| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 406.3 | | INDUCE::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Wed Jun 17 1992 21:03 | 34 |
| Well, I am a firm believer in the concept of stewardship. And, with
that goes supporting stewardship. If a home teacher wants to "probe"
in my family, he will ONLY do it if I permit it, as head of the
household. Otherwise, his @#$& will be kindly, gently, lovingly, firmly
and quickly booted out of my door.
As a home teacher, rule number 1 is that the Father is the head of the
household. If there is no father, the mother is it. This is
REGARDLESS of whether or not the head of the household is a member or
Priesthood holder. The home teacher is there to HELP the head of the
household to fulfill stewardship. He may render assistance only to the
extent that the head of the household permits it.
Also, my understanding of Church doctrine is that there is no
superior/subordinate position in the church as the world knows it.
The foot cannot say to the hand that the hand is not needed.
I belive the best characterization of this was demonstrated to me by a Ward
Mission leader in the town of Esbjerg in Denmark. I made some comment
about what a great Bishop and what great leaders they seemed to have in
such a small ward. He shrugged it off with a comment along the lines
of, "we all take turns at being Bishop." And, he was absolutely right.
In that ward, the callings were exchanged over years. He was not
disrespectful. He understood that we all need to be the hand, the foot
or the head on occasion.
In the callings I have served in and in which I continue to serve, I
have always honored and respected the people who serve the membership
and report to me. It was Christ who showed how a leader should lead.
Not the least of his lessons was that of serving, even washing the
feet of, those who, according to the wisdom of the world, should be
serving Him and washing His feet.
Steve
|
| 406.4 | Tough Issue---> | CGHUB::WREDE | | Thu Jun 18 1992 08:28 | 61 |
| Ok, I see all of you dancing arround the issues, no one wants to take
the issue by the horns, so here goes.
1. The prophit is the 100% responsible for every living person on the
face of the earth. This is a charge given him by Jesus Christ.
2. The prophit holds the council responsible for their individual
areas of responsibility (area supervisors).
3. The area supervisors hold the regional reps. responsible for
their individual areas.
4. The regional reps. hold the stake pres. responsible for their
individual areas.
5. The Stake pres. hold the bishops responsible for their individual
areas.
6. The bishops hold the priesthood leaders (MP) responsible for
their families. The Ward Mission Leader is held acountable
for the non members.
That is how the Lord gets accountability for all his children covered.
Now the tough issues.
As long as there are no serious sins against the church, it is the
responsibility of the Head of the House to see to his family's needs
and to use the Home Teachers as a RESOURCE. The same is true for the
Visiting Teachers and all the other auxileries, they are a resource
for the Head of the House.
The Lord looks upon the Father as the leader of the Family and charges
the church leaders with the responsibility to help him in his job.
If there is not Father, then the Mother.
Final note. Charles, you are close. The Stake Pres. is the only
governing body with any power/authority over the MP. However, the
Stake Pres. is not a literal judge and therefore does not have the
keys. The Bishop is the only literal judge and does have the keys.
This is a very tough issue with most members of the church. They must
understand that the office of the Bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood
calling. It is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. That is why
the MP report to the Stake Pres. However, the Bishop because of his
charge is responsible for seeing to it that all living persons within
his ward boundries return to our Father in Heaven. Bear in mind even
though he has this charge, two things are parimount. 1. The
Father/Mother is in charge of the family. 2. Everyone has their own
free agency.
The scriptures were given to us as a resource to return to our
Father in Heaven. The Church was given to us as a resource to help
us to return to our Father in Heaven, and so on and so on. All of
these are resources.
Now the other part.
It is the responsibility of the Home Teachers to inform the Bishop
if there is welfare needs, spiritual needs, etc. in a family. The
Bishop cannot do anything if the family does not want the help.
However, he will be held accountable if he does nothing, waiting for
the family to take the first step.
If there are sins being committed against the church, then it is the
responsibility of the Bishop to take the appropiate action.
Now that I have made a mess of an otherwise unclear subject. I will
conclude.
Lee
|
| 406.5 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Jun 18 1992 09:20 | 61 |
|
RE: <<< Note 406.4 by CGHUB::WREDE >>>
> Final note. Charles, you are close. The Stake Pres. is the only
> governing body with any power/authority over the MP. However, the
> Stake Pres. is not a literal judge and therefore does not have the
> keys. The Bishop is the only literal judge and does have the keys.
I think you should look into this again if you think the Stake Pres.
does not have keys and is not a judge. I used to think that until
I found out different. This is also the juncture where the MP comes
under the direction of the Stake Pres. and High Council. The bishop
does not really direct the priesthood, but the priesthood works in
conjunction with the bishop. It is a very fine line, and the
principles have been perverted over the years. The brethern are
taking small steps to bring it in line with what the Lord had
originally planned.
> However, the Bishop because of his
> charge is responsible for seeing to it that all living persons within
> his ward boundries return to our Father in Heaven.
I would say he has the responsibility to *provide the opportunity*
for everyone to accept the gospel and return (also see last answer),
but I wonder how that would fit in with his Aaronic (youth)
responsibilities. Maybe too much has been put on the bishop and
that is why the major task (youth) is being neglected.
> The scriptures were given to us as a resource to return to our
> Father in Heaven. The Church was given to us as a resource to help
> us to return to our Father in Heaven, and so on and so on. All of
> these are resources.
I think we should remember that the church will go away. Only the
priesthood and the scriptures will continue (scriptures because it
is the word of God and lasts forever).
One time I miffed a person who informed me that I should (as Elder's
Quorum President) be going to the Stake Auxiliaries meeting and I
informed them that the priesthood was not an auxiliary. Some people
find this a hard thing to understand.
> It is the responsibility of the Home Teachers to inform the Bishop
> if there is welfare needs, spiritual needs, etc. in a family. The
> Bishop cannot do anything if the family does not want the help.
> However, he will be held accountable if he does nothing, waiting for
> the family to take the first step.
I can agree that the HT search out the needs of ward members and that
the bishop can't do anything until asked, but I have a real hard time
agreeing with the last statement. The Lord has given us instruction
in this area, and it is that we must ask before receiving. I do not
think God will be held accountable if not all his children return.
Too many times this society has put the responsibility on someone or
something other than the person who *should* be responsible. That is
exactly what is wrong today. People have to take their own lives in
their hands, and they must also take the responsibility that goes
along with that. Whether we are exaulted or not depends entirely
upon ourselves and our actions; not upon what other people did or
didn't do.
|
| 406.6 | More stuff... | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Is butthead one word or two? | Thu Jun 18 1992 11:37 | 38 |
| <> It is the responsibility of the Home Teachers to inform the Bishop
<> if there is welfare needs, spiritual needs, etc. in a family. The
<> Bishop cannot do anything if the family does not want the help.
<> However, he will be held accountable if he does nothing, waiting for
<> the family to take the first step.
<
< I can agree that the HT search out the needs of ward members and that
< the bishop can't do anything until asked, but I have a real hard time
< agreeing with the last statement. The Lord has given us instruction
< in this area, and it is that we must ask before receiving. I do not
< think God will be held accountable if not all his children return.
< Too many times this society has put the responsibility on someone or
< something other than the person who *should* be responsible. That is
< exactly what is wrong today. People have to take their own lives in
< their hands, and they must also take the responsibility that goes
< along with that. Whether we are exaulted or not depends entirely
< upon ourselves and our actions; not upon what other people did or
< didn't do.
<
To take this a little further. If I, as a hometeacher, learn that a
family is having some problems that need to be discussed with the
bishop, I should let the bishop know. I would like to think the way
I pass this information on to the bishop is thru my elder's quorum
presidency to the bishop. Some times, the bishop finds out this
information from other channels. Alot of times, the bishop is where
the buck stops, since the problems tend to be of a temporal nature. If
the problems are spiritual, then he will contact the stake president.
Furthermore, our stake is trying to lighten the load of the bishop by
having the MP groups work directly with the stake president. We have
gotten to the point where we work directly with the SP in regards to
temple work and some other things. The bishop does not really have to
do worry about filling the temple assignments, etc.
There's more that I can say, but I have work to do...
scott
|
| 406.7 | Together, togther, lets do things together ... | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Thu Jun 18 1992 12:26 | 131 |
|
I've enjoyed the comments so far.
When I spoke of the "built-in superior/subordinate rolls" that we have
in the Church, I was referring to the hierarchical organization that
exists. It is obvious that my Bishop is superior to me in terms of his
authority and decision making ability. If anyone disagrees that this
is a superior/subordinate relationship, you can perform a test to see
who is right. Pick your favorite Ward policy, ignore the Bishopric,
and try and change that policy. You will quickly find out that, yes,
your Bishop is your superior and you are subordinate to him.
There is nothing inherently wrong with superior/subordinate
relationships in organizations--every hierarchical organization has
them built in. The danger and problems arise when people use those
relationships to dominate others. Joseph Smith in D&C 121 said that
almost every person who gets a little authority will immediately begin
to dominate others.
My purpose in starting this note was not to criticize the hierarchical
organization of the Church. It was to express concern that individual
people are using the superior/subordinate relationship that the Lord
has given us to dominate others; as I said in the base note, I expect
that most people are not doing this intentionally and they are probably
not even aware that it is happening.
Here are some examples I've observed.
1. I've already referred to the Quorum officer who said home teachers
should probe into the personal lives of others to see who well they
are living the Gospel. "Brother Jones, are you having family home
evenings?" "How about family prayer?" "How is your relationship
with your wife?" etc.
The concept involved is that home teachers represent the Bishop and
check on the welfare of the families and report back to the Bishop.
Now, if the families have agreed to this, then fine. But if the
families haven't agreed, then this isn't much different than
behavior that we would encounter in the former USSR or Hitler's
Germany.
