NOM

While a bit on the tame side these days, I still read the wheat and tares blog from time to time. A great post recently on yes men, which gave me some reflection on my over one year anniversary of my "service" on the high council:

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/07/14/yes-men/

So I've given this some thought, on the importance of "unity" in a council. I think we place WAY too much importance on the need for unity, and that effectively stifles lively discussion on the issues. I've seen it before, and I'm sure I will see this again. Luckily, this is NOT as important on our high council, or I wouldn't be there. We've had some interesting discussions, and while I haven't been particularly strident in my views, everybody knows where I stand at this point on certain issues and it's a good thing. And of course the overall problem with "yes men," is the men part, although I must say I've been impressed with the contributions of the women auxiliary leaders, and they feel very free to express their opinions. Which is great, of course, but still not equality by any stretch, another challenge of yes "men."

I'll just give one example without a lot of details. It was a disciplinary meeting, and I've been very impressed with my SP friend's mercy level - it's pretty high, even in the face of some strident older authoritarians on the council. This particular meeting the older crew was calling for blood, and my friend for mercy, and he came to what I thought was a pretty good compromise. Not enough for me, though, and I declined to sustain the verdict. Now, the reality is, despite the need for unity, my declining vote means diddly squat and they did what they wanted. In fact, I think they were rather afraid of WHY I declined, and explaining to everyone WHY, so they just moved on without forcing unity on me. Which frankly, was probably the right thing to do. This happened a while ago, and the ones on the council who don't know me must be wondering why I'm there, but it proves to me that unity is just not that essential. Pluralism is, and maybe my SP friend just gets that. I don't know.

The one thing I worry about my SP is simply burnout. He's still under the illusion he can change things, that the numbers dropping aren't a North American phenomenon but just is an affliction our stake is dealing with. I haven't enlightened anyone in our meeting because I know it won't be welcome and I'll be accused on not having faith, but they really think they can stop the declining numbers. I feel bad for him, because it's simply out of his control. NOBODY is interested in high demand religions anymore, especially conservative ones (particularly in the liberal great white north), and the internet has lost the church's control over its own narrative thread. It's just not going to get better. And I feel bad for my friend, who thinks he can fix this. Hopefully in a quiet moment I'll be able to tell him this, so he doesn't go down too hard.

Great topic. I've never been on a high council so I don't have much to add. I don't believe much in D&C 9's advice to Oliver Cowdery, but if did I would add that most people don't study enough to sincerely pray for an answer, and I include myself in that judgement. Most of us study with a very narrow perspective. Our brains are wired that way. Do High Council discussions ever make a list of pros and cons to a decision before they pray? If not, they are likely using too narrow a perspective.

Mormorrisey, what if you asked the question of which age demographic is leaving in the greatest number for your stake and why that age group is leaving? I would love to hear their answer and speculation.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am I think we place WAY too much importance on the need for unity, and that effectively stifles lively discussion on the issues.

Perhaps this isn't what you're looking for, but I see the family as a microcosm of the institutional church with this issue. My husband’s family is an example of how the “yes man” and idea of unity plays out at the family level. When we were first married, I thought my husband grew up in this great emotionally healthy family. They all got along, there was no fighting, no arguing.

Years down the road I’m seeing how that has played out. There is no room for discussion, for difference of ideas. Mom and Dad are always right (with the emphasis on Dad). This has caused a lot of difficulty for my husband as he has tried to become an adult separate from his parents who just won’t let go. His sisters (much to his irritation) have assumed childlike roles and refuse to speak up in the name of family unity. My husband’s bothers have dealt with this by moving far away and my husband is seriously considering it if job prospects work out. How sad is that? My husband wants to move far away from his parents because they simply can't allow or accept him to grow up and be an individual with his own ideas and feelings.

In my husband’s childhood, there was only one way to think, one way to do things. Contention was of the devil. They had to “get along.” My father-in-law is by no means authoritarian in the classic sense – he is a pacifist (in fact his "pacifist" approach is simply a way to discourage disagreement and gain control) and quiet man, but it only makes the tactics he uses (especially guilt!) more subtle and less likely to be called out, unseen by those it controls.

My own childhood was by no means perfect and there was a lot of arguing, discussion, fighting, disagreement. My parents have both apologized for a lot of things. The result is that as a family we’re closer than we ever were and we tolerate differences of opinion and can use conflict resolution or just agree to disagree.

I’m of the opinion that conflict and disagreement, used appropriately (not in an abusive way) are key to the development of healthy individuals and relationships. The avoidance of conflict is more detrimental to relationships and is part of the root of so much dysfunction with members and their relationship with the church – without disagreement there is no room for growth, increased intimacy or trust, and no reason for the admission of wrongdoing, either at the local level or higher up.

In the church council I am currently serving on, we are told we can disagree all we want internally. Discuss. Dissect. Disagree. But when we leave the room we need to be a unified team that is consistent in our messaging. It sounds good in theory but I don’t agree with a lot of the decisions made after those intense discussions (i.e. Trek) and I’m not gonna go out and sing the party line about this stuff.

And. The reality is that when I disagree I’m told to pray and have more faith. The men on this council make the decisions 2 to 1 against the women and do less than 25% of the work.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:17 pm My own childhood was by no means perfect and there was a lot of arguing, discussion, fighting, disagreement. My parents have both apologized for a lot of things. The result is that as a family we’re closer than we ever were and we tolerate differences of opinion and can use conflict resolution or just agree to disagree.

