'Lazy learner'

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh...jkwilliams is a professional writer. I think he knows this.

Even professional writers use terms in ways that not everyone will agree with sometimes.  Providing the definition as evidence for why I don't agree with his interpretation, doesn't seem unreasonable.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

Even professional writers use terms in ways that not everyone will agree with sometimes.  Providing the definition as evidence for why I don't agree with his interpretation, doesn't seem unreasonable.

And I disagree. As Tim said, there are authoritarian aspects to the administration of the church. I respect that you don’t see what we see. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

And I disagree. As Tim said, there are authoritarian aspects to the administration of the church. I respect that you don’t see what we see. 

Yes, reasonable people can disagree on these type of things.  

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't have a problem with that explanation of how the church works.  The same can be said for you and me as parents though, but that doesn't make us authoritarian parents. 

It's not about whether you have a problem with it, it is what kind of structure it is.

Btw by and large my parenting style is authoritative. But this isn't about parenting styles.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Authoritarian has a very specific definition.  It's not just about having the authority but using it in a specific way.  

I know it does, that is why I used the word.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not about whether you have a problem with it, it is what kind of structure it is.

Sorry if I was confusing. 

I meant, "I don't see anything to disagree with in the explanation that you have provided so I'll agree with it so we can move on to discuss the issue at hand."  

Quote

Btw by and large my parenting style is authoritative. But this isn't about parenting styles.

Ok. 

It's interesting because everything that you said before could apply to both of us as parents, but one of us is authoritarian and one of us isn't. 

My point in using an example of parenting styles was only to show that the explanation given does not, in and of itself, show that something is authoritarian. 

It applies to me, but I am not authoritarian, for example.

Quote

I know it does, that is why I used the word.

And I made that statement as an explanation of why I don't agree with the use of the word.  This is one of those topics that reasonable people disagree on.  

Stating "I don't agree with that" and providing reasons why I see it differently is a part of having a discussion.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sorry if I was confusing. 

I meant, "I don't see anything to disagree with in the explanation that you have provided so I'll agree with it so we can move on to discuss the issue at hand."  

Ok. 

It's interesting because everything that you said before could apply to both of us as parents, but one of us is authoritarian and one of us isn't. 

My point in using an example of parenting styles was only to show that the explanation given does not, in and of itself, show that something is authoritarian. 

It applies to me, but I am not authoritarian, for example.

And I made that statement as an explanation of why I don't agree with the use of the word.  This is one of those topics that reasonable people disagree on.  

Stating "I don't agree with that" and providing reasons why I see it differently is a part of having a discussion.

Authoritarian versus authoritative parenting styles are not the same as organizational definitions, because parents and children are not equals, unlike the adults who form an organisation. The familial definitions do not transfer.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Meadowchik

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Authoritarian versus authoritative parenting styles are not the same as organizational definitions, because parents and children are not equals, unlike the adults who form an organisation. The familial definitions do not transfer.

I've tried to look up organizational definition and the closest I can find are definitions for authoritarian leaders or leadership.  These are the ones that I've found so far:

Quote

Authoritarian leadership, also known as autocratic leadership, is a management style in which an individual has total decision-making power and absolute control over his subordinates. ... Leaders independently preside over policies and processes. Group members are always directly supervised by the leader.

Quote

Authoritarian leadership refers to any situation where a leader keeps hold of as much power and authority as possible. Also known as coercive or dictatorial leadership, authoritarian leaders, tend to keep all the decision-making authority to themselves and make the decisions about policies, procedures, tasks, structures, rewards and punishment themselves. The intention behind most authoritarian leaders is to retain control and they usually require unquestioning obedience and compliance.

Quote

 

The authoritarian leadership style rests on three core elements. These not only define the role of the leader, but also how the framework should be implemented. The three characteristics are:

• Decisions are made by the leader and without the participation or input of the subordinates. Under the framework, the power of decision-making rests solely in the hands of the leader. Depending on the leader’s style, they can involve the subordinates in a consultative role, although this is not specifically characteristic of the style. An authoritarian model rests on the assumption that subordinates are removed from the decision making, with the leader being able to make decisions on their own.
• The leader presides over the policies and processes. The style involves a lot of micromanagement, as the leader is not just making the decisions, but also setting out the different processes. The framework generally doesn’t provide the subordinates much room to figure out their way to reach the goals. Instead, the leader outlines the different procedures and policies all subordinates must adhere to. This provides a clear framework for subordinates to operate in and the leader’s role becomes supervisory.
• The subordinates are directly supervised and monitored by the leader. As eluded in the above point, the leader’s role is to ensure subordinates follow the guidelines effectively. Unlike in certain other leadership styles, the leader doesn’t walk away and return once the process is complete, but stays actively involved with the tasks. The monitoring ensures the leader is able to use the reward and punishment structures efficiently, as well to ensure the team is not slipping further away from the vision.