My concern isn't that the Bishop needs to understand how we are
doing and that he is using home teachers as conduits of
information. My concern is that (a) it is done via common consent
of the families, and (b) we are taught in our Quorum training
classes that this consent is mandatory. What I heard last Sunday
was that home teachers should probe into the personal lives of
families, but I didn't hear anything about cautions that this not
be a form of dominance from the superiors (i.e. the Bishop); this
becomes a form of dominance when the superiors assume they can do
that without obtaining permission from the families, or assuming
that they have such permission because the families sustained the
leaders.
Dominance means that the superiors have the right to do things to
the subordinates *just because* of the superior/subordinate
relationship.
2. I know of two men who were heavily involved in Scouting and the
Bishop felt they needed a more balanced Church experience; it is
quite likely that he was inspired in his views, so I'm not implying
that he was wrong. He released the men and called them to other
positions. I feel this was a form of dominance, because in both
cases the Bishop did not consult with the men how they felt about
the situations. In other words, because of his position as Bishop,
he was able to make decisions about the personal lives of two men
without taking into consideration the feelings and concerns of the
men themselves.
The point at issue is not that the Bishop was inspired and
therefore could do what he did, but that the Bishop was inspired
but should have involved the men in the decision, so the decision
became the decision of the men rather than the domination of the
Bishop. Priesthood leaders are inspired, but they need to be very
careful how they implement that inspiration so they don't dominate
those whom they serve.
3. Guilt trips. I think that our Priesthood leaders dominate us by
putting us on guilt trips. They don't do this intentionally, and
they do it without realizing what they have done, but they do it
none the less.
My Bishop asks me to come into his office. I go in. He says,
"Brother Leigh, the Lord has called you to be ..." He really has me
over a barrel. Regardless of whether I want that calling or not
(meaning that if I don't want it then the Bishop needs to counsel
with me about it), regardless of whether there are circumstances in
my life that would make it very difficult for me to serve,
regardless of anything, the Bishop has me on a guilt trip. If I
say "no", then I'm disobeying the Lord.
I think that, after receiving inspiration about the calls they are
giving, our Church leaders need to find some way to get us involved
in the decision that the call be given. Yes, the Bishop knows from
inspiration that I should be called, but I don't know that. If I
am to really function in that call, then I need to reach the point
where I also know that I was called by God. Or, if I think that I
shouldn't have that calling, then the Bishop needs to provide a way
for me to bring that information out. By telling me at the
beginning that I was called of the Lord, I'm locked into either
accepting the call reluctantly or having guilt because I did not
accept it. Please keep in mind, everyone, that I'm talking about
a situation where I have reservations about a call for some
reason.
4. Going back to releases again. I have never seen one case where
Bishops talked to a member prior to a release and said they were
considering the release and would like to understand how the person
would feel about being released. Instead, he makes decisions
because of his position as Bishop and does not involve us in that
decision making. This is dominance because he is acting from his
position rather than getting us involved so it becomes a joint
decision. The point is not whether the Bishop is inspired or not,
but how he implements that inspiration, i.e. how he deals with the
members.
I think it would be wonderful if my Bishop would tell me that he is
considering releasing me and give me the chance to express my
feelings about the change. Hey, it's my life you're dealing with.
Get me involved with my life! Stop doing things from your position
as Bishop, and let's start doing things jointly.
5. I think we all know of situations where parents dominate children
by making decisions for those children, by coercing them into doing
what is "right" (rather than teaching them to make right
decisions). I can't think of many homes I have been in in which
parental domination did not occur. It is a universal plague that
is destroying families and individuals, and it afflicts everyone,
not just us LDS.
/Allen
|
| 406.9 | a lot of I-me in here, I see... | XCUSME::QUAYLE | i.e. Ann | Thu Jun 18 1992 20:17 | 108 |
| Re .0, Allen, I'd like to read more of your thoughts on common consent,
and the sustaining of our leaders. I *think* we disagree, but I've
thought that before and been mistaken... :)
Re .7, Allen, you mention releases and that you've never seen a case
where Bishops talked to members prior to the release to understand how
the member would feel about it. Is this perhaps custom? And what
would be changed if Bishops did this?
My point is that the callings and releases come from the Lord. It's
possible that a Bishop could be influenced by, say, my feelings
about a release and/or call to the point that he would find
it more difficult to perceive the Lord's decision (more below).
Re .8, Charles, I appreciate your entry, and think you've clarified
things - at least for me.
aq
Anecdotal Evidence Alert:
We members can receive confirmation of the divine origin of the call. I
confess I've *usually taken the shortcut of saying, "The Lord knows what
he's doing, and I have a testimony that the members of the Bishopric
are called of him, so I accept." For most of my life, I've had no idea
that a release or call was in the works and so have been quite
surprised.
When I was called to the position I currently hold (Ward Music
Chairman) things were a little different. I had been one of the
Relief Society Spiritual Living Teachers and had found much joy and
growth in that calling. I thought that being released from this
position would be very hard, even heartbreaking. Yet, during last fall
I missed my usual feeling of urgency about the December lesson - which
is not pre-printed but is taken from a General Conference talk and has,
for several years, been chosen (by revelation) by the Relief Society
Presidency concerning the needs of the sisters. I also felt no impetus
to get the next year's manual to begin preparing the lessons which I
would (I thought) be teaching.
Over the same time period, my thoughts kept turning to the hymns of the
Church, and I found that I had *all* the verses of many, many
hymns in my memory. I kept thinking, too, of how much I'd like to
write Christmas and Easter programs, and began to have some ideas for
scripts. The importance of sacred music, the comfort it provides,
the joy it invites and reflects, its power to strengthen and encourage,
the role it plays in worship and in fellowship; all these were being
revealed to me more clearly than ever before.
I believe now that the Lord was preparing me. (Perhaps he has always
done so, and only this time was I paying attention, distressing
thought.)
In November, I was asked to meet with a member of the Bishopric. As he
extended the call, at first all I heard was that I'd be leading the
hymns in Sacrament Meeting so figured I was being called as Chorister
(a position I've filled before, and loved). I accepted with joy. A
few minutes later I realized, and asked him to repeat, that I was being
called as *Ward* *Music* *Chairman* Dear, dear. I love to sing, and
have participated in choirs. I took a Relief Society mini-course in
leading hymns for congregational singing. But...but...but I can barely
read music. I can't play any instruments. I sing an extremely limited
alto range.
Then why, you might ask, did I accept? First, I believe the call came from
the Lord. Second, he had recently prepared the way for me to go to the
Temple. In fact, I was at that time the near-incredulous holder of my
first recommend - checking to be sure it was real every hour or so - and a
few weeks later took out my endowments. In August I had believed
it would be at least two years before I could serve in the House of the
Lord but I had followed the Bishop's counsel and exercised faith and wow!
So, if the Lord had helped me do that, then I could not doubt that he
would give me or develop in me the talents and abilities the Ward
needs. And he has been doing just that. I serve as Sacrament Meeting
Chorister, and Choir Leader (I've had a lot of help with this) and have
worked with the Young Women and once with the Aaronic Priesthood as
they prepared to sing in Sacrament Meeting. Now I'm faced for the
first time with the responsibility of finding out who the Lord intends
to call (to the position of Ward organist), and again am relying on
faith. It hasn't really occurred to me to talk to the various musicians
in the Ward, or to ask who might like (or be sorry) to be released from
a present position. Instead I'm inquiring through prayer, and trying
hard not to block the answer with any preconceived notions. (In
support of this effort, I invite your prayers, especially those of
any Nashua 1 noters!)
You know, when I was released from my beloved calling as Relief Society
Spiritual Living Teacher, something I had dreaded, I was pervaded with
that sense of peace that is expressed in Ecclesiastes 3:1. "To
everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven..."
aq
* There have been occasions upon which I questioned the person
extending the call, asking if the call had been a matter of prayerful
consideration and confirmation. Once I received a call and
dissolved in tears (poor Bishopric member!) I felt inadequate and
absolutely wrong for the position, though I had held similar ones
in the past. Nevertheless I accepted the call, with extremely
heavy heart, and bawled all the way home. As I walked in the door,
the phone rang. It was the Bishopric member, very distressed,
calling to tell me he had made a mistake and called me to the
wrong position. *Imagine* my relief :) The calling he then
extended was one I felt inadequate to fill (I almost always do feel
that way and often I'm right, and require the Lord's help to serve and
grow) but was inspired to accept without the overwhelming dismay.
|
| 406.10 | DOMINANCE - NO, NEVER | CAPNET::RONDINA | | Fri Jun 19 1992 08:10 | 14 |
| Interesting string this one is! Dominance in the church - not that I
have ever experienced. AS a matter of fact for me it's been the
opposite. As a leader, or in whatever calling, you called to serve.
REMEMBER: One of the paramount principles and values of this church is
free will. Noone is coerced, ever! Just walk away! I have declined
"callings", because they did not fit my abilities, desires, or
circumstances, and they were not inspired.
If you see (read have evidence for, not FEEL dominance=unrigtheous
dominion), call your leaders to accountability. A leader is indeed
accountable to those he/she leads.
Paul
|
| 406.13 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Fri Jun 19 1992 11:50 | 112 |
| Charles & John,
I'm not sure if I understand your comments very well, but if I do
understand them, then I think that you and I are talking about
different things. We seem to be talking at each other instead of
with each other.
Ann,
You referred to my comments about Bishops talking to people before
calls and releases are made, and you asked if this was custom. Yes.
All of my comments are about custom, not about policy or structure
of church organizations. All of my concerns are about Interpersonnel
relationships and communications. I've tried to make it clear that
I wasn't questioning the inspiration of decisions made by our leaders,
but that I am concerned about how they communicate with the members as
they implement the inspiration they have received. This is communications,
relationships, customs, not doctrine, policy, or organizational structure.
I guess that due to customs in the Church, it is expecting too much to
desire or hope that my Church leaders will talk to me about their decisions
for my life. It seems that even though it is my life they are deciding
about, I'm not to be part of the communications involved with the
decision. I recognize that some Bishoprics do talk with their members
prior to making decisions about the lives of those members, so I hope that
everyone following this discussion realizes that I'm talking in a general
way, but a way that I think is the norm in the Church (at least within the
sphere of my experience with my leaders).
