- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SD, I don’t agree with all of what you said. When I talk to my Bishop or HT & I consider the conversation “confidential”, I tell them that.
I also tell them, if you break or violate my confidence, it’s “game over”.
There’s lots of confidentiality in the Church. We just don’t hear about it. There also is lots that should be confidential that isn’t kept confidential. That’s a different issue.
Old-Timer wrote:There’s lots of confidentiality in the Church. We just don’t hear about it.
Good one Ray.
Quote:There also is lots that should be confidential that isn’t kept confidential. That’s a different issue.
Yep — agree wholeheartedly. My experience over the last 30 years tells me that if you’re on the Ward council or PEC you end up hearing all kinds of stuff I’m sure the people discussed would be shocked about if they heard it had been shared.
My experience leads me to the conclusion that it’s best to assume there is no confidentiality — and share accordingly. That way you are never disappointed.
Mike wrote:SD, I don’t agree with all of what you said.
When I talk to my Bishop or HT & I consider the conversation “confidential”, I tell them that.
I also tell them, if you break or violate my confidence, it’s “game over”.
Good advice — but I think the fact that you have to warn them is partly a testament to the fact that one man’s confidence is another man’s gossip. I think it’s good you come on strong with them, though.
Last year on a 5th Sunday, our ward had a combined meeting with the RS. During that meeting the Bishop wanted me & another Brother to talk about be reactivated.
At the end of my talk, I brought up the need for “confidentiality”.
The Bishop then came up & reinforced what I had said.
I’m not naive, I know what goes on in WC meetings.
We need to reinforce what “confidentiality” means whenever we have the opportunity.
Well, I got an email back from this bishop. He basically said he was sorry that I had been hurt by people in the church, but that the church was true and all my questions and doubts have answers and to come back to church. Here is what I wrote him back: Hi Bishop Hellums,
The fact that you took the time to read my long letter etc. and took some thought in replying back, makes me respect you and believe you are a very caring person. I thank you for that. Your visit and email has made me realize that I still have anger issues about the lds church that I thought I had resolved. It is good for me to look at those issues again and process them, as I do not think it is healthy to live with resentments or anger. It was not really people in the lds church that made the final decision for us to leave the church. We know people are imperfect and mess up. For us, it had to do with whether the lds church doctrine, scriptures, and teachings were from God and whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. We did not take that lightly. Even after reading the things that were disturbing to us in church history volumes and Journal of Discourses, we spent a whole year, every week-end, meeting with a lds man who had a masters degree in lds church history to go over the points that bothered us. In the final analysis, everything comes down to personal revelations for us. We have to go by what God revealed to us personally and the direction He has shown us that He wants us to go. This is why we are involved in the United Church of Christ at this time; we know God led us there. Should God reveal to us to come back to the lds church someday, we would. We cannot go by what others, a bishop, or top leaders say. We have to get our own revelation and verification as early lds church leaders have admonished. Here is one example:
“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blink self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 9, p. 150
Thank you again for writing back and may God bless you in your calling,
That is a good, frank letter. I feel his initial email shows he’s a caring person, but is relying on traditional Mormon answers and approaches, which tend not to work with people like us. One concern I have is that the new CHI indicates that local leaders can take away people’s membership if they join a different church. So, I personally would not have shared your involvement in a different church (you stopped short of saying you are a member of the other church, which is good; I think you said your husband mentioned it too). However, that is for each person to decide. I tend to be overly cautious and don’t give the priesthood leaders’ much to go on. I like what Roy said — be polite (as you were) and give them vague hope of change. Which in my case, exists. For someone still connected at the hip by family, it’s a good strategy — you may perceive your situation as different.
Thanks for sharing this. It’s always a big deal when a priesthood leader comes to your home. And its stressful too.
SilentDawning wrote:That is a good, frank letter. I feel his initial email shows he’s a caring person, but is relying on traditional Mormon answers and approaches, which tend not to work with people like us.
One concern I have is that the new CHI indicates that local leaders can take away people’s membership if they join a different church. So, I personally would not have shared your involvement in a different church (you stopped short of saying you are a member of the other church, which is good; I think you said your husband mentioned it too). However, that is for each person to decide. I tend to be overly cautious and don’t give the priesthood leaders’ much to go on. I like what Roy said — be polite (as you were) and give them vague hope of change. Which in my case, exists. For someone still connected at the hip by family, it’s a good strategy — you may perceive your situation as different.
Thanks for sharing this. It’s always a big deal when a priesthood leader comes to your home. And its stressful too.
I know what you mean about mentioning another church. I would not have originally but my husband did and the bishop did ask what we found there that we did not find in the lds church. Also that we have not taken our names off the church records. My husband also mentioned that one of the only reasons he would do that is so home teachers and leaders would not have one more family as dead weight to have to visit as he knows it just adds to the already over worked members.
bridget_night wrote:Well, I got an email back from this bishop. He basically said he was sorry that I had been hurt by people in the church, but that the church was true and all my questions and doubts have answers and to come back to church.
