Several years ago I heard former Secretary of Defense William Cohen lament the sad state of affairs in American politics where, as he put it, “the Democrat and Republican parties seem to have stopped being loving critics of one another. Instead, we seem only to find uncritical lovers of their own party, and unloving critics of the opposing party.” I’m sure many of us sometimes wonder whether we are witnessing a similar polarizing trend in online discussions about the Church, and possibly even see ourselves as being part of the problem but are unsure of what to do about it.
Before he became Elder Hafen, Bruce C. Hafen was President of Ricks College, and while serving in that capacity in 1979, he gave perhaps the best speech I have ever found regarding the need to be loving critics within the Church.
I’ve excerpted below what I think are the most poignant passages of that speech, followed by a few questions of my own. I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts about Hafen’s remarks in the comment section below. So without further ado, here are Hafen’s excerpted remarks:
Early in life, most of us think of things in terms of black or white—there is very little gray in either the intellectual or the spiritual dimension of our perspective. . . . As time goes on, however, experiences often accumulate that introduce a new dimension to a student’s perspective. In general, I would characterize this new dimension as a growing awareness that there is a kind of gap between the real and ideal, between what is and what ought to be. . . .When we sense that some things about ourselves or the circumstances we witness are not all we wish they were, we become aware of the distance between these two boundaries. At that point some frustrations can arise. . . .
There may be the beginnings of skepticism, of criticism, and unwillingness to respond to authority or to invitations to reach for ideals that seem beyond our grasp. . . .Given, then, the existence of a gap for most of us between where we stand and where we would like to be, and given that we will have at least some experiences that make us wonder, what are we to do? I think there are three different levels of dealing with ambiguity.
At level one . . . we simply do not—perhaps cannot—even see the problems that exist. Some seem almost consciously to filter out any perception of a gap between the real and the ideal. Those in this category are they for whom the gospel at its best is a firm handshake, an enthusiastic greeting, and a smiley button. Their mission was the best, their student ward is the best, and every new day is probably going to be the best day they ever had. These cheerful ones are happy, spontaneous, optimistic, and they always manage to hang loose. They are able to weather many storms that would seem formidable to more pessimistic types, though one wonders if the reason is often that they have somehow missed hearing that a storm was going on. . . .
I invite you then to step up to level two, where you see things for what they are, for only then can you deal with them in a meaningful and constructive way. . . . If we are not willing to grapple with the frustration that comes from facing bravely the uncertainties we encounter, we may never develop the kind of spiritual maturity that is necessary for our ultimate preparations. . . .We must develop sufficient independence of judgment and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction as they come to us.
Despite the value of a level-two awareness, however, there are some serious hazards at this level. One’s acceptance of the clouds of uncertainty may be so complete that the iron rod fades into the receding mist and skepticism becomes a guiding philosophy. . . . As a teacher in the BYU Law School, I noticed how common it was among first-year law students to experience great frustration as they discovered how much our legal system is characterized not by hard, fast rules, but by legal principles that often appear to contradict each other. However, by the time our law students reached their third year of study, it was not at all uncommon for them to develop such a high tolerance for ambiguity that they were skeptical about everything, including some dimensions of their religious faith. Where formerly they felt they had all the answers, but just did not know what the questions were, they now seemed to have all the questions but few of the answers.
I found myself wanting to tell our third-year law students that those who take too much delight in their finely honed tools of skepticism and dispassionate analysis will limit their effectiveness, in the church and elsewhere, because they can become contentious, standoffish, arrogant, and unwilling to commit themselves. I have seen some of these try out their new intellectual tools in some context like a priesthood quorum or a Sunday School class. A well-meaning teacher will make a point they think is a little silly, and they will feel an irresistible urge to leap to their feet and pop the teacher’s bubble. If they are successful, they begin looking for other opportunities to point out the exception to any rule anybody can state. They begin to delight in cross-examination of the unsuspecting, just looking for somebody’s bubble up there floating around so that they can pop it with their shiny new pin of skepticism. And in all that, they fail to realize that when some of those bubbles pop, out goes the air, and with it goes much of the feeling of trust, loyalty, harmony, and sincerity so essential to preserving the Spirit of the Lord. . . .
I am not suggesting that we should always just smile and nod our approval, implying that everything is wonderful and that our highest hope is that everybody have a nice day. That is level one. I am suggesting that you realize the potential for evil as well as good that may come with what a college education can do to your mind and your way of dealing with other people.
It seems to me that the most productive response to ambiguity is at level three, where we not only view things with our eyes wide open, but with our hearts wide open as well. . . .
The English writer G. K. Chesterton once addressed questions similar to those I have raised today. He distinguished among “optimists,” “pessimists,” and “improvers,” which roughly correspond to my three levels of dealing with ambiguity. He concluded that both the optimists and the pessimists looked too much at only one side of things. He observed that neither the extreme optimist nor the extreme pessimist would ever be of much help in improving the human condition, because people can’t solve problems unless they are willing to acknowledge that a problem exists and yet also retain enough genuine loyalty to do something about it. More specifically, Chesterton wrote that the evil of the excessive optimist (level one) is that he will “defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, ‘My cosmos, right or wrong.’ He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing everyone with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world.”