Here is a role play of what I'm referring too.
The Bishopric is inspired that I should be released as Scoutmaster (my
present call). They are sensitive to my feelings and desire that the
release be a joint decision. That is, the Lord has told them that I
should be released. Now they put on their shadow leader hat and begin
to implement that inspiration by counseling with me such that I'm part
of the decision-making process about *my* life.
The counselor visits with me in a class room. "Brother Leigh", we're
considering releasing you as Scoutmaster, and we're wondering how you would
feel with that happening. I say, "Well, Brother Yarn, I really enjoy
being Scoutmaster, and I think the boys enjoy the activities with me. If
I am released, I will miss it. I like being outdoors. I like camping in
all four seasons. I look forward to each activity. However, I realize
that the work of the Lord goes on, so if you feel inspired to release me
then that is fine with me. I am concerned, however, whether my replacement
will be able to magnify the calling, because being Scoutmaster is very
time demanding, requires a love of the outdoors, a special relationship
with youth, and there are reasonable costs that I end up paying because
we don't have very good fundraising.
Brother Yarn responds. "Yes, we are also concerned about that, because
we don't have many men who love the outdoors, enjoy teenagers, and can
work with the boys as shadow leaders. This is something we're working
with the Lord about."
I comment. "Do you mind, Brother Yarn, if I ask why you considered
releasing me when you went to the Lord to find out His will; I'm not
questioning your inspiration, just wondering why you thought I should
be released."
Brother Yarn: "You've been in scouting for a number of years, and we can
sense that this has been a great strain in your life and that of your
family. We're aware of the financial situation you spoke of, and we're
concerned about that."
Me: "I appreciate your concern, Brother Yarn, about my welfare, and I
appreciate your desire to do what is best for me and my family. I
especially appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me, so that
my thoughts and concerns can have your consideration as you lead the
Ward. Some Bishoprics don't listen to our concerns as they make changes
in the Ward--it seems like they look at us as objects or things rather
than people with desires and feelings. Thanks for talking with me."
I continue. "Yes, being Scoutmaster has been a strain. It is probably
the most time-demanding calling outside of the Bishopric. However, three
of my four children are gone, and the fourth is old enough to not need the
attention that young children need. I am careful to give significant
attention to my family as well as to the Troop. You are probably aware
that I am a "projects" person--always engaged in a project of some kind.
As Judy has commented, if I'm not involved with Scouts, I will be
involved with some other project. That is, being released as Scoutmaster
will just cause me to change my project from helping our youth to doing
something else. So the strain and expense probably won't be lessened.
I continue. If I were to make the decision, I would remain as Scoutmaster,
because I don't think the strain has risen to the point that I can't
handle. However, Brother Yarn, you are in the Bishopric and you are the
Steward over the Ward. If you feel I should be released, then that is
fine with me."
Brother Yarn tells me they do want to release me, and I accept the
release. I thank him again for being sensitive to my feelings and for
trying to understand my perspective of it all. As we part, I'm saddened
because of the Change, but I accept it as being the Lord's will, and I
look forward to something new.
I don't know if this makes sense to anyone, but to me, the whole issue is
the communications between me and my Bishopric. The issue is the desire
and attempts of my Bishopric to understand my perspective, since it is
my life they are dealing with. I'm not a thing, I'm a person, a person
who has feelings and emotions. Yes, I accept the principle of Stewardship
and accept the fact that others will make decisions about my life, but I
hope that they will communicate with me about it, communicate in a real
way and really try to understand my feelings in the matter. If they will
sit down and listen to me, then I will develop a bond of trust with them,
and I will support them in their Stewardship. However, if they don't
talk to me and listen to me, then the trust is lessened, and they come
across as viewing me as a thing, a thing that follows them around and
obeys them but a thing that has no feelings or desires or emotions.
/Allen
|
| 406.14 | | INDUCE::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Fri Jun 19 1992 13:51 | 17 |
| One little nit. As a leader, I have always appreciated when others
will point out problems. This is part of supporting the leadership.
It's not really very supportive to blindly assume that a leader will
always be inspired. That even goes against doctrine. The Church
hierarchy has intentionally been set up so that issues and concerns can be
brought to the attention to a Priesthood representative. And, if
satisfaction is not rendered, it is feasible to continue up the chain
as high as necessary. Sort of the Lord's Open Door Policy. But, it goes
one better. Any decision can be confirmed with the One who is holding the
chain up.
It's one thing to revolt against decisions that have been made. But,
it is quite another to support leadership by drawing their attention to
relevant issues and to continue to abide by decisions that have been
made.
Steve
|
| 406.15 | Inspiration-too close to call | CGHUB::WREDE | | Mon Jun 22 1992 08:47 | 59 |
| RE:.13
Allen,
This sounds so familiar to me. But, instead of the Bishop it has been
the Lord.
In 1972 I was called to be a Stake Missionary. The term was two years.
I left the military before my missionary term was up. I pleaded with
the Lord to let me finish my mission in my new ward. When I arrived
at my new ward, the very first Sunday, I went the the Bishop and asked
to be put in touch with the Ward Mission Leader. I was readly accepted
as a Stake Missionary. In fact, my involvement with the missionaries
was so well known that the Stake forgot to make it official for 5
years. Then they called me to be a Stake Missionary. One year latter
they ordained me to the Office of Seventy. I servered as an Assistant
to several Ward Mission Leaders and at one time as the Ward Mission
Leader. Always pleading with the Lord to let me stay with the
Missionaries. He has and it has hampered my growth.
Since I travel a lot, I have been able to escape two Stake Presidents,
who in following the Church guide lines, get Men over 45 ordained to
office of High Priest. Up until one month ago I had been able to
escape this. Feeling that if I was ever released, my involvement with
the missionaries would slow down or even stop. However, little did I
know that I was being prepaired for a greater calling, one more to
my particular personality and to my spirituality.
I guess that the point that I am trying to make is that I have been
the master of My destiney. Not my Bishop, not my Stake President. I
am responsible for what I do. Please, do not missunderstand me. The
Bishop has a certian responsibility for my welfare. I choose to follow
his councile or not. I will be held accountable for not doing what the
Lord wanted. If the Bishop does not council me, then he will be held
accountable for his stewardship. The same goes for the Priesthood
Leaders and the Stake President.
As we grow in the gospel we are held accountable for more and more.
I once heard in a conference talk that it is the way the Lord perfects
his leaders. Trials that they think they cannot serve. Stumbling
blocks, etc.
I trully believe that not 100% of the callings made in every ward or
stake in the world are done by insperation. They should be. That is
the goal. I know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true even though
it is administrated by faliable humans. It will always be true. Even
if I or anyone else choses not to believe. Satan is real and a
brother. Don't forget that he has powers and dominions. We must
always be on guard, because he uses "PROCRASTINATION". This has caused
me more grief than any of the other tools that Satan has at his
disposal.
This notes conference has helped me get off my plato and on to a newer
and greater plato. I really like the way everyone responds. There is
seldom any harsh words. It has been very uplifting to me. Thank you
all. I read this conference every day and am disapointed when there
are no new notes.
Lee
|
| 406.1 | Only because of the people involved | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Jun 22 1992 08:59 | 61 |
|
The first thing I noticed was that at first superior/subordinate
terminology was used, and then changed to stewardship. I also
noticed that it appears that home teachers tend to want to take
problems straight to the bishop. This is incorrect. So let me
take a few moments and lay out the way I think it should be.
First we must remember we have been given our agency to choose for
ourselves. Not even God the Father will force any of his children
to heaven. We are not obligated to listen to him or his son Jesus
Christ. There is no way any "authority" in the church can force
us to "do" anything. Now, we must also remember that the Lord's
house is a house of order, and that he has established certain
procedures, or lines of authority, sometimes referred to as
stewardship. In the first place, the bishop is not responsible for
the Melchizedek priesthood. The Stake President is. The bishop
is responsible for the youth, or Aaronic priesthood, in the ward,
and then the general moral accountability of the general membership
of that ward. The Elder's Quorum President reports his stewardship
to the Stake President, and correlates ward activities with the bishop.
Home teachers report to the EQ President, who would then take any
welfare issues to the bishop at the appropriate meetings. That is
what the PEC, ward council, and welfare meetings are for. This is
the order the Lord has established for taking care of his people.
It is just like Moses was instructed to do. The whole thing is
cemented together through the priesthood.
I can look through the scriptures and I will never find any place
where Christ had a superior/subordinate attitude. A master/slave
is talked about, but Christ would rather we be his friends. Any
"leader" or "authority" in the church should take their cue from
the examples Christ has given us. In fact, those people who are
in places of responsibility in the church are really the "servants"
to those around them. The whole idea for the church is to provide
a place for it's members to grow in service, meekness, humbleness,
and obtain a pure love of Christ. It is not the military, and it
is not conducted that way (and if it is then there is something
very wrong).
I do not think the church has any "built-in superior/subordinate
rolls" other than the members not understanding the order of the
priesthood and the order of God. When the church fails, it is
because of people and not the gospel. Our own personal attitudes
and how we respond to that placed before us determine the growth
we experience.
The whole issue around home teaching is complicated. The Lord will
only help us when we ask for help. A home teacher is a servant of
the Lord, and whether from the Lord directly or through his servants
it is the same. Those people who reject the servants of the Lord
are in reality rejecting the Lord himself. When people allow their
pride to either not home teach or accept home teachers, their growth
is inhibited. I have known times when my bishop was aware of other
people's problems, but he could do nothing until they came to him.
Church members must realize that we should follow the examples the
Lord has placed before us, i.e. the *asking* must take place first
before the giving.
Charles
|
| 406.8 | Principles of stewardship have to be understood. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Jun 22 1992 09:29 | 235 |
|
RE: <<< Note 406.7 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>
-< Together, togther, lets do things together ... >-
When the decision to allow all worthy male members to hold the
priesthood was made, it was not up to the general membership, but
that *decision* had a lot of different effects on people.
