Orthodox Trends in LDS Leadership

[Ceteris Paribus]

Recent threads re: the definition of orthodoxy and Solon's discussion of types of Mormons were interesting points to ponder during Sunday's interminable HC talk about the evils of modern media.

Prior to serving in home ward bishopric, I was bishop of a student singles ward for three years. While both were great experiences, cannot help but contrast the effects of orthodox/conservative stake presidents with those who administer more by the spirit. There is no question that SP's represent the real seats of power at the local level and their interpretation of doctrine and policies can disproportionately affect individual lives.

Case in point: Singles ward SP was guided by a deep "concern for the one" and applied this philosophy consistently and fairly. In matters involving sexual issues, bishops were instructed not to convene disciplinary councils unless there were repeated occurrences of intercourse by an endowed member. Everything else fell under the category of individual counseling. Time again, we saw lives literally turned around through simple acts of caring.

Contrast that with the first home ward SP (two years). To him, the doctrines, policies and procedures superseded the individual. Keeping with his strict by the CHI approach, we were convening bishops councils for teenagers guilty of nothing more than petting. Tipping point came when the Provo MTC called the SP about a missionary from our ward who was caught skipping a devotional, using an office phone and meeting a friend in the parking lot. SP instructed the MTC to send the missionary home and he was on a plane the next day. Two years later this young man and his family remain inactive.

The concern is that the Church is moving inexorably toward an approach steeped in policies and procedures at the expense of individuals. Too much OT and too little NT.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Ceteris Paribus

Recent threads re: the definition of orthodoxy and Solon's discussion of types of Mormons were interesting points to ponder during Sunday's interminable HC talk about the evils of modern media.

Prior to serving in home ward bishopric, I was bishop of a student singles ward for three years. While both were great experiences, cannot help but contrast the effects of orthodox/conservative stake presidents with those who administer more by the spirit. There is no question that SP's represent the real seats of power at the local level and their interpretation of doctrine and policies can disproportionately affect individual lives.

Case in point: Singles ward SP was guided by a deep "concern for the one" and applied this philosophy consistently and fairly. In matters involving sexual issues, bishops were instructed not to convene disciplinary councils unless there were repeated occurrences of intercourse by an endowed member. Everything else fell under the category of individual counseling. Time again, we saw lives literally turned around through simple acts of caring.

Contrast that with the first home ward SP (two years). To him, the doctrines, policies and procedures superseded the individual. Keeping with his strict by the CHI approach, we were convening bishops councils for teenagers guilty of nothing more than petting. Tipping point came when the Provo MTC called the SP about a missionary from our ward who was caught skipping a devotional, using an office phone and meeting a friend in the parking lot. SP instructed the MTC to send the missionary home and he was on a plane the next day. Two years later this young man and his family remain inactive.

The concern is that the Church is moving inexorably toward an approach steeped in policies and procedures at the expense of individuals. Too much OT and too little NT.

If a singles ward SP were to call a disciplinary council for every act of intercourse, you'd have a real hard time getting people to accept a call to the high council.

While I agree with your observation and your conclusion, I think it has more to do with exposure than anything else.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm going to play the optimist on this:

The move to a kind of OT, rules-based, "correlation" approach was made decades ago, but some of my fellow Church members are finally waking up to this fact.

Any number of things may be in the forseeable future, from Mormons cultivating a habit of healthy skepticism regarding their leaders (as many Catholics have done), to even a large schism (the Reform Mormons, New Order Mormons, and other recent break offs could easily just be the vanguard of a significant restructuring within Mormonism in a larger sense).

I'm not making any predictions, but I do think the winds of change are blowing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm going to play the optimist on this:

The move to a kind of OT, rules-based, "correlation" approach was made decades ago, but some of my fellow Church members are finally waking up to this fact.

Damn, I'd hate to see you play the pessimist.

Originally Posted by Ceteris Paribus

The concern is that the Church is moving inexorably toward an approach steeped in policies and procedures at the expense of individuals. Too much OT and too little NT.

I agree that an inflexible "the handbook says..." approach can be harmful. More leaders need to pay attention to Ballard's excellent O Be Wise talk a few years ago:

Second, be innovative. As we work to magnify our callings, we should seek the inspiration of the Spirit to solve problems in ways that will best help the people we serve. We have handbooks of instruction, and their guidelines should be followed. But within that framework are substantial opportunities to think, to be creative, and to make use of individual talents. The instruction to magnify our callings is not a command to embellish and complicate them. To innovate does not necessarily mean to expand; very often it means to simplify.