- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This isn’t quite the same, but when I was BP a few years back, we used to sit and take attendance by name, not by counting heads. Anyone who missed two weeks running would have their name passed on to the home teacher and relevant auxiliary to check in with. Anyone whose attendance dropped below 25% during a 2 month period would get a visit/phone call from the branch presidency.
I can say with my hand on my heart that it wasn’t about numbers. It was simply a system for making sure we looked after each other. We did it because we really cared. Some will say that if we had really cared we would have done it naturally and not needed flagging systems. My reply to that would be that I recognised at the time that everyone was busy with callings, had noisy kids, demanding jobs, etc etc. Without the ‘system’ I probably wouldn’t have been fully aware if some of my closest friends missed two weeks running. The system and stats were simply a way of making sure we acted consistently on supporting people we sincerely cared about.
These days my first reaction would probably be like yours. But I have to remind myself how I used to feel. It was not box ticking and manipulation as some of us presume once the faith crisis kick in.
mackay11 wrote:This isn’t quite the same, but when I was BP a few years back, we used to sit and take attendance by name, not by counting heads.
Anyone who missed two weeks running would have their name passed on to the home teacher and relevant auxiliary to check in with. Anyone whose attendance dropped below 25% during a 2 month period would get a visit/phone call from the branch presidency.
I can say with my hand on my heart that it wasn’t about numbers. It was simply a system for making sure we looked after each other. We did it because we really cared. Some will say that if we had really cared we would have done it naturally and not needed flagging systems. My reply to that would be that I recognised at the time that everyone was busy with callings, had noisy kids, demanding jobs, etc etc. Without the ‘system’ I probably wouldn’t have been fully aware if some of my closest friends missed two weeks running. The system and stats were simply a way of making sure we acted consistently on supporting people we sincerely cared about.
These days my first reaction would probably be like yours. But I have to remind myself how I used to feel. It was not box ticking and manipulation as some of us presume once the faith crisis kick in.
Good post. Thanks for the reminder.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Yes, thank you, mackay11. Lots of things that look cynical or “wrong” to someone who is struggling are sincere and love-motivated with the people doing them – especially things that aren’t objectively damaging in nature.
I shared this one on the quote thread recently. It’s worth repeating here: From Brigham Young:
Quote:There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are.
From Journal of Discourse.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/8/8Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 6, 1860. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT
I want people to understand me as I am. By the same token, when I hear initiatives like in the OP, I try to consider the motives based on how they are, not how I am.
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right. Love this cwald!
HSAB wrote:Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Love this cwald!
My hippie daughter used that quote in her graduation speech….referenced some unethical behavior from the school board, religious authority abusing their power, and her parents spiritual journey.
Brought tears to my eyes.
Now if only my boys could be half as enlightened….
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I think the problem is the institutionalization of caring. If they encouraged you to take note of when your families are not in church and to contact them to make sure they are ok would it bother you? I would guess not because that feels like love. But the too often used “track return and report” method usually never feels like live. ..even it is being done in love.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
I see home teachers as well-intentioned informants for the local leadership. Anything you say goes straight back to the Bishop and then institutional interests take over. In some circumstances, it can be very powerful when there are legitimate needs that can be served within the skills/resources of the Ward, but it is a double edged sword where the HT is more loyal to the CHI and the organization than the member.. However, the idea that HT are “Watchmen in Industrial” has a double meaning — one altruistic, the other a kind of protective force against apostasy or cultural no-noing by members of the church.
The local leaders justify this by saying that “its best for the local membership to receive consequences for their wrong-doing so they can repent”…I think this is true when there is blatant and destructive sin in their lives, but not so good when their faux pas are cultural or are violations of policy that reflects the CHI at a given point in time.
As a follower of Napoleon once said, “In the end, treason is a matter of dates”….not that what we are talking about here is a matter of treason, but the idea that acceptability is as much a function of who is in power at that time”. So you never know how the local leadership will react; its safer to just shut up and give general answers to which no one can object.
I had a situation years ago after my first crisis when, after two years of meeting with my Bishop, I confided that I was concerned about how Church interests eclipse individual members’ needs. Commented on how members make huge sacrifices for their lives to pay tithing. And when they get into financial problems, the church extracts work from them to meet basic necessities and takes a hard line (in my experience as an HPGL). Or the fact that tithing is imposed on members without regard for personal circumstances.
A month later, I was sitting in STake Conference. A hard lining member of the SP stood up in his talk and stared right at me and said “obedience to the commandments is a pre-requisite for the celestial kingdom. “If you have a problems with tithing or the church welfare program, then you can’t have it”.
Then he looked away and moved on with his talk.
At the point, I resolved I would not trust the local leadership with my true feelings ever again. And that’s part of the reason I’m reluctant to talk to anyone about an exception to the “attend your geographical ward” rule or share true feelings with a HT.
The other thing that creates distance is that you can be a stalwart member for decades, and then when you start having problems with commitment, the leadership goes behind your back to your wife rather than speaking to you directly. It’s as if you are in the in-group when you are entirely with the program, and the second you experience faith or commitment issues, you become an outsider. That feels very much like betrayal to me.
Completely unacceptable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.