A Contradiction?

[_Runtu]

I respectfully disagree. I would argue instead that an organization functions more effectively when there is room for differing opinions, some loyal dissent, and, critically important, feedback loops from those lower in the org hierarchy.

I am fairly confident, for example, that were the Bretheren to seek feedback from below, listen to it, and incporporate some of it, they could make the experience more enjoyable and meaningful for more people thereby reducing the incredibly high "customer desertion" rate the Church currently experiences.

It is the Bretheren's complete isolation from the concerns, criticisms, experiences, etc. of the masses (and the infernal correlation program) that is doing, and will do the most, to derail its growth ambitions. This is, I believe, a much more potent deterrent to Church growth than anti-Mormon activity.

Put simply, the product sucks (if you disagree, a 70 some odd percent customer desertion rate says otherwise), and the Bretheren have no interest in knowing or understanding why.

Let me clarify. I think "running smoothly" in this case means running the way the Brethren want it to run. I wholeheartedly agree that the top-down, authoritarian nature of the church organization is a huge hindrance to its reaching whatever potential it has.

[_guy sajer]

Let me clarify. I think "running smoothly" in this case means running the way the Brethren want it to run. I wholeheartedly agree that the top-down, authoritarian nature of the church organization is a huge hindrance to its reaching whatever potential it has.

Yup, spot on.

[_ajax18]

Put simply, the product sucks (if you disagree, a 70 some odd percent customer desertion rate says otherwise), and the Bretheren have no interest in knowing or understanding why.

You're saying that just to mask the true reason. You must have just been offended? Who offended you might I ask?

No in all seriousness I think it would be difficult and in a way pointless to have an organization of vastly different beliefs and attitudes toward life. At the same time belief systems are as numerous as there are people. So the way the Brethren deal with this is to limit the doctrine as much as possible to the point where Church has become brutally boring. This way there are fewer things for people to disagree with and fewer things for people to quote back and call you on later.

What's interesting to me was that Joseph Smith seemed to have no interest in mainstreaming the Church's doctrine at all. On the contrary he seemed to go further and further away from the mainstream. Yet I would contend that the Church experienced more significant growth in his time than any other. In my view, Joseph's product was simply better than what they come up with today.

[_guy sajer]

Put simply, the product sucks (if you disagree, a 70 some odd percent customer desertion rate says otherwise), and the Bretheren have no interest in knowing or understanding why.

You're saying that just to mask the true reason. You must have just been offended? Who offended you might I ask?

No in all seriousness I think it would be difficult and in a way pointless to have an organization of vastly different beliefs and attitudes toward life. At the same time belief systems are as numerous as there are people. So the way the Brethren deal with this is to limit the doctrine as much as possible to the point where Church has become brutally boring. This way there are fewer things for people to disagree with and fewer things for people to quote back and call you on later.

What's interesting to me was that Joseph Smith seemed to have no interest in mainstreaming the Church's doctrine at all. On the contrary he seemed to go further and further away from the mainstream. Yet I would contend that the Church experienced more significant growth in his time than any other. In my view, Joseph's product was simply better than what they come up with today.

Doctrinal orthodoxy does not require a rigid, top down, highly correlated organizational structure. (Besides, what really is the orthodox doctrine--we keep debating this point that it's hard to pin it down; although "follow the Bretheren" is a very clear and distinct orthodoxy.) You can have orthodoxy but still have an organization with a vibrant grass roots participation and with feedback loops from the lower to higher levels. Doctrinal orthodoxy does not require either the exportation of Utah, white, middle-class culture to developing countries. The bretheren are too afraid of losing control, but the result is, to paraphrase Princess Leia, "the more they tighten their fist, the more the common folk will slip through their fingers."

[_Yoda]

The bretheren are too afraid of losing control, but the result is, to paraphrase Princess Leia, "the more they tighten their fist, the more the common folk will slip through their fingers."

Yay! Another Star Wars fan! :)

(Sorry for the derailment. Please return to your regularly scheduled thread.)

[_Runtu]

The bretheren are too afraid of losing control, but the result is, to paraphrase Princess Leia, "the more they tighten their fist, the more the common folk will slip through their fingers."

Yay! Another Star Wars fan! :)

(Sorry for the derailment. Please return to your regularly scheduled thread.)

Can't you just hear rcrocket: "You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor! Take her away!"

[_Yoda]

The bretheren are too afraid of losing control, but the result is, to paraphrase Princess Leia, "the more they tighten their fist, the more the common folk will slip through their fingers."

Yay! Another Star Wars fan! :)

(Sorry for the derailment. Please return to your regularly scheduled thread.)

Can't you just hear rcrocket: "You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor! Take her away!"

LOL!

Somehow, I see Bob as Governor Tarkin and Coggins as Darth Vader. ;)

[_harmony]

Doctrinal orthodoxy does not require a rigid, top down, highly correlated organizational structure. (Besides, what really is the orthodox doctrine--we keep debating this point that it's hard to pin it down; although "follow the Bretheren" is a very clear and distinct orthodoxy.) You can have orthodoxy but still have an organization with a vibrant grass roots participation and with feedback loops from the lower to higher levels. Doctrinal orthodoxy does not require either the exportation of Utah, white, middle-class culture to developing countries. The bretheren are too afraid of losing control, but the result is, to paraphrase Princess Leia, "the more they tighten their fist, the more the common folk will slip through their fingers."

