Monitored and Watched

kristmace,

I’m sure you already know, but you have friends here. As you said, this site does much to moderate our thinking, because we are able to work through issues with others in similar predicaments.

I would argue the points of “affiliating with apostate groups” because I don’t think that we are an apostate group. That implies working to destroy the Church, and I can’t see how this group could be in that line… I don’t know about other sites or your blog, but I haven’t heard anything from you on this site that comes close to “apostate”.

I would also argue with the tithing thing… after all, according to the FP, “every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly” (FP Letter, 1970). I am not aware of any minimum amount. I think a person contributing zero could make the argument that they are paying a full tithe, so long as they truly feel that they have no “income” to pay on.

Criticizing Church leaders might be true, but I’d want an explanation about where the line exists and how, specifically, I crossed the line. I’ve criticized Church leaders in general, but I’m not sure I’ve criticized any one of them specifically. I have criticized things that they have said, but I’ve never called for them to be removed (that I’m aware of).

Anyway, just know that I’m thinking of you and hoping for a positive outcome. This might be a great chance to voice some concerns.

Finally, let me say, I’m OK with being monitored and watched. I hope we are. I’d love for some of the Church leaders to listen in on some of the threads here. Might give them some insight that they don’t normally see.

Do you have any idea you gave all this information to your Bishop? I know that I would be very mad about this but maybe at the same time a little relieved. If this site is an apostate site then I know that I am in trouble. I also post some on NOM but they are a little bit more negative than I feel right now but the are times or topics that seem it would be better to post there than here. I hope for everyone sake that is was just some one in your ward that figured out who you were and not some church headquarter search and destroy type of committee. I agree in that I am so grateful for this site.

I am just so sorry to hear that. At least it was local and not from SLC. If your bishop apologized for the way it was handled then why did he do it that way? Do you think that you should have been released and your TR taken? What does he want you to do next?

We were talking about this monitoring and potential punishing in another thread. I do feel there are strong risks with posting here for this reason. And even if an overzealous person did figure out KM’s identity, and printed off their posts, it went further than that. A leader who took away the TR and released the person from their calling was a church leader who used the information posted here for this purpose. If they can do that, then what would stop them from actively trying to piece together the identifies of others and actively “prosecute”?

I’m glad you posted this because now we have two people who have experienced this — cWald and KM. It’s nice that the leader apologized for the way it was handled. But are you still without a TR? Has anything changed since you were reprimanded?

I think they are within their rights to take away the TR due to non-payment of tithing, however, you do have a year to pay it all. To take it away mid-year would seem a bit heavy-handed, unless you openly said you had no intention of paying it.

This really is unsavory.

It is an oxymoron to participate in a site trying to help people “StayLDS” and call it apostate. Perhaps they were referring to the other sites with more negative tones.

My question: What exactly are we not allowed to say that is critical of leaders? Is there something in the handbook clarifying that, or is that that a vague charge used in witch hunts?

I get frustrated at times with others. What is crossing the line, and why is it bad?

I have been in gospel doctrine class when comments were made by the teacher about Obama ruining our future for our children. No one took his temple recommend away.

The part I don’t like about your story is they shredded evidence, and privately apologized when publicly taking you from your position/calling. I think if people have a problem with me, they need to come face to face and open up with their concerns and I will respectfully discuss it with them. Not throw accusations, shred evidence, talk about vague “criticizing leaders” charges, and not own up to exactly what their concern is with me. And in 4 previous confrontations on this subject of posting online and if I am apostacizing, it has always ended just fine after I could push back on them and make them discuss with me on specifics, because the discussion broke down wild accusations with no merit. My bishop and my Stake President ended our talks with me by giving me a hug and saying, “You’re a really good man. I love you, brother”.

I’m pretty sure Elder Holland was talking about people who work through their unbelief, and they are welcome in this church. So posting here should not be feared, even if those who live in fear because of their immature faith get their panties in a wad about it. Tell the bishop to go work with those people who need help to stop being so preoccupied with monitoring and watching others.

In my experience, they wanted to know if I was specifically targeting the church or it’s leaders. When I shared with them I was on a personal journey and am seeking god and truth, and along the way if I say things about the church that I sincerely wonder about, but I am targeting finding answers and peace and love…they backed down. Because they don’t fear the honest seeker, and the humble doubter. They fear the aggressive attacker of the things that are sacred to them, and they will fight to protect their sacred things. I get that…I just need to show them I am no enemy of theirs…I just get frustrated by their leadership sometimes and I will voice valid frustrations. But I’m not one to be feared in their midst. I’m harmless.

We need to quit rewarding tattlers as a church. Anonymous cowards who sneak to an authority figure with gossips, twisted truths and out-of-context hearsay evidence on the premise of fictitious concern for a fellow member should be seen through immediately. The D&C says if your brother offends you in some way you are obligated to take them aside privately to discuss it first.

Then why do some leaders reward passive-aggressive childishness?

I had understood that it was my duty to go to the bishop. I believe this message was originally delivered to me in the context that rather than gossip, I should go to the bishop and if I didn’t like what I perceived as the action being taken by the bishop – I should trust the bishop’s judgment.

I did exactly that when it came to my attention that the YW leader was having an inappropriate relationship with one of the YM. I told the bishop and thought that my hands were clean. The YW leader later divorced her husband and eventually married the YM. It was a bad situation all the way around and I believe that the bishop (a genuinely great guy) did the best that he could. The point is that I thought that it was my duty to tattle and not concern myself with the outcome.

How to handle an issue with someone else depends on where the impact lies.

– If someone offends you, you take it up with them.

– If someone is struggling with something in their personal life you either leave it alone, or you talk to the person to help, but only if you already have the kind of a relationship that this would not be out of the norm.

– If something that someone is doing or saying affects the church or ward, and the people in the church/ward, I have no problem with someone going to the bishop/SP. If my daughter gets a class lesson about how plural marriage is going to come back someday, so she needs to prepare for the idea of sharing her husband, I’m calling the bishop before the day is out. If I were the bishop, I’d want to know. If a HC gets up in SM and says Obama is the antichrist, I’m going to the SP right away. Sure, I could talk to the HC, but that would likely do no good. If I were the SP, I’d want to know it.

In the specific case kristmace brought up, we have no idea who went to the bishop and why, and quite frankly, I would argue that it doesn’t matter. Hell, we come here to the site all the time to complain about things that other people do. The issue that matters is what the Church representative does about it. I’m disturbed, in this case, that kristmace was released and his TR taken away, and I would challenge the bishop about it the validity of that action. In the case that church033 brought up earlier on a separate thread, the SP seemed to handle it in a fair and agreeable way.