Confronting leadership

[Anonymous]

A relative came to me for some advice. I wasn’t sure what to tell him but thought the combined wisdom of this board would help. He has an older daughter (non-missionary) who has been preparing to go through the temple. During the course of that preparation with her bishop, some past indiscretions emerged that needed to be addressed. (As you might guess, they were sexual in nature). So she and the bishop met regularly over a period of several months and at the end of that time, he said she was clean and should remember them no more. He then gave her the temple recommend questions which she answered in the appropriate way. She then began making arrangements (scheduling, notifying family, making purchases) to take out her endowments. Fast forward to her interview with the stake president. He goes through the questions and at the “law of chastity” question, she answers that she keeps it. The stake president then elaborated on the question asking her if she had done x, y or z. (These being certain inappropriate acts that stop short of sexual intercourse). My friend’s daughter, being honest and maybe a bit naive, said that she had done a couple of those. The stake president asked when it had occurred. It had been earlier in that year, January or February. He said that she would have to wait until then as a year long waiting period was required for full repentance of such acts. (And to be clear, she did tell the stake president that she thought she had worked out these things with her bishop. It didn’t change his decision.) Heartbroken, the young woman returned to her bishop telling him what the stake president had said. She reported to her parents that his reaction was one of puzzlement, hemming and hawing, looking in the manual, and finally saying something along the lines, “I’ll contact him for clarification but he IS the stake president.”

In the conversation with this relative, I was, naturally, sympathetic but explained (to my understanding) that there is no set time for the repentance process which probably varies quite a bit from leader to leader. However, it appeared to me that the stake president had overstepped some boundaries: first, by seemingly deviating from the standard temple recommend questions. (I spoke with my bishop and a friend who is a bishop and both said that you are not supposed to vary from those questions. Interestingly, both of their reactions were sympathetic but obviously uncomfortable with even hinting at the possibility that the stake president did the wrong thing.) Secondly, by seemingly ignoring the judgment passed by the bishop or at least not communicating to the bishop his particular set of standards, forced this young woman to go through the pain of confessing her sins again. I should say this gal’s father was EXTREMELY upset over this situation and not because of any delay in taking out endowments but the fact that she was so devastated by the experience.

So, what action, if any, should or could be taken? Let it go? Confront the stake president? Contact his superior? I wondered if anyone here has had a similar experience or could suggest some possible actions to take. Thanks ahead of time for any input.

[Anonymous]

This is right at the heart of what gets me about church leadership. This is a form of leadership abuse where the SP feels he can overturn the decision of the Bishop in spite of the impact on the prospective missionary, the impact on the Bishop’s sense of authority, and the expectations raised within the family and missionary.

I would challenge them on it, but you have to be careful as the leadership doesn’t consider pressing for privileges before policy allows those to be restored (and I don’t trust them to use judgment or assume any accountability for their errors either). I would proceed as if confused, and play dumb as a fox, looking bewildered, showing the inconsistencies across leaders, puzzlement over their seeming lack of concern over the impact on the prospective missionary etcetera.

This really ticks me off!!! I have experienced similar things, but not related to worthiness.

[Anonymous]

You are in a very tough situation and I feel your pain, confusion, even anger. I’ve almost been in a general same situation and it can be a faith breaker for some.

I think the advice SD gave is concise. Bishops and SPs need to know where their line stops as far as asking these personal questions outside of the standard questions, especially regarding their personal views on masterbation.

I hope that you can change some minds of the leadership here, and that there are no casualties along the way. For some these can be make it or break it.

[Anonymous]

Gerald wrote:

Fast forward to her interview with the stake president. He goes through the questions and at the “law of chastity” question, she answers that she keeps it. The stake president then elaborated on the question asking her if she had done x, y or z.

I’m really sorry for the stress this is for your relatives. I don’t have specific advice, but just want to go on record that this happened in our daughter’s pre-temple SP interview, too. Since there wasn’t any x,y, z to disclose, it didn’t derail the schedule, but I was dismayed. I think it sends a bad message about some important principles and erodes trust and confidence in leaders.

[Anonymous]

Have you considered writing a letter to the Presiding Bishop asking for advice?

I would approach the Stake President first, since I believe in that approach, but, if nothing changes, I probably would send the letter – emphasizing your concern about the appropriateness of the questioning and how it undermines the concept of sincere repentance.

[Anonymous]

ARGHHHHH!!!! (sound of AP banging her head against the desk and keyboard)

When someone repents, are we not supposed to take that on face value?

I don’t remember the scriptures saying, “Prove it to me”

This SP doesn’t have a clue about how much damage he just potentially caused.

[Anonymous]

This is just creepers.

Repentance with Heavenly Father is often less invasive than this is. Jesus didn’t ask the woman taken in adultery to describe the specifics before he forgave her and encouraged her to go forth and sin no more.

I have no suggestions, at the same time feel free to share with her that others are enraged by this, that may soften the personal pain she will receive from this.

[Anonymous]

This has been on my mind all day….I find what the SP did scarier than the Hallowe’en costumes I saw today.

Regrettably, the Handbook issued in 2010 says that if someone has been involved in sexual transgression, and even heavy petting, then they should wait a year to give enough time to show repentance, before being recommended for missionary service. It can be as long as three years for really serious transgressions, and if it’s repeated and with multiple partners, or for an extended period of time with one partner, the person can’t be recommended for missionary service at all. See the attached two JPGS which are screenshots from the Handbook.

But in spite of what the handbook says, this is a case where if the Bishop was more lenient than the Handbook, the SP should have honored it.

It’s stories like these that create the seeds of disaffection that can afflict you later in life.

I hope the prospective missionary in this case can get past it, and that there are no more instances of leadership lapses like this one in her life. In this case, the Bishop screwed up, the SP played it by the book, and the member picks up the tab in deflated expectations and hardship. Shame on the SP for not exercising better judgