SEC Fine and the Meaning of Sustaining our Leaders

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well this has been a pointless tangent. Have a nice weekend.

Just tell me which one's worse, or you've ruined my entire weekend.

[bluebell]

On 3/30/2023 at 12:46 PM, Meadowchik said:

The church narrative teaches that safety is within and danger without. You have to be a more nuanced thinker to question that enough to be critical of the church.

It may not be exactly symmetrical, but my point still stands. 

Because when it boils down to it it seems to be about biases, and both "sides" have them in full measure.  You have to be a more nuanced thinker to question your own biases enough to be critical of them.  Plenty of ex or estranged members of the church who aren't that nuanced (for lots of different reasons) and therefore aren't able to be critical of their views.

 

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

It may not be exactly symmetrical, but my point still stands. 

Because when it boils down to it it seems to be about biases, and both "sides" have them in full measure.  You have to be a more nuanced thinker to question your own biases enough to be critical of them.  Plenty of ex or estranged members of the church who aren't that nuanced (for lots of different reasons) and therefore aren't able to be critical of their views.

 

Of course.

And although I don't feel comfortable making it about sides--this is not a both sides dynamic, it is an ingroup/outgroup dynamic which while having similarities is basically different. Their common denominator is the church which does generally discourage and even at times punish member's criticism of the institution or leaders. 

Thus there is an inability to criticize as a functional part of the member-church relationship which is unhealthy.

And this is the point I appreciate the most about my friend's blog. She is a true reformer, and over the years has consistently made efforts to identify and heal the cracks in the church institution. Her take on criticism here is imo a restorative step to bringing it back to the best of its roots.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thus there is an inability to criticize as a functional part of the member-church relationship which is unhealthy.

To do so is taught by some leaders as being akin to criticizing God (see Elder Pearson thread).  Totally unhealthy dynamic.  Leaders need to know from their followers when they have crossed a line.  That is a critical function of sustaining anyone or anything.  

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course.

And although I don't feel comfortable making it about sides--this is not a both sides dynamic, it is an ingroup/outgroup dynamic which while having similarities is basically different. Their common denominator is the church which does generally discourage and even at times punish member's criticism of the institution or leaders. 

Thus there is an inability to criticize as a functional part of the member-church relationship which is unhealthy.

And this is the point I appreciate the most about my friend's blog. She is a true reformer, and over the years has consistently made efforts to identify and heal the cracks in the church institution. Her take on criticism here is imo a restorative step to bringing it back to the best of its roots.

I guess I don't see the difference between dividing people into 'sides' and dividing them into an 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' dynamic.   When I used the term sides I put it in quotes because it was my shorthanded way to refer to those who were still in the church compared to those who had left (either formally or in belief).  But I can say ingroup and outgroup if you'd rather use that terminology.

Beyond that, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  I think that criticism is sometimes warranted but I do not find divisive, accusatory, and strident criticism as restorative or helpful, and that is how the blog came across to me.  I also don't generally see that as a useful way to reform.  

 

[mrmarklin]

On 3/29/2023 at 7:57 AM, bluebell said:

Did our leaders lie about where tithing and fast offer funds were going?

There are no local funds of any kind in the US. Everything is swept into bank accounts in SLC. This has been true for well over 30 years. 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

There are no local funds of any kind in the US. Everything is swept into bank accounts in SLC. This has been true for well over 30 years. 

Funds as in money. 

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I guess I don't see the difference between dividing people into 'sides' and dividing them into an 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' dynamic.   When I used the term sides I put it in quotes because it was my shorthanded way to refer to those who were still in the church compared to those who had left (either formally or in belief).  But I can say ingroup and outgroup if you'd rather use that terminology.

Beyond that, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  I think that criticism is sometimes warranted but I do not find divisive, accusatory, and strident criticism as restorative or helpful, and that is how the blog came across to me.  I also don't generally see that as a useful way to reform.  

 

The overall, fundamental point however is that the church has no functional method in place for criticism of leadership. Furthermore it actively discourages it and even punishes it. That creates an unhealthy environment for human beings.