On the other hand, the evil of the pessimist (level two), wrote Chesterton, is “not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises.” In being the so-called “candid friend,” the pessimist is not really candid. Chesterton continued: “He is keeping something back—his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. … ” (Gilbert K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Garden City, N.Y.: Image Book, 1959, pp. 69–70).
In going on to describe the “improvers,” or level three, Chesterton illustrates by referring to women, who tend to be so loyal to those who need them. “Some stupid people started the idea that because women obviously back up their own people through everything, therefore women are blind and do not see anything. They can hardly have known any women. The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin … are almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of his excuses or the thickness of his head. … Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.” (Chesterton, Orthodoxy, p. 71.) . . . .
All I ask, then, is that we may be honest enough and courageous enough to face whatever uncertainties we may encounter, try to understand them, and then do something about them. Perhaps then we will not be living on borrowed light. “Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.” In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Overall, I think Hafen did a good job outlining the problems associated with being an optimist who can see no flaws in what he loves, and a pessimist who sees so many flaws in what he used to love that he’s lost his ability to love it still. As he says, both are incapable of effectuating any real improvement. Applying this to Mormonism, I think these two extremes could be represented by the uber-apologist-TBM-types whose mind-bending mental gymnastics can twist their way out of acknowledging any fault in the Church, and the DAMU folks whose disaffection has boiled over to a point where they can’t seem to see anything in the Church worth loving anymore.
But even after reading Hafen’s speech a few times now, I’m still not quite sure exactly how those who want to be “improvers” in the Church — who are keenly aware of the Church’s shortcomings but love the Church enough to want to improve it — can and should go about doing something about it. He does a good job of identifying what we shouldn’t do, but I feel at a loss to understand exactly what he thinks we can and should be doing to be “improvers” in the Church. And I find myself asking the following questions:
1. Do we have a Church culture that recognizes a need for “improvers” by welcoming and valuing candid but loving feedback? Or do Church leaders tend to encourage the “optimist” sentiment that shuns and avoids any attempt to candidly acknowledge any shortcomings?
2. Are there restrictions on who is allowed to be an “improver” in the Church? For example, is it acceptable for a rank-and-file member to attempt to be an “improver,” or do Church leaders see that “improver” role as being restricted to themselves alone?
3. Have Church leaders provided clear, consistent guidance about how regular members can and should go about being “improvers”? For example, have Church leaders established clearly-defined communication channels that would-be “improvers” can use to provide candid but loving feedback to Church leaders?
4. Who are the “improvers” in the Church, past and present, how have they been received, and how effective have they been in helping improve the Church?
5. If we do not have a Church culture that welcomes and values “improvers,” will that cause those who’d like to be “improvers” to gravitate toward the “pessimist” camp?
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
(Thanks to Nitsav and my brother Brent for bringing this speech to my attention.)
I think it depends on what you want to “improve” within the church. If you think improving the church is to give women the priesthood, I highly doubt the church would agree with you. I think improvement within the church is finding ways to get people to be more Christ-like. I believe the church thinks they’ve got it figured out and if only the rest of the membership were to act more Christ-like, they would eventually come around to the position taken by the Brethren. It’s not necessarily an arrogant position, because if it is right, then it is right. Certainly I don’t see the Brethren acting arrogantly (politicians act arrogantly—like Larry Craig saying to the police officer who arrested him at the infamous bathroom stall in Minneapolis “Don’t you know who I am?”). The Apostles and other General Authority certainly are set in their ways, and they hope you will eventually come around to see their position is correct. Generally I don’t like this position because it feels inflexible. However, seeing how the Brethren reacted when instructed by the Lord to remove the priesthood ban, it seems they are flexible enough when it matters.
1. No. At least, not in my experience.
2. The rank and file are not recognized. The collective belief seems to be that if God want’s your ideas on improvement, someone will be inspired to call you to a position of influence. If that hasn’t happened, then you need to keep it to yourself.
3. No. At least, not in my experience.
4. I’m not sure if you are asking for specific names or generalities. I see improvers coming from a number of scenarios. First you have the ex-leader. Someone who has been in an previous leadership position and through experience, can see the need for improvement. You then have the “that’s not the way we did it back in…” where they have seen improvement in some other area (ward, mission, etc…) and their current unit does something different. You also have the newly called who may be reading the handbook or reading a talk for the first time and their eyes are opened to possibilities.
5. Yes.
Andrew, thanks for an amazing post. It was exactly what I needed this morning. I certainly don’t agree with every position taken by my church. Nevertheless, I love my church. Its like my huge, international disfunctional family. I am a mormon, for better or worse, and I don’t want to be anything else.
The pre-1978 priesthood ban is a good example. An improver could, as Lester Bush, research the origins and antecedents of the issue to help a determination as to whether the issue is a doctrine or a practice. An improver could avoid perpetuating “folk” doctrine and uninspired justifications for the practice. An improver could set his life in order, and help others to do the same, so as to accept a revelation when it comes.
Extrapolating to the women and the priesthood issue, an improver could become aware of, and help the rest of us to become aware of, the history of women in this dispensation and previous ones. For example, what was the authority of Huldah (2 Kings 22), and what can we learn from her? An improver could avoid perpetuating folk doctrines, such as that women are more righteous, spiritual, etc. than men, so only men need the priesthood. An improver could treat women – perhaps especially his ward’s RS president – with courtesy and respect, so as to accept her leadership when the time comes.