How much input did Moses or Joseph Smith have in their callings as
prophets? "Oh, I'm sorry Lord, but I'm too busy to play prophet.
I would rather just stay where I am right now."
The impression throughout this dissertation is that a person should
have more control over callings instead of those placed over them.
Before we can lead we must first learn to follow. I freely subject
myself to those in stewardship over me just as I try to subject
myself to the will of the Lord. If I can not do this, then what
kind of a God would I make? Not a very good one.
> It is obvious that my Bishop is superior to me in terms of his
> authority and decision making ability. If anyone disagrees that this
> is a superior/subordinate relationship, you can perform a test to see
> who is right. Pick your favorite Ward policy, ignore the Bishopric,
> and try and change that policy. You will quickly find out that, yes,
> your Bishop is your superior and you are subordinate to him.
If a person's attitude is that their Bishop is superior to them,
then this is where the problem is. He is NOT superior, but has a
stewardship responsibility. Do we consider God to be superior to
us? Does it bother us if he is? He will not force his will on us,
and he doesn't give a bishop the leave to do so either.
> The danger and problems arise when people use those
> relationships to dominate others. Joseph Smith in D&C 121 said that
> almost every person who gets a little authority will immediately begin
> to dominate others.
Now this is where the priesthood comes in to play. First, each man
must learn his duty, and one of those duties, IMHO, is to insure that
those in *leadership* positions do not abuse that authority. There
will be times, however, when it will happen, and that is where the
learning process comes in. I have absolutely no qualms bracing the
bishop if I think he is overstepping his authority. I do, however,
find abuse more likely with new people in callings.
> My purpose in starting this note was not to criticize the hierarchical
> organization of the Church.
But it sure looks like it.
> It was to express concern that individual
> people are using the superior/subordinate relationship that the Lord
> has given us to dominate others; as I said in the base note, I expect
> that most people are not doing this intentionally and they are probably
> not even aware that it is happening.
Then what can we as an Elder do about it? What do the scriptures
say about these kinds of situations? Lets discuss this in a positive
and constructive manner instead of a negative one. We are supposed
to edify and help each other, not sit around and complain.
> 1. I've already referred to the Quorum officer who said home teachers
> should probe into the personal lives of others to see who well they
> are living the Gospel. "Brother Jones, are you having family home
> evenings?" "How about family prayer?" "How is your relationship
> with your wife?" etc.
The first two questions are appropriate, but the third is not (at
least not without some repore ). If D&C 20:38-67 is studied
carefully, taking into context modern and current revelation, there
are a lot of questions a home teacher should be asking the head of
house. This is not prying, but fulfilling the stewardship
responsibility that the Lord has given.
> The concept involved is that home teachers represent the Bishop and
> check on the welfare of the families and report back to the Bishop.
> Now, if the families have agreed to this, then fine. But if the
> families haven't agreed, then this isn't much different than
> behavior that we would encounter in the former USSR or Hitler's
> Germany.
Whoa, hold on a minute. The Lord has established the rules to run
his church. This is not a secular establishment you know. A member
who does not want home teachers should have their name removed from
the church. Liberty is the freedom to *choose* to do something. If
you are not aware of it, the church will disappear, but not home
teaching. I have no problems considering that Heavenly Father is 100%
in his home teaching 100% of the time. Think about the whole
patriarchal order. It is based upon responsibility, stewardship,
and reporting. All a home teacher is doing is receiving the report
from the head of house, and helping where asked.
Remember that when you join this church, you agree to have home
teachers. When you accept the Melchizedek Priesthood, you agree to
*BE* a home teacher.
> My concern isn't that the Bishop needs to understand how we are
> doing and that he is using home teachers as conduits of information.
> My concern is that (a) it is done via common consent of the families,
> and (b) we are taught in our Quorum training classes that this
> consent is mandatory. What I heard last Sunday
> was that home teachers should probe into the personal lives of
> families, but I didn't hear anything about cautions that this not
> be a form of dominance from the superiors (i.e. the Bishop); this
> becomes a form of dominance when the superiors assume they can do
> that without obtaining permission from the families, or assuming
> that they have such permission because the families sustained the
> leaders.
> Dominance means that the superiors have the right to do things to
> the subordinates *just because* of the superior/subordinate
> relationship.
It appears to me that the spiritual nature of this church is being
removed, and secular norms are being applied to the church. This
will never work. Until a person can understand the spiritual
nature involved with the work the Lord is doing, then it will be
hard to understand how things are done and why.
> 2. I know of two men who were heavily involved in Scouting and the
> Bishop felt they needed a more balanced Church experience; it is
> quite likely that he was inspired in his views, so I'm not implying
> that he was wrong. He released the men and called them to other
> positions. I feel this was a form of dominance, because in both
> cases the Bishop did not consult with the men how they felt about
> the situations. In other words, because of his position as Bishop,
> he was able to make decisions about the personal lives of two men
> without taking into consideration the feelings and concerns of the
> men themselves.
I feel this instance is of one counseling the Lord. It is the
stewardship of the bishop to run the ward. Maybe there are other
men who need the scouting experience. It is not up to us to
determine this.
> The point at issue is not that the Bishop was inspired and
> therefore could do what he did, but that the Bishop was inspired
> but should have involved the men in the decision, so the decision
> became the decision of the men rather than the domination of the
> Bishop. Priesthood leaders are inspired, but they need to be very
> careful how they implement that inspiration so they don't dominate
> those whom they serve.
We must not attempt to take away the stewardship of the bishop, and
it seems to me that domination is how one is looking at it.
> 3. Guilt trips. I think that our Priesthood leaders dominate us by
> putting us on guilt trips. They don't do this intentionally, and
> they do it without realizing what they have done, but they do it
> none the less.
>
> My Bishop asks me to come into his office. I go in. He says,
> "Brother Leigh, the Lord has called you to be ..." He really has me
> over a barrel. Regardless of whether I want that calling or not
> (meaning that if I don't want it then the Bishop needs to counsel
> with me about it), regardless of whether there are circumstances in
> my life that would make it very difficult for me to serve,
> regardless of anything, the Bishop has me on a guilt trip. If I
> say "no", then I'm disobeying the Lord.
This is the time to use common consent. The person should tell the
bishop what they think about it, and go home and ask the Lord for
confirmation. What's so hard about that. How much of a guilt trip
will one put upon themselves when they stand face-to-face with the
Lord? Again, I think there is a perception thing here.
> I think that, after receiving inspiration about the calls they are
> giving, our Church leaders need to find some way to get us involved
> in the decision that the call be given. Yes, the Bishop knows from
> inspiration that I should be called, but I don't know that. If I
> am to really function in that call, then I need to reach the point
> where I also know that I was called by God.
Then the person should go ask him..... (God, that is.)
> Or, if I think that I
> shouldn't have that calling, then the Bishop needs to provide a way
> for me to bring that information out. By telling me at the
> beginning that I was called of the Lord, I'm locked into either
> accepting the call reluctantly or having guilt because I did not
> accept it. Please keep in mind, everyone, that I'm talking about
> a situation where I have reservations about a call for some
> reason.
If a person has reservations, they shouldn't really feel guilty; talk
about those reservations with the bishop. I once turned down a scout
calling because it would interfere with my seminary calling. After
discussing this with the bishopric, it was agreed that it would indeed
interfere too much in the seminary program.
> 4. Going back to releases again. I have never seen one case where
> Bishops talked to a member prior to a release and said they were
> considering the release and would like to understand how the person
> would feel about being released.
I will have to agree that it would be nice if releases were sometimes
discussed before hand, but I would caution about attitude here where
the release is determined by the person. If a person is released
from mortality, are they going to complain to the Lord because it
was not convenient at that time?
> Instead, he makes decisions
> because of his position as Bishop and does not involve us in that
> decision making. This is dominance because he is acting from his
> position rather than getting us involved so it becomes a joint
> decision. The point is not whether the Bishop is inspired or not,
> but how he implements that inspiration, i.e. how he deals with the
> members.
But that is what the bishop is supposed to do: make decisions. This
is not dominance but exercise of stewardship. He does not have to,
and is not required to, get the person involved. I think the point
should be made here that the members should understand how the church
works, and the purpose for those works.
> I think it would be wonderful if my Bishop would tell me that he is
> considering releasing me and give me the chance to express my
> feelings about the change. Hey, it's my life you're dealing with.
> Get me involved with my life! Stop doing things from your position
> as Bishop, and let's start doing things jointly.
I would like this to happen too, but it makes no difference what I
think or feel about that particular calling. Since I am not the
only person in the ward, I have no idea what direction the Lord is
going. The bishop has that stewardship not me.
How we as parents deal with our children should be in another topic.
|
| 406.16 | .0 notes should be specific and not generic. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Jun 22 1992 10:09 | 26 |
|
RE: <<< Note 406.13 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>
> I'm not sure if I understand your comments very well, but if I do
> understand them, then I think that you and I are talking about
> different things. We seem to be talking at each other instead of
> with each other.
I have been thinking about this over my long week end,
and I would like to make an observation. The note in .0 is made
in a broad, general, sweeping statement (at least, to me it is).
When I look at it I do so with the *entire* church in context.
Maybe it should have been broken down like the church is, i.e. ward,
stake, district, region, or world. These are, I think, the areas of
stewardship the church has established. Maybe the decisions from
the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are of a different
enough nature as to preclude discussion there. Possibly only the
ward and stake levels are the ones desired to be discussed. If so,
then I think the .0 should be specific enough to establish that in
the first place. One of the biggest problems I have seen in the notes
files is establishing the basis of discussion. When .0 notes are too
generic, then there are several replys made before what really wanted
to be discussed comes out.