It sounds like he is a good guy that is also very entrenched in a traditional paradigm. I bet you $1 that he cannot fathom the idea of God leading you to the United Church of Christ.
Roy wrote:bridget_night wrote:Well, I got an email back from this bishop. He basically said he was sorry that I had been hurt by people in the church, but that the church was true and all my questions and doubts have answers and to come back to church.
It sounds like he is a good guy that is also very entrenched in a traditional paradigm. I bet you $1 that he cannot fathom the idea of God leading you to the United Church of Christ.
Roy, I had to smile when you said that because at least I knew he could not argue with what God told me for my situation since we are told that we can recieve personal revelation for our own situations. I had also told this bishop about the time I was in a fast and testimony crying and praying about why God had not given my husband a witness of the book of Mormon. I heard a voice in my head to go visit the 7th Day adventist church around the corner 3 times. We did and the pastor there helped me understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and the atonement better than ever before. I guess it is hard for some members to really understand how God would tell someone anything different than what the church teachesI just emailed this to this bishop because I hope it would help him be a better bishop to any gays in his ward or stake: Bishop [last name removed],
Because, we have a gay son, I have a huge heart for how gay people are being treated. I just want to make you aware that there is a good website the lds church has created to help leaders and members know how to treat those that are different.
http://mormonsandgays.org/ Every ward and stake has at least 10% of gays in their congregations who are mostly in the closet. What they hear about gays and homosexuality in the church can greatly affect them. 40% of gay youth in the church have been kicked out of their homes and often commit suicide. When our youngest child discovered at 16 that he had a same sex attraction, he was terrified. A teacher in his Sunday school class at this time told the class that gays were an abomination and that there were no gays in the lds church and that gays were going to hell. It was a horrible, self loathing time for him which made him suicidal. He was the most precious, loving child growing up and did not choose to have these feelings. He tried everything to change and felt like God had abandoned him which is why he left the lds church and lost his faith in God. I wrote a book about our unusual story under a pen name to protect our family. You can read a preview to it at my signature link “Prayers for Johnathan”:I am always glad to hear when churches make changes and progress in this and other areas. Here, for example, are changes the lds church has made on the issue of homosexuality over the years:
Changes in the lds church On Homosexuality:
a.) A 1974 church pamphlet excoriated homosexuality as evil and castigated parents of gays for having raised their children poorly.
b.) By 1992, a new teaching suggested that biological factors could be at work.
New church publication, “God Loveth His Children,” says gay feelings are neither learned nor chosen, and it counsels against rejecting a gay child. It repeatedly warns against feelings of guilt: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy.
c.) It has also abandoned its history of encouraging gay members to enter heterosexual marriages. The new document says “the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life.”
d.)Spencer W. Kimball’s book, The Miracle of Forgiveness. It had a chapter in it called I think, “Crime Against Nature”, and it described in very certain terms the evilness and sinfulness this condition. He used awful words to describe homosexuals and their feelings. He stated that these desires were pungent, evil, disgusting, vial, malicious, and pernicious. I remember reading his book and cried as I read what was said about my son who has always been one of the most angelic young men I have ever known. He never choose those feelings and almost committed suicide trying to change them.
Sincerely, Bridget
Excellent message, Bridget, and I hope he understands better after receiving it. This might seem a bit nit-picky, but I think it’s an important point to make.
Quote:Every ward and stake has at least 10% of gays in their congregations who are mostly in the closet.
It’s REALLY important in conversations with more traditional members to NOT make claims that are statistically unsettled – especially ones that flat-out will not be accepted by them. The 10% estimate is the absolute highest estimate used by pretty much anyone, and other solid estimates are low as 1.5%-2%. I’m NOT trying to argue one or the other stat; I’m saying that using the highest possible estimate often leads people to do the math.
If a Bishop has 200 members attending church, he is going to say, “There is no way there are 20 homosexual members in my ward” – and, in most wards, he probably will be right. He probably won’t think about the 400 who aren’t attending regularly – but, even if he does, he still is going to say, “There is no way there are 60 homosexual members in my ward.”
An approach to take that is much more likely to be productive is to quote the lower estimates and frame it in terms of being sensitive to someone who feels numerically overwhelmed and attacked – “the one”, so to speak. That same Bishop is likely to do the math and be willing to accept that there might be 3-4 homosexual members attending church regularly and 9-12 on the records of his ward.
The exact number is not as important as having the message register (especially since the exact number is unknown in each congregation – and even society-wide still) – and using the highest possible estimate hinders potential understanding and risks automatic denial.
Very good suggestions Ray. Thanks. Along the lines of Ray’s remark, I would only add that sexual orientation is more widely acknowledged to be on a continuum now, rather than just “gay” or “straight” or even “bisexual.” So that clouds statistics like that even further. Maybe I’d acknowledge the looseness of self-identification to something more like up to X% self identify as having homosexual orientation (e.g. 8 or higher on the 10 point continuum).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.