Dan #1, what if you want to improve women’s value and autonomy in the Church? You don’t necessarily desire the male dominated, hierarchical priesthood, but you’d like to improve things like women having control over writing their own lesson materials, equal spending on boys and girls programs, women being part of decision-making, etc. But you find that any efforts in these directions are met with the same opposition as giving them the priesthood!
Yes, Andrew, I see what you describe in your point 5 — that “improvers” DO tend to gravitate toward the pessimist camp, because it seems impossible to ever make a difference, no matter how committed you are, or how Christ-like. In fact, the more committed and Christ-like you are, the LESS you are listened to.
Thank you for the post, this is a talk I have absolutely loved since hearing it in 1979.
As far as being an improver, the best ways I have found:
1) Teach my children what I believe.
When given the chance to make decisions, decide in favor of things that invite positive change.
2) Share my feelings with those around me.
3) Treat everyone in my ward with kindness and respect.
4) Speak my mind in GD class and from the pulpit when opportunity arises.
5) Respectfully decline all requests to participte in activities I consider to be divisive or cruel.
6) “Be” the change I want to see in my church.
7) Acknowledge the valid complaints of those who have become disaffected or have left the church.
9) Remind myself everyday of the many wonderful aspects of our church.
10)Focus on Jesus, his life and how I can be more like Him.
Ha! My number 8 became a smiley. Serendipity baby!
Nice post, Andrew. I actually came across this talk by Elder Hafen as a missionary, in an old stack of Ensigns. The paragraph about not popping other people’s faith bubbles has always stayed with me.
No, I don’t think the Church necessarily values “improvers,” but that’s because a lot of people who would lump themselves under that banner are just mouthing off. Those who focus on improving their own wards and stakes through dedicated service are of course highly valued. Blogs and the Internet give rank-and-file members the opportunity to broadcast to the world, which is an opportunity to be an online improver. But it’s also an opportunity to just mouth off online. Trying to figure out which way a blog or a poster leans (toward improving or mouthing off) is not as easy as it looks. Sometimes it changes from day to day, doesn’t it?
Excellent Post as usual, Andrew. i will study that talk this weekend between sessions.
I really like pinkpatient’s list in #6. Most people will listen to suggestions when someone is “walking the walk and talking the talk.”
Paul, #4, “An improver could treat women – perhaps especially his ward’s RS president – with courtesy and respect, so as to accept her leadership when the time comes.”
I would change the “his” to “her” As a husband of an RSP, I think the some of the sisters could do a better job of recognizing the leadership of the RS in their own ward and support them. I see it as less of a problem with the male ward leadership.
AA, excellent post. What a phenomenal reminder of what I try to be!
pinkpatent, your suggestions are top notch!
I want to throw out some more thoughts. I think the “improver” needs to be divided up a little more into something like “pessimistic improvers” and “optimistic improvers.” For many people the “improver” will be one category, and E Hafen’s comments work just fine, but those who are familiar with the “improver” might see the nuance.
I’ll try to explain. I went through a disaffection process where I nearly left the church. I then reconciled and decided to stay. I wouldn’t really classify myself as a believer (well, depending on the day), although I stay for more than cultural reasons. I find value in the teachings of the church (mostly metaphorical) although I don’t necessarily believe all the “truth claims” and claims of authority. On the other hand is someone who does believe the truth claims and authority claims but recognizes the need for improvement. Both could be considered “improvers” but there are subtle differences.
I would probably classify myself as a “pessimistic improver” (that is, I come at it from the skeptical side of a disbeliever) and the other would be the “optimistic improver” (comes at it from the believer side). As I said, it might be that generally most people can’t tell the difference. Indeed, in my own situation the people in my ward have no idea I am skeptical, although they certainly don’t see me as the “optimist” we’re talking about here. However, for those who know me, they never seem to view me as the “improver” but as the “pessimist.” It seems that no matter how hard I try they are suspicious of my motives and discount my suggestions. Somehow the suggestions, because they come from me, are less valid or less good.
BiV,
#5,
It is my belief that a generation of the church has to die out before such a change can occur. It is my belief that the Harold B. Lee’s of the church had to die out before blacks could receive the priesthood. I believe certain people are simply incapable of seeing the world even slightly differently than they are used to. The church, at every level, works in unison, so if not everyone agrees, change rarely occurs. I believe that maybe our children’s generation will finally see men and women in the church who think female input in lesson manuals, etc are important will finally represent the vast majority of members in the church. If I were the prophet and was writing up a new manual for the Relief Society, I certainly would want the opinion and wise counsel of the women running the Relief Society. That just simply makes sense to me. In fact, I would probably let them write it up and be there to just check and make sure everything was doctrinally sound. Men have a tough enough time trying to understand women. I definitely think it is time for men to stop trying to think for women.
Is there any way that certain people would be blocked from posting comments to this or other threads?
1. I think it depends on the setting. GC, or other Church meetings, we see optimist. But in my experience, leadership meetings are candid and open. Not that I have ever done this with the 12.
2. I believe anyone can be, but it does depend on whether the leader sees it as their role alone. If the leader believes that then so much for everyone else. I do not believe it is supposed to be that way, which is why we are asked to ahve so many meetings, forcing us to discuss with others our ideas.
3. No.
4. I think there are lots. Many of whom I am sure I do not know. I think every change is made out of the improver perspective especially at the general level.
