Unlike other churches where people pick the congregation or minister that appeals to them and vote with their feet as often as with their offerings, Mormons are assigned to specific congregations called wards. The assignment is almost always by virtue of residence location although some exceptions are made for young singles and people with a primary language which is not the predominant one in the the area.
This top-down assignment to wards has some interesting consequences such as sometimes splitting families and friends, forcing them to attend at different times and maybe different locations even if they live next door or across the street. It also calls for some judicious realignment of boundaries as church membership increases or decreases. As our ward bishop explained to us today, the programs of the church are most effective with certain membership numbers and our ward with 330 members and 145 regular attendees just isn't adequate for a full church program.
This afternoon, the stake president (leader over 10 wards in our area) presented the new boundaries for these wards after eliminating one of the wards and redistributing the members of this and the rest of the wards. From personal experience in another stake, I know that a lot of work, number crunching, and deliberation has gone on behind the scenes. But that effort will never be made public or debated further. The plan proposed by the stake president was put to a vote, unanimously approved by those affected (or ignored by those who disagree or don't care), and implemented immediately.
Judging from some of the pre-announcement rumors and meeting talks, there must have been some rough reactions to such redistricting here in the past. People do still vote with their feet even when they're officially assigned to a ward. And change is always challenging and often difficult. We're all anxious to see how it works out this time.
I seem to remember Grandpa telling a story about a ward split he was familiar with that was originally going to be along the railroad tracks. As is stereotypical, the tracks split economic zones and many were not thrilled to get a poor ward and a rich ward. So when it came to the sustaining vote half the congregation voted no. (You do still have that oportunity.) As a result they actually changed it.
ReplyDeleteMy point is simply that we aren't completely powerless. I do believe that we should generally err on the side of sustaining the proposal because yes, a lot of time, effort, debate, prayer, and fasting has gone into it. But if there is a major reason why we view it as wrong, I still believe it is better to stand up and say so than to simply grumble in the background about it.
Of course that is why I call myself the sphincter in the body of Christ. I can be one major pain in the ass.
And have I mentioned that I'm not sure how I feel about having above-mentioned pain in my ward?
ReplyDeleteI suppose there are wards in the church where someone votes against a priesthood proposal but in all my years I haven't seen such.
ReplyDeleteI say to myself, remember this . . .
ReplyDeleteIt's against the norm, more so today I think than in the era of Grandpa's (i.e. Elwood Carson Loveridge) example. If that happened I suspect it was when trains still dominated cars in transportation. A lot of "education" has happened to discourage voting not to sustain something, and I agree it should not be done lightly.
It takes either a lot of courage from someone who loves the church dearly and feels strongly that the decision is unrighteous, (I don't think wrong is sufficient justification.) or someone who likes to stir up problems and doesn't care what people think of them. Of course the line between those is sometimes rather blurred, even from the individual.
Another problem is inequality of knowledge and preparation. When a ward or stake realignment is proposed, the powers that be have studied the matter in detail and have numbers and names (including much confidential information) to back up their proposal. It also has the official approval of "Salt Lake". So unless the objector sees something immediately and blatantly problematic his objection will be seen as just "looking for trouble".
ReplyDelete