If you follow Mormon news at all, you probably saw that the Church has reversed course on renovating the Manti temple. The murals inside it will now be preserved rather than either being removed entirely or removed and preserved elsewhere. This was great news for all the many people who raised their voices in opposition when the Church’s plans to remove the murals as part of the renovation came to light a couple of months ago.
I honestly didn’t have strong feelings on the issue. I was disappointed in what seemed like yet another step in turning the Church away from any concern with wonder and toward making it like the most efficient possible business. Of course, that’s a long-running trend, since at least post-World War II I’m guessing, and this is only the latest step. Mostly, my concern was that many of my friends were appalled by this move, so I was concerned on their behalf.
But now the Q15 have changed their minds, which I think is great! What I still find irritating, though, is their refusal to acknowledge that response from members had anything to do with it. President Nelson didn’t say member input didn’t matter, but he carefully didn’t mention it:
As we have continued to seek the direction of the Lord on this matter, we have been impressed to modify our earlier plans for the Manti Utah Temple so that the pioneer craftsmanship, artwork and character will be preserved, including the painted murals loved by so many.
Elder Rasband, though, interviewed after the announcement, wanted to make clear which direction the important input came from. From Peggy Fletcher Stack’s article:
In an interview, Rasband called the move a divine “revelation” and said that protests, petitions and phone calls — even a march in downtown Provo — opposing the art removal played no role in the decision to retain them.
The reversal was prompted, he said, “by the prayers of the people in this part of Utah.”
So maybe rank-and-file members had an effect, but only by complaining to God, who then notified President Nelson.
I’m not sure whether to laugh or scream over this urgent need that GAs feel to preserve the idea that they never take feedback from members. They are determined that they always represent the authorities above them (including God) to the members, and never the members to the higher authorities.
It makes me want to laugh because it is so hilariously obviously false. Even setting aside the Church openly running pilot tests of new programs and periodically surveying members about various issues, there are many examples of changes made in response to member complaints. In response to Ordain Women, for example, the Church started broadcasting the priesthood session of General Conference just like all the other sessions. Although of course in that case too, the announcement carefully ignored the reason for the change, and said that it was
part of a continued effort to make general conference proceedings more accessible to members around the globe.
It’s especially funny when they try so aggressively to squash any idea of the possibility of member feedback counting for anything, even as they are in the process of showing that it can!
It makes me want to scream because there is ongoing harm the Church is causing that may be able to be fixed with a little listening to member feedback. Many changes wouldn’t even require the complexity of changing doctrine, but only modifying policy. Sometimes they wouldn’t even require that, but just some changes in rhetoric. For a policy example, I was intrigued by Mindy Farmer’s recent post at the Exponent where she suggested having paid childcare for Church services and activities. It could improve the care of children, reduce the risk that they’ll be abused, and make participation in services and activities easier for many members, especially women. For a rhetoric example, the Q15 could easily dial back their anti-LGBT rhetoric without changing any doctrine or even policy. They might even speak approvingly of gay marriage, realizing that many people want to be married, and gay people are likely to be happier in gay marriages than straight ones. They could do all this even while maintaining their current doctrinal line that gay relationships won’t continue in the next life.
Setting aside particular examples, when it comes to feedback from rank-and-file members to the top of the Church hierarchy, I’m not expecting that any one suggestion or set of suggestions would be taken. I’m not expecting that a Q15 member will call me up to discuss my suggestions for the Church at length. All I’m wishing for is that there be a formal mechanism for feedback to the Q15, and perhaps even more importantly, an admission by them that they are open to listening to member feedback. I realize, though, that this would require a real cultural shift among the GAs, away from the idea of projecting infallibility, and toward the acceptance of the reality that in most ways, the Church is just like any other large organization, and could stand to have its top leadership hear from its rank-and-file.
I don’t have to go to these anymore, but every time a GA or AA came to a stake conference and did a training session, he went away with a long wishlist or idea list. There was a 10-year period where I sat through at least training session or Saturday night adult session with a whiteboard and an open Q&A.
How many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants resulted from someone asking Joseph to inquire of the Lord?
That’s great, queuno. So all I’m saying is that this should be expanded to the general membership. I’m guessing the meetings you went to were male-dominated and included only people in leadership. And, of course, the idea that information ever flows upward from the bottom isn’t commonly acknowledged among the GAs.