I’m of the opinion that conflict and disagreement, used appropriately (not in an abusive way) are key to the development of healthy individuals and relationships. The avoidance of conflict is more detrimental to relationships and is part of the root of so much dysfunction with members and their relationship with the church – without disagreement there is no room for growth, increased intimacy or trust, and no reason for the admission of wrongdoing, either at the local level or higher up.

Merriemiss this sounds exactly my childhood and family EXCEPT we have almost no relationship now. I’ve always blamed it on our inability to resolve the conflict. I’m ok with the discussions and disagreement but we can’t even agree to disagree so we just avoid each other. Well all that plus a few significant unresolved parent issues thrown in.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:17 pm

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:48 am I think we place WAY too much importance on the need for unity, and that effectively stifles lively discussion on the issues.

Perhaps this isn't what you're looking for, but I see the family as a microcosm of the institutional church with this issue. My husband’s family is an example of how the “yes man” and idea of unity plays out at the family level. When we were first married, I thought my husband grew up in this great emotionally healthy family. They all got along, there was no fighting, no arguing.

Years down the road I’m seeing how that has played out. There is no room for discussion, for difference of ideas. Mom and Dad are always right (with the emphasis on Dad). This has caused a lot of difficulty for my husband as he has tried to become an adult separate from his parents who just won’t let go. His sisters (much to his irritation) have assumed childlike roles and refuse to speak up in the name of family unity. My husband’s bothers have dealt with this by moving far away and my husband is seriously considering it if job prospects work out. How sad is that? My husband wants to move far away from his parents because they simply can't allow or accept him to grow up and be an individual with his own ideas and feelings.

Mormon council culture can absolutely infect families to this degree. I 100% agree with you. Not so much in my family, which has its own particular challenges with a narcissist parent, but Sis. M's family has this challenge. Except it's a little different, in that the patriarch has lost his authority as the kids got older, and they just kind of ignore him. It's sad, really, I like the guy, but it was all about the appearance of unity, and papering over the cracks of kids who didn't agree with him growing up. When the kids got out from under his influence, some of them went nuts. It's not my story to tell, but I don't think Sis. M's family has fully recovered from the appearance challenge. I get along with the other apostates in the family, and not so much with the ultra TBM's - but the illusion of unity was a real stumbling block to some of the kids. So I absolutely buy what your selling, MM.

moksha wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:00 pm Mormorrisey, what if you asked the question of which age demographic is leaving in the greatest number for your stake and why that age group is leaving? I would love to hear their answer and speculation.

I've thought about doing that, but they have the data in their reports, and it's clear with anyone with a brain in their head that it's the millennials and the Generation Z folks who are dropping anchor and leaving the boat. So they know, but they just don't want to have a protracted discussion about it other than "what can we do about this?" kind of questions. Not about WHY this is happening, but HOW do we fix the problem?

Perhaps when a longer discussion gets going about this I can ask at some point down the road. I'm as interested as you are in their response!

Anon70 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:59 pm In the church council I am currently serving on, we are told we can disagree all we want internally. Discuss. Dissect. Disagree. But when we leave the room we need to be a unified team that is consistent in our messaging. It sounds good in theory but I don’t agree with a lot of the decisions made after those intense discussions (i.e. Trek) and I’m not gonna go out and sing the party line about this stuff.

And. The reality is that when I disagree I’m told to pray and have more faith. The men on this council make the decisions 2 to 1 against the women and do less than 25% of the work.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:17 pm My own childhood was by no means perfect and there was a lot of arguing, discussion, fighting, disagreement. My parents have both apologized for a lot of things. The result is that as a family we’re closer than we ever were and we tolerate differences of opinion and can use conflict resolution or just agree to disagree.

I’m of the opinion that conflict and disagreement, used appropriately (not in an abusive way) are key to the development of healthy individuals and relationships. The avoidance of conflict is more detrimental to relationships and is part of the root of so much dysfunction with members and their relationship with the church – without disagreement there is no room for growth, increased intimacy or trust, and no reason for the admission of wrongdoing, either at the local level or higher up.

Merriemiss this sounds exactly my childhood and family EXCEPT we have almost no relationship now. I’ve always blamed it on our inability to resolve the conflict. I’m ok with the discussions and disagreement but we can’t even agree to disagree so we just avoid each other. Well all that plus a few significant unresolved parent issues thrown in.

I don't know that it was effective in bringing us closer together except that all but one of us no longer believes the church is true. Once we were able to throw off the idea of perfection, roles, and authority, it has been so much easier to genuinely love each other for we are instead of how we measure up to the church's idea of who we should be and my parents perception of judgment from others for the choices their children made. I think it is also what made it possible for my parents to say they were wrong. If the family was still TBM, I don't know that we'd be where we are now. My TBM sibling is most difficult one to get along with, I think.

I wrote that post in Wheat and tares. My alter ego is Bishop Bill!

A New Name wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:45 pm I wrote that post in Wheat and tares. My alter ego is Bishop Bill!

Wow, a celebrity in our midst! You and hawkgrrrl's posts have become must reads for me on that site. Great to know! Some interesting comments on your post, eh?

Very thoughtful article.

A New Name wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:45 pm I wrote that post in Wheat and tares. My alter ego is Bishop Bill!

I don't go to W&T much but when I do, I generally only read Bishop Bill!