[CV75]

On 3/31/2023 at 1:54 PM, Meadowchik said:

Hostile sexism in exmos versus benevolent sexism in the church is both sides of the same coin. 

Also notable that there is a stigma against anger in the church. Anger can arise out of clear critical thinking. Anger is also a stage of the natural grieving process.

Grief tends to come in waves, while the need to preserve belief in a noncritical environment is constant.

I think if we were to find a secular parallel to “the spirit of contention… with anger, one with another,” we would see that such is dysfunctional “stigma” to the smooth operation of any organization. Disputation and divisiveness within on fundamental points (pick your favorite organization) is of course going to be discouraged; acceptable change processes are set in the bylaws. Institutions last a long time because of this.

Transitional emotion, especially a secondary one like anger, is another thing and there are ways to manage that (including “clear critical thinking”) before it gets to that point of undermining someone’s reputation or disruption to the organization, especially when criticism is really attacking.

ETA:

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The overall, fundamental point however is that the church has no functional method in place for criticism of leadership. Furthermore it actively discourages it and even punishes it. That creates an unhealthy environment for human beings.

Just saw this. Councils are the method the Church uses to settle controversies, and they often take a while, which offers ample opportunity for critical thinking, and not anger, to prevail in eh decision-making process. What constitutes healthy and unhealthy criticism of leaders is a very subjective perception, but it can be done without the spirit of contention, attacking, etc.

Edited April 2, 2023 by CV75

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The overall, fundamental point however is that the church has no functional method in place for criticism of leadership. Furthermore it actively discourages it and even punishes it. That creates an unhealthy environment for human beings.

It’s true it has no formal complaint system, though criticism of leadership is still possible without being required to leave the organization (what you refer to as punishment).

Your friend’s blog is proof of that. I can’t tell for certain because it’s difficult to navigate old posts, but it looks like she’s been criticizing leadership for a while, as an active member, without repercussions.

Criticism is allowed—we do it here all the time—public opposition of leaders isn’t. I don’t think organizations need to embrace opposition from their members in order to create a healthy environment for human beings.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think if we were to find a secular parallel to “the spirit of contention… with anger, one with another,” we would see that such is dysfunctional “stigma” to the smooth operation of any organization. Disputation and divisiveness within on fundamental points (pick your favorite organization) is of course going to be discouraged; acceptable change processes are set in the bylaws. Institutions last a long time because of this.

 

This would be a good point if the church did have bylaws whereby members could come forward with concerns regarding the leadership. Then have them openly addressed in a forum where other members are invited to contribute.

But it doesn't.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Transitional emotion, especially a secondary one like anger, is another thing and there are ways to manage that (including “clear critical thinking”) before it gets to that point of undermining someone’s reputation or disruption to the organization, especially when criticism is really attacking.

I'm not advocating contention or attacking. Criticism is not necessarily contentious, although the church culture does seem to frame it as such. The result is that people do not develop the skills necessary to give and receive critical feedback productively.

What a lost opportunity.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

ETA:

Just saw this. Councils are the method the Church uses to settle controversies, and they often take a while, which offers ample opportunity for critical thinking, and not anger, to prevail in eh decision-making process. What constitutes healthy and unhealthy criticism of leaders is a very subjective perception, but it can be done without the spirit of contention, attacking, etc.

How are councils available for any member with concerns? How do they provide access to individual members and collective members to address issues and collaborate on responses as a whole church body?

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This would be a good point if the church did have bylaws whereby members could come forward with concerns regarding the leadership. Then have them openly addressed in a forum where other members are invited to contribute.

But it doesn't.

I'm not advocating contention or attacking. Criticism is not necessarily contentious, although the church culture does seem to frame it as such. The result is that people do not develop the skills necessary to give and receive critical feedback productively.

What a lost opportunity.

How are councils available for any member with concerns? How do they provide access to individual members and collective members to address issues and collaborate on responses as a whole church body?