5. If they did they were not really improvers. Improvers it would seem would want to improve their place in the organisation.
The problem with the improver is that the definition is so ambiguous. Julie B. Beck is an improver, as she changed some things in RS this last weekend. I would think that whenever a general level change is made it is because there are people who see a change but love the organisation and want to improve it. I can’t understand the people who have said the Church does not value improvers, of course it does, it gives them more prominent callings. Just towing the line will not lead to being called ot higher positions. That is exactly why they have a performance tracker, because they want to see those who are most effective at implement positive change. What some people do not like are the changes, or they are not the changes that they might not want to see. That is leaning toward the pessimism end of the spectrum. Moreover, I bet if you asked everyone what they were, they would say improver.
Yet I really liked the post and thought that the idea of loving someone or something coupled with an honest appraisal is something of real value, but a lot more complex than has been described in this address.
1. Do we have a Church culture that recognizes a need for “improvers” by welcoming and valuing candid but loving feedback? Or do Church leaders tend to encourage the “optimist” sentiment that shuns and avoids any attempt to candidly acknowledge any shortcomings?
I think the answer to this question depends on what level of improvement we are talking about, as well as at what level the individual at hand is in. I am going to assume we mean your rank-and-file Mormon. Such a member of the church can improve aspects on their individual ward life by “magnifying” their calling, treating others the way they would like to be treated, etc. However, if we are talking about improvement at the large scale – for example, many of the “big” changes folks have alluded to here, such as blacks/women in the priesthood, etc. – dissent is often treated by the culture as apostacy and, therefore, to be despised and feared. We do not have a culture ammenable to dissent, in other words.
2. Are there restrictions on who is allowed to be an “improver” in the Church? For example, is it acceptable for a rank-and-file member to attempt to be an “improver,” or do Church leaders see that “improver” role as being restricted to themselves alone?
See answer to 1. Basically, for small changes, I think they will generally leave you alone. For big ones, change can only come from top-down.
3. Have Church leaders provided clear, consistent guidance about how regular members can and should go about being “improvers”? For example, have Church leaders established clearly-defined communication channels that would-be “improvers” can use to provide candid but loving feedback to Church leaders?
No. A simple reading of the situations surrounding the September Six would indicate that there is both no path nor means for dissent within the church, even dissent with the intention of improvement. Disagreement with the hierarchy is, again, deemed as a sign of apostacy. You should “follow the Prophet, even if what he tells you to do is wrong”. The September Six are a good example of this, as many of them were excommunicated for loving the Church too much, not for not loving it enough. The harmony and unity within the church is given far greater weight and emphasis than the sanctity of dissent. We talk about “being Zion” and “being unified” and “sustaining the prophet”. Individuals who want to change the system are not embraced, they are disgraced.
4. Who are the “improvers” in the Church, past and present, how have they been received, and how effective have they been in helping improve the Church?
In most recent history, I think of the group Affirm as an “improving” organization. They are largely unrecognized by the church hierarchy, and are regarded as apostate by the rank and file members who supported Prop 8. In terms of later history, improvers might include D Michael Quinn, Paul Toscano, Sonia Johnson, and others – all of whom were excommunicated.
5. If we do not have a Church culture that welcomes and values “improvers,” will that cause those who’d like to be “improvers” to gravitate toward the “pessimist” camp?
Pessimism camp or they will leave entirely, I suspect. Creating a toxic atmosphere for doubters and/or dissenters does not make them feel welcome.
Dan #11
I sure appreciate the spirit behind your response.
BUT.
Perhaps you don’t realize how it might come across to a woman.
“If I were the prophet and was writing up a new manual for the Relief Society, I certainly would want the opinion and wise counsel of the women running the Relief Society…” Yes, but why would it be preferable to have the prophet write these materials rather than the sisters, who did it for many years before correlation? In today’s Church, the manuals are written by committees who are under the direction of the Apostles to “make sure everything is doctrinally sound.” But what is the matter with a woman’s brain or spirit, that she is unable to make sure these things are doctrinally sound? If the Church MUST be hierarchical, why not put women in charge of women, with a chain leading from RS President to Stake RS President, to the General Women’s leadership?
Anyway, this is just my own frustrations with the system, and as it relates to Elder Hafen’s talk, I realize that despite annoyances such as these it behooves me to be loyal and committed to the Church and serve in my local area. I feel I’ve done a good job in retaining loyalty to the Church, but now I’m wondering, as Andrew does in his post, just HOW do you go about improving, once you’re firmly committed? Is it enough to teach my children and maybe my Primary class what I believe, and then wait for a generation to die off?
Reading the comments so far has helped me realize that the answer to most of these questions come back to which version of revelation we believe in. As I wrote in my last post (http://mormonmatters.org/2009/09/29/great-expectations-what-are-your-hopes-and-predictions-for-general-conference/, it seems we have two diametrically opposed versions of revelation within the Church: the Fundamentalist Version and the Apologist Version. If you believe in the Fundamentalist Version, in which the Prophet is essentially infallible, then perhaps you don’t see any need for improvers because you assume the Prophet already has all the answers and is doing everything exactly as God wants. On the other hand, if you believe in the Apologist Version of revelation, where you see Prophets as receiving inspiration imperfectly, then you do recognize a need for improvers.
