- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had an interesting experience in Stake Conference today, and I immediately thought of its application to our discussions here. I have lived in my current ward and stake for about four months, and I have really liked (generally) the messages I have heard and the spirit I have felt in my ward and stake. I have felt strongly that the Bishop in our ward really, truly, genuinely loves the members and is a kind, gentle man – even if he doesn’t really understand those who struggle and is a bit old-fashioned. I have been deeply impressed by the Stake Presidency’s focus this year – “Living a Christ-centered life” – and the suggestions they provided to the membership on how to do so.
In Stake Conference today, there were a couple of cringe-worthy over-generalizations for me in the talks, but, overall, they were wonderful, sincere expressions of love for the Savior and gratitude for the blessing of focusing on Him throughout the year. The final talk was by the Stake President, and I was touched by the first half of it. There were about 15 minutes left when he stood to begin, and at about 11:58, when I figured he’d be wrapping up, I was looking forward to the end of a very good meeting. Then, the SP extended his talk an “extra” 15 minutes – focusing on a lesson his son had learned when dating a non-member young lady with whom he learned he “didn’t have much in common”. The lesson? Don’t date those who can’t make and keep the covenants members will make and keep – implying strongly, without saying so directly, that members shouldn’t date non-members.
This is not Utah or anywhere else in the Intermountain West. It is solidly in the Midwest mission field. Most of the youth in attendance don’t have many options for dating if non-members are removed from the picture. Further, the SP said explicitly that he had taught his son that it wasn’t good to date very much prior to a mission.
My wife knew I was chafing at the last 15 minutes of the talk – both that it was over the announced time limit of the meeting and for the actual content. When I mentioned it, she said, “I knew you would be uncomfortable with it.” We talked about it on the way home with my kids, and the three oldest said they just tuned it out once he started talking about the lessons his son had learned. My oldest daughter said, “Who else am I going to date? This isn’t Utah!” My next daughter said, “I guess I won’t be dating before college” – with the kind of grin only she can conjure.
My point is simple:
That last 15 minutes was frustrating for me and my family, but I sustain our Stake President and believe firmly he is an inspired, good leader. I just don’t agree with this “lesson” he shared. That doesn’t lessen my respect for him in the slightest, especially since I am POSITIVE that someone, somewhere, sometime will say the exact same thing about a lesson I share with them.
Understanding and internalizing real charity truly is the cure for most potential conflicts and disappointments. I respect the man and the office he strives to magnify too much to invest emotionally in the areas where we disagree. I don’t want this mote to block my view of his overall character – and I absolutely don’t want to model judgmentalism and indignation to my wife and children. Life’s too short and precious to waste any of it on the last 15 minutes of an otherwise good 135 minute meeting.
Postscript:
It also highlights my belief that there is almost no good that comes of extending a meeting beyond the allotted time. Just as “nothing good happens after midnight” is a good rule of thumb for teenagers, “nothing good happens after two hours” is a good rule of thumb for Stake Conference.Fantastic, Ray! Thanks for keeping it real! Ray, I feel for ya. (I hate meetings that go long too.) I am wondering if your SP thinks all young people go to BYU to get married, and I also wonder if he has a Utah-centric point of view. Perhaps you can write him a private letter as Andrew Ainsworth suggests as Mormon Matters…. 
Very well said Ray. I whole-heartedly endorse this kind of sentiment. I recently read a postOh, and I agree that going over the 2 hour alloted time (or any alloted time for that matter) really rubs me the wrong way!