Charles
|
| 406.17 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Mon Jun 22 1992 10:40 | 31 |
| Charles,
I think you've made an important observation, and I apologize for my part
in not being more specific in .0, because I was thinking of the Ward and
Stake level, and I was thinking of specific people not Priesthood holders in
general. In the second paragraph of .0 I did refer to "individual
Priesthood holders", thus giving a clue that I wasn't condemning Priesthood
holders in general, but that is a pretty subtle thing that could easily be
missed.
I've been frustrated in this discussion, because I was trying to discuss
communication between us and our [local] leaders while those responding seemed
to be defending the Church structure and customs. I couldn't understand why
we seemed to be discussing different things, and your comments in .-1 help me
to understand where you folks were coming from in making your statements.
One thing I've learned from this discussion is that we LDS are very sensitive
to criticism of our leaders, and when rebels like me do give criticism we had
better be very clear in what we are saying so we won't be misunderstood.
I've also learned that if the other persons say things that seem to be out
of character, it would be wise for us to reflect back our understanding of
what they have said and ask if that is what they mean, rather than responding
to our understanding of the words they have used, because words frequently
don't convey the real meaning intended.
Hmmmmm.... Interesting.
Thanks for your observation, Charles.
/Allen
|
| 406.18 | Keys in stewardship may determine who is a judge. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Jun 29 1992 12:38 | 36 |
|
> RE: <<< Note 406.4 by CGHUB::WREDE >>>
>
>> Final note. Charles, you are close. The Stake Pres. is the only
>> governing body with any power/authority over the MP. However, the
>> Stake Pres. is not a literal judge and therefore does not have the
>> keys. The Bishop is the only literal judge and does have the keys.
>
> I think you should look into this again if you think the Stake Pres.
> does not have keys and is not a judge. I used to think that until
> I found out different. This is also the juncture where the MP comes
> under the direction of the Stake Pres. and High Council. The bishop
> does not really direct the priesthood, but the priesthood works in
> conjunction with the bishop. It is a very fine line, and the
> principles have been perverted over the years. The brethern are
> taking small steps to bring it in line with what the Lord had
> originally planned.
General Handbook of Instructions, page 10-1 on Church Discipline :
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHURCH DISCIPLINE
A bishop is appointed "to be a judge in Israel" (D&C 107:72). He
is to judge "by the testimony of the just, ... according to the laws
of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God" (D&C 58:18).
Bishops, stake presidents, and mission presidents act as judges in
Church discipline. ...
As shown above, one does not have "to be a judge in Israel" to act
as a judge in Church discipline, but one does need the keys in that
stewardship.
Charles
|
| 406.19 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Allen Leigh | Mon Aug 24 1992 13:10 | 35 |
| I encountered an example yesterday of what I think is a mild form of domination
of the Saints by local church leaders.
There are two wards meeting in my building. Several years ago, one ward met
from 9-12 and the other from 1-4. Then, the two Bishops agreed to have the
schedule be 9-12 for one ward and 11:30 to 2:30 for the other ward. This
change happened several years ago, and I felt at the time that the two
Bishops were not being considerate of our feelings because they made no
effort to sample ward opinion in the matter--they made a decision as
administrators. Under the old schedule, the first ward had free classrooms
from 12 to about 2:00, and that was nice for meetings. The change meant that
the classrooms were only free from 12 to about 12:45, and that has been a
problem....
Well, guess what we were told this past Sunday. Apparently we're going back
to the original schedule, and this decision (I was told) came from the Stake.
Again, no attempts to sample opinion and to take into consideration the
views and feelings of the members. I think this is a very common attitude
among local Priesthood leaders: they are the leaders and can make decisions
and arrange things as they feel inspired to do, and we members are faithful
followers who will follow them where ever they lead us.
To me, this is not a question of whether I accept them as inspired leaders
or not, but a question of courtesy and consideration of the feelings of
others. If the Bishops or Stake Leaders think changes should be made,
changes that affect all of us, fine, I accept them as my inspired leaders.
But, I think they should have the courtesy and consideration to ask how we
feel about proposed changes. When such changes are made and just handed down
to us, it comes across as if we don't count. It comes across as a superior
and subordinate relationship. The Priesthood leaders don't mean for it to
come across that way, but to me at least it does come across that way.
How many of us parents do the same thing with our children?
/Allen
|
| 406.20 | You're accusing him of being discourteous and inconsiderate??!! | SDS003::DROWN | This ain't my first rodeo | Mon Aug 24 1992 15:50 | 13 |
| Allen -
I used to be in that same building when those two wards were first split. We
agreed to have one ward meet in the a.m. and one in the p.m. and then switch
each January. Guess what? One half of the members of each ward were unhappy
about it all the time. If the Church were a democracy, it would have disappeared
from the earth by now. The Lord selects our leaders, we sustain them or not. I
don't consider this a problem. I know our Bishop would be much happier if he did
not have to make so many decisions. I expect him to do that and my children
expect the same of me.
Steve
|
| 406.21 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Mon Aug 24 1992 16:56 | 82 |
| Hi Steve,
>If the Church were a democracy, it would have disappeared
>from the earth by now.
You're right. I'm fully aware that the Church is not a democracy, and I'm
not suggesting that it become one.
This note concerns the topic of unrighteous domination of the Saints.
I'm suggesting that our local church leaders do practice a form of domination
when they make decisions that affect us without bringing us into the
discussions that lead to those decisions.
Webster defines "dominate" as "to control, govern, or rule". I don't think
anyone can say that our local leaders don't control, govern, or rule; hence,
they do practice domination over us. The question is whether that domination
has a degree of unrighteousness in it. This is a real possibility, Steve,
since Joseph Smith said that almost all men practice unrighteous domination
when they get a little authority (D&C 121).
Let's go back to my example of the schedule change. The way it happened (and
apparently is happening again) is that the decision was made by the Priesthood
leaders and was given to us "sealed in concrete" so to speak. That form of
leadership comes across as if our feelings weren't important. They make the
decisions and we obey. A feeling of superiority and subordination.
On the other hand, suppose the Bishops were to do something like the following:
In a ward meeting, the Bishop announces that they are considering making a
schedule change such that the second ward would begin at 11:30 instead of
1:00; the reasons being that the second ward would finish earlier and this
would be better for young children (or what other reasons were involved).
Then the Bishop says, "We would like to understand how all of you feel about
this proposed change." He then opens the floor for discussion. People
express their views. I stand and express my views that as Scoutmaster I'm
concerned about the lack of available classrooms after the first ward has
ended, because of committee meetings, board of reviews, Scoutmaster
conferences, etc. that require rooms.
After the discussion has gone on for a while, the Bishop then says, "Thank
you for sharing your thoughts with us. We will consider all of the things
you have said as we take this matter to the Lord. I raise my hand and say,
"And thank you Bishop for giving us the opportunity to share our feelings."
A week later the Bishop announces that they felt inspired to make the change.
I think to myself, "That's ok, the Lord knows what He is doing and I'll
find ways to hold the meetings someway."
The point is, Steve, that in a hierarchical organization like the Church, it is
important for the leaders to provide opportunities for the members to express
themselves in issues that concern the members. It is important for the
leaders to really listen to the concerns of the members and to take those
concerns into consideration when they go to the Lord in prayer. The same
situation applies to our homes, as those who have teenagers already know--we
had better give the teens opportunities to express themselves and we had better
really listen to them, else we will suffer the so called generation gap and
wonder why our teens are splitting away from the family.
> -< You're accusing him of being discourteous and inconsiderate??!! >-
Yes, I am accusing our local leaders of being discourteous and inconsiderate
when they make decisions about our lives without giving us the opportunities
to express our feelings about our own lives. I've tried to make it clear
that I'm not accusing them of doing this intentionally. They are humble men
doing the best they can. I'm just suggesting that if they are more sensitive
to our feelings they will have happier members, and they can't be sensitive
to our feelings if they don't ask us how we feel about the things going on.
We're people not property.
I'm not trying to make the Church a democracy by having Priesthood decisions
be done by majority. I'm just expressing my view that if my Priesthood
leader is going to make decisions about *my* life, then he should show me the
courtesy of listening to my views about *my* life before he makes his decisions
about *my* life. If he doesn't, then he is treating me as property not as a
person.
All of my comments in this note are concerned with COMMUNICATION, not about
leaders being inspired and not or about their stewardship over me.
COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION
/Allen
|
| 406.22 | Here's what we did...\ | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Scott Johnson CX03-2/J4 592-4251 | Tue Aug 25 1992 10:07 | 26 |
| Hi,
We had something similar to this scheduling problem happen in our
building. Our building has 2 wards meeting in it. This year, one ward
meets from 9-12 and the other ward meets from 1-4.
In regards to what is said about getting feedback or input from the
congregation, I think it was handled in a good way in our ward. Before
the new year started, during ward correlation council, the bishop asked
each person in the meeting what they felt should be done. It was about
� in favor and � opposed. The question was whether we should swith
meeting times with the other ward and whether the second block should
start at 11:30 or 12. After receiving our input the decision was made
between the two bishops to have our ward meet in the morning and the
2nd block to start at 12. We had been meeting at 12 the previous year.
This procedure to switch on a yearly basis mostly tradition and the stake
president has little or no input into the decision. Also, last year, the
other ward had there meeting in the opposite order we did. They held
sacrament last and we had it first in our respective block of meetings.
I guess it goes back to how the local leadership does things. Our
bishop is a "letter of the law" man and I think he does a good job as
the Lord's shephard.
scott
|
| 406.23 | An Experience I had | CAPNET::RONDINA | | Tue Aug 25 1992 11:04 | 23 |
| TO ALLEN LEIGH:
A few years back we had the same situation you mention (2 wards in one
building, decided to swap am and pm meeting schedules). The new
schedules were announced with a start date. A last minute decision by
the Stake President changed the schedule, favoring one ward. The
backlash from our ward was intense with many families with small
families choosing to go to a ward with a morning schedule. They were
voting/sustaining with their feet. A rushed meeting between the Stake
President and our ward members was held. He was confronted vigorously
with his decision and non-sensivitivy to member's needs. Several
Westeners were surprised that we Easteners would hold our leaders so
accountable for their decisions.