As far as I can tell, the older you are, the more likely you are to believe in the Fundamentalist Version of revelation, and vice versa. I see the Apologist Version of revelation as “up and coming” and increasing in its acceptance by members of the Church, particularly the younger generations, though it’s acceptance amongst Church leaders is more difficult for me to discern.
What a great talk (and post)! These 3 stages are actually reminiscent of James Fowler’s Stages of Faith. His Level 1 Optimism sounds just like Stage 3 Faith; Level 2 Pessimism sounds like Stage 4 Disillusionmnent. But Level 3 Improvers don’t sound exactly like Stage 5 in Fowler. Perhaps, though. I think the issue is that being a Pessimistic Improver is not very welcome among the Optimists. I agree with E. Hafen that you can make improvements IF you are bound to the organization (not as an outsider), but there are plenty of examples of how “improvements” are viewed as dangerous or unwelcome by those who only see the positive in the organization (those with the most to lose from change, frankly).
In answer to the 5 questions:
“1. Do we have a Church culture that recognizes a need for “improvers” by welcoming and valuing candid but loving feedback? Or do Church leaders tend to encourage the “optimist” sentiment that shuns and avoids any attempt to candidly acknowledge any shortcomings?” If they themselves are improvers, they probably value that. But if they are lifelong Stage 3 Optimists, you might as well stick a sock in it.
“2. Are there restrictions on who is allowed to be an “improver” in the Church? For example, is it acceptable for a rank-and-file member to attempt to be an “improver,” or do Church leaders see that “improver” role as being restricted to themselves alone?” Yes – you can make whatever improvement suggestions don’t rock the boat of anyone higher than you in clout or the hierarchy.
“3. Have Church leaders provided clear, consistent guidance about how regular members can and should go about being “improvers”? For example, have Church leaders established clearly-defined communication channels that would-be “improvers” can use to provide candid but loving feedback to Church leaders?” No. And sadly, in lieu of this, some members suggest that those who would like to make improvements should leave the church.
“4. Who are the “improvers” in the Church, past and present, how have they been received, and how effective have they been in helping improve the Church?” I suppose anyone who has made whatever they considered to be improvements, whatever their position. Of course, whether it’s an improvement or not depends entirely on whether I like the change.
“5. If we do not have a Church culture that welcomes and values “improvers,” will that cause those who’d like to be “improvers” to gravitate toward the “pessimist” camp?” Yes – although being an improver is a difficult enterprise in any organization. Let’s say the organization embraced change and sought out ideas from the grass roots level. Who’s to say that the changes that get implemented are ones I will like? Maybe they will adversely impact me, but help the majority of people. Maybe they will reduce the patriarchal rhetoric and all the sexist old guys will feel lost at sea (which is probably OK collateral damage to me). Maybe we’d move to a 2-hour block and everyone would go inactive. Maybe we’d move to comfortable underwear and everyone would commit adultery or lower their commitment. That’s the fear/risk, right?
You can be an “improver” as long as it fits in the cracks of the system handed down to you from a higher level in the hierarchy. Otherwise, the option is to ultimately be a pessimist.
The examples of people working hard for change in their ward, etc. are all great, but they are just filling in the gaps. Try having a ward YM president tell anyone above them that they think the DTG program doesn’t necessarily “fit” their particular youth, and they will get counsel back about how it is “inspired”. Try having a bishop switch the order of the meetings on Sunday if the Stake President doesn’t want to. Try having a second counselor sit on the stand with a blue shirt in 99% of the wards of the church and see if he does it again. Etc. And these are just simple things.
For more important things, there is absolutely NO room for not marching in lock step. Luckily I don’t live in California, but how would I have been treated in the vast majority of the wards there if I said, no, I’m not going to do all this Prop 8 stuff because I don’t agree with it. There is no mechanism for constructive criticism. I can’t ever foresee anyone sitting down with Elder Packer and having their input actually considered on something he disagrees with. It just doesn’t work that way.
Andrew, I think this post raises some great issues. I think it’s an incredibly tricky subject, because, as Elder Hafen pointed out, once you move into what he calls stage 2, now you likely become one of the people who are just “mouthing off” as DMI Dave described them. I will admit, as someone who no longer affiliates with the church, that my criticisms, while valid (I think), are not coming from the perspective of making the church better, but merely to point out its warts. Don’t get me wrong, in the context of a blog like this, which explicitly welcomes those like me to share their opinions, I think it’s appropriate for me to make my criticisms heard in a respectful way. But when you’re talking about true “improvers” in the church, generally you’re not talking about the people who are publicly levelling serious criticisms of the church or its policies. I think there is another class of person who makes the issue even tricker, and that’s people like who obviously love the church, but who have serious disagreements with major points of doctrine or church policies. It’s very easy for me to criticize the church in any area in which I view it as deficient, because I no longer have an investment in it. Likewise, it is relatively easy for someone like Jared or sxark to back up every church pronouncement and policy as true and inspired because their testimonies are solid and they trust the brethren and the church implicitly. It’s the people who fall in between who likely struggle with how to address the issue of improving the church from within. If you have serious concerns about issues and actually think the church is wrong in some way, but still have a testimony, what do you do with that? I realize that’s just a restatement of the original post’s question, but I don’t know that there’s a good answer. This is the question that I see posed so often on this site; namely, is there a place in the church for people who frequent sites like this? Certainly they’re welcome in the church, but does the church really offer a place for such questions and does it provide an avenue through which such people can work to “improve” the church? My answer would be that there isn’t really. I don’t mean that as a criticism, but at the end of the day, the church is a theocracy, and ultimately it’s a take it or leave it proposition. Members may be able to effect change on a low or local level, but if the church is truly led by god through revelation, then doctrine and policy cannot be swayed by popular opinion or human sentiment. They just can’t. I think that leaves you with Dan’s suggestion in #1 – helping people to be more christ like. I think the answer has to be that the individual can’t try to bend god to his or her will, but must seek humility to bend his or her will to god’s. I don’t see any other way to be truly content within the church. Maybe the best way to be an improver is to kindly and lovingly help those who may have testimony threatening questions, to get to a point where they can do that .