Ray, Thank you for this post. It helped me very much in resolving some of my conflicts. Euhemerus, I am glad you gave the link to the article written on MM. It was very good and helped me too. I have related the things you all have said with how things are done in my own family. My husband is basically a very good man who wants to do the right things. So, are my 3 children. Yet, I strongly disagree with how they sometimes behave themselves or with what they say. So, I am getting the concept you are expressing in dealing with the church and church leaders. It’s kind of like looking at a donut. I can choose to focus on what’s missing (the hole), or on all the good stuff (the donut and cream filling.) I guess it is easy to put leaders on a pedastel and think they should be almost perfect in order to lead. Thanks again. That is a great application to family and friends, bridget. The donut analogy is excellent. Thank you. These are all great things for me to read. Ray’s experience is one I will share with my daughters…because I disagree with the SP as you explained it and don’t like the message that sends mormon youth. I won’t start up my FSOY rhetoric again…I’ve moved beyond that..you already know I fundamentally disagree with the idea that arbitrary age for dating or that dating mormons is going to be better than non-mormons regardless of individual character…but I like Ray’s example of how you disagree with what they say, and can talk about it as a family. That is important for the kids to see that. And I appreciate the example. The donut analogy is a good one too. Seeing the 135 minutes of a good meeting is better than 15 minutes of a non-spiritual message is good to focus on, but it can be hard when it is the last 15 minutes…realistically, that last feeling can be hard to shake and ideally it is best to leave on a high note.
This thread gives me much to think about regarding accepting or dealing with things said at church, even what leaders say.
I think we can respect and sustain the leader without having to just say, “Well, the Stake President said don’t date non-members, so we’ll be blessed by following his council.” Everyone still has to get personal revelation about what is said over the pulpit. Blessings come from doing things the right way, not just doing it because you’re told to.
Sometimes I wonder about sermons like this. What if the message wasn’t for me? What if it was for part of the group or even one in the group? What if I my interpretation of what was said was flawed? What if the speaker was a man of wisdom by simply wasn’t a good speaker? I think of the words of Moses and even Enoch who certainly had their own insecurities about teaching or leading. I think it is absolutely fine and right to support a person trying and progressing inside the efforts of fulfilling a calling while knowing that they may blow it one day when I might be watching or dealing compassionately when their offerings were incomplete or limited or even off the mark. I think that is the deal with being a mormon and serving together in the current configuration. I think our expectations and self interest gets in the way. And sometimes I think we judge leaders too harshly. I think back to the talks I have given in the course of my life. I spoke from the place I was at in the moment thinking it was pretty good. I look back at some of them and cringe. It was the best I could do with the wisdom I had at the time. All of us are in that boat.
I don’t know. I usually go into meetings trying to open myself to whatever the spirit would teach me that day. I don’t necessarily measure the meeting based upon what or how something was said. Sometimes the most boring, simple, less than speakers are the most profound and sometimes I think there might be something right about following a leader even though the counsel is imperfect.
That is a great example of sustaining and respecting leadership while accepting the obvious flaws of delivering a personalized and important message to 600 people (guessing attendance) in the audience. There’s no way a message has only one meaning, or that it is applicable to everyone who hears it. That doesn’t diminish the value. Like you described, it gave you a great moment for discussion with your family on the way home. Your experience was not agreeing really with the main point of it. That’s ok.
Just as an anecdotal rebuttal from my circle of family and friends, all three of my sisters married converts in the temple … the non-members they had been dating.
So having a hard-fast rule like that to me is about as smart as saying Missionaries should never talk to non-members … it might influence the Missionary’s testimonies *boggles* /palmface
Poppyseed wrote:And sometimes I think we judge leaders too harshly. I think back to the talks I have given in the course of my life. I spoke from the place I was at in the moment thinking it was pretty good. I look back at some of them and cringe. It was the best I could do with the wisdom I had at the time. All of us are in that boat.
I don’t know. I usually go into meetings trying to open myself to whatever the spirit would teach me that day. I don’t necessarily measure the meeting based upon what or how something was said. Sometimes the most boring, simple, less than speakers are the most profound and sometimes I think there might be something right about following a leader even though the counsel is imperfect.
That is a good attitude, Poppyseed. However, I think it becomes problematic when youth leaders now seem to have a directive from the pulpit and youth classes start teaching what is said as if it is gospel, and then parents have to try to “undo” what was taken too literally by overzealous youth leaders.If everyone had your attitude, it wouldn’t be an issue. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to me everyone does.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.