- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I made the decision not to go back to church after the pandemic. To me, that meant talking to the Primary President and R.S. President of my branch because of the callings I hold/held (Achievement Day Leader and R.S. Teacher). I did not want to just bail on them without explanation or ghost them. As a friend, I didn’t want to leave them to face people who won’t like my decision without more information and facts to counter the false information that will swirl around the branch. I spent weeks agonizing on what could go wrong and writing a script for me to use in the situation so that they knew a) It wasn’t them or that I got “offended” or was “lazy” about it and that b) I wasn’t a fraud when I was teaching without a testimony.
The conversations went well overall
. They appear to have gotten the memo about points a & b. We are going to be more deliberate in our friendships because they are not built into the community. They understand that I am not a “rescue project” – so I am not worth the time and energy to try to do so. They seem to understand that this was years in the making and very deliberately thought through. – The Primary President was comfortable with developing a transition plan (I was going to be leaving Achievement Days at the end of the year anyways). We are going walking again this weekend hopefully to refine it. Our branch president is enforcing the “male priesthood holder at all meetings” rule – which I find insufferable and is not easily supportable in my situation. [My husband is not active and I don’t want to drag him out to activities that accidently guilt him into reactivating himself and upsetting DD12. But even I know that asking another brother to be there at my activity is weird and would make my husband look bad.]
– The R.S. President was very kind about it. She is going to update the VT roster so that I get on the list of her or the Primary President.
I gave both of them a script for when it comes up in meetings – “That they talked with me and that I am working through some things. And then drop the subject.” They don’t have to use the script if they don’t want to – but it might save them some work.
What seemed to help the conversations was that I did my homework ahead of time and prepared my message so that it could (but didn’t have to) sustain our friendship. I verbalized where the boundaries were regarding my future activity in a positive way
It sounds like you handled things as good as such things can possibly be handled. I know that was a hard decision to make and I’m sure it was even harder to carry out the plan. I think this went as well as could be, probably better than what most could expect. I’m not sure the majority of leaders in my ward are at that place where most of them could be that understanding and supportive. May you find the peace you seek.
Well done. I’m jealous. We moved across town during the pandemic, and I would have been 100% thrilled never to go back, but that’s not really on the cards. We’ve been called into the primary, 5 year olds, which is probably the ideal scenario for us. Having been to two Gospel Doctrine classes and one Relief Society lesson, I can state that there is no way I could sit through those again. 80% of every lesson was a mix of leader worship / obey human leaders / why doubters are lazy and terrible / encouragement to accost those who are inactive and challenge them about their lack of commitment by telling them they are ruining their families for eternity with their faithlessness. 🙄 One lesson went into a discussion about the difference between blind obedience and obedience, and the “conclusion” was that obedience included a pause first. That’s the only distinction because it’s unthinkable that anyone could ever not do what they are told, eventually, no matter how silly the command. Normally, in my last two wards, I would have countered this BS with my own spin (which almost always goes over well), but I really don’t care anymore. I don’t owe these people anything. I don’t know them. I don’t wish to cast my pearls before swine, which I know sounds terrible, but why am I the only person in the room who thinks this is terrible? I really really really really really don’t want to be there.
Plus, the wifi is terrible.
This sounds like it went well. You set boundaries and you put plans in place to help reduce the ward’s inclination to test those boundaries. AmyJ wrote:
Our branch president is enforcing the “male priesthood holder at all meetings” rule – which I find insufferable and is not easily supportable in my situation. [My husband is not active and I don’t want to drag him out to activities that accidently guilt him into reactivating himself and upsetting DD12. But even I know that asking another brother to be there at my activity is weird and would make my husband look bad.]
Is this rule in a handbook somewhere. I can’t seem to find it.
Roy wrote:
Is this rule in a handbook somewhere. I can’t seem to find it.
Good question. All I found was:
Handbook 35.3.5 wrote:
Safety and SecurityLeaders instruct members—especially women and youth—not to be alone in Church buildings.
Handbook 20.6.2 wrote:
Adult SupervisionAt least two adult supervisors must be present at all Church-sponsored activities attended by children, youth, and young single adults. Additional adults may be needed depending on the size of the group, the skill level of the group (for activities requiring certain skills), anticipated environmental conditions, and the overall degree of challenge of the activity. Parents should be encouraged to help.
All adults participating in activities for children and youth are to complete children and youth protection training (ProtectingChildren.ChurchofJesusChrist.org) before the activity.
That’s not the same thing as requiring a PH holder to be present at all activities.
That said, for the longest time they always asked for two PH volunteers to be present during enrichment night. I’m not sure whether that practice came from an old handbook, was dropped from subsequent handbooks, but people continued the practice (that never happens, right? 
Edit, also found this:
Handbook 20.6.12 wrote:
Overnight Activities…
A sufficient number of adult priesthood leaders must be present at all times during overnight activities to provide support and protection. In the case of Young Women activities, priesthood leaders must stay in facilities separate from the young women.
…
But that’s for overnight activities.
Thank you Nibbler. I think that last part is at least the closest to the situation Amy described. The justification of providing “support and protection” also lines up pretty well with the justifications that I have heard for this practice. 1) to give emergency blessings when called upon. 2) to run off any scoundrels or scallywags that may venture too close. I think the priesthood holder in the building was once a rule. It’s still “enforced” in my ward as well. :crazy: 🙄 Here’s another “rule” I see enforced that’s not in the book: women can’t hug/touch/be-within-arms-length of a missionary elder. Again, I think that was once in the “little white bible” but it’s not anymore (despite the lwb getting larger and more detailed since I served a mission).
Unfortunately, I do not think anyone would be particularly appreciative of me pointing out that these are no longer official rules. Similar to there not being a written rule that women must wear pants. The idea is that compliance to expectations that may not be actual written rules is a virtue (and that even moderate resistance to these expectations is a sign of spiritual stubbornness).
Hedges about the law are thorny.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.