Alternative church leadership models?

[Red Ryder]

The Brad Wilcox saga has exposed the problems the church leadership has with connecting to the youth.

I fully admit that my middle aged mind barely comprehends the needs and challenges of the youth today. Get off my lawn….and take your selfie sticks and puckered lips with you!

However, I can see gaps where gaps clearly exist and one of those is with the Q15.

What if the apostles were to have “term limits” and an age based hierarchy?

Apostles 7-12: age 30 - 45
Apostles 1-6: age 46 to 70

FP: seasoned apostles pulled from 1-6 pool.

Prophet Emeritus: 71+ whose job is to be a beacon of light with no real power or authority.

Would an aged base leadership lead to better spiritual prosperity?

How about a church leadership made up of 6 women and 6 men? With the FP consisting of husband and wife teams? Or husband/husband and wife/wife as whatever the case may be.

Is there an alternative leadership model that would help the church to grow and expand in an ever increasing secular world?

What if Church leadership could pivot to a committee approach with established apostle groups focused on the spiritual nurturing and prosperity of their flock?

Perhaps 5 groups or 3 apostles?

The youth
The fringe
The progressive
The gun collecting preppers
The old guard

What alternative leadership models can you think of?

[stuck]

Those are great ideas! I wonder though if the preppers and old guard could co-exist with the progressives though? It would be nice to see some changes to where the church becomes more progressive so they can be more liberal in all areas especially like garment wearing, word of wisdom, temple marriages, more accepting of women and LGBTQ+ and even in Sunday school discussions where alternative ideas would be valued and discussed (like non-white washed church history and the historical Jesus).

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

Two years in and our family has really been enjoying house church.

We have had some great lessons and almost every week has led to meaningful discussions that have caused me to reflect and, dare I use the word...ponder...all week long. We have talked about some VERY controversial topics and we have had some significant disagreements with regard to conclusions but we haven't had any contention. Those disagreements have led to increased understanding. Our 20 year old might see things different than our 15 year old or different from her Mom, but that is an opportunity to discuss and learn from each other. I have had many of my own thoughts shift as I have listened to the thoughts of my wife or my daughters.

During that same time we have been privileged to make a couple of very close friendships in our community. Our friends are from a different faith tradition. They are Amish. We have attended church with them. Church each week is held in a different Amish home. There are no prepared talks. In fact, the preacher doesn't even know they are preaching until they draw a lot for it that particular week. No prepared remarks allowed.

I'm not trying to be snarky or inconsiderate of RR original post, but I must admit that as I read it, my first thought was "why do we need leadership?

If we believe that God/Jesus/The Flying Spaghetti Monster can communicate with each of us then why do we need middle men? I would hate to always have to talk to my younger children through my oldest child. Further, what I tell one child may be different advice from what I would give another based on their individual backgrounds, talents, challenges, and knowledge at a given time. Why would a loving, all knowing father act differently.

I hear what RR is saying, but I don't think the problem is limited to the particular LDS leadership model, but rather to the idea that we need some sort of intermediary at all. It becomes a means of differentiating and elevating some members over others, and it becomes a means of control. Just my $02

-lost

[wtfluff]

"Term limits?" Yes.

Age-based / age limits? Yes.

50/50 male/female based - with the females having actual power in the hierarchy? Yes.

Yes, it seems that all of those thing could "improve" the leadership model in LD$-Inc.


Sadly, the caste system that Hierarchical MORmONism has created is completely broken, and I personally doubt there is a way to fix it. Even with the changes mentioned, whoever is at the top of the caste system basically gets to hallucinate any reality that they want inside their head, and then tell the rest of the MORmONs to fall in line with their "revelations." Even with "changes" I don't see those changes removing the tone-deaf bubble that the upper "leaders" live in, and they have no clue whatsoever what it's like living in the trenches. It's broken beyond repair, and I wish it would just go away. (Yes, my wish will likely never happen...)

[Palerider]

I'm not trying to be snarky or inconsiderate of RR original post, but I must admit that as I read it, my first thought was "why do we need leadership?

If we believe that God/Jesus/The Flying Spaghetti Monster can communicate with each of us then why do we need middle men? I would hate to always have to talk to my younger children through my oldest child. Further, what I tell one child may be different advice from what I would give another based on their individual backgrounds, talents, challenges, and knowledge at a given time. Why would a loving, all knowing father act differently.

-lost

You may be much closer here than you think.

I'll freely admit that organized groups can sometimes accomplish things that individuals cannot. But the individuals have a choice whether to support an organized effort or not.

In the church you are expected to support whatever the brethren or local leadership propose. You look bad or weak if you don't.

[Red Ryder]

I'm not trying to be snarky or inconsiderate of RR original post, but I must admit that as I read it, my first thought was "why do we need leadership?

If we believe that God/Jesus/The Flying Spaghetti Monster can communicate with each of us then why do we need middle men? I would hate to always have to talk to my younger children through my oldest child. Further, what I tell one child may be different advice from what I would give another based on their individual backgrounds, talents, challenges, and knowledge at a given time. Why would a loving, all knowing father act differently.

-lost

You may be much closer here than you think.

I'll freely admit that organized groups can sometimes accomplish things that individuals cannot. But the individuals have a choice whether to support an organized effort or not.

In the church you are expected to support whatever the brethren or local leadership propose. You look bad or weak if you don't.

Lost and Pale,

I agree 100% with your thoughts.

Lost, I appreciate you sharing your at home church experience. Sounds refreshing.

I started the post primarily as a thought experiment and to kick a few ideas around after a discussion with my father in law. He made a comment at Sunday dinner in relation to people (and noticeably the youth) leaving the church. According to him, their stake is on the verge of consolidating two wards because people have moved out and others aren’t coming back after Covid. He mentioned resignations are also part of the exit since he’s a ward clerk.

The odd part of the conversation (to me) was the number of people he mentioned leaving the church because they felt the Prophets and Apostles weren’t DOING ENOUGH…

He brought up the Prophets stance on vaccinations, not enough talk about prepping for the downfall of society, changing policies that make things easier like two hour church.

Things most of us NOM think are bizarre reasons to leave the church. What happened to truth claims and the normal exmo slanted complaints?

So I countered his comments with the question about leadership structure. How would he change things up if he was leading the church. He stumbled upon the same old narrative about a prophets time is known by god only and that the current model prepared RMN to lead today. It’s not always obvious but don’t question the Lord.

I sort of just agreed and left it at that because these conversations suck all the fun out of family dinners.

I agree with Lost.

Why do we need any sort of leadership in our current views towards the church? I guess the answer is to protect the church machine at all costs so that it can continue to provide a way back to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ via a substantial cost to participate.

A high demand religion needs a corporate leadership structure otherwise everyone determines they can find their own way back to God. Or in some cases, that he/she/they don’t really exist.