 

The scriptures (particularly D&C) and Handbook serve as the Church's bylaws. The avenues for members with concerns (which typically not the same as criticism) about leadership have a couple of avenues: one is the stake president, whether as follow-up to the sustaining procedure or as necessary for particular incidentals. Councils can begin between as few as two individuals, and as warranted attention expands, through the various councils (local and general) per the Handbook and the D&C. This is how specific matters can be brought up, discussed and applied for the whole Church. I understand the Handbook is the result of individual issues occurring often enough to warrant a general policy about them.

Whatever one's generalization of Church culture, it is clear to me that some people do not develop the skills necessary to productively participate in the above processes. Criticism (as in the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes) in a council setting has a charitable bent and so tends to be about the or actions of concern and not the persons, though there may be some follow-up moral accountability assigned as a result. Individuals may have negative experiences, but I'd say that is a failure in executing the "bylaws" by fallible people, whether they are the criticizers or the criticized. But on the whole, the organization continues and works for both stability and change.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The scriptures (particularly D&C) and Handbook serve as the Church's bylaws. The avenues for members with concerns (which typically not the same as criticism) about leadership have a couple of avenues: one is the stake president, whether as follow-up to the sustaining procedure or as necessary for particular incidentals. Councils can begin between as few as two individuals, and as warranted attention expands, through the various councils (local and general) per the Handbook and the D&C. This is how specific matters can be brought up, discussed and applied for the whole Church. I understand the Handbook is the result of individual issues occurring often enough to warrant a general policy about them.

Whatever one's generalization of Church culture, it is clear to me that some people do not develop the skills necessary to productively participate in the above processes. Criticism (as in the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes) in a council setting has a charitable bent and so tends to be about the or actions of concern and not the persons, though there may be some follow-up moral accountability assigned as a result. Individuals may have negative experiences, but I'd say that is a failure in executing the "bylaws" by fallible people, whether they are the criticizers or the criticized. But on the whole, the organization continues and works for both stability and change.

If a bishop is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses? 

If a stake president is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses?

Same question for all authorities up the line, including MTC presidents, general authorities, and members of the FP?

And specifically, where in the D&C are individual members given ways to hold leaders (at all levels) accountable?

Functionally, going to the bishop or SP because of problems with leaders is not a result of bylaw but a vague hope that we should go to them with such concerns, rather than as a result of clear expectations for how to address concerns. 

Furthermore, a member has no invitation to seek help from any leaders higher than a stake president. They will usually be instructed to follow the local channels. Any deviation from that is an exception.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

If a bishop is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses? 

If a stake president is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses?

Same question for all authorities up the line, including MTC presidents, general authorities, and members of the FP?

And specifically, where in the D&C are individual members given ways to hold leaders (at all levels) accountable?

Functionally, going to the bishop or SP because of problems with leaders is not a result of bylaw but a vague hope that we should go to them with such concerns, rather than as a result of clear expectations for how to address concerns. 

Furthermore, a member has no invitation to seek help from any leaders higher than a stake president. They will usually be instructed to follow the local channels. Any deviation from that is an exception.

 

See D&C 107 for the order of presiding – each office has a scope and a quorum within which to function and administer the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Church, including the problematic actions of members and presidents under their respective presiding authority, including the President of the Church verses (82-83). Each member can go to their presiding authority, typically a member of their bishopric but also a member of their stake presidency, area presidencies or area seventy. D&C 102 and the Handbook lays this out in more particular detail, and I refer you to peruse that. And yes, there are always exceptions for individual and local circumstances.

Criticism of the “bylaws” and other concerns can be addressed through this process as well as criticizing leadership or anything leadership does. I think the issue is that sometimes people are not satisfied with the results or outcomes. Some may even go so far as attempt other, less functional means of expressing criticism with an eye toward correction.

The “bylaws” exist irrespective if a member’s familiarity with and willingness or ability to follow them. Familiarity is a matter of study or having friends who are familiar with them; lack of willingness and ability can be compensated for or supplemented by competent friends.

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If a bishop is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses? 

If a stake president is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses?

Same question for all authorities up the line, including MTC presidents, general authorities, and members of the FP?

And specifically, where in the D&C are individual members given ways to hold leaders (at all levels) accountable?

Functionally, going to the bishop or SP because of problems with leaders is not a result of bylaw but a vague hope that we should go to them with such concerns, rather than as a result of clear expectations for how to address concerns. 

