Loyalty

[Palerider]

I was listening to a story tonight about the importance of loyalty. A quality that the church seems to place right up there with obedience.

The statement was made by someone I have quite a bit of respect for, that loyalty:
"Loyalty is great right up to the point where it prevents independent judgment."

In other words, when loyalty prevents an individual from making their own independent value judgment regarding another person's or institution's actions but bids them to follow passively like an automaton, then it is no longer loyalty but a corruption called "idolatry".

[wtfluff]

Loyalty is also a two-way street.

How loyal is the LDS Corporation to it's "shareholders"?

[Korihor]

Loyalty is also a two-way street.

How loyal is the LDS Corporation to it's "shareholders"?

To its Shareholders? Pretty Loyal

To its customers? Not much

[wtfluff]

Loyalty is also a two-way street.

How loyal is the LDS Corporation to it's "shareholders"?

To its Shareholders? Pretty Loyal

To its customers? Not much

Ha! "Customers." So the "shareholders" are the ones who get paid from the money given to the corporation by the "customers" eh?

What "goods" are the "customers" purchasing from said corporation?

(You really don't have to answer that question.)

[Korihor]

Loyalty is also a two-way street.

How loyal is the LDS Corporation to it's "shareholders"?

To its Shareholders? Pretty Loyal

To its customers? Not much

Ha! "Customers." So the "shareholders" are the ones who get paid from the money given to the corporation by the "customers" eh?

What "goods" are the "customers" purchasing from said corporation?

(You really don't have to answer that question.)

Of course we are a customer. I don't have any stock.
Airlines run a great racket. They can charge totally different amounts for a seat on the same flight. One person pays $150 and another pays $500 only to be sitting side by side.
The church has the greatest racket of all. One customer pays $1,000/year and another pays $86,000. Both get the exact same 'product'.

So what did we buy? Let me show you a copy of my 2015 donations summary. See the statement in the red box.

The last date on this record was the last time I gave them a nickel. I was paying on net and the spigot turned off in June 2015

[Korihor]

[Palerider]

Loyalty is also a two-way street.

How loyal is the LDS Corporation to it's "shareholders"?

Right.

Only the already corrupt ask for unquestioning loyalty. If they weren't corrupt they wouldn't ask for it. The first sin isn't asking a person to do something that is "wrong". The first sin is in asking for their unquestioning loyalty to begin with. Which means you should run away from such people as fast as possible because you already have an indication that they will not be loyal to you. Exit here...

[oliver_denom]

I was listening to a story tonight about the importance of loyalty. A quality that the church seems to place right up there with obedience.

The statement was made by someone I have quite a bit of respect for, that loyalty:
"Loyalty is great right up to the point where it prevents independent judgment."

In other words, when loyalty prevents an individual from making their own independent value judgment regarding another person's or institution's actions but bids them to follow passively like an automaton, then it is no longer loyalty but a corruption called "idolatry".

I think loyalty means supporting a person or organization in spite of disagreements. For example, I oppose much of what President Trump stands for, but I remain a loyal American. In government there's a place for loyal opposition. There doesn't seem to be any equivalent principle within the church.

Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction give themselves a label borrowed from elected bodies—“the loyal opposition.” However appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God’s kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not (see Matthew 26:24).

Given this, I don't think the principle of loyalty even exists in the church. What they are asking for isn't loyalty, which implies an allegiance to something bigger than the individuals calling the shots, but slavery. They want obedience to its leadership, not loyalty to the betterment and maintenance of the faith.

For example, anyone working for racial equality prior to 1978 is an absolute example of loyal members of the church trying to do right by the religion and its members. Were they treated as loyal members? No. They were treated like apostates. The same is true today of anyone working for gender equality. We have members with a vision of the future that will one day save the church from itself, but in the meantime they are treated as disloyal outcasts.