Right, Left Field. So I’m not sure if you’re supporting my argument in suggesting that the Q15 could continue to follow this pattern, and just let some of the questions originate from other people, or smacking me down and saying that members should follow this pattern directly and then count on God to notify the Q15 of our concerns.
I thought I was clear. People directly asked Joseph, and he responded by asking the Lord and the Lord gave a revelation. Not that they just prayed for God to contact Joseph, though I guess that might have happened too.
Some people including apparently Elder Rasband have the idea that maybe it can’t be a revelation if the prophet’s inquiry was a response to input from someone else. But we got a bunch of the Doctrine and Covenants because people asked Joseph to bring their concerns to the Lord.
Thanks for clarifying, Left Field.
I was annoyed that the LDS Living article about this framed it as such a divine process without the human feedback contributed, and commented on their FB post: “I’m thrilled about this news, but the article could mention that the continuing revelation was impacted/motivated by all of the letters, petitions, marches, blog posts, interviews, and concern exhibited by thousands of members about this situation. I doubt that I was the only one to suggest the Ephraim temple solution in letters sent to church leadership on this issue.” What really gets me is that the whole problem was caused by the leadership decision in the first place! They caused this problem (announcing the renovation/destruction of the temple), and now have announced a revelation to solve their mistake. Optics.
Great point, acw!
Excellent post!
As a thought experiment, let’s take Elder Rasband and President Nelson’s advice and assume that there really is a metaphysical connection in place for the church to receive any needs/problems from the bottom up. Bear with me. Don’t leave just yet. Let’s say that some saints and leaders have begun (or continue?) communicating on this level because all parties are present in the “room”, God, members, and administrative servants. So, while it seems preposterous, I am pausing to give it some thought, because I believe in prayer- I feel a connection with the divine, and experience it making a difference in my heart and life. And, I’ve observed an interpersonal “spirit to spirit” connection that occurs when people clearly and expansively understand one another’s hearts without any words. I empathize with people who lament the clumsiness of language as compared to other platforms when conveying the emotions of the heart. So, perhaps there is a metaphysical level that can be used to communicate. And perhaps at this vibration where the possibility of brilliant, unfathomable communication is possible, the kind that sparks the most enlightened, most beneficial solutions. Maybe in this dimension, the impossibility of extracting meaning from 17 million different voices (current church size) at once is possible, just as Mozart explained that a room of 8 people talking and saying different things was cacophony, but set to music and sung together- he could make each distinct voice understandable (Marriage if Figaro). Can we dream of possibilities beyond our current understanding? I’m completely hopeless, but I can.
But, in all that dreaming, I can’t see how the contention and dismissiveness displayed by the top could coexist in that world.
And, as someone with a broken heart over the destruction of my ancestor’s hand-wrought testimonies, my letters quickly flew to 50 E North Temple and my prayers were intense. I am left dazed hearing Elder Rasband say that only the prayers of saints in Utah were heard. If there is such a thing as a heavenly wavelength, I’m sure that it would have registered voices outside Utah state lines.
All of this is just a thought experiment. I hang my head in agreement with your conclusions. They caused the problem, they destroyed art in SL and were met with a heckuvalotta upset saints in time to save Manti. They backed off, but never admitted error, never apologized, never thanked us for our input. They probably just want to shut our pesky voices up. I wanted Mozart’s model, the one where all voices in Zion were singing together. I think they only want to sing solos.
Great thought experiment, Mortimer. And I’m so happy for you that at least Manti was preserved even though Salt Lake wasn’t!
After nearly 40 years of carefully observing LDS leaders in action, I have to admit that there are privileged voices which are heard, and there are many voices which remain unheard in this Church. I thank heaven that somehow the voice of the preservationists was heard in this instance. But I cannot even remotely suggest that this is the rule. It takes a great deal of confidence to allow others to speak. I wish such confidence was displayed more often by LDS leadership.
Whether Mortimer’s thought experiment represents reality or not, if pretending that it represents reality is what it takes to get the Church leaders to do the right thing, I can live with that. Why not give God the credit for listening?
Old Man, that’s a great point. There are clearly some people who get heard. If nothing else, there are GAs giving talks here and there in Conference where they respond to a letter they’ve received (although my sense is typically that they write the talk first, and then look for a letter to support it).
Last lemming, I think I see your point that a good outcome counts for a lot. I just hope for a more ongoing system or pattern of the GAs openly listening to member feedback so every time doesn’t have to be like the first time they’ve ever considered it.
Whatever it was that got the job done, can we do it again to save the live sessions?
I have a story that reflects this same pattern in a different context.
