Home Page › Forums › Spiritual Stuff › Speaking for Those Not Present
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm #209225
Anonymous
GuestCynthia Lee Bailey gave the faculty address at Stanford’s annual LDS Convocation, and she posted her remarks on By Common Consent. They are wonderful, and I recommend the post highly to everyone here – especially to those in positions to speak in church for those who can’t do so, for whatever reason. Here is the link to her post:
“Such a Time as This,” Remarks at Stanford Convocation( )http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/09/such-a-time-as-this-remarks-at-stanford-convocation/ October 10, 2014 at 5:02 pm #290427Anonymous
GuestThanks for sharing this, Ray. As one who has the opportunity to do this, I most certainly will. October 29, 2014 at 1:23 pm #290428Anonymous
GuestMormonism does not have a monopoly on serving their fellow men, but it does have a unique perspective. Home and visiting teaching are such examples, so is the percentage of youth who go on missions, our lay ministry, Mormon Helping Hands, and temple work. It can be said that in a very real sense we can be saviors on Mount Zion. Few other churches even attempt such ambitious services, but Mormonism institutionalizes them. Amazing.
October 29, 2014 at 1:52 pm #290429Anonymous
GuestVery powerful talk she gave. For us here, it can mean that you speak on topics that a lot of Mormons need to hear given their often unconcious cultural values — and the effects they rarely ever realize (some of them). For example, I was in a Ward Conference and a SP member “accused” us of not having our records in order because we had 99 prospective elders and only 1 active. I explained, no I had visited every single one of them, and they had all rejected us. It took me a while of sharing facts to convince them I wasn’t making it all up. I indicated priesthood holders had been to every single house and done as much as we could to learn about the people and encourage them to come back. After the SP seemed to believe me, It led to a conversation about the substantial TR holders that weren’t active either.
At this point, a member of the SP asked “We have men who grew up in the church, served a mission, got married in the temple, had children, and then somehwere in his 30’s, 40’s and 50’s he goes inactive — why is this?”
At the time all I had were a few anecdotes from the families under my stewardship to share (most people won’t tell you why they dont’ want to be part of the church, I found, partly due to our church’s policy of non-criticism)….
Anyway, now, after being at StayLDS, I think many of us COULD speak for the silent less active crowd to help the traditional believers understand how their unconscious actions sometimes contribute to less activity.
I would speak for those not present on these issues
1. The importance of creating an environment of personal safety within gospel conversations about doubts and disaffection.
2. Recognizing and pruning judgmentalism from our attitudes and conversations.
3. Placing people above policy. The complexity of the human condition defines rigid policy, applied without regard for personal circumstances.
4. The importance of co-missioning personal passions with church callings to sustain commitment.
5. Our status as volunteers, and the need for appreciation, notwithstanding King Benjamin’s Discourse that says whatever we do is never enough to satisfy God. God — maybe — but local leaders and fellow leaders are still obligated to treat members as volunteers, and with gratitude for the contributions they make.
I could add to the list — if you had someone speak for you in a meeting, what would you have them say?
October 31, 2014 at 2:58 pm #290430Anonymous
Guest– The church has become increasingly political since the 1980s (all churches in the US have), and our alignment with the evangelicals is something I don’t want my kids to hear. We are shifting away from the truth, IMO. – I also have seen that where we used to teach scripture study, seeking answers, personal revelation, etc., now we almost exclusively teach blind obedience and following the brethren. There’s precious little breathing room left.
– Those who aren’t politically conservative are maligned openly in many wards.
– The church’s worship of the family makes those who don’t live the church’s ideal feel marginalized or judged. Anyone with gay family or friends has plenty of reason to be offended or simply to not want to hear such ignorance. In my case, I don’t agree that the church’s ideal is ideal.
– The church’s view of women creates women who are inferior to men and dependent on men while placing them on a pedestal to keep them there. I didn’t follow that counsel, so it hasn’t made a material negative influence on my life, but women who did follow it are the only real target audience of our lessons and doctrine.
October 31, 2014 at 6:22 pm #290431Anonymous
GuestAmen Hawkgrrl – As I have continued to examine my “faith” – I find the church I grew up expecting gone. I don’t know this new one. I came of age, spiritually in the late 1970’s and early 80’s. Where I grew up so much of our youth lessons revolved around finding your mission in life and fulfilling it. Yes – motherhood was an option, but talents, knowledge, skills those were vital. Being who God made you to Be was the marker. Now. One option is available – mass production. A few weeks ago I attended a Richard, Claudia Bushman and Patrick Mason seminar thing. Claudia was a breath of fresh air, she also mentioned she never had to attend seminary – it wasn’t required, nor where anything like Young Womens, etc. Today Claudia Bushman looks at the list on the SS chalk board, picks one she likes and works on it. During our meeting she encouraged women to bless their babies at home. She said not to use the words “with the Priesthood” but do everything else, have friends over, fix lunch, bless the baby. Enjoy. She said Joseph Smith would have supported it – Joseph F. or Fielding (can’t remember) not so much. After her talk hands went up – one dad said, “Seminary is required, if we don’t do it we strong armed, exiled, not to mention non-endorsement for a church school. Two or three women – had questions about home blessings, following your impressions, etc. It was clear in that moment – as I watched the proceedings that there are a whole bunch of different Mormon churches – the one I grew up in is gone, so is Claudia Bushman’s, but at 80 years old no one is going to interfere with her. At 50 they will interfere with me.
October 31, 2014 at 10:35 pm #290432Anonymous
Guestmom3 wrote:Amen Hawkgrrl – As I have continued to examine my “faith” – I find the church I grew up expecting gone. I don’t know this new one. I came of age, spiritually in the late 1970’s and early 80’s. Where I grew up so much of our youth lessons revolved around finding your mission in life and fulfilling it. Yes – motherhood was an option, but talents, knowledge, skills those were vital. Being who God made you to Be was the marker. Now. One option is available – mass production.
A few weeks ago I attended a Richard, Claudia Bushman and Patrick Mason seminar thing. Claudia was a breath of fresh air, she also mentioned she never had to attend seminary – it wasn’t required, nor where anything like Young Womens, etc. Today Claudia Bushman looks at the list on the SS chalk board, picks one she likes and works on it. During our meeting she encouraged women to bless their babies at home. She said not to use the words “with the Priesthood” but do everything else, have friends over, fix lunch, bless the baby. Enjoy. She said Joseph Smith would have supported it – Joseph F. or Fielding (can’t remember) not so much. After her talk hands went up – one dad said, “Seminary is required, if we don’t do it we strong armed, exiled, not to mention non-endorsement for a church school. Two or three women – had questions about home blessings, following your impressions, etc. It was clear in that moment – as I watched the proceedings that there are a whole bunch of different Mormon churches – the one I grew up in is gone, so is Claudia Bushman’s, but at 80 years old no one is going to interfere with her. At 50 they will interfere with me.
About three and a half years ago I gave a name and a blessing to my grandson while he was being held by his father who’s not a member. They were up from San Francisco so I didn’t bother to contact their bishop and since I was a clerk, I generated a record for the baby. Now I have a new grandson and they live here. I’m not a clerk anymore so I can’t do a record and I expect that if I contact their bishop about doing the blessing at a family gathering, he’ll say no. If it’s a blessing only then I wouldn’t need to talk to him but a name and a blessing is another matter. It will be for his first rice ceremony (my daughter’s in laws are hindu). Off topic I know but I could use some advice.
November 1, 2014 at 1:05 am #290433Anonymous
GuestWhat Hawkgrrrl said a couple of posts up. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.