Standing up together to Make a Change within Mormonism.

[_stemelbow]

The reason why the church is so slow to correct its mistakes is because it refuses to listen to outside voices until the PR consequences are dire.

The church has never accepted outside criticism even once in its history. If you doubt that, I invite you to post evidence to the contrary. :)

Are you getting out of having to support your initial claim? You previously had said the church doesn't listen...now you are trying to get me to show you that the church has accepted outside criticism at some point, as if my inability or lack of desire to show that somehow supports your claim. It doesn't. YOu have two different things happening here.

[_Roger Morrison]

Interesting topic.
Standing together in Egypt has just today materialized the vision of those wanting to change their system. United peacefully in purpose and spirit can move mountains. . .
I don't happen to think there are enough who care about LDSism flaws and misrepresentations. While obviously there are dicidents, there are also, probably more, who are happy with their LDS experience.
So, let them be.
Time MIGHT come when the balance will change. THEN, truth will set them free. It's in the book. :-)
Roger M.

[_wenglund]

At its core, you have a few presumptions as well:

1. The leaders of the church are doing the best, or even a good, job of directing the members of their church in a way that maximizes potential happiness in their lives.

That seems a fair and charitable assumption.

I think that it's evident, from the number of complaints from this forum, the NOM forum, etc. that some members feel that this isn't the case.

With most any organization there will invariably be a small contingent of chronic discontents and busy-bodies. That is just the odds of diverse humanity.

2. The leaders of the church can't benefit, even indirectly, from the constructive criticism of members of the church on their policies and performances and use that criticism to do a better job.

My assumption can't be accurately portrayed in such binary/extremist terms. I believe the Church leaders are open to a reasonable level of constructive criticism, though given at appropriate times--particularly in terms of priorities, in the appropriate way and venue (constructively and through the right channels), and by people who are in the best position to offer constructive criticism--typically God.

To use your job analogy, this would be equivalent to an employee feedback (perhaps via survey) of management's performance -- something many successful companies already have in place.

That makes sense when God isn't the chairman of the board. It even makes some sense when he is--which is what council meetings, visiting teaching and home teaching, and personal interviews, and commissioned research are, in part, intended to do.

But, this is worlds apart from what is being proposed here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Those amount to the same thing.

Not to those of us who aren't nuanced-challenged.

It's telling though that you think that the church belongs to the top leadership in the same way as a soulless corporation. I thought the church was the body of the membership, and the leaders are there just to serve US. I guess not.

There is so much misunderstanding in what you briefly said that I don't even know where to begin to unscramble it--assuming I had the energy to take on such a monumental task (which I don't).

But since you at least understand the metaphor of the Church as comparable to the human body, does it make sense for the foot to tell the mind how to think and manage the body? Might it not make more sense for the foot to concern itself with what the foot is designed to do--in other owrds, mind its own business?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keithb]

That makes sense when God isn't the chairman of the board. It even makes some sense when he is--which is what council meetings, visiting teaching and home teaching, and personal interviews, and commissioned research are, in part, intended to do.

But, this is worlds apart from what is being proposed here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think all the starving babies in Africa would agree with you that God is doing a bang up job at the moment.

Maybe it really is time for a management change, both in the church and at the "higher levels".

[_Buffalo]

Not to those of us who aren't nuanced-challenged.

A nuance so subtle that it's invisible. Apologists decide:

What prophetic statements were official
Which were merely opinions of men
What prophetic statements really mean

All without consulting the prophets in questions. And we're supposed to believe that this isn't ark steadying?

There is so much misunderstanding in what you briefly said that I don't even know where to begin to unscramble it--assuming I had the energy to take on such a monumental task (which I don't).

But since you at least understand the metaphor of the Church as comparable to the human body, does it make sense for the foot to tell the mind how to think and manage the body? Might it not make more sense for the foot to concern itself with what the foot is designed to do--in other owrds, mind its own business?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's a terrible way to run a company. Why is it a good way to run a church?

[_wenglund]

I think all the starving babies in Africa would agree with you that God is doing a bang up job at the moment.

Maybe it really is time for a management change, both in the church and at the "higher levels".

If the elimination of hunger were God's goal for mortal life, then you may have a point. It isn't, and so you don't. Instead, what you inadvertently demonstrate is a marked lack of familiarity with God's plan and the intents and purpose of his gospel--which is all the more reason you and others aren't in a position to lecture the Church about how to do its job.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

That's a terrible way to run a company. Why is it a good way to run a church?

Are you suggesting that the foot ought to be telling the head how to think and manage the affairs of the body? if so, then perhaps you are letting your foot do the thinking right now. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Roger Morrison]

I think all the starving babies in Africa would agree with you that God is doing a bang up job at the moment.

Maybe it really is time for a management change, both in the church and at the "higher levels".

If the elimination of hunger were God's goal for mortal life, then you may have a point. It isn't, and so you don't. Instead, what you inadvertently demonstrate is a marked lack of familiarity with God's plan and the intents and purpose of his gospel--which is all the more reason you and others aren't in a position to lecture the Church about how to do its job.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seems we have to differentiate between "God", that according to you, Wade, cares little about the sufferings of humanity, and the Son-of-God, Jesus, who seems to put suffering humanity as man's number one responsibility:: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc. . .

Then again, as the Mormon "gospel" is, in my opinion, little more than vain imaginings, mythology and legend, and a somewhat humanitarian philosophy as promulgated by Jesus, and other enlightened social-religious leaders, fewer people are taking it seriously, for more than a social purpose. Where it does serve its members well.

So I guess it could be said, TBMs are standing together to discourage change, as they ever have. . .
Warm regards,
Roger M.

[_Jason Bourne]

If the elimination of hunger were God's goal for mortal life, then you may have a point. It isn't, and so you don't.

It isn't? Not even one of God's goals? Maybe down the list a bit? And you know it isn't exactly how? Last I recall both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon tell us to bless and feed the poor. Ya might want to rethink this one.

Instead, what you inadvertently demonstrate is a marked lack of familiarity with God's plan and the intents and purpose of his gospel--

Based on this post I think you might be the one who is not too familiar with what God wants us to do and what his plans are.

which is all the more reason you and others aren't in a position to lecture the Church about how to do its job.

Gee whiz Wade, and you are in the position to tell us what God really wants? I thought that was Thomas Monson's job and if I recall he recently added a fourth mission to the former three fold mission. Something about blessing and caring for the poor.

Did ya miss that one?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why do you say thanks to a strident post?