Surprisingly, I think I find myself in agreement with brjones. At the end of the day, it is a theocracy and a take it or leave it arrangement, to a great extent.
But maybe not entirely. The church was agonizing over the blacks and the priesthood thing many years before the declaration. Good, faithful members were wrestling with bad doctrine and bad practice they felt must be wrong. I can’t help but wonder how much longer it would have been before the priesthood was extended to blacks if it hadn’t been for the faithful prayers and questioning of these “improvers”.
Sometimes God doesn’t grant the blessing until we’ve asked for it with real intent.
Martin, I don’t know whether to be flattered that you agreed with me or hurt that it surprised you so much.
Andrew,
Your post really sparked a great discussion. I appreciate the civil discourse and feel like I have been taught and provoked to think by all the posters. Thanks!
It is interesting because Nibley was an improver, and much of his role was inherited by FARMS which rescued his work from a decline into obscurity. The real question is how do you become a Nibley or part of something like FARMS.
How do you gain the credibility to be listened to like others who have similar spheres of influence or input (though often not recognized by the general public, and usually limited to specific areas)?
That is a great topic, especially because most people talk about the Church as if such groups do not exist.
an improver could become aware of, and help the rest of us to become aware of, the history of women in this dispensation and previous ones. For example, what was the authority of Huldah (2 Kings 22)
That is a nice start, along with Deborah, who judged Israel.
Recently read a book called “Botany of Desire.” The first chapter discusses the reproductive and evolutionary nature of apples. Apple seeds are almost never like the parent. They are extremely diverse. The diversity by sexual reproduction allows for co-evolution with insects, bacteria, fungi and threats to the apples. However, to create an orchard with the same “perfect” fruit one must graft the branches (that is how it is always done) so that you create perfect replications. BUT the failure to allow diversity along with it’s attendant risks of not knowing what it will create over time ironically puts at risk the entire species/orchard because while the evolving bacteria is evolving sexually with diversity the orchard is not. Greater and greater pesticides must be used to protect the uniformly grafted and non-evolving orchard. So the paradox is represented in nature, ie, it is the oddballs, the heretics, those “different” that protect the same/orthodox. It is when the botanist bans or ignores all the non-conforming or does not allow them any presence that the very existence of the perfect orchard is in peril. Thus, the only “perfectly” healthy orchard is one that is very diverse and evolving—the other just seem perfect–but only for a season. So an organization has to consider the consequences of preventing diversity and the marketplace of ideas even if it comes from what is considers lesser, weaker or pathetic, non-conforming members….
1. I have found that it entirely depends on the individual leader. Some bishops are incredibly open-minded and well-balanced others, not so much. My experience has been that most leaders are receptive if the motive is to sincerely enhance the situation. Most people, imo, do not tend to take full responsibility for their ideas and would rather complain about how things should be done. Unfortunately, I have been one of those people. Luckily, I also have been willing to ameliorate a situation when I see that I have something to contribute. I’ve learned to be pretty careful before I share my real beliefs and feel expert at avoiding unnecessary conflict.
2. I think it matters what elements you are trying to “improve”. If your ward nursery is a cesspool of childhood grossness, then your willingness to stand at the door and sanitize every pint-sized hand that crosses the threshold may be appreciated. If you really think that writing a letter to your bishop with a list of demands would be helpful, you probably have serious WOW problems related to illicit drug use. I would like to consider myself an improver in the sense that I try to gently nudge conversations in classes away from superficial excrement and to actually applying gospel principles. Nothing too dramatic, no “give me the priesthood now” t-shirts in my closet, but I feel very engaged in improving the quality of gospel discussions by active participation.
3. The channels of communication are pretty clear. Going over people’s heads is never a good m.o. However, I am certain there are valid reasons when this most definitely should be the case. Again, it has so much to do with local leadership, imo. Pride, distrust, discomfort with those who struggle, all can make interaction with leadership bizarre and unproductive.
4. Improvers past and present? Too many to count. But BH Roberts certainly comes to mind.
5. There certainly exists the temptation to gravitate towards the naysayers, I mean, pessimists, if one feels their sincere desires to build up the kingdom are consistently ignored or undervalued. I’d argue that the Church culture changes dramatically from state to state, let alone nation to nation. Improvers may thrive in different areas. I do feel that it is a choice to become a pessimist. I love the doctrine of ongoing revelation and feel that people who resist change will be in for some unfortunately rude awakenings.
RE In fact, the more committed and Christ-like you are, the LESS you are listened to. I find this to be a ridiculous statement.