It was the right thing to do. His decision was not inspired, neither
was it in the "spiritual domain", simply a scheduling one.
I love this church because it allows us to ask the difficult questions
and because it requires to come exercise our free will to choose where
we stand, rather than blindly follow.
Paul
|
| 406.24 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Tue Aug 25 1992 11:10 | 34 |
| Hi Scott,
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us.
I was in a Bishopric in Phoenix many years ago when we built a new building,
and my Bishop did the same as yours--work through the ward committees to get
comments and feedback for his decision. That was nice because it gave him
a better picture of his members and allowed him formulate a better picture
to take to the Lord in prayer.
When the Littleton (MA) building was built, before the ward was split into
the two Littleton wards, the Bishop went one step further and brought the
whole ward into the feedback picture. He set up a special committee to
make recommendations to the architect for changes to the standard plan, and
he commissioned that committee to survey the whole ward on opinions and
views. As a result, several changes were made to the plans to make the
building more "new englandish" (e.g. the pulpit is off center). We were
even asked to voice our opinions on which of four plans should be chosen.
I really liked his approach of getting feedback from as many people as
possible so it really became "their" building! We provided the feedback to
him, and he made the final decision: that's my view of how church government
should be conducted.
> I guess it goes back to how the local leadership does things.
That's right. Every local leader is different and his his or her way of
doing things. My purpose in starting this note and keeping it going every
once in a while to to help all of us consider the viewpoint that leaders who
bring their flock into their information gathering procedures will have
happier and more supportive members.
/Allen
|
| 406.25 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Tue Aug 25 1992 11:21 | 23 |
| Thanks, Paul, for sharing that with us! It's a good example of how we
humans can unrighteously dominate others even though we don't realize we
are doing it.
It's important that we follow our Church leaders, because they do represent
the Lord in his Church. If our leaders were perfect in their callings, then we
could always follow them in everything they do, and the need for communications
that I'm concerned about wouldn't be there. But, the fact remains that our
leaders (as with all of us) aren't perfect, and therefore some of their
official actions will be less than desirable. We don't like to admit this
to ourselves, because we like to think in terms of how we would like things
to be, but it is still a fact that our leaders do make mistakes in their
callings. Because of this, I think it is critical that our leaders establish
communication channels with us and allow us to express ourselves in matters
that affect us. It is equally critical that after we have been given
opportunities to express ourselves, that we allow our Church leaders to make
the decisions that are part of their stewardship. Church government isn't
a democracy and neither is it an uninformed vacuum and neither is it an
organization in which all leaders are always perfectly in tune with the Lord.
It's what God has given us to help us grow, and part of that growth is
learning to listen and to talk and to shutup when appropriate.
/Allen
|
| 406.26 | | BLUMON::QUAYLE | | Tue Aug 25 1992 16:46 | 22 |
| But where do we stop? Allen, when we were building the Littleton
Chapel, no one ever spoke to me about it. Of course, I was married to
a non-member then and quite a few things missed me entirely. Now that
I'm a single mom, I still have no direct line into, say, Priesthood
meetings, but I am the head of household and have excellent home
teachers so things usually work out.
My point? All, if Ward Council members are asked for their input to a
decision, is that enough? Or do we ask everyone in the ward? How about
inactive members, or the many (a majority in my ward, more's the pity)
non-members who live within ward boundaries?
I'm currently needing to recommend a name to fill a position. I've
fasted and prayed, and counseled with others, but so far the Lord has
not given me revelation. Am I in error for continuing to fast and pray
for his confirmation, rather than going with one of the many
suggestions from my brothers and sisters?
aq
(glad to be here still!)
|
| 406.27 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Tue Aug 25 1992 17:36 | 49 |
| Hi Ann,
> But where do we stop? Allen, when we were building the Littleton
> Chapel, no one ever spoke to me about it. Of course, I was married to
> a non-member then and quite a few things missed me entirely. Now that
> I'm a single mom, I still have no direct line into, say, Priesthood
> meetings, but I am the head of household and have excellent home
> teachers so things usually work out.
I do recall the building committee being organized, and I do recall discussions
taking place within the Littleton High School about the new building. I do
recall the four floor plans being posted in the High School and being discussed.
I don't recall if any attempt was made to contact ward members who did not
attend the meetings in the High School (or was it the Jr. High School).
In your case, Ann, you were attending meetings, so I don't know why you
missed out in the discussions.
> My point? All, if Ward Council members are asked for their input to a
> decision, is that enough? Or do we ask everyone in the ward? How about
> inactive members, or the many (a majority in my ward, more's the pity)
> non-members who live within ward boundaries?
My point, Ann, is that I feel that members who are affected by decisions
made by Ward leaders should be consulted during the information-gathering
phase of the decision making processes of the Ward/Stake leaders. I feel
that if people make decisions about my life without consulting with me about
my life, then they are dominating my life. I realize that there are many
people who feel differently than I about this--they are happy to let their
Church leaders make the decisions and they will follow. I guess I'm weird
in that I want my voice to be heard and given due consideration before the
Church leaders make their decisions, but that's the way my personality is....
> I'm currently needing to recommend a name to fill a position. I've
> fasted and prayed, and counseled with others, but so far the Lord has
> not given me revelation. Am I in error for continuing to fast and pray
> for his confirmation, rather than going with one of the many
> suggestions from my brothers and sisters?
I don't think you are in error, but that is something you have to decide for
yourself. You are asked to recommend a name. That implies that you believe
the person you recommend is the best one for that calling. This means that
you have to have some way to determine what "best" means to you. One way
of determining what "best" is for you is to find out whom the Lord wants and
his "best" is your "best". Another way is to accept the recommendation of
someone whom you trust so his or her "best" becomes your "best"; in this
case, the degree of trust you have in the judgment of the other person is a
key factor.
/Allen
|
| 406.28 | Questions about callings, etc. | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Scott Johnson CX03-2/J4 592-4251 | Tue Aug 25 1992 18:16 | 30 |
| <My point, Ann, is that I feel that members who are affected by decisions
<made by Ward leaders should be consulted during the information-gathering
<phase of the decision making processes of the Ward/Stake leaders. I feel
<that if people make decisions about my life without consulting with me about
<my life, then they are dominating my life. I realize that there are many
<people who feel differently than I about this--they are happy to let their
<Church leaders make the decisions and they will follow. I guess I'm weird
<in that I want my voice to be heard and given due consideration before the
<Church leaders make their decisions, but that's the way my personality is....
I take it, you would like to be notified when your leaders are
considering you for another calling and/or releasing you from your
current one. This may be good and dandy, but how many people get to
"interview" for a calling. Based upon my own history of church service,
I was "interviewed" for one calling, my present one. I don't know if
this was or was not the right way to do things. Come to think of it,
this is the process with which general authorities use when they
organize stakes and call stake presidents. I suspect stake presidents
do something similar to this when they are looking for a bishop to run a
ward. Is this done in other organizations? I have not seen it on our
local level much.
By the way, how does this calling stuff relate to seminary teachers?
How are they chosen? Can it be considered a calling since it is run
thru the CES program and not the normal church hierarchy? Also, they
do get an allowance or something to help them as they teach.
scott
|
| 406.29 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Wed Aug 26 1992 10:05 | 48 |
| > I take it, you would like to be notified when your leaders are
> considering you for another calling and/or releasing you from your
> current one.
Yes, that is what I would like. As you pointed out, Scott, it isn't done
very often.
My Bishop gives me a calling, and my whole life is changed. What
I do in my non-DEC time, how much time I have for non-DEC/non-Church things,
how much money I spend on Church things, all of these things are affected,
not just affected but determined, by calls from my local leaders. I wonder
sometimes if our Bishops and Stake leaders really understand the impact they
have in the personal lives of people when they decide on calls to be given.
I feel that if my leaders are to have that much influence in my life, then
they owe me the consideration to be sensitive to my feelings as they exercise
that influence. And, I feel, they can't be sensitive to my feelings if they
don't talk with me to see how I feel about things.
One problem with what I'm saying is the time involved for our Bishops or
other leaders to talk with everybody about things. Bishops are already
overloaded time-wise. However, that is a separate problem and doesn't remove
the need for good communication between leaders and members.
If I feel that my viewpoints have been heard and considered by my leaders,
then I am anxious to support and sustain them. But if I feel that they are
ignoring my viewpoints because "they are the inspired leaders" then I'm not
so anxious to support them. They are my leaders not my masters, and my
concept of leadership is one in which leaders understand the feelings and
needs of the members, not their view of those feelings and needs but the
views of the members themselves, and then make inspired decisions as the Lord
directs. The Lord wants us to do our homework before coming to him in prayer,
and I think that having leaders talk to members to gain the perspective of the
members is part of that homework. If they don't talk to members, then the
homework consists of the leader's perspective of the needs of the members,
and it is quite likely that that perspective is distorted.
I've been in Bishopric meetings when the Bishopric has discussed vacancies
in church organizations and has discussed various members and who would be
best suited for such and such a position. Then prayers are made for guidance
and decisions are made about issuing calls. No attempt is made to see how
the members feel about the calls. I watch them and it comes across to me
as if they are playing a chess game--move a knight here, a rook there and
the game continues. Move a member here and one there and the Ward continues.
To me that isn't leadership!
/Allen
|
| 406.30 | Leadership & Stewardship different. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Aug 26 1992 12:02 | 107 |
|
RE: <<< Note 406.29 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>
>My Bishop gives me a calling, and my whole life is changed. What
>I do in my non-DEC time, how much time I have for non-DEC/non-Church things,
>how much money I spend on Church things, all of these things are affected,
>not just affected but determined, by calls from my local leaders. I wonder
>sometimes if our Bishops and Stake leaders really understand the impact they
>have in the personal lives of people when they decide on calls to be given.
