Creative Church Design

[NeuroTypical]

I proposed a structure where ...

Yeah, count me among those who will take a pass on letting the fallible error-prone agenda driven humans drive the changes to the structure of Christ's church. I'm feeling much more secure in a church where the organization and processes come down through divinely inspired lines of authority based on principles of stewardship, rather than by popular vote on stuff proposed by some random voice on an anonymous internet discussion forum. Feel free to counsel Christ on how to run His church all you like. The choice is yours on how much offense you will take, when your ideas are not acted on.

[MarginOfError]

Moe, I completely agree. The place to discuss a change in within the Ward, Stake, etc.

Yeah, count me among those who will take a pass on letting the fallible error-prone agenda driven humans drive the changes to the structure of Christ's church. I'm feeling much more secure in a church where the organization and processes come down through divinely inspired lines of authority based on principles of stewardship, rather than by popular vote on stuff proposed by some random voice on an anonymous internet discussion forum. Feel free to counsel Christ on how to run His church all you like. The choice is yours on how much offense you will take, when your ideas are not acted on.

It's funny that you guys say this, because I've floated ideas on this board and on another forum before. Sometimes I've abandoned the idea. Other times I've gained important insight to the idea that resulted in modifications to the idea. Then I took the idea to the bishop and let him decide if the proposal would be more effective than the current practice.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to toss out ideas, let them be scored and kicked around. We shouldn't categorically reject every idea that isn't already contained in the handbooks. At the same time, if one is going to put out ideas, he or she needs to be prepared to be told what's wrong with it.

And then to jump onto the other side of the discussion, I find it wholly unhelpful to brush aside new ideas simply because the church leadership would have told us if the Lord wanted us to do it this way. I was always under the impression that the Lord wanted us to try to solve our own problems, and it is my belief that local leaders can be every bit as inspired into how to address these issues as general leaders*.

*Which isn't to say they should implement new policies on their whim. I still think approval to proceed outside of the bounds of established policy should come from higher up. But I see no harm in presenting to the higher ups why you think you need to operate differently and how you plan to do so.

[NeuroTypical]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to toss out ideas, let them be scored and kicked around.

Me too. I score "Hey, let's change the way the church runs" ideas pretty low, for reasons that I explained earlier.

We shouldn't categorically reject every idea that isn't already contained in the handbooks.

I agree. Especially when the handbooks have "seek and implement guidance from the spirit" on just about every page. I'm not categorically rejecting anything. I just figure that the best way to juggle stewardships over wards are something that the Lord and the Lord's annointed have given more than passing thought to, and all that arm-raising I do at our various conferences isn't the limit of the ways I support them.

The idea that got kicked around that I sort of like the most:

a group of brethren was asked to move a grand piano from the chapel to the adjoining cultural hall, where it was needed for a musical event. None were professional movers, and the task of getting that gravity-friendly instrument through the chapel and into the cultural hall seemed nearly impossible. Everybody knew that this task required not only physical strength but also careful coordination. There were plenty of ideas, but not one could keep the piano balanced correctly. They repositioned the brethren by strength, height, and age over and over again—nothing worked.

As they stood around the piano, uncertain of what to do next, a good friend of mine, Brother Hanno Luschin, spoke up. He said, “Brethren, stand close together and lift where you stand.”

It seemed too simple. Nevertheless, each lifted where he stood, and the piano rose from the ground and moved into the cultural hall as if on its own power. That was the answer to the challenge. They merely needed to stand close together and lift where they stood.

I was always under the impression that the Lord wanted us to try to solve our own problems, and it is my belief that local leaders can be every bit as inspired into how to address these issues as general leaders*.

It is true that we should not be wait around to be commanded in all things. But tinkering with established stewardships and methods doesn't really fall under that guidance in my thinking.

[ryanh]

And yet, changes to policy (or much of anything related to revelation) infrequently occur until a question is asked to address a need. Such it was with JS's first vision, blacks and priesthood, and countless other Church and personal examples. Revelation most often comes in response to inquiry.

