter to a GA. It will be kicked back down to your Bishop.

This is the type of organizations that were common in the US up through the 1950's.

One glaring exception to this. If you are a woman and you feel your husband is being a jerk to you, write directly to an apostle. Even odds it gets read from the podium next conference followed by a stern admonition to the brethren of the church to treat their wives better. The collective "oof" you will then hear is the sound of every female elbow in the church impacting their hubbys ribs.

[Calm]

The collective "oof" you will then hear is the sound of every female elbow in the church impacting their hubbys ribs.

Sorry, but a number of us wives would disagree strongly.

[thesometimesaint]

Never underestimate the power of a good idea, and going to the correct person when a change is needed is a good idea.

[Alan]

Personally, I would like to see the format of general conference changed to permit proposals from the "floor". This could perhaps be done during one of the sessions, instead of just having to listen to even more sermons about praying or reading the scriptures etc.

This way things could be expressed that the brethren would hear directly. They wouldn't have to respond other than to say the issue had been noted and they would consider etc.

I think there would have to be some rules about who can participate, but I would imagine issues could be sponsored from stakes, or areas, thus preventing church enemies or apostates having a go at the brethren just for the qudos.

[CV75]

What is the proper way to have a dialogue with the general authorities to discuss problems with policies in the church? Do you think that the current system is what is best for the church?

I think any system would work if the underlying principles are observed:

"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:20-21)

So I think one approach for for someone with issues is to prayerfully define the desired blessing, fast and pray about what law(s) must be obeyed to obtain it, and then be led by the Spirit to go from there. The petitioner needs to obtain, to some extent, a mandate from God.

And then he must have faith to deal with failure, if that is the result, per D&C 124:49-50 (“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.”)

[Tacenda]

Personally, I would like to see the format of general conference changed to permit proposals from the "floor". This could perhaps be done during one of the sessions, instead of just having to listen to even more sermons about praying or reading the scriptures etc.

This way things could be expressed that the brethren would hear directly. They wouldn't have to respond other than to say the issue had been noted and they would consider etc.

I think there would have to be some rules about who can participate, but I would imagine issues could be sponsored from stakes, or areas, thus preventing church enemies or apostates having a go at the brethren just for the qudos.

Or maybe a press conference like the one they held at the Joseph Smith Memorial building, when the Presidency was first put in. Edited February 1, 2013 by Tacenda

[rpn]

There is nothing wrong at all with writing the person(s) who can fix issues in the church, on an individual basis, telling your story or making your suggestion. (Of course NOT to ask questions or share our personal needs, as we've been specifically instructed to take those to local leaders.) There have been numerous times when leaders have made changes because an issue was called to their attention, that they hadn't perceived to be one.

And Heavenly Father is perfectly capable of helping leaders change things. So I'm not sure why we would write those letters, if we were not also talking to Heavenly Father and asking Him to help his leaders.

"Agitating" cannot be done "properly". But giving feedback can and should when leaders are either doing it wrong, or when issues haven't been identified, can be.

[CV75]

There is nothing wrong at all with writing the person(s) who can fix issues in the church, on an individual basis, telling your story or making your suggestion. (Of course NOT to ask questions or share our personal needs, as we've been specifically instructed to take those to local leaders.) There have been numerous times when leaders have made changes because an issue was called to their attention, that they hadn't perceived to be one.

And Heavenly Father is perfectly capable of helping leaders change things. So I'm not sure why we would write those letters, if we were not also talking to Heavenly Father and asking Him to help his leaders.

"Agitating" cannot be done "properly". But giving feedback can and should when leaders are either doing it wrong, or when issues haven't been identified, can be.

I agree--a request, feedback or suggestion should be as inspired as the recipient is expected to be.

[Questing Beast]

What is the proper way to have a dialogue with the general authorities to discuss problems with policies in the church?

Do you think that the current system is what is best for the church?

...

