- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I appreciate the replies. I’m going to continue to think about this for a few days. My inclination is to read the first presidency message myself and to say in a general way that this issue is complex and difficult for me, that I struggle with parts of it, and that anyone who wants to talk to me about the letter or has questions is more than welcome to come see me. I will probably set expectations that comments and questions will be kept to a minimum in the interest of time. I’ve been open that my faith is imperfect and one time I told 1/3 of the ward once that I shouldn’t be where I am because of my doubts. I believe that people see what they want to see which in my case probably works in my favor.
Roadrunner wrote:My inclination is to read the first presidency message myself and to say in a general way that this issue is complex and difficult for me, that I struggle with parts of it, and that anyone who wants to talk to me about the letter or has questions is more than welcome to come see me. I will probably set expectations that comments and questions will be kept to a minimum in the interest of time.
Roadrunner, I don’t think you even need to say that much. You’ve been asked to read it, not to offer your opinions about it. I think you’d be just fine if you just announce that the presidency wants this letter to be read, then read the letter, then move on to the next piece of ward business. No reason to put yourself into a more awkward position than necessary. When those letters are read in SM, everybody knows they’re coming from headquarters, not from the person reading it.
Quote:I think you’d be just fine if you just announce that the presidency wants this letter to be read, then read the letter, then move on to the next piece of ward business. No reason to put yourself into a more awkward position than necessary.
I’d also suggest not deciding which day to read it until you get to Sacrament Meeting. Which ever week looks less attended, read it then.
Now you can’t see both weeks at a time, but you can gauge it pretty well. If the pews seem more empty grab the moment. I have seen July 5th be a toss up. Some wards are packed with people who are visiting especially near tourist areas. Other’s are sparse.
You’ll do good.
SunbeltRed wrote:roadrunner,
Thanks for posting, it was a brave thing to do. I agree that it is a huge missed opportunity and much of the younger generation is not going to go along with this. I wish the church could get out of their own way. Doing nothing, saying nothing would be more productive than this.
I agree and like I keep saying, “just like with alcohol”. We don’t drink, but we don’t spend hours in Gen Conference pounding the pulpit on it.
SunbeltRed wrote:I also think that the SCOTUS ruling is going to create more division than we have seen in the past. I personally feel more inclined now to stand up and say “I support the SCOTUS ruling and I’m glad it passed” without caring as much what other people think. I think the law passing has emboldened people who previously sat quietly in fear, and it will take a delicate balance of charity and tolerance for all sides to work in unity together.
I do think I will end up saying something like this, but I will try and make it clear – I am 100% OK with others that do not agree with me.I have a work conflict this Sunday, so I am going to miss the action.
Here’s some clarification on what I saw on my FB feed. Someone had posted a link to the thread and also another link about the decision (the original FB post was supporting you RR). Well a friend of mine made the comment about if you don’t like the letter you should resign. That’s how it popped up for me. I was very surprised by my friend’s comment. He is very much outside the mainstream TBM and actually supports gay marriage and so I was shocked to see him take such a hard line approach. I thought about commenting on what this site is intended for, but I didn’t. I’m personally glad that I work Sundays and won’t have to listen to this. Just reading it made me upset. 👿 I want to make only one suggestion: Read it yourself, specifically to make the following statement, in whatever words are natural to you:
Quote:As the Bishop of this ward, I don’t want this issue to be divisive within the ward, so I hope that you will not let it become a topic of conversation in any other meetings.
I would read it personally in all of the meetings where it is supposed to be read, not delegate it to your counselors, and I would tell the youth, directly and explicitly, that you understand there is disagreement among faithful members about this topic and that any of them can talk with you at ay point about it if they want to do so – that you won’t love or accept them any differently no matter what they believe.
When our bishop in AZ had to read a letter about Prop 102 (similar to Prop 
, he did his duty, but he refused to do more than was explicitly asked, and honestly, I respected him for that. And he supported it personally! He just didn’t believe in bringing politics into church, and he kept that atmosphere in our ward.Roadrunner wrote:I appreciate the replies. I’m going to continue to think about this for a few days. My inclination is to read the first presidency message myself and to say in a general way that this issue is complex and difficult for me, that I struggle with parts of it, and that anyone who wants to talk to me about the letter or has questions is more than welcome to come see me. I will probably set expectations that comments and questions will be kept to a minimum in the interest of time.
I’ve been open that my faith is imperfect and one time I told 1/3 of the ward once that I shouldn’t be where I am because of my doubts. I believe that people see what they want to see which in my case probably works in my favor.
I think you could read the letter word for word from the 1st presidency.Without putting your own persuasion on the congregation that you agree or disagree with it, I do like your idea to offer to all members of the ward to feel free to come talk to you about it if they would like to. That way, people can decide for themselves how they feel…but know that if they need your guidance, you have an open door and open heart to counsel with them. You hold the keys for the congregation if you are bishop.
In private conversations, I think you could discern when some may want to hear how you struggle with it or not, or when some people are better off not knowing that. The individual conversations can be tailored how the spirit dictates.
Truth is, the letter is what it is.
It is for all of us, regardless of our level of orthodoxy, to process it and handle it in our lives and the real world we live in.
Ray also makes a good point about youth…we should all be very caring about how these events are being processed by the youth. They should be supported. It is hard for us adults to figure this out…youth might be getting messages from all kinds of sources…and need the wisdom of adults to remind them how Christ loved others, even while chaos and noise surrounded him.
I also want to point out that there isn’t anything that is really egregious in the actual wording of the letter that is to be read. It is not an extreme letter by almost any standard. Disagreeing with some of the things it says is one thing; characterizing it as extreme (which has not been done here, just to make that clear) is another thing completely.
There also is some very good content, regardless of agreement about doctrinal implications.
kljackman wrote:In other words, absolutely nothing changes. Move along; there’s nothing to see here despite what you may have heard.
I agree with this take on it.
I think Ray makes a great point. I amend my previous comment – probably best that it comes from you. Whether or not you offer additional commentary is up to you, but I personally would probably say something like “this is a potentially divisive issue, I hope we can appreciate and love each other even though some of us may have different opinions about this.” Forget the letter for a minute. Look at the reader count. OVER 15,000. Is that even possible????
Old-Timer wrote:I also want to point out that there isn’t anything that is really egregious in the actual wording of the letter that is to be read. It is not an extreme letter by almost any standard.
Disagreeing with some of the things it says is one thing; characterizing it as extreme (which has not been done here, just to make that clear) is another thing completely.
There also is some very good content, regardless of agreement about doctrinal implications.
I agree with this and SBRed’s comment. There really is nothing new here. The Q15 are reiterating their stance, not taking a new one. I, too, have decided it’s probably best coming from you – maybe even asking all the groups to gather at the beginning of the third hour and doing it all in one shot. At this moment I’d read the letter and be inclined afterward to say something to the effect of “If you have any questions or concerns about this please see me” and not take any comments/questions in the public forum.
Quote:Forget the letter for a minute. Look at the reader count. OVER 15,000.
Is that even possible????
Yeah we were popular today. It’s a momentary flash, but as I never was in the in-crowd, it’s kind of cool when everyone is lookin’ your way.
Having a lesbian daughter, and being involved in a group that supports LGBTQ youth and allies, I can tell you that my fear is that reading this statement at church just provides more angst and possible suicides of our LGBTQ youth. It may just be a restatement of things that have already been said, but I know families that have lost children to suicide, and this kind of thing just makes these youth feel worse about the church and their lives. It is not innocuous.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.