And how would the FP know a beneficial change needs to be taken to the Lord unless it bubbles up through SPs to 70's, to the top? I think there is value in floating ideas out there to address changing needs of our people. But in the mean time, follow policy - it is there for a reason.

[Vort]

And yet, changes to policy (or much of anything related to revelation) infrequently occur until a question is asked to address a need. Such it was with JS's first vision, blacks and priesthood, and countless other Church and personal examples. Revelation most often comes in response to inquiry.

And how would the FP know a beneficial change needs to be taken to the Lord unless it bubbles up through SPs to 70's, to the top? I think there is value in floating ideas out there to address changing needs of our people. But in the mean time, follow policy - it is there for a reason.

I agree with this, though I draw a distinction between matters of procedure and matters of structure. Nevertheless, I did not provide nor imply any criticism of mormonmusic (though he appears to think I did). We were asked for our opinions, and I simply voiced my opinion that we are not in a position to instruct God on how best to organize the leadership of his kingdom.

[annewandering]

A while back one of the apostles asked to speak to my niece about her mission, which was his responsibility at the time. He was in our wards for his usual June/July holiday.

He spoke to her at great length about her experiences and what could be done to improve that mission.

I suspect that is the way the Lord intended his programs to be improved. Input, study and then prayer. They are the ones that are inspired to find solutions.

If there are problems in the local level then are the leaders not counseled to contact higher authority to seek a solution? I suspect those higher up seek information from the people who are having the problem then study it out then pray about it.

I do not think its done by someone randomly thinking about things and deciding how it ought to be done better. Am I wrong?

[NeuroTypical]

And yet, changes to policy (or much of anything related to revelation) infrequently occur until a question is asked to address a need.

I'd agree with that. A question, or even voice an issue. But OP didn't ask a question, and didn't stop at voicing the issue. OP "proposed a structure". His intent isn't to bring a problem to leader's attention. He's got the problem ("the role of a Bishop is too diverse for a lay clergy to handle effectively") all figured out, and thinks he's on the track to the right solution.

So again, count me out.

[ryanh]

I don't disagree with you one bit LM. Just adding to the direction the conversation went.

[Suzie]

It's funny that you guys say this, because I've floated ideas on this board and on another forum before. Sometimes I've abandoned the idea. Other times I've gained important insight to the idea that resulted in modifications to the idea. Then I took the idea to the bishop and let him decide if the proposal would be more effective than the current practice.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to toss out ideas, let them be scored and kicked around. We shouldn't categorically reject every idea that isn't already contained in the handbooks. At the same time, if one is going to put out ideas, he or she needs to be prepared to be told what's wrong with it.

And then to jump onto the other side of the discussion, I find it wholly unhelpful to brush aside new ideas simply because the church leadership would have told us if the Lord wanted us to do it this way. I was always under the impression that the Lord wanted us to try to solve our own problems, and it is my belief that local leaders can be every bit as inspired into how to address these issues as general leaders*.

*Which isn't to say they should implement new policies on their whim. I still think approval to proceed outside of the bounds of established policy should come from higher up. But I see no harm in presenting to the higher ups why you think you need to operate differently and how you plan to do so.

And that's why I love MarginofError!

[cwald]

Wow, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse here. You folks are so rude to each other.

I think you make a lot of sense MM. And I don't think we need to wait around expecting the gods to come down and change things that aren't working so well. Or for the prophet to come out with some grand revelation. We're in the trenches and know what works and what doesn't. He (the gods) gave us a brain and reason and problem solving ability for a reason. Having these kind of discussions, online and with church members and local leaders is how policy and procedures get made and revised to begin with. I don't think the gods really cares all that much for all these details. He leaves it up to us to figure it out the best we can. We see this because we see how the church is continually evolving and changing. I also don't think it is wise to just sit back and say, "oh, the prophet will let us know what we need to know..."

Anyway, I hear ya Mormonmusic. And I don't think an illogical fallacy like "we are not in a position to instruct God on how best to organize the leadership of his kingdom" should stop you from throwing these ideas out there. Skeptiod did a great podcast on fallacy - and this one was right at the top..."appeal to a higher authority to stop the discussion."

