Priesthood Leader Q&A

I found god.

My faith has evolved.

I no longer need a church, or man, to mediate between me and the gods. Thanks church for showing me how each individual can find peace and the gods without having to bow down to the manmade theological authority.

This is what JS and the entire mormon movement was based on…. getting away from ecclesiastical authority.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Thanks for your concern. I appreciate it. I promise, I am doing the best I can to live and worship God according to the dictates of my conscience.

That’s my answer for all of those statements, unless I get frustrated and lose it a little. In that case, for a couple of the questions (especially #, I probably would say:

Well, I don’t believe that, so I’m not worried about it. Thanks for your concern. I appreciate it. I promise, I am doing the best I can to live and worship God according to the dictates of my conscience.

There’s a lead off question that is often asked:

0. How is your scripture study coming along? (alternate: how are you doing with personal prayers?)

Side note: I got asked this at the height of when I was deconstructing my faith. I replied “About 6 hours per day” which was met with :wtf: 😯 :wtf: They weren’t expecting that one.

Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8: Pure coercion. Attempts to use guilt as a tool to change the response. I honestly don’t know what I’d say if faced with that, so thanks for the thread and ideas.

Question 3: Just this past Sunday we had a lesson about priorities. It’s funny how someone else can come along and claim to know how they can put the lord first my life. For me the issue with church service is not about priority, it’s about agency.

Question 7: If a leader is convinced that someone thinks the church is boring I don’t think they’d ask any questions at all. I think they’d probably use statement after statement to convince the bored member that they aren’t trying hard enough to reengage the church. It’s a conversation that leaders must have had with teenagers a million times over. Think of how a leader or even us as parents respond to: “Church is boring, we hear the same lesson over, and over, and over again.” Funny how children often cut right to the quick and blurt out things that all us adults are thinking but are too conditioned to never say. From the mouth of babes and all that. Anyway, often the response to a teenager that expresses boredom isn’t an interrogation to find out how one party or the other might improve, it’s often a series of statements about how “lessons are repeated to help us remember better” – “lessons are repeated because we learn something new each time we hear it” – “if you had a better attitude you’d get something out of the lessons”

Sorry I didn’t have more by way of answers to the questions.

I would ignore it. Seriously, I ignored it my whole life unless backed into a corner. Then I would say. When your prepared to act like a intelligent civilized adult, we can talk. Which is why I ignore it. Those comments can only come from dogma. Dogma = unintelligent and uncivilized and immoral. The problem is responding in what would be deemed an appropriate way would make it appear to legitimize authority over you and that you approve if this and it is valid. Responding in a rational way would target you as seeing you not willing do all they are asked or told or that in doing so there that you legitimize in their minds that this is wrong for you not to. Few things are more disturbing then being asked to do things that bring you unhappiness(and a vast majority of the population as well) and being asked to act happy while you are doing it and after.

If they can’t see why it would not bring or bringing you happiness then it says more about there lack of study, personality and phycological experience and research then about you.

I would add another potential answer that I’ve heard in another thread (probably from Ray):

Pres. Uchtdorf said there’s room in the Church for people who see things differently than others. I’m figuring out exactly what I personally believe right now. Thanks for your concern.

The problem is responding in what would be deemed an appropriate way would make it appear to legitimize authority over you and that you approve if this and it is valid. Responding in a rational way would target you as seeing you not willing do all they are asked or told or that in doing so there that you legitimize in their minds that this is wrong for you not to.

This is exactly the problem. These kinds of questions put you between a rock and a hard place, simply because of the assumptions behind them. Your answers have to be vague in order to avoid validating their single-minded, black-and-white, hardline thinking on the one hand and their assumption that if you don’t do exactly as they suggest then you must be a sinner or apostate on the other hand.

Few things are more disturbing then being asked to do things that bring you unhappiness(and a vast majority of the population as well) and being asked to act happy while you are doing it and after.

This is exactly why it’s so hard to stay LDS when you’ve had a major paradigm shift caused by a faith crisis. It’s wearying and distressing to have to suppress your actual thoughts and desires and to talk and act contrary to your true self. On the other hand, there is something to be said for learning to find happiness by becoming less selfish and learning to accept things you can’t change.