[alas]

The Deseret News article on racism in the church discussed in another thread got me thinking about loyality. Because the way the article described the 1978 revelation on blacks getting the priesthood.....um, that wasn't the way I remember it happening. She gave the usual church narrative about how the announcement was greeted with joy bla bla bla. But really, it was only greeted with joy by those of us who were the loyal opposition. I remember some members who greeted the announcement with anger that the church had caved in to social pressure. Some were so angry and racist they even left the church, but good riddance. But for the rank and file, I think the announcement was greeted with confusion. The confusion one would expect when there is such an about face. The first reaction of most believing and loyal members was confusion, disbelief, and cognitive dissonance as would be expected when a person is suddenly forced to change their thinking. The loyal opposition had been bad mouthed and even excommunicated and the church maintained that it could not change God's word, the same exact way the church is now acting about gender equity and about LGBT issues. The only people who were expecting or hoping for change were those of us who really thought that the priesthood ban had nothing to do with God's will and everything to do with racism. Those who were loyal in the way the church wants loyality were blindsided by the announcement and it took them from a few hours to a few weeks to greet the announcement with joy bla bla Bla. It took them time to readjust their thinking.

Yes, there were probably 20-30% of members who did greet it first with joy because we were against the policy and saw it as wrong, not from God, or for some reason believed that the doctrine was false or changeable. We were the loyal opposition who had been silently rejecting church authority on the subject. But the 30-50% of loyal TBMs greeted it with confusion, and 10-20% of hardcore TBM/racists actually greeted it with anger that the church would dare to change doctrine.

Remember when the policy on gay marriage excommunication and refusal to babtize children of gays came out, and people reacted with disbelief. No, the church would never ban children from baptism because of the sins of their parents. But gradually, it sank in that this really was church policy and people started making excuses for why it was really the right thing to do. But the first reaction was cognitive dissonance and confusion. Then it was followed by acceptance and loyaly falling in line. The reaction was not exactly the same, because it takes a bit more to swallow something you see as harmful than it does the removal of something that in retrospect one sees as harmful.

But the principle is the same. People change their thinking, not because of new evidence or valid reason, but because the authority figure tells them to change their thinking. After a bit of confusion, they do manage to readjust their thinking. Except for the few free thinkers who remain loyal opposition, and those of us who are no longer even loyal opposition, but just opposition.

This changing their thinking because they are told to change their thinking bothers me. Consider what McConkie said about everything I said before this point was wrong and going forward, this other is now true, that was just instructions to change your thinking because you were told to change your thinking. How can people NOT see that as wrong, controlling, cult behavior?

[Mormorrisey]

The Deseret News article on racism in the church discussed in another thread got me thinking about loyality. Because the way the article described the 1978 revelation on blacks getting the priesthood.....um, that wasn't the way I remember it happening. She gave the usual church narrative about how the announcement was greeted with joy bla bla bla. But really, it was only greeted with joy by those of us who were the loyal opposition. I remember some members who greeted the announcement with anger that the church had caved in to social pressure. Some were so angry and racist they even left the church, but good riddance. But for the rank and file, I think the announcement was greeted with confusion. The confusion one would expect when there is such an about face. The first reaction of most believing and loyal members was confusion, disbelief, and cognitive dissonance as would be expected when a person is suddenly forced to change their thinking. The loyal opposition had been bad mouthed and even excommunicated and the church maintained that it could not change God's word, the same exact way the church is now acting about gender equity and about LGBT issues. The only people who were expecting or hoping for change were those of us who really thought that the priesthood ban had nothing to do with God's will and everything to do with racism. Those who were loyal in the way the church wants loyality were blindsided by the announcement and it took them from a few hours to a few weeks to greet the announcement with joy bla bla Bla. It took them time to readjust their thinking.

Great points, and I guess this is why Oaks is so against the idea of a "loyal opposition." It just creates confusion, instead of conformity, which is exactly what the church wants. I'm wondering how many years from now, there will be a "Gender and the Priesthood" essay or a "Homosexuality and Eternal Marriage" essay expaining away the bigotry of our day.

They do want loyalty though, and for members to be unquestioning drones. Hence that horrible article in the June Ensign about doubts - they only come from Satan, not a healthy place of critical thinking.