[NeuroTypical]

Cwald, I want to make sure I get your gripe. From this site:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

Person A makes claim C about subject S.

Therefore, C is true.

So, your gripe seems to be:

Church leaders claim authority (divine guidance too) on church organization.

Church leaders make claim "We know what we're doing" about church organization.

Therefore, church organization is just fine and dandy without MM's help.

Am I missing something here? Is this the logical fallacy of which you're accusing us? I mean yeah, if you figure we're all just humans doing the best we can, then yeah, appeal to authority is a decent fallacy. But since we mormons figure God is the perfect authority, then well...

Edited December 23, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[cwald]

Yeah Loudmouth. That sound about right.

Here is a guy who throws an idea out there, and the whole conversation gets shut down because Vort or Pam or both, goes right to the bullben and pulls out the most overused Mormon fallacy of them all --- AUTHORITY. Why not just discuss the OP? Then MM even goes out of his way to roll over on his belly and called "blood" so as not to derail the whole thread and get in pissing match, and Vort still won't get off his back.

That is the fallacy. Why not discuss the OP for its merit, rather than falling back on "god's anointed knows more than I do, so no need to discuss the issue."

Edited December 23, 2011 by cwald

[cwald]

... I mean yeah, if you figure we're all just humans doing the best we can, then yeah, appeal to authority is a decent fallacy. But since we mormons figure God is the perfect authority, then well...

God does not make policy. Man makes policy. Man is man, doing the best they can. They make mistakes occasionally as church history has proven over and over again.

Oh, you want an example of man making policy? Okay, how about the 18 month mission for starters?

How about switching over to the 3 hour block. I doubt that was just god's doing. Probably a bunch of members started talking about what could be done differently to make things better for the local leaders and members, and it worked its way up to the top dogs in SLC. Thank god they didn't bring the idea to LDS.net.

Sounds kind of what MM was wanting to talk about. He wasn't asking to change policy - just discuss some changes that might help out the poor bishop.

Edited December 23, 2011 by cwald

[Vort]

Yeah Loudmouth. That sound about right.

Here is a guy who throws an idea out there, and the whole conversation gets shut down because Vort or Pam or both, goes right to the bullben and pulls out the most overused Mormon fallacy of them all --- AUTHORITY. Why not just discuss the OP? Then MM even goes out of his way to roll over on his belly and called "blood" so as not to derail the whole thread and get in pissing match, and Vort still won't get off his back.

That is the fallacy. Why not discuss the OP for its merit, rather than falling back on "god's anointed knows more than I do, so no need to discuss the issue."

Translation:

"When someone asks for opinions, only those whose opinions match cwald's should respond."

[cwald]

Translation:

"When someone asks for opinions, only those whose opinions match cwald's should respond."

Really? This coming from the most opinionated, overbearing poster on this forum?

[Guest]

fallacy

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[cwald]

Oh, nice. My posts just keep mysteriously disappearing? Nice touch.

Here it is again.

"What? This coming from the most opinionated and over-bearing poster on this forum."

[cwald]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually sister, I think I do know what it means.

Fallacy:

A false notion.

A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.

Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.

The quality of being deceptive.

[beefche]

When a post disappears, you can usually count on it being edited or deleted by a moderator.

Keep the conversation civil.

[Guest]

So you ARE saying that the line of authority in the Church is false, invalid, incorrect, erroneous, and deceptive?

[MarginOfError]

And that's why I love MarginofError!

You love spineless flip-floppers?

[cwald]

No. I'm saying vort's argument about the OP ideas are though. Big difference.

Okay beef. But why only delete my comment?

How about deleting vort's cheap shot about me too? Are we not all using the same rule book?

[NeuroTypical]

Oh, you want an example of man making policy? Okay, how about the 18 month mission for starters?

Sorry, how do you know the folks enacting this policy claim that inspiration or revealation was not involved?

[Dravin]

You love spineless flip-floppers?

Deboned I'm sure these would taste lovely:

[jerome1232]

Deboned I'm sure these would taste lovely:

Are those really flip flops made from fish? I really hope they just look like fish, please just look like fish.