This is the whole point of callings in the church. How much
and how well we fulfill the calling is the test. If we, as members
of the church, really want to keep the covenants we have made
with the Lord, then I think we should look at it as an opportunity
to progress and grow; not how much it will impact our personal life.
>I feel that if my leaders are to have that much influence in my life, then
>they owe me the consideration to be sensitive to my feelings as they exercise
>that influence. And, I feel, they can't be sensitive to my feelings if they
>don't talk with me to see how I feel about things.
The talking is done when the call is issued. All positions in
the church should have that discussion before the person is
sustained and set apart. If this were a secular run church
or a situation at work, then I would tend to agree, but this
is Christ's church. He runs it, and he is in control.
>However, that is a separate problem and doesn't remove
>the need for good communication between leaders and members.
This is a very important part of a leadership calling. It is too
often avoided or overlooked. The inconsideration given a person
being released by not letting that person know is not the Lord's
way. He would never be that crass.
>If I feel that my viewpoints have been heard and considered by my leaders,
>then I am anxious to support and sustain them. But if I feel that they are
>ignoring my viewpoints because "they are the inspired leaders" then I'm not
>so anxious to support them. They are my leaders not my masters, and my
>concept of leadership is one in which leaders understand the feelings and
>needs of the members, not their view of those feelings and needs but the
>views of the members themselves, and then make inspired decisions as the Lord
>directs.
The Lord does not consult you when he calls you to a position.
Jesus walked up to the apostles and said, "Come, follow me."
The Lord is our master, and whether done by himself or his
servants, it is the same. The leadership of the church are
also being tested to see if they will carry out their own
responsibilities in the same manner the Lord would have
personally done it.
>The Lord wants us to do our homework before coming to him in prayer,
>and I think that having leaders talk to members to gain the perspective of the
>members is part of that homework. If they don't talk to members, then the
>homework consists of the leader's perspective of the needs of the members,
>and it is quite likely that that perspective is distorted.
I think we are at a fine line here. There is a time when leaders
should gain members viewpoints, and that is when those members are
in their callings. This time is called stewardship interviews.
But to call a person to a position, there is no need to discuss
it with that person. The Lord will call people to serve, and if
refused, then someone else will be given that opportunity. There
are a lot of callings that I absolutely do not want anything to do
with, but I would have to think very, very hard before I turned
down one.
>I've been in Bishopric meetings when the Bishopric has discussed vacancies
>in church organizations and has discussed various members and who would be
>best suited for such and such a position. Then prayers are made for guidance
>and decisions are made about issuing calls. No attempt is made to see how
>the members feel about the calls. I watch them and it comes across to me
>as if they are playing a chess game--move a knight here, a rook there and
>the game continues. Move a member here and one there and the Ward continues.
>To me that isn't leadership!
Leadership comes after a calling is made. Conducting church affairs,
organizing the ward, and making church callings is the responsibility
or stewardship of those servants in their callings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I think we have here is different perspectives of what exactly
*leadership* and *stewardship* is. I think you are confusing the
two into one. It seems to me that what you say is exactly correct
if you were to put it into _one_ of the two different categories.
I tried to express my opinions and point this out in my answers.
It might also work if we took it out of the context of callings,
but I have some real problems with the statements as is.
Leadership should be in the same order as Christ teaching Peter
how to be the main apostle, and stewardship when Christ made
the determination of who to call. It is interesting to note
that Christ called those given to him by his father. In the
same way, we are called as given by Christ. The calling I am
in now, Ward Clerk, I believe was not given to the bishop by
revelation through the Lord. I was an assistant ward clerk,
and showed that I would serve where and when needed. My name
was submitted to the stake, who issues all major ward leadership
positions in the priesthood, and ratified by both the stake
presidency and the high council. I was called by the stake high
councilor for our ward. My call was from the Lord; either by
himself or his servants, it is the same.
Charles
|
| 406.31 | ex | BLUMON::QUAYLE | | Fri Aug 28 1992 11:06 | 9 |
| Allen, in your note .29 you used the phrase (speaking of the Bishopric)
"...when they decide on the calls that should be given."
The point is, they are not supposed to be the decision makers on this.
A member of my Bishopric extends the call, but it is the Lord who is
calling me to new labors, new opportunities, and growth.
aq
|
| 406.32 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Feed My Sheep | Fri Aug 28 1992 12:02 | 72 |
| Hi Ann,
> Allen, in your note .29 you used the phrase (speaking of the Bishopric)
> "...when they decide on the calls that should be given."
>
> The point is, they are not supposed to be the decision makers on this.
> A member of my Bishopric extends the call, but it is the Lord who is
> calling me to new labors, new opportunities, and growth.
In the ideal situation what you say is true, Ann, that all calls come from
inspiration from the Lord, but in the real world it doesn't always work that
way. If we insist that *all* decisions, calls, etc. of our Church leaders
are made due to inspiration of the Lord, then we are saying they are infallible
as far as their Church service is concerned.
Anyway, the point of this note is not whether Church leaders are inspired or
not. The point is how they handle the human relationships between them and
their flock. A person can be inspired in what call to give or what decision
to make and still exercise a form of unrighteous dominion over others by being
inconsiderate of others and using a degree of force in implementing the
inspired decisions.
Let's go back to the example of a schedule change. The Bishop is inspired that
the schedule of the second ward should be changed from 1-4 to 11:30-2:30. Ok,
he knows what the Lord wants. Now, the key point as far as this note is
concerned is how does he implement that change such that he doesn't
unrighteously control (dominate) the Ward members. If he just tells them he
was inspired and that the schedule is being changed, I think he is using force
with them. So, he uses the principle of common consent and tells the ward
members that the Lord wants the schedule to be changed, all in favor raise
their hand (of course all hands go up because who wants to disagree with the
Lord). This is an improvement over him just giving it to them in concrete,
because the people have been given the chance to rubber-stamp him. He has
fulfilled the letter of the law of common consent. I think he is still
exercising unrighteous dominion over the members, because he put them on a
guilt trip--the Lord wants this, all in favor raise your hand; he is guaranteed
to get all hands. Others disagree with me about this, and that is fine; I'm
just expressing my opinion about rubber-stamping the Bishop's decisions.
How could the Bishop really apply the spirit of the principle of common
consent in this example? How could he really be a teacher with his members?
How could he lead them so the schedule change is *their* change? In my
opinion, I think he could do all of these things by bringing the people into
the discussion prior to his going to the Lord for inspiration. Discuss with
the people the problems of the current schedule. Brainstorm with them about
possible solutions. Find out which solutions are favored by a majority of
the members. In other words, do what we parents should do with our children,
help the members to solve their own problem. Then, take the solutions from
the members into his Bishopric discussions and from there to the Lord in
prayer. Then, after he has received inspiration and is satisfied as to which
solution the Lord accepts (perhaps the Lord's solution is not even any of those
from the members), he brings the Lord's solution to the people for their
acceptance via common consent. And when they raise their hands, they are
*really* raising their hands, because they have been part of the solution--it
is their solution!! No rubber-stamping here!!
In my view, and the point of this lengthy discussion, is that our Church
leaders can avoid unrighteous dominion (force, control) over us members by
bringing us into the discussions about callings, decisions, etc. so we can be
part of the exploratory and information-gathering phases of decision making.
My experience in Church Government in Utah, Arizona, and New England has been
that local Church leaders don't do this. They have the attitude that they
are the ones who are responsible for such matters, it is their stewardship,
they receive the inspiration. So they sit in their offices and do their
thing and bring us the results. Yes, it is their stewardship and they receive
inspiration, but please, leaders, bring your people into your discussions early
and let them be part of your efforts to determine what solutions and decisions
to take to the Lord. You are to teach them to be self-sufficient, not to
control them.
/Allen
|
| 406.33 | Communication is not just a meeting. | TEMPE::LENF | Len F. Winmill @TFO, DTN 566-4783 | Mon Aug 31 1992 11:18 | 76 |
| I agree with Allen that the process described in .32 would be a means
of Comunicating more with more ward members. However I do not think
that this is the right thing to do all the time.
Communication involves much more than what words are said to whom.
Among other things it involves what words are not said by whom and not
said to whom. Further there is a lot to be considered about the effect
of discussing something in a group.
More specifically, suppose that a subject (such as meeting time or
place) is taken to the group of people that will be affected for their
ideas and discussion. Now suppose that some member of that group
expresses something that they feel is very important to them. Then
suppose that the final decision does not go the way that that person
would have wished. They might feel even worse having had their input
"rejected" that they might have felt if it were not even considered.
Furthermore, having a discussion in a group rarely provides a
consensus. In fact it normally doesn't even provide the best ideas. Yet
having a discussion in a group does cause people to gain new points of
view from hearing others in the group. This is not necessarily
positive. In fact one could say that if there is one negative opinion
expressed in the group of 20 then there were 20 negative opinions heard
and 20 times more likely to be accepted than if there were no forum
given for this.
What I am trying to say is that indeed communication is VERY important,
but communication in a group is not one way, nor even two way. It is
very multidimensional.
In the church there are many means of gathering information and inputs.
Suppose that the bishop considering the schedule change asked the
members of the ward council if there were any concerns one way or
another. Then suppose that the young men's president (from working
closely with you) said "I don't remember exactly what it was but I
think we do have some inputs. The bishop then says let's talk about it
more next time. In the mean timethe YM pres. comes to you, solicits
your inputs and those of the other YM leaders, and then returns that to
the Bishop later. You have been communicated with but the whole ward
has not. Is this fair? It is not about fairness! but it does gather
more inputs and more points of view.
Now suppose that the the decision is presented to the congregation for
ratification. Should the members of the congregation feel like this is
unrighteous dominion? Merely because they weren't contacted? Perhaps
they could take a different position, saying I expect that the bishop
did research this with as many people as he thought was needful and I
just didn't happen to be one of them.
Now suppose that this new time gives a problem to you (such as time for
your meetings) You certainly do have an appropriate place to give that
feedback. Talk to your YM pres. seeh his input as to when and how the
meetings can be held. If the problem is simply a family one, then talk
to the Home teachers about it.