Essentially the authoritarian leadership framework relies on two things: power and efficiency. The power is in the hands of the leader, with established and clear hierarchy. The structure is pre-determined and therefore, guarantees everyone in the organization is aware of his or her place. Furthermore, the purpose of the framework is to improve and to guarantee efficiency.

 

None of those really seem to fit the church organizational style.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've tried to look up organizational definition and the closest I can find are definitions for authoritarian leaders or leadership.  These are the ones that I've found so far:

None of those really seem to fit the church organizational style.

Really?  When was the last time you participated in, or were asked for input on, changes to church policy or practice?  Heck, for that matter, when was the last time anyone outside of church headquarters participated in, or was asked for input on, changes in church policy or practice?

[Calm]

I agree there are some aspects of the Church that tend towards authoritarianism.  My two biggest pet peeves are leaders who come up with unnecessary tests of obedience...they want you to do something just because you are asked to do it without attempting any effort to persuade beyond an expectant, long suffering, patronizing, paternal look (yes, I am thinking of a particular experience)...and the difficulty of getting access to higher up leaders when needing to complain (not whining, but actual serious problems) about local leaders.

But in principle, I don’t see authoritarianism as an inherent characteristic of the Church structure. The culture it was originally nurtured in and then its size has unfortunately added some aspects to it. “Mormon Nice” also contributes imo as lack of criticism may lead some to see themselves as closer to infallibility than they really are and therefore feeling more comfortable in making demands rather than attempting to reason with members under their stewardship. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree there are some aspects of the Church that tend towards authoritarianism.  My two biggest pet peeves are leaders who come up with unnecessary tests of obedience...they want you to do something just because you are asked to do it without attempting any effort to persuade beyond an expectant, long suffering, patronizing, paternal look (yes, I am thinking of a particular experience)...and the difficulty of getting access to higher up leaders when needing to complain (not whining, but actual problems) about local leaders.

But in principle, I don’t see authoritarianism as an inherent characteristic of the Church structure. The culture it was originally nurtured in and then its size has unfortunately added some aspects to it. “Mormon Nice” also contributes imo as lack of criticism may lead some to see themselves as closer to infallibility than they really are and therefore feeling more comfortable in making demands rather than attempting to reason with members under their stewardship. 

Perhaps Mormon Nice is a product of authoritarian tendencies. 

[Calm]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Perhaps Mormon Nice is a product of authoritarian tendencies. 

I don’t think so. I think it is more a product of trying to be a loving extended family not wanting to hurt others, to love one another and forgive 70 x 7, etc without having the everyday, in your face family interaction that both allows us to become more relaxed as we grow more trusting of each other and creates enough stress that we are forced to either deal with the negative or blowup from time to time.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Really?  When was the last time you participated in, or were asked for input on, changes to church policy or practice?  Heck, for that matter, when was the last time anyone outside of church headquarters participated in, or was asked for input on, changes in church policy or practice?

The church often does surveys looking for "regular" member input.  The last one that I'm aware of happened earlier this year.  I know that years ago they had one asking women what they thought about ordination for women, among other things.

I would consider that being "asking for input on...church policy or practice".

Further, in times past when I've served in leadership roles within my wards, I was asked for input on the practices that the bishop had charge over for the ward.  I was asked often for that kind of input, and where we made changes, I participated in those.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church often does surveys looking for "regular" member input.  The last one that I'm aware of happened earlier this year.  I know that years ago they had one asking women what they thought about ordination for women, among other things.

I would consider that being "asking for input on...church policy or practice".

Further, in times past when I've served in leadership roles within my wards, I was asked for input on the practices that the bishop had charge over for the ward.  I was asked often for that kind of input, and where we made changes, I participated in those.

The local level is not the same thing as the overall administration of the church, as a whole. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The local level is not the same thing as the overall administration of the church, as a whole. 

I think it's patterned on it, and so it's the same thing in that sense. 

The church runs on the doctrine of 'authority' but it's authority that allows for delegation and participation to a large extent.  It's very organized participation, to be sure.  The local level and the general authority level may run similarly, in the amount of delegation and participation they allow, but there is a definite "chain of command" in how it all comes together.

But that alone does not seem to indicate that something is authoritarian.

Anyway, like I said, reasonable people can disagree.  We all have our biases and that always colors how we interpret this kind of stuff as well.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church often does surveys looking for "regular" member input.  The last one that I'm aware of happened earlier this year.  I know that years ago they had one asking women what they thought about ordination for women, among other things.

I would consider that being "asking for input on...church policy or practice".

Further, in times past when I've served in leadership roles within my wards, I was asked for input on the practices that the bishop had charge over for the ward.  I was asked often for that kind of input, and where we made changes, I participated in those.

Asking for input from members is not the same as being subject to input. Who makes the decisions? The leaders. Based on what? Whatever they think, unless overridden by a leader above them.

They can let others participate in decisions, but they don't have to. They can explain themselves, but they don't have to. Quoting my stake president about him being subject to my input, "That's not how the church works."

