Is it high-PDI to advise people not to complain and criticize (thereby to preserve authority & power) or is it actually low-PDI spiritual advice (thereby to increase personal responsibility, spirituality and participation)? It seems that the high-PDI individuals are the lay members who want to complain about superiors because they expect those in power to call all the shots. (Although I also think there is a mid-level tendency in some regions toward high-PDI types).

It seems to me though, that this low-PDI spiritual advice would actually leave a nice hole/exit strategy. I can be personally responsible and spiritual if I choose without authority figures looming over me with power. So, this advice only seems low-PDI if you accept the possibility that what people mean to say COULD also be, “Stop complaining about the way things are run…if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”

I don’t think most people would think this though. They would intrinsically be trying to preserve authority and power.

And I just use this fellow as a microcosm. I’m fairly outspoken, as is the branch mission leader. And those who are afraid, methinks, are unduly so. They probably have less-opinionated personalities or they might have even agree with the PDI power-structure. I guess we just live in a mid- to low-PDI branch.

In any case, this organist-gadfly has not been unusual to my experience. I’ve seen wards with more of them–my friend at Harvard says every week is filled with women grumbling about not receiving the priesthood. This is in Sunday School class. Says my friend, “Some days, I really just want to hear a nice, old lady stand up and teach us about faith, repentance, baptism, etc…” These examples are enough for me to feel wary of even saying, “On balance…”

Though I’m sure the Jell-O belt has its share of PDI aura…

And at least in our network, the instructor is viewed as a kind of voice in the wilderness, the person who often says what everyone is thinking but is unwilling to say themselves. Quirky perhaps. And certainly one-of-a-kind; not everyone could pull of what he does. But it’s a kind of quirky that many of us admire.

As far as the instructions you noted about white shirts, non-correlated material…well, again, I have taught gospel doctrine lessons where I used material that was nowhere to be found in the manuals. Yet it was edifying, uplifting. I was even going to use a secular movie clip (Wizard of Oz to be sure, but hardly correlation material) with the approval of the Sunday School president. And never once was I corrected by anybody. At one time, I was told not to overwhelm the poor souls (too much of a good thing), but they never told me that the material I was using was itself objectionable. Indeed, they encouraged it in moderation. On the white shirts, I’ll give that one to you, but only in my present branch.

In the end, I have a *really* hard time making a sweeping judgment on this. Some wards are high PDI, others are not. Not much more to it.

I have a very hard time swallowing this “Church stifles intelligence” trope when my experience has been very much the opposite.

Perhaps it’s different in singles wards; I see a greater willingness to grumble about a Branch President’s talk or to disagree with his judgment. I generally don’t agree with their assessment (I’m only getting half a conversation), but I haven’t see creativity suffer at all. As far as ideas go, I have taught classes on occasion where I differ openly with the President. We have a rock musician as our branch mission leader. Our organist has developed a reputation for being utterly disagreeable in most ways with the leadership (he has been known to declare, while teaching Priesthood, how much he hates coming to Church and other statements of defiance). Granted, he has a relationship with the Branch President that allows him to do that.

But that’s just it…once you develop a relationship of trust (sorry for the mission jargon), you can be more honest since they know your fundamental values–assuming, of course, that your fundamental values are in line with the Church’s fundamental values. It’s possible…I’ve seen it, experienced it. I suppose the question is whether or not one is willing to be charitable and loving in their dissent. Most dissenters I’ve seen have gone out of their way to be anything but.

I think I’m probably high PDI. The Church always lists obedience as such a primary objective for this mortal gig. Also, I keep thinking of Edward G. Robinson in “The Ten Commandments” saying “Nyah! Where’s your messiah now, huh? Nyah!” right before God comes down and swats them.

Also (and I apologize for the pickiness), it’s “credence,” not “creedence.” Unless, of course, you were talking about John Fogerty’s band.

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.
(Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135.)

Is it wrong to question leaders? No.

Amen. Also, knowing it would have been sent to the SP anyway makes going to the SP and asking for it to be sent up the chain the smart thing to do. You could have bucked the system and sent it straight to the 70, but that would have risked alienating someone – so why do it?

In sales, there is an adage, “The correct use of power is key.” This is a great example of the correct use of power.

This experience showed me that, thankfully, these Church leaders were receptive to someone telling them they were flying a plane into a mountainside. It strengthened my conviction in knowing that remaining silent when you see a problem is not love, and it is not loyalty. Sometimes love and loyalty compel us to warn that we are flying into a mountainside. Of course, the key is to do so in a manner that maximizes the likelihood that someone will want to listen to us and act on our warnings.

I mean, you can see hard power creep into even in so-called liberal or secular ideologies.

That seems to be the way of things in any case. Even if something begins soft…or is converted from within through soft power, hard power overcomes and wins out.

The members with high PDI focus on the things that reduce their responsibility and place the onus on those above them: priesthood authority, prophetic mantle, and obedience. Members with low PDI will focus more on personal spiritual growth, personal revelation, service (leaders as servants), and personal relationship with God. I think we’re hearing from both factions pretty consistently.

Actually, from this very association (of what high PDI members would tend to focus on vs. what low PDI members would focus on), that would lead me to think that the high PDI faction “wins” out. So let’s say both are represented in consistent number (or let’s imagine that there are even more low PDI members?) The nature of the church organization (or perhaps, most organizations), would select for more high-PDI individuals, I would imagine. When things are peaceful, it might seem as if things are more balanced, but when things are pushed to the limit, I think it’s clearer that the church “defaults” on high PDI focuses. It’s easier to say in the church that members need to be “obedient” (or else they are prideful) than to say that members need to have a more personal relationship with God and heed personal revelation (or else they are…I don’t quite know an equivalent term that is commonly used)…the former seems like kosher church advice. The latter seems like the slippery slope out the door.