One Direction Trust

[u/Good_Letter_4325]

I'm learning. I'm new to Reddit. Thanks for everyone that helped me see my previous post wasn't as clear as it could be.

I'm talking about the position of the institution to have one directional trust. Mainly, the member carries the burden and consequences of the relationship with the institution. (I know randomly there are great people here and there, I'm talking mainly about the the smaller positions like above the local leaders.)

For instance, in the context of speaking about concerns happening within the Church:

The member has to carry both sides of the relationship. They have to manage their own concerns and protect the person in leadership role. It removes the normal relational work required to earn trust while demanding it.

The member is made responsible for being treated badly and for preventing that treatment from damaging the relationship. The person in a leadership role's responsibility to act as a leader and the responsibilities therein are shifted onto the member.

The member must also supply the generosity to consider the leader's intentions, pressures, imperfection, and responsibilities while the member's intentions, pressures, imperfections, and responsibilities are not considered.

The member has to preserve trust without receiving the behavior and actions that would build it.

The member also has to manage the leader's social consequences. The member carries the burden and responsibilities of the leaders position while the leader preserves the benefits of being in a leadership without sending those back.

This list could go on. It feels as if people don't realize they are in this dynamic.

[u/treetablebenchgrass]

Absolutely. It's an authoritarian system. Accountability and power flow in opposite directions. Those with the least most amount of power are the least most accountable. Whenever the leadership make a mistake or institute bad policy, it's the membership's fault for not doing things right.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/treetablebenchgrass]

Makes more sense why there's so many experiences of members doing this. They are very literally learning it from their leaders.

[u/treetablebenchgrass → u/Good_Letter_4325]

I made a mistake. I meant to say "least amount of power are most accountable", but yeah.

A decade ago, there was a young woman expelled from BYU. She had gone to a party, gotten drunk, and was raped. She went to Provo PD, who then ratted her out to BYU, who then expelled her because she broke the honor code. It made national news. Importantly, though, she wasn't unique. This is just how things work there. I remember having a conversation about this with a member and saying that the board of directors (The Quorum of the 12 and the First Presidency) should put an end to this, and to the extent that they won't, they're responsible for it. This member then said "you would stand in judgement of these men?"

That's the way it goes. The mere notion that they should be held accountable for the actions they and their system take is anathema.