My husband ignored me. I tried to pick my battles, because it was so demoralizing to try and get him to respond to something that was important to me. Gradually, I would escalate. At some point, tormented by the silent treatment he regularly doled out, I would have a freakout. It was emotionally draining, and when my freakout ran its course, I would sort of be in a daze for a while and feel flat and hopeless. Then, he’d (sometimes) do what I asked him to do. He never acknowledged that I had said anything. He never said sorry for ignoring me to the point of emotional abuse. He never talked to me about his changed behavior. It was one of the patterns that destroyed our relationship. I couldn’t trust him to talk to me, respect me, or work anything out. I just beat my head against the brick wall of the silent treatment, and sometimes he would deign to do something, but I never knew when or what, and of course I could never hold him accountable when his changed behavior faded away. Even though he was now doing something I’d asked him to do, I felt punished for even asking.
I see the same pattern with the Brethren. They ignore respectful requests and ordinary feedback. Basically, they give people the silent treatment on important topics. Then, the people freakout. At that point (sometimes), the Brethren then change their behavior, all while withholding any validation or genuine communication. That pattern destroys trust and respect.
I divorced my husband. I couldn’t take it anymore. He wouldn’t communicate with me.
All of which is to say that I agree with the idea in your post that people are going to feel frustrated when the Brethren refuse to acknowledge feedback.
—–
And good grief – the idea that people can’t sit in a room with Telestial Kingdom murals (or whichever) on the walls and watch a movie that goes through the whole scenario is ridiculous. “We can’t expect people to watch scenes about about the Garden or the Terrestrial Kingdom if the wrong mural is on the wall” is a bit weird. I don’t understand why they feel the need to remove the murals at all.
Wow, Melinda, I’m sorry. That sounds like an awful experience with your ex-husband. An awful ongoing experience. The comparison really is striking with the GAs!
Great post. These points are also related to the general concern of “overclaiming” that Elder Ballard has warned about. In refreshing on this issue I just came across a segment from Anthony Sweat (“A Culture of Overclaiming Doctrine”) where he suggests that the authoritative tones of Elder J. Fielding Smith and Elder McConkie created this culture and continuing need for decisions and policies to be held out as revelatory and doctrinal. It seems like Elder Rasband follows that approach to some degree, at least in this case. The summary of the same meeting in the Deseret News seems to emphasize Elder Rasband’s approach even more. If you say it is revelatory, it eliminates any other need to persuade or provide analysis.
And perhaps Elder Rasband genuinely feels that way—that comments from Church members had nothing to do with the decision. As Ziff has noted, who knows if President Nelson, who Elder Rasband says received the inspiration, actually feels the same way.
That’s a great connection, Dub. The GAs’ statements are clearly related to the trend of everything being called revelation now.
This is a sore spot for me. It feels like the church is structured for one-way communication only, and it is apparent from time to time when leaders say things that sound out of touch. Even weirder, members are told not to write letters to general authorities, yet general authorities routinely quote from letters they receive in general conference talks. So, are we allowed to write or not? I hear frequently of people who have insider connections to general authorities and are able to relay concerns to them, but that creates a system where a privileged few are allowed to speak about their concerns to those with power to do something about it, and the rest of us are basically just invited to talk to our local leaders, and that sort of feedback can’t be reliably expected to get passed on up the chain. Even if it is, it can be a bit of a game of “telephone”.
As far as easy changes go, at the top of my list is a formal apology for the racial priesthood ban. Aside from the fact that it’s just the right thing to do, it communicates a very important message. Right now prophetic fallibility is only theoretical. They admit that it is possible for them to make mistakes, but haven’t (as far as I know) ever admitted to any specific thing as being a mistake. Admitting to a specific mistake and apologizing I think would have important long-term cultural implications for how people think about the fallibility of leaders. It is well-known that a certain first presidency member has publicly said the church doesn’t apologize, so I don’t expect this to happen while he’s alive, but maybe the future President Holland or Uchtdorf might consider taking my suggestion here. Maybe they are secretly getting feedback from members by reading fringe Mormon blogs and the comments sections, who knows?
Amen, Quentin. I also find it infuriating that there’s this kinda sorta semi-open way that a privileged few can get the ear of a GA, but for most of us, it’s just never going to happen. And I so agree on the fallibility issue. The current Church leaders can never have a particular mistake pointed out while they’re still in their positions. Fallibility is strictly an apologetic technique to make the past misdeeds of Church leaders okay.