Indeed communication is a really important thing in leadership of any
group of people. This church is no exception to that. Where this church
is different is the very rich infrastructure to encourage and provide
for that communication. This is like recognizing that communication is
indeed not a one way thing nor controlled by those in power. If you
feel that people are not getting your inputs, then this is like the
mythical person who leaves the banquet hungry merely because no one
specifically gave him permission to eat the food. Communication is
very important in this church but it is our responsibility to help make
it happen and not just wait untill someone asks our opinion.
Of course in choosing what messages to send when one does need to
consider the importance of the messages and not overload the system
just because it is there.
Let's keep this church moving by communicating with love.
Your brother
Len
|
| 406.34 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Allen Leigh | Thu Sep 03 1992 08:32 | 43 |
| Thanks, Len, for sharing your thoughts and concerns. You've expressed some
important concepts and have given this discussion a wider context.
> More specifically, suppose that a subject (such as meeting time or
> place) is taken to the group of people that will be affected for their
> ideas and discussion. Now suppose that some member of that group
> expresses something that they feel is very important to them. Then
> suppose that the final decision does not go the way that that person
> would have wished. They might feel even worse having had their input
> "rejected" that they might have felt if it were not even considered.
I think that a lot of it depends on the Bishop's purpose in having a public
discussion and how he presents the topic. If he says, "We have a problem about
schedules, lets discuss it and come up with a solution", then he is inviting
the Ward members to help form the solution, and he is opening the door to the
problems you described. However, suppose he says the following: "We have a
problem with schedules. Before my counselors and I make our decision and take
it to the Lord, we would like to understand your perspective and views about
the situation. Let's discuss it so we can understand your feelings." He
has clearly kept the decision-making within the Bishopric, but he has
demonstrated empathy with the members in wanting to understand their
viewpoints. I don't think that he would encounter the problems you referred to.
> In the church there are many means of gathering information and inputs.
> Suppose that the bishop considering the schedule change asked the
> members of the ward council if there were any concerns one way or
> another. Then suppose that the young men's president (from working
> closely with you) said "I don't remember exactly what it was but I
> think we do have some inputs. The bishop then says let's talk about it
> more next time. In the mean time the YM pres. comes to you, solicits
> your inputs and those of the other YM leaders, and then returns that to
> the Bishop later. You have been communicated with but the whole ward
> has not. Is this fair? It is not about fairness! but it does gather
> more inputs and more points of view.
Ideally, working through the Church organizations would work, because the
organization heads would truly represent the views and attitudes of the
members of their organizations. My experience, however, is that this system
doesn't work very well in real life. I think that if Bishops rely on their
organizations for communication between themselves and their members, they
will be unsuccessful.
/Allen
|
| 406.35 | yes they don't work but use them anyway. | TEMPE::LENF | Len F. Winmill @TFO, DTN 566-4783 | Thu Sep 03 1992 14:15 | 76 |
| Hi Allen,
I do agree that the results of any meeting depend very much on how it
is approached by the leaders, ie. the context that the discussion is
put in. But it is my experience that the sucess in designing solutions
(what you were suggesting could be done in the meeting) is inversly
proportional to the size of the group. Meetings work well for
information disemination to a motivated group but as for getting good
ideas they are not a lot better than one on one discussions with two or
three key individuals.
>Ideally, working through the Church organizations would work, because the
>organization heads would truly represent the views and attitudes of the
>members of their organizations. My experience, however, is that this system
>doesn't work very well in real life. I think that if Bishops rely on their
>organizations for communication between themselves and their members, they
>will be unsuccessful.
My experience is that this system does not tend to work as well as we
would want it to. However I point out that one of the main purposes of
the church as an organization is to help individuals grow and develop,
and that means the individuals that are in positions of
responsibility. So it behooves all of us regardles of where we might be
serving with regards to the positions of leadership, to work with the
system, try to make it work better and make allowances for when it
doesn't work.
In otherwords, if I were the bishop in this case (this supposition
being unhindered with ever actually having to deal with the
responsibility of this position) I would first work the system, ie.
counselors, then ward council and if it did not seem that some of these
folks were really in touch with the needs of their organizations and
the individuals thereof, I would try to help that leader grow in being
able to be so in touch. Then after getting this information, seriously
consider what might be the effects of having a special meeting. I might
in fact hold such a meeting but it's purpose would be more for
communication than to solicit contributions. While I might actually ask
for people's input, I would do so already knowing what it might be and
already having some idea of how the various inputs could be addressed.
I guess I am saying that when a person in a position of responsibility
asks for input that person now has a responsibility to treat that
input carefully and to let the individual giving the input know what
has been done with the input.
With a topic like meeting schedules where it is unlikely that the
decision will please much more than half of the people that are
affected, it is dangerous to solicit input broadly. I would rather
stand in front of a meeting and say something to the effect of: "we are
aware of the following kinds of issues and here is how we see them
being dealt with. If you have other issues please let me know after
this meeting." Frankly it is so much easier to handle this issue out
here in Arizona where the presence of three wards in each building
takes away the choices than back there in New England where there are
one or two wards per building. When there is not really any choice
then when a person wishes to express frustration it is aimed at some
abstract entity rather than at the bishop directly.
Ah well, it is really something figuring out how to work with people.
Disclaimer: on this topic as on most topics relating to how to manage
people there are about as many different ideas, some seeming
contradictory, as there are people expressing them. Furthermore all of
the ideas are right when seen from the proper point of view. So I
express mine freely but hope that everyone understands that this
represents only one out of many possibilities. In fact I could easily
propose somethig very different for the very same issue depending on
the point of view I was comming from at the moment.
May the Lord bless us all as we grow in this important eternal work,
that of learning how to work with people.
your brother
Len
|
| 406.36 | | ROCK::LEIGH | Allen Leigh | Thu Sep 03 1992 16:02 | 13 |
| > Disclaimer: on this topic as on most topics relating to how to manage
> people there are about as many different ideas, some seeming
> contradictory, as there are people expressing them. Furthermore all of
> the ideas are right when seen from the proper point of view. So I
> express mine freely but hope that everyone understands that this
> represents only one out of many possibilities. In fact I could easily
> propose something very different for the very same issue depending on
> the point of view I was coming from at the moment.
That was such a nice statement, Len, that I wanted to put my name on the
disclaimer too.
/Allen
|
| 406.37 | thanks | TEMPE::LENF | Len F. Winmill @TFO, DTN 566-4783 | Thu Sep 03 1992 17:07 | 6 |
| re: .36
Thanks for the compliment.
Len
|
| 406.38 | | BIGSOW::WILLIAMS | Bryan Williams | Thu Sep 10 1992 18:27 | 19 |
| A couple of comments..
"Common consent" is a keyword used in the scriptures to denote those living
in the United Order. Since we aren't living in the United Order today, it
really doesn't apply to the more "mundane" aspects of Church life.
Back in Joseph's and Brigham's day, there were many instances where someone
who was called to a position wasn't sustained by a MAJORITY of the body of the
church. What would happen today if, during a conference, you opposed sustaining
a church leader (presuming you had good reason)? I know of several instances
where a member has been excommunicated for opposing someone. Yet there shouldn't
be anything wrong with opposing someone's calling (for the right reason). This
goes right into the "infallability" position. The Lord never intended it to be
that way. We are supposed to have agency, and know for ourselves what is right.
When you have the possibility of being ex'd because you can't in good
conscience sustain a church leader, this isn't the Lords plan, and is, IMHO,
unrighteous dominion.
Bryan
|
| 406.39 | DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY | CAPNET::RONDINA | | Fri Sep 11 1992 07:36 | 29 |
| Brian:
You touched a sensitive nerve when you mentioned infallibility.
Catholics believe that their leader, the Pope, is infallible, incapable
of error. History has sure proved that doctrine wrong.
Anyhow, Mormons has something like this doctrine, however. It is goes
something like this, the Prophet will not make a mistake, if he does
the Lord will remove him. The conclusion is that as long as he is
infallible he will be prophet and vice-versa as long as he is prophet
he will be infallible. Yet, we can choose to sustain/follow or not
sustain/follow him.
We even have a bishopric rendtion of the same idea, which is to follow
your local church leaders, regardless.
So my question is how can we hold two doctrines together: 1)we have
free will and can choose to sustain or not, 2)ALWAYS follow your
leaders because they are either infallible or pretty close to it.
It sounds like the old infallible doctrine but at the general and local
authority levels.
Any comments.
Paul
|
| 406.40 | | BIGSOW::WILLIAMS | Bryan Williams | Fri Sep 11 1992 13:08 | 19 |
| Paul,
The fact of the matter is that our leaders are capable of error, from the
Prophet all the way down (or up, depending on your point of view of Church
service). All you need to do is look at the number of times Joseph was
chastised by the Lord to know that a prophet, even one as great as Joseph,
can err. The doctrine which states that the Lord wouldn't allow anyone to lead
the Saints astray was introduced by Wilford Woodruff at the time of the
Manifesto, to attempt to lend credance to the Manifesto. It doesn't fit with
the rest of the D&C.
Would it also help to know that Woodruff took post-Manifesto wives? When asked
about this in contradiction to the Manifesto, Woodruff asked, "how does the
Manifesto begin?" "To whom it may concern." "Well, it obviously doesn't concern
me."
It's an interesting sugject..
Bryan
|
| 406.41 | | CSCOA2::ROLLINS_R | | Thu Sep 17 1992 16:49 | 9 |
| >Would it also help to know that Woodruff took post-Manifesto wives? When asked
>about this in contradiction to the Manifesto, Woodruff asked, "how does the
>Manifesto begin?" "To whom it may concern." "Well, it obviously doesn't concern
>me."
Can you quote a reliable source for this comment ?
Thanks,
Rick Rollins
|
| 406.42 | | BIGSOW::WILLIAMS | Bryan Williams | Tue Sep 29 1992 17:32 | 3 |
| I'll look for it.
Bryan
|