Btw, it was nice to see something from Elder Hafen sparking some positive discussion
BiV,
I told ya, it will probably take the next generation for some of us.
As far as I can tell, the older you are, the more likely you are to believe in the Fundamentalist Version of revelation, and vice versa. I see the Apologist Version of revelation as “up and coming” and increasing in its acceptance by members of the Church, particularly the younger generations, though it’s acceptance amongst Church leaders is more difficult for me to discern.
Andrew, I am surprised at how Fundamentalist most of the young, active members in my ward are. I think the reason you’re not aware of how many older LDS are in the Apologist camp is because age and experience demonstrate that not all the things we learned in Primary are true and God probably doesn’t care whether or not we attend church every Sunday. Check out the absentee list to find the Apologists.
Really interesting post, Andrew. Since I’m lazy, I’ll just answer one of your questions:
3. Have Church leaders provided clear, consistent guidance about how regular members can and should go about being “improvers”? For example, have Church leaders established clearly-defined communication channels that would-be “improvers” can use to provide candid but loving feedback to Church leaders?
No. Certainly at the General level, which is where in my mind all the really crucial improvements would have to take place, they have made quite clear that they don’t want to hear what any of the rest of us have to say. I’m sure you recall the periodic letters from the First Presidency read in sacrament meeting that say “Don’t write to us. Talk to your bishop. He’ll answer your questions. If you write to us, we’ll send it back to your bishop.”
I’m not sure what underlies this attitude. Certainly I think at least some of it is that many or most of the General Authorities believe the fundamentalist version of revelation you described in your previous post. They figure that, at least collectively, they’re not likely to need any input from rank-and-file members. Then there’s also the administrative hassle that would result from opening themselves to getting feedback from ordinary members. Also I suspect they don’t want to falsely raise people’s expectations that we’ll be listened to. Which I guess I have to appreciate on some level; at least they don’t say “Give us feedback!” and then ignore it.
I also think Hawkgrrrl raises an excellent point in #17. We don’t all agree about what changes would constitute improvement. It’s just as likely that there would be changes I don’t like if members were listened to than that there would be changes I do like. More likely, in fact. American members would probably add GOP membership to the temple recommend interview or some other such fun stuff.
Andrew, fantastic post!
1. I think church leaders tend to encourage the optimist tendencies.
2. Yes, there are restrictions on who can change the church.
3. No, church leaders don’t have good policies for rank and file improvers.
4. I think certain people like Sterling McMurrin, Newel Bringhurst, Margaret Young, and Armaund Mauss have very effective talents in being improvers, but few people possess their talents. We have people like John Dehlin who I admire greatly, but I wouldn’t put him in the same category as the above. I would like to be as talented as John someday.
5. Feeling marginalized will push improvers toward the pessimist camp. If one wants to keep from being marginalized, it seems to me a low profile is the best course of action, which also hurts the “improver” status (and one self-marginalizes). It’s tough being an improver. There is strength in numbers, but if the numbers of improvers get too big, they can garner unuseful attention. It seems like a tightrope at times to me.
Great post, as usual, Andrew. This is a perfect example of why you are one of my favorite writers in all the Bloggernacle.
Fwiw:
Yes, it’s possible to be an improver at ANY level of the Church, but you really, really, really have to love the Church despite the flaws to do it – and be dedicated to work as long as it takes to see improvement occur. You also have to strive to teach others how to be improvers, since it simply isn’t “natural” for most people to do so.
The central problem is that one person can’t make permanent or even long-lasting change in a group all by himself or herself. If those around someone don’t respond by becoming improvers, as well, then when the improver is released, moves or stops participating all the others who have not internalized and learned to model “improvement characteristics” simply go back to their non-improving ways – thus losing the gains received while the improver was actively involved with them.
I would like to state that I feel the credibility of this site has been greatly tarnished by one of the authors, MH. The personal attacks he spewed against me in the “Trading Polygamy for Statehood” (comment 43, among others) should be an embarassment to this site. Perhaps many of you did not see them, which is why I am posting this here.
If I had attacked anyone in that way many of you would have rallied around MH. But when he does it, as an author on the site, it is acceptable?
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Thank you.
And yes, I do realize that making a comment about this will probably bring more heat down upon me than upon anyone else, but, as I have said before, I am not here to please other readers, I speak my mind on the issues at hand. And I admit I have had a derisive tone at times, and I have apologized for that, but I have never stooped so low as to make the kind of personal attacks that were made upon me by an honored author of this site.
Thank you.
Dexter, you are just trying to be an improver …
Ziff, you really need to be aware of the sheer volume of inane suggestions that flood into Salt Lake. I think of McConkie fending off the people who insisted he should be speaking out against chocolate and white bread as violations of the Word of Wisdom …
But the volume and inanity create a wall of static that anyone who wants to make suggestions or give input must contend with.
The question then becomes, how do you establish yourself as not a part of that flood?
Which is what I commented about above.
I think I need to do a post on the topic.
Have you ever noticed how the Book of Mormon prophets,when addressing their own generations or our generation, seem emotionally torn between out-pourings of loving concern and harsh warnings and condemnation? At times they can hardly find the words to express their anguish. This anguish is the one “pain of the flesh” that the three Nephites were not spared. Why? Because that anguish flows through anyone who has had the blinders removed and beholds this generation while filled with the Spirit of Christ. How is it that the God of all eternity can weep? Don’t underestimate the emotional side of eternity.