Furthermore, a member has no invitation to seek help from any leaders higher than a stake president. They will usually be instructed to follow the local channels. Any deviation from that is an exception.

 

Bishops and stake Presidents are regularly sustained. If one votes to not sustain, one will get a meeting with the relevant leader. 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If a bishop is a cause for concern, what are the rules in the D&C for addressing that at which section/verses? 

 

I can’t speak to the relevant D&C verses, but I personally know of a few different families who went to the stake president when they didn’t believe that the bishop was doing when he was supposed to be doing (the families all went to see the stake president over the same issue).  The two times that I know of that this happened the stake president has backed the members.  So essentially, the members got their way.

I realize that that doesn’t always happen, it’s just the experiences that I’ve had over the last five years. 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can’t speak to the relevant D&C verses, but I personally know of a few different families who went to the stake president when they didn’t believe that the bishop was doing when he was supposed to be doing (the families all went to see the stake president over the same issue).  The two times that I know of that this happened the stake president has backed the members.  So essentially, the members got their way.

I realize that that doesn’t always happen, it’s just the experiences that I’ve had over the last five years. 

We had a bishop who was an administrator of sorts by profession. Nothing wrong with that except that his professional mannerisms in leading were sometimes reflected in his ecclesiastical manner in leading. That is not always appropriate. He apparently stepped on a few toes in doing so and several complaints were brought before the stake president. He did not finish the customary five years as bishop but was released early.  That said, he was/is still a faithful and wonderful disciple of Christ and he did do some good things as bishop. Nonetheless, there were a few lessons that he needed learning.

[smac97]

On 4/2/2023 at 7:19 AM, Meadowchik said:

The overall, fundamental point however is that the church has no functional method in place for criticism of leadership.

I'm not sure that's correct.  I generally follow the counsel given by then-Elder Oaks in 1987 in this article, aptly titled "Criticism."

I think what you are looking for is a "method in place for criticism of leadership" in the public sphere, for all to see.  Is that a fair surmise?

On 4/2/2023 at 7:19 AM, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore it actively discourages it and even punishes it.

"It" being open and active (and, typically, adversarial and obnoxious) opposition to the Church and its leaders?  Yes.

But there are ways for members to express concerns, including "criticism of leadership."  See the above link.

On 4/2/2023 at 7:19 AM, Meadowchik said:

That creates an unhealthy environment for human beings.

I think this is too broad.  I think most large organizations have mechanisms in place for the submission of feedback (which would include, I think, "criticism").

For example, I have read quite a bit about errors and mistakes committed by the American Red Cross.  Their website's "Contact Us" section includes a "General Inquiry" option for submitting a "Concern / Complaint" (you need to click on the "Inquiry Type" dropdown menu).  

Utah State University has a "Send a Comment or Suggestion" page.  

The Southern Policy Law Center has "General Inquiry" page.  

"American Atheists" has a "Contact" page. So does the Democratic National Committee website.

Exmormon.org has a "contact" page, but nothing there that could be construed as a "functional method" for "criticism of" Richard Packham (and/or whomever else runs the show there).

Mormon Stories has a "contact" page, but nothing there that could be construed as a "functional method" for "criticism of" John Dehlin or anyone else on the board.

Mormon Discussion has a contact page, but nothing there that could be construed as a "functional method" for "criticism of" Bill Reel.

These are all are pretty generic in terms of communication or feedback.  I am not familiar with any large organization (or, for that matter, small ones) that provides for its members a "functional method" for "criticism of leadership."  Could you provide some examples of this?

I live in Provo.  I know who my bishop and stake president are.  I have their contact information.  The Utah Area Presidency is comprised of Elders Pearson, Schmutz and Martinez.  Then there is the Presidency of the Seventy, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First Presidency.  So I know who pretty much everyone is all the way up. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Utah Area Presidency is comprised of Elders Pearson, Schmutz and Martinez.  Then there is the Presidency of the Seventy, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First Presidency.  So I know who pretty much everyone is all the way up. 

 

Do you have their contact info?