Good points both. Countless research shows the positives learning to accept the things you can’t change like other people. But that is my point, it is lost on many people, including many people in and out of leadership in the church that would intentionally or unintentionally manipulate others. Which is what those questions and accusations do. To illustrate this

When Relationships Are Based on Manipulation

By Margalis Fjelstad, Ph.D., LMFT on April 1, 2014 – 8:18am

An emotional caretaker is someone who looks out for the feelings, needs and wants of an emotional manipulator. The caretaker defers to the manipulator’s wants, giving up their own wants and even their own health and well-being needs. They give in to “keep the peace” and to please the other person—all with no improvement in the relationship.

Emotional caretakers are caring, concerned, generous, and reliable people. They sincerely want to please others and are generally nice people. However, they can be easily manipulated by others because they tend to be passive and overly compliant, and to have high levels of guilt and obligation, or fear of anger in others. An emotional caretaker would rather feel hurt, angry, or depressed themselves rather than have the person they care about experience any of those feelings. This makes them highly vulnerable to being taken advantage of and mistreated in relationships with people who are highly self-oriented and selfish.

Many caretakers don’t even realize they are giving up so much of themselves. When they do notice, they may become resentful and angry—but they may keep doing it anyway. Such clients often ask me, “Why did I choose to get into a relationship with someone who is so selfish?” But a caretaker personality is magnetizing to an emotional manipulator. At first the relationship seems wonderful—one person who loves to give and one person who loves to receive. Unfortunately, too often the receiver just wants more and more, all their own way. While the caretaker secretly hopes things will balance out in the long run, they never do.

(I don’t think that emotional caretakers and co-dependents are the same thing: Most caretakers are highly functional, positive, and feel deserving at work and with their friends—while co-dependents are typically passive, self-invalidating, powerless and self-defeating in most relationships.)

When caretakers are in relationships with people who respect, value, and have positive regard for them, they get their needs satisfied and there is a good balance of give and take. And caretakers usually have positive relationships in their lives. But in an intimate relationships with a manipulator, an emotional caretaker’s values and beliefs about giving and caring—and their fear of the anger, hostility and rejection from the manipulator keeps them virtually hostage. When the caretaker disagrees or wants something different than the manipulator, they often don’t or can’t stand their ground, set boundaries, or solve differences because that level of “combat” is out of their range of skills and values. They are at the mercy of a partner whose goal is to get what they want, no matter who it hurts.

What is the cost of being an emotional caretaker in a manipulative relationship? Loss of self-esteem; increased anxiety and depression; a growing sense of hopelessness and helplessness; exhaustion; a sense of emptiness and increasing hurt; fear; and frustration. Caretakers often feel trapped in relationships because of their sense of loyalty and reluctance to hurt the other person, no matter what that person has done.

Instead of the reactions of fight-or-flight, most caretakers respond to danger, anger and hostility by shutting down. Their breathing becomes shallow, they freeze up, and wait for the danger to pass. This shutdown process makes thinking fuzzy, as muscles tense up, and even heart and digestion rates slow down. This reaction can result in physical problems such as migraines; indigestion and other intestinal problems; insomnia; neck, shoulder and back aches; and an overall sense of defeat.

How does one stop being an emotional caretaker? The most important thing to do is to value yourself and treat yourself with as much respect as you do others. Value your own wants and needs and preferences. Set boundaries that don’t allow others to invalidate you, put you down, or ignore what is important to you. Learn to fight and to flee effectively when you are in danger.

Care for yourself first and then offer your caring to others. It can change your life.

Care takers can and are regularly taken advantage of, usually on purpose but sometimes not. In either case it’s destructive to them regardless. For a caretaker to improve the situation is quite well illustrated regardless of intent. It involved focusing on self rather then the other that you can’t control. To focus on not needing their approval or permission to take care if self and your needs first as is usually neglected in situations where a caretaker is present. Sense the work or needs get unfairly offloaded to them. To compensate for the lack of volunteers. Regardless of the lack thereof, it is destructive and highly inappropriate. Those that don’t want to volunteer there time for a cause(what ever that cause is) won’t be volunteering cause it was “taught” to them. They will volunteer when they experience the joy, if they experience it(not something in someone’s control). Control is the keyword, never try to control others. Even if for a “noble” cause. That’s not how to get to Zion, and certainly is a bad habit to overcome especially with common manipulation problems to get things done.

A key factor is that I never let myself get into conversations where either party needs to feel defensive.

This.