When we read the Book of Mormon do we really see ourselves,as a church, the way we have portrayed ourselves? Of course this is a rhetorical question. The BOM speaks only of corrupt churches in the last days who practise priestcraft,setting themselves up as lights,grinding the faces of the poor to build and adorn their temples, offering to sell a place with the Father in eternity for money. You see, it takes alot of money to show “a form of godliness” Especially when your not the only act in town. You’ve got to be organized and work together. In time,when the operation really gets going you’ll find how easy it is to feel comfortable and secure without the gifts of the Spirit.That sort of thing is only needed in the primitive Church. That’s why they call it “primitive”.
Before Moroni committed the plates into the hands of Joseph Smith he warned him about using them to get gain. Was Moroni only refering to “melting them down”? Or could he have known that the lambs would hear the voice of the shepperd and flock to the standard? Do you think the wolves took notice? And how do they dress? If the Church that Jesus set up in person fell so quickly into confusion; we should at least be honest with ourselves about the potential pitfalls. DO WE REALLY COMPREHEND THE FULL SIGNIFICANCE OF FREE AGENCY?… King David murdered for lust…. Apostle Judas betrayed for money. Both called of God.. Both worked miracles before they buckled under temptation. Do we really have at the head of the church Prophets Seers and Revelators? Do you have any idea what a Seer is? Can you comprehend what a mockery this is?
The Book of Mormon was set aside the day it came off the press. It is set aside today because,among so many other things,it forms a categorical idictment of all latter day churches. Have we replaced the simple clear teachings in the BOM with something else? Do we really believe that we have replaced the BOM with “the greater things that have been held back because of unbelief”? The portion of the BOM we have was given to us that we might have an anchor in harbor and a compass when the sails are set. The voice of the shepherd when we wander in the wilderness. It leads in a straight course through a narrow passage. It is not a novelty to be highjacked for the sake of tithe paying converts.For two thousand years the name of Jesus Christ has been the subject of market share among the gentiles. Do we aspire to out-do them? Are we more savvy? Have we been assisting in the construction of that “great and spacious building”? Are we in attendance at the great party when it is completed and covers the whole earth;setting ourselves apart from the other secret combiners by the virtue that we don’t smoke or drink?
Our Savior loves us without measure and has anguished over us. His Seers have seen our day and anguish over us; our confusion,heartache,lonliness and errors have they seen.
If we can endure the painfull prospect of self honesty; as individuals and as a people, then the truth will not cause us anger. We know perfectly well that something is about to happen. Something marvelous.Something to cause a great division on the one hand or the other.Either clearing up all confusion or turning us over to the darkness of our choice.The Priesthood of legend. Not the powerless form of priesthood that we have been bamboozeled to embrace;the one that is handed out like candy,not that one. (I can’t believe any woman would actually want it.) When the High Priesthood is manifest in power and very deed on the earth you know perfectly well what will happen.
I would sign off with a note of hope and love, Aslan is on the move!!!
Sounds like Ayn Rand.
Ah, Christian militancy.
Ziff #28 said “No. Certainly at the General level, which is where in my mind all the really crucial improvements would have to take place, they have made quite clear that they don’t want to hear what any of the rest of us have to say. I’m sure you recall the periodic letters from the First Presidency read in sacrament meeting that say “Don’t write to us. Talk to your bishop. He’ll answer your questions. If you write to us, we’ll send it back to your bishop.”
Yes…but I have found that a well meaning letter to the folks that can affect change doesn’t necessarily fall on deaf ears. On more than one occasion SLC has received a letter from my address. On several of those occasions well meaning and thoughtful response were returned. My perceptions are as follows:
1) Writing SLC has the benefit of letting the GA’s know of my concerns (they certainly aren’t going to find out about them if I simply dump it on my local leaders).
2) The letters eventually do end up with the local leaders as well and provided for a meaningful discussion. The local leaders were able to better prepare for our discussion (they didn’t feel broadsided) and I didn’t come away with any sort of smugness like I was “teaching them something new”. I think we both came away with a better understanding of each other and appreciation for the others points of view.
I really wish this was encouraged more, only I do see the downside as there is only so much a few individuals can do. But beyond personal contact, or providing for some other channel of communication from the bottom up, I don’t know how else to affect change (if in nothing more than perceptions and attitudes).
I have an anxiety attack anytime I even think about discussing non-TBM rhetoric in church. I have absolutely no trust or faith in the rank-in-file members to understand nuance or ambiguity in church teaching, doctrine, or history. I fear the rank-in-file members. I think that they will stone me for trying to discuss non-correlated truths. So, it will come as no surprise that I am a strong believer that the church does not make it a safe place for level threes or improvers. I’m intrigued by the idea that it takes a generation to die off before a change in mentality in the church can thrive. I hope that is true. I just have a strong feeling that everyone in my ward is a TBM and will be hostile towards any criticism or candid discussion. As for working with local leader’s my bishop knows about my issue with church history and my struggle with feeling comfortable with church and correlated lessons, yet he doesn’t seem to know what to do with the likes of me. He once saw in the hall after an absence and said to me “still having problems with the church?” I nodded and said yes and he said and I quote, “Oh dear.” and shuffled away from me swiftly. It kind of amuses me, but I also find it incredibly sad that he can’t help me.