Lip service. And immaterial to boot. The Brethren don't want the common folk anyway. They want the members with money, and they want them to open their checkbooks. They only accept the common folks so they can hold them up as trophies for the folks with money (the middle and upper class members in the US) to see, as in "Look! See what good we're doing for these folks in Third World countries who can't take care of themselves! We can help them more, if you'd just give us more money to do it with." It doesn't matter to the Brethren that every time they show the common folk, they have to find new ones, because the old ones have disappeared. It doesn't matter to the members that the amount of money spent on actually helping those Third World members is absolutely hidden from view, since the books aren't open. What matters is that their prestige is maintained, their welfare is guarenteed, their lifestyle is comfortable, and that the money keep flowing in. And it does, no matter how unaccountable they are.

Where's the report on the PEF? How many have been helped? What is the yearly budget? What has happened to the members who were given the funds? What have they done with their lives, after accepting the PEF?

Where the report on the humanitarian aid around the world? What was given? What safeguards are in place to make sure the aid isn't highjacked by corrupt governments? What proof is there that the aid actually got to the intended target?

Where is the report on the Church Welfare System? How many were served? How many were turned away? What productivity is reached by the church farms and ranches? Yield per acre vs cost per acre?

Where is the report on the for-profit businesses owned by the church? What is the profit ratio? Who sits on the boards of directors? Who benefits from contracts awarded, etc.? Is there a conflict of interest that is being withheld from the general membership?

It's not about the common folk. It's about the money; it's always been about the money, from the very beginning, and it will continue to be about the money until doomsday. And the only way to prove that it's not about the money is to open the books.

[_ajax18]

Doctrinal orthodoxy does not require a rigid, top down, highly correlated organizational structure. (Besides, what really is the orthodox doctrine--we keep debating this point that it's hard to pin it down; although "follow the Bretheren" is a very clear and distinct orthodoxy.) You can have orthodoxy but still have an organization with a vibrant grass roots participation and with feedback loops from the lower to higher levels. Doctrinal orthodoxy does not require either the exportation of Utah, white, middle-class culture to developing countries. The bretheren are too afraid of losing control, but the result is, to paraphrase Princess Leia, "the more they tighten their fist, the more the common folk will slip through their fingers."

Are you just saying that the doctrine should just be "follow the brethren." Then the Brethren should just take a poll from the common people and what they like and change the doctrine accordingly? Why? Is public opinion somehow synonymous with revelation now? If that's how they did it, I sure wouldn't want to be a member.

Take polygamy for example. If the Brethren were to come out and stop multiple post mortem sealings and say that polygamy is no longer an eternal principle than I would have more profound evidence than ever that it's really just a club of people bending to popular opinion and not lead by God. To me it should be about the principle and the idea. These things should be independent of who says them. As long as the Brethren stick to their guns on polygamy as an eternal principle that we're just not allowed to practice legally, than I don't have a problem with it. If they start changing the doctrines of the afterlife because the majority of members decide they don't like the idea, than I know they're just making stuff up and not lead by God.

If not bending to society means that only a handful of people believe it or accept it. That's ok. The kingdom can roll forth with one. If they're going to blatantly flip flop than you're going to loose your thinking TBMs. I agree that it seems they're not so concerned with this and for this reason I've lost interest.

In summary I have no problem with the entire indoctrination thing. I'd do as my mission president said and whisper the gospel to my child while he's still in the womb of his mother if it were everything it purported to be. I do have a big problem with their unwillingness to boldly and unapologetically proclaim the doctrine. I have a big problem with their refusal to teach people much about God due their efforts to mainstream the Church.

[_guy sajer]

Are you just saying that the doctrine should just be "follow the brethren." Then the Brethren should just take a poll from the common people and what they like and change the doctrine accordingly? Why? Is public opinion somehow synonymous with revelation now? If that's how they did it, I sure wouldn't want to be a member.

Take polygamy for example. If the Brethren were to come out and stop multiple post mortem sealings and say that polygamy is no longer an eternal principle than I would have more profound evidence than ever that it's really just a club of people bending to popular opinion and not lead by God. To me it should be about the principle and the idea. These things should be independent of who says them. As long as the Brethren stick to their guns on polygamy as an eternal principle that we're just not allowed to practice legally, than I don't have a problem with it. If they start changing the doctrines of the afterlife because the majority of members decide they don't like the idea, than I know they're just making stuff up and not lead by God.

If not bending to society means that only a handful of people believe it or accept it. That's ok. The kingdom can roll forth with one. If they're going to blatantly flip flop than you're going to loose your thinking TBMs. I agree that it seems they're not so concerned with this and for this reason I've lost interest.

In summary I have no problem with the entire indoctrination thing. I'd do as my mission president said and whisper the gospel to my child while he's still in the womb of his mother if it were everything it purported to be. I do have a big problem with their unwillingness to boldly and unapologetically proclaim the doctrine. I have a big problem with their refusal to teach people much about God due their efforts to mainstream the Church.

I'm not suggesting that the Bretheren poll members or that they run the Church as a grassroots democracy. Where the heck did you get that from what I said?

I'm suggesting that there ought to be some kind of formal formal feedback loop system by which the Bretheren at least stay are in tune with what's going on in the trenches so that they can feed this into their decision making. Instead, there is no feedback loop system, and the Bretheren are totally isolated (and more, don't appear to give a rat's ass) about what the thoughts, experiences, perceptions, needs, wants, etc. are of the rank and file. Instead, they continue to shove a bland, mass produced, correlated, white, middle class, 1920-1950, culture and world view down the throats of members, both at home and abroad in foreign cultures.

Is there any wonder, therefore, that the large majority of the rank and file (and particularly in foreign countries) vote with their feet and leave, never to return? At some point, if the Church wants to grow sustainably, the Bretheren will have to start giving a rat's ass about what's happening in the trenches and what the needs, perceptions, desires, aspirations, wants, etc. of its rank and file members are.