- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald, I’ll check and see if the TR is a requirement, a suggestion or not mentioned relative to being a Ward Clerk. As I said, I have no problem whatsoever with your decision – and I hope you didn’t think I meant you should soften or change it in any way. wayfarer, right back at you, friend.
roy, I think my blogging time might be curtailed just a bit.
😆 , they’d get me.Old-Timer wrote:cwald, I’ll check and see if the TR is a requirement, a suggestion or not mentioned
relative to being a Ward Clerk. As I said, I have no problem whatsoever with your decision – and I hope you didn’t think I meant you should soften or change it in any way… It would be a financial/ward clerk calling, if that makes any difference.
OK, just for clarification: Ward Clerk or Assistant Ward Clerk in charge of finances?
Old-Timer wrote:OK, just for clarification:
Ward Clerk or Assistant Ward Clerk in charge of finances?
I don’t know. Ward Clerk and I think I would have to keep books and deposit tithe money? We only have one clerk calling in the branch, and they do multiple jobs. I don’t know.
Anyho…the HC found me today at work and told me the BP submitted my name to him for the calling, regardless of the TR requirement…HC told me that there is no TR “requirement” for the calling in the CHI. And that it’s just a suggestion and the SP’s personal policy, but he is going to do the paperwork and present the recommendation to the SP anyway.
Good for him – my respect for these guys increased, especially after all the stuff I told him yesterday about my faith. If our church had more BP’s, and HCs like this, we would be better off. I have to give the guys kudos.
I also asked HC about the TR. The HC said that the BP want’s the SP to know that it’s not an issue and he wants the calling to take place. Hmmmm?
cwald wrote:GB, do they make you keep a current TR?
Nobody’s ever said anything to me about it. Financial clerk or otherwise it wouldn’t make a difference. All the clerks are supposed to be cross trained to help with the deposit when somebody’s out. I expect someone’s just trying to nudge back to the herd.
Well, here is the official church policy from the CHI 1 page 17. Quote:Ward Clerk
The bishop recommends and a member of the stake presidency or an assigned high councilor calls and sets apart a ward clerk. The ward clerk should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood
and be worthy to have a temple recommend.He should be an honest and careful record keeper. He also should be qualified to handle financial matters. The tenure of ward clerks should be sufficient for them to learn their duties and magnify their callings. Ward clerks do not need to be released when a bishopric is reorganized.
The ward clerk’s responsibilities are outlined on pages 125 and 134.
So, it’s a “should” and not a “must”. There is a big difference between those two, and there are plenty of cases where “must” is specified, so, ultimately, it’s up to the person who is in charge of extending the calling.
Thanks for checking before I could do so.
Old-Timer wrote:So, it’s a “should” and not a “must”.
There is a big difference between those two, and there are plenty of cases where “must” is specified, so, ultimately, it’s up to the person who is in charge of extending the calling.
Thanks for checking before I could do so.
I swear you need to look into attending law school Ray.
🙂 Somehow, I don’t think my SP is going to interpret the CHI like you just did.Face facts, he’s a jesuit at heart. I’ve heard a bishop state that “worthy to hold a TR” and actually holding one can be two different things. It all depends on the leader and their motives for interpreting it…and I think most leaders are trying to do the right thing, as GB said, mostly to lovingly nudge back into the fold (my words). Cadence, to the OP…I think the Church wants all of us to have a say and feel like we all contribute, but the order and heirarchy wayfarer mentioned realistically means authority will have the last say, and we are expected to be humble to accept that.
It seems to me that TR has become not just a litmus test, but it’s also a way that local leaders can put you in the “OK” pile so they don’t have to worry about you or deal with you. I think that’s just organizational dynamics, similar to at my company when they flag someone as a retention risk. The difference is that very few are flagged as retention risk, and many in the church don’t have a TR. I think we haven’t seen the last of this focus. I’m not sure that the TR alone can erase doubts and move someone from unsettled to totally cool with everything that the church can put out there at any given time. To answer Cadence, no we don’t get a say. Obviously, we get a say with God directly, and we can also speak our minds. It just might not have an effect. However, I have found that good local leaders often listen to smart ideas that support the overall church mission even if they aren’t the hierarchically handed down norm. Unfortunately, I’ve also encountered plenty of local leaders who aren’t smart enough to do that.
cwald, I never said your SP would read it that way; in fact, I said it’s up to how the local leaders intepret it. I know leaders who would read it as “should (not must)”, and I know leaders who would read it as “code for must”. All I’m saying is that “must” actually is used in other places, so “should” doesn’t mean “must” in the purest sense – but that’s how a leader may read it.
to Mercy and Grace, (sorry M & G’s post was on page 2) thanks for sharing the experience. that is how i conducted myself when an individual in a ward was the “crusty” type and leadership tended to keep a social distance from an individual because the individual lacked charisma. i believed in being loving and accepting of those in a ward where maybe an individual was less likely to be fully accepted socially by ward members.
you also made good points regarding leading by example and even your own bishop pointed out that people changed their attitude about an individual because they listened to you.
your posting here in this thread resonated with me and i kind of wondered if maybe i was being too harsh in my estimation of how church culture is too “set in it’s ways” to change because we feel we may lack a say.
one way i think that we as individuals can help the culture make positive changes is by talking to GA’s or local leaders about ideas we have on how we can make church culture better. making a point to talk to a visiting GA about one’s own ideas is a great way to “have a say” in the church. GA’s are always or almost always open to local members to speak with them one on one after a stake or regional meeting. Local leaders, too, seem to be just as open to talking to members after a stake, ward or regional meeting.
Thanks M & G for helping me to see other ways to “have a say” in our church.
Mike (BLC)
Old-Timer wrote:cwald, I never said your SP would read it that way; in fact, I said it’s up to how the local leaders intepret it.
I know leaders who would read it as “should (not must)”, and I know leaders who would read it as “code for must”. All I’m saying is that “must” actually is used in other places, so “should” doesn’t mean “must” in the purest sense – but that’s how a leader may read it.
BP talked to me. Well, he read it the same way you did Ray. He took it to the SP. The SP disagreed, no surprise there. BP argued that if it was required to have a TR it would say it was “required” and that he wanted to go ahead with the calling. BP told me that the SP would not do so, but agreed to take my situation and calling higher up and that is being discussed by the 70 area authority.
This is kind of big moment to me personally and a another good indication if I have a place within the mormon church. Regardless of how it turns out, the church is going to have to come out and make a definite stand. I think it is ironic that they started by throwing out a litmus test to me (telling me I had to have a TR) and when I refused, and because the church really needs me because of the branch I am in, it now has become a litmus test of the church’s tolerance and stance on “cafeteria Mormonism” and so called “apostasy” as far as callings are concerned. Am I, and the “Middle Way” ideology really that much of a threat to the church? This will be the second time in a year for me. Perhaps this one will turn out a bit different than than the last one did.
Thank god for the decent BP and bishops out there.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.