What do you think?

(Disclaimer: I have not had the chance to be in any significant leadership positions in the church, so my perceptions could be off.)

Changes don't happen from the "grassroots" level, i.e. from the bottom moving up, in the Church. They never have and they never will. That doesn't mean that changes don't happen because of a groundswell effect. The GAs are not oblivious to changing winds in the Church, otherwise the temple ceremonies and procedures would still be the same as in B. Young's day. A lot has changed over the years, and more changes are coming all the time.

Where members are concerned if we don't like something the way the Church does it we have two options, tough it out or quit. You won't change anything by trying. The GAs are okay with this, as the doctrine covers them with authority to act for God, and each member is supposed to get his/her own testimony that it is what it is because God has made it so. Any changes will come in due season because God wills it so. Until then, either accept your disagreements with the Church as signs of personal weakness, or leave....

[Alan]

Changes don't happen from the "grassroots" level, i.e. from the bottom moving up, in the Church. They never have and they never will.

This is not quite true. The welfare programme is a case in point. This was not an initiative started by the brethren under inspiration from above, but began instead as a local initiative by a stake during the depression, and was picked up by the brethren and rolled out.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Alan

[rockpond]

Changes don't happen from the "grassroots" level, i.e. from the bottom moving up, in the Church. They never have and they never will.

I believe that the YSA wards started as a grassroots thing... I think at the Southern California institute. I'm sorry I don't have a reference for this, then again, you don't have a reference for your "never have, never will" statement. It's just my best recollection.

[Questing Beast]

@both examples of "exceptions": neither are doctrinal or procedural but are programs, and as such can come or go as necessary. I think the OP is referring to the way the Church "does things", in other words the Church's policies that are deemed to be archaic or less than desirable or effective....

[Calm]

This is not quite true. The welfare programme is a case in point. This was not an initiative started by the brethren under inspiration from above, but began instead as a local initiative by a stake during the depression, and was picked up by the brethren and rolled out.

Primary and Mutual started on the local level as well.

[changed]

The Church is a top-down, authority driven organization.

I agree, the Church is top down. Your best bet is to go to the very top - ie - take your prayers to God Himself.

[Scott Lloyd]

Primary and Mutual started on the local level as well.

And Sunday School.

In fact, Sunday School originated as an organization to teach children, just like Primary. They each began in one of the wards, Sunday School in Salt Lake City and Primary in Farmington, Utah. They emerged as programs to teach children and were run as parallel programs for that purpose for many years, with Primary held on weekdays and Sunday School on Sundays. Eventually, there were classes introduced in Sunday School for adults. As things further evolved, "Junior Sunday School" was discontinued and Primary was moved to Sunday to take its place.

Much of the above has occurred within my lifetime. I grew up attending Primary on a weekday after school and Junior Sunday School on Sunday.

[why me]

The Church is a top-down, authority driven organization. almost all communication is from the top down. There is no real mechanism to have a dialog or push suggestions up the hierarchy. Don't believe me? Write a letter to a GA. It will be kicked back down to your Bishop.

This is the type of organizations that were common in the US up through the 1950's.

This is not exactly true. The lds church is also a local church with Bishops, branch presidents and stake presidents. In this way people do have a voice. So, on one level, it is a world wide church but on the other level it is very much a local church.

[why me]

Personally, I would like to see the format of general conference changed to permit proposals from the "floor". This could perhaps be done during one of the sessions, instead of just having to listen to even more sermons about praying or reading the scriptures etc.

This way things could be expressed that the brethren would hear directly. They wouldn't have to respond other than to say the issue had been noted and they would consider etc.

I think there would have to be some rules about who can participate, but I would imagine issues could be sponsored from stakes, or areas, thus preventing church enemies or apostates having a go at the brethren just for the qudos.

Have yo seen the size of general conference? Too many people to hear proposals from the floor. And there would be chaos. More organized channels would be better.