[wtfluff]

But the 30-50% of loyal TBMs greeted it with confusion, and 10-20% of hardcore TBM/racists actually greeted it with anger that the church would dare to change doctrine.

This statement got me wondering if membership statistics would show a dip in 1978 when the LDS church decided to "no longer be racist".

According to the Wikipedia entry about historical membership, there wasn't really a dip any bigger in 1978 than many other years when membership didn't seem to be growing "like a stone rolling forth..." (blah blah blah...)

Which means:

HEY COB / CHURCH LEADERSHIP LURKERS: Changing your bigoted, hateful "policies" won't cause a mass exodus from "the church". You should get another "revelation" and quit the hateful targeting of innocent people.


Edit: Sorry [/threadjack]

[Journey]

Hey, Fluffy, do we know they were honest in reporting the numbers then? Wonder if it wasn't any different than it is now

[oliver_denom]

According to the Wikipedia entry about historical membership, there wasn't really a dip any bigger in 1978 than many other years when membership didn't seem to be growing "like a stone rolling forth..." (blah blah blah...)

But it wasn't so easy to resign membership back then. You'd have to request an excommunication, and since most of the church was in Utah that was even more Mormon than today, that would have meant social suicide.

However, I did meet someone who left the church shortly after the policy change, but for different reasons. He was a black Mormon before 1978 and rushed as quickly as possible to get his endowment in the L.A. temple. He told me that when he walked into the session, about a half dozen people got up and walked out, and others quietly told him that he wasn't welcome there. It was enough to shatter his testimony and he's never been back.

[wtfluff]

According to the Wikipedia entry about historical membership, there wasn't really a dip any bigger in 1978 than many other years when membership didn't seem to be growing "like a stone rolling forth..." (blah blah blah...)

But it wasn't so easy to resign membership back then. You'd have to request an excommunication, and since most of the church was in Utah that was even more Mormon than today, that would have meant social suicide.

However, I did meet someone who left the church shortly after the policy change, but for different reasons. He was a black Mormon before 1978 and rushed as quickly as possible to get his endowment in the L.A. temple. He told me that when he walked into the session, about a half dozen people got up and walked out, and others quietly told him that he wasn't welcome there. It was enough to shatter his testimony and he's never been back.

That's a great point on the resignation option. We would have to get actual attendance records to see if there was a drop after the 1978 change. (Yeah, I know NO-ONE outside of a select few knows the ACTUAL attendance numbers, and I'll be extremely shocked if those numbers ever see the light.)

I've heard rumors that in the South (U.S.A.) there was a pretty large exodus.

[/threadjack (again)]

[Anon70]

This is a great post. A great reminder. Whenever possible, TSCC changes history to conform whatever current narrative they're trying to sell.

[deacon blues]

Loyalty is a great concept, especially in a relationship of equals, for example: marriage. The relationship between a member and the LDS church is a relationship of unequals. In a relationship of unequals, the potential for abuse by the more powerful party is always a concern. Jesus stressed this in his teachings: the leader is the servant. In the church, I can think of some chilling exceptions to this. One is the meme- "which way do you face" which has been passed from Harold Lee to Boyd Packer to Lynn G. Robbins (October 2014) The idea seems to be authoritarian, rather than service-minded. The leader (with the authority of the church at his back) faces to down (implied, but clear, I believe) the member.

[Hagoth]

I'm wondering how many years from now, there will be a "Gender and the Priesthood" essay or a "Homosexuality and Eternal Marriage" essay expaining away the bigotry of our day.

I'm holding out for the one essay of all essays: "Why we used to believe a bunch of crazy sh!t but finally came clean."

[Not Buying It]

I regard it as one of the great sins of the Church that it takes the great virtue that loyalty can potentially be in admirable people and uses it against them. The Church corrupts and prostitutes the virtue of loyalty for its own selfish ends, and shamelessly and crassly exploits the loyalty freely given to it by its members.