And he was correct. I had good reasons, good standing, and it directly affected me, but these are privileges given at leadership discretion, not obligations.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Meadowchik

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2021 at 8:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

I think you should change your political party, to something you would see as nonsense, just to see how ridiculous that idea is.

I was where you are now,  40 years ago, and I am never going back to a self contradictory view like positivistic dualism.

I don't believe in worlds which cannot be experienced

 

And I was where you are at now, 10 years ago, at least as for as testimony of the church goes as well as confirmation of truth through a "witness of the Holy Ghost."  I likely am never going back to living a life based on feelings that contradict the evidence.  Nor based on the domineering expectation of obedience to alleged apostles and prophets who clearly have no better channel to God and receiving divine guidance than anyone else.  I am am open to trying to understand the ideals of philosophy that honestly at least at this point seem like unintelligible gobbeldy goop that an be used to justify whatever "reality" someone wants to believe in.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Asking for input from members is not the same as being subject to input. Who makes the decisions? The leaders. Based on what? Whatever they think, unless overridden by a leader above them.

They can let others participate in decisions, but they don't have to. They can explain themselves, but they don't have to. Quoting my stake president about him being subject to my input, "That's not how the church works."

And he was correct. I had good reasons, good standing, and it directly affected me, but these are privileges given at leadership discretion, not obligations.

You're right, that's not how the church works.  But being subject to someone else's authority is not the same as that person or organization being authoritarian.  

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

The definition of authoritarian is to "enforce strict obedience to authority."  A person can have authority over someone, and not be authoritarian.  They are two different things.

 

The Church is authoritarian.  If it not it would not kick people out who may disagree with some of the things it teaches. And even more so, you will get the boot as soon as you publicly oppose the top leaders.  The Church teaches obedience is one of the first laws of heaven. That is authoritarian.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't have a problem with that explanation of how the church works.  The same can be said for you and me as parents though, but that doesn't make us authoritarian parents. 

Authoritarian has a very specific definition.  It's not just about having the authority but using it in a specific way.  

In the Church members are in a parent child relationship with the church and the priesthood power, both locally and at the top, are the authority to follow and the members are children and are treated as such.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're right, that's not how the church works.  But being subject to someone else's authority is not the same as that person or organization being authoritarian.  

The church qualifies as authoritarian in many ways. With the prophet as the final authority, where there is no functioning system in place to call him to account, for example. And this is how it works throughout the hierarchy between leaders and members: leaders are not accountable to the members, they only answer to their leaders. The leaders produce the revelation with the prophet producing the revelation for the entire church. Rules and doctrine are issued from the top-down, again with no obligation to be produced with input of the general membership.  Members are expected to follow those rules and--at the discretion of their leaders--are disciplined and even excommunicated when those rules are broken.

"Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people."

"Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom"

"Spiritual Authoritarianism refers to conceptions of spirituality that claim Absolute Truth is known by a cognitive or spiritual elite, who are therefore entitled to direct the spiritual path of the followers."

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The church qualifies as authoritarian in many ways. With the prophet as the final authority, where there is no functioning system in place to call him to account, for example. And this is how it works throughout the hierarchy between leaders and members: leaders are not accountable to the members, they only answer to their leaders. The leaders produce the revelation with the prophet producing the revelation for the entire church. Rules and doctrine are issued from the top-down, again with no obligation to be produced with input of the general membership.  Members are expected to follow those rules and--at the discretion of their leaders--are disciplined and even excommunicated when those rules are broken.

"Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people."

"Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom"

"Spiritual Authoritarianism refers to conceptions of spirituality that claim Absolute Truth is known by a cognitive or spiritual elite, who are therefore entitled to direct the spiritual path of the followers."

 

There are actually policies that are in place to call the prophet to account, but I hear what you are saying. 

Like I've said, this is an issue where reasonable people can and will disagree.  It's largely subjective, and personal biases play a part in interpretation.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In the Church members are in a parent child relationship with the church and the priesthood power, both locally and at the top, are the authority to follow and the members are children and are treated as such.

That could be true but even if it is, it doesn't automatically mean the church is authoritarian.  Not all parent/child relationships are authoritarian in nature.  Every parent has authority over their child, but not every parent embraces authoritarian parenting.  

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The Church is authoritarian.  If it not it would not kick people out who may disagree with some of the things it teaches. And even more so, you will get the boot as soon as you publicly oppose the top leaders.  The Church teaches obedience is one of the first laws of heaven. That is authoritarian.

Not necessarily, but reasonable people can and will disagree.  

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be true but even if it is, it doesn't automatically mean the church is authoritarian.  Not all parent/child relationships are authoritarian in nature.  Every parent has authority over their child, but not every parent embraces authoritarian parenting.  

I just look to the doctrine and the policies.

[MiserereNobis]

23 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Certainly the church is more authoritarian than, say, an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

But do the members of that commune take turns acting as an executive officer for the week, whose decisions are ratified at special bi-weekly meetings (simple majority for internal affairs, two-thirds majority for more major affairs)?