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).

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.

Sounds like Ayn Rand.

I would sign off with a note of hope and love, Aslan is on the move!!!

Ah, Christian militancy.

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!!!

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.

Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

Dan #11
I sure appreciate the spirit behind your response.
BUT.
Perhaps you don’t realize how it might come across to a woman.

I told ya, it will probably take the next generation for some of us.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.