Yesterday, in the Saturday afternoon session of the 185th Annual General Conference of the LDS Church, we saw a fairly uncommon occurrence: members of the congregation in the conference center voiced a “no” vote in the sustaining of General Church officers including the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. This is not the first time that this has occurred. In fact, LDS Living has already outlined other instances in Church history where similar “no” votes have been manifested in an article found here: (http://ldsliving.com/story/78523-dissenting-votes-at-conference-everything-you-need-to-know).
To be honest, I am surprised at our community’s reaction at large (speaking collectively, not individually) to those members who decided to not vote to sustain general officers of the Church. To begin, the act of sustaining Church officers is a moment in the Church where members of the Church pledge to support (or not support) those serving in local and general Church positions. There is clear doctrinal and historical precedent for the action of not sustaining Church officers. See Doctrine and Covenants 28:13, 26:2, and 124:144 among others for doctrinal precedent, and see the article from LDS Living for a summary of historical precedent. I personally covenant to sustain my local and general Church leaders, and I have mentioned in other blog posts that I believe that part of supporting Church leaders is openly letting them know your thoughts, feelings, and inspiration on important matters. These members of the Church have decided for one reason or another to vote not to sustain their general Church officers. We should not fault, shame, or demean those who use legitimate channels to express their concern regarding Church governance. In recent years, we rightfully critiqued Ordain Women and other Latter-day Saints for using illegitimate means to express their concerns within the Church. It seems that many of those Latter-day Saints have received that lesson, expressed concerns in a legitimate way, and now it is our turn to listen.
The Savior once questioned: “How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye” (Luke 6:42). Too many of us rushed to point out, cast out, or even laugh at a mote that was in the eye of these fellow Latter-day Saints without even considering the beam in our own. In the article from LDS Living, there was a link included where you could read a press release from those who voted “No” in conference. It says that they are a group of Mormons who have various concerns about official Church policy, but are “concerned that Latter-day Saints find little access to policy-making Church leaders to express feedback, opinions, dissent or dissatisfaction about current views...layers of bureaucracy keep higher LDS leadership insulated from hearing authentic concerns and feedback of their members. Correspondence and petitions by lay members directed toward the Church’s General Authorities are almost always returned and delegated to local stake presidents and bishops for further handling (who have minimal influence over official policy)...Thankfully, the broader membership of the LDS Church is given the opportunity during its semi-annual General Conference to sustain or oppose the current General Authorities and other Church officers.” In short, these are members of the Church with varied concerns who feel that they are not being heard by those Church Authorities who have actual power in setting policy, and they used the only legitimate means they knew to express that.
I think we ought to sit back and ask ourselves whether we can do better to make sure that, organizationally, our brethren (especially struggling brethren) feel that their feedback is being heard at the top. ie consider the beam in our eye. I know some would say that it was only five members of the Church who rose their hand, so why should we worry about trying to make organizational changes for five people so that they feel that their concerns actually reach the ears of the Apostles? However, do we not read over and over again that the worth of every individual soul is great? That the Savior is concerned with each individual? That He LIVES TO HEAR OUR SOUL’s COMPLAINT? And that losing one member of the flock is one too many?
If we believe that preaching, then we certainly ought to consider that beam in our eye. Especially because we are taught so clearly by the Brethren in Preach my Gospel that as representatives of Jesus Christ, “more important than speaking is listening. These people are not lifeless objects disguised as a baptismal statistic...If we listen with love, we won’t need to wonder what to say. It will be given to us--by the Spirit and by our friends”. Member feedback is a form of revelation to us as priesthood leaders and representatives of Christ-- I imagine that it is especially important to those who are SPECIAL WITNESSES OF CHRIST. So if there are at least five who are not sustaining Church officers because they feel that they are not being heard through the bureaucracy (which is the case in any large organization, the Church is no exception), and hearing the soul’s complaint is a chief attribute that ought to be possessed by those professing authority to represent Jesus Christ on earth, then let’s take this seriously.
I know that others say that the “stunt” of these five members did nothing but cause stir and confusion among Church members, but again, is it not this a legitimate means of expression as outlined by the Lord? And what’s more, President Utchdorf could have easily taken a minute to explain the procedure, let members of the Church worldwide know (in real time) that this was perfectly normal, and within procedure so that young or ignorant members don’t walk away stirred and confused. He could have gone further to thank those five for their love, concern, and efforts to legitimately voice their concerns. Moreover, he could have said that “their concerns are important to us, let’s make sure that ushers get our names and the names of your stake presidents so that you can go voice your concerns in detail to them, and so that we can follow-up with them in order to hear your concerns.” This would have sent a powerful message that using legitimate means of disapproval works, that you do not have to resort to distasteful tactics that have been used by other concerned mormons before this, it would have taught an important lesson to Church members in real time (that this is more than a symbolic gesture, this is Church governance, and it is okay), and it would have demonstrated the teachings of Christ regarding listening to the one.
Remember, we are charged by Christ to “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him...That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also...And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”. Disapproval has been expressed over feeling that their feedback is not heard by General Church leadership, our duty is to bless them with the courtesy of pondering how we can structurally improve that within the Church organizationally, and also to do good to them by actually implementing solutions that are revealed to us through that pondering.
Again, they did their part by learning to use legitimate means of expression, now let’s do our part by showing them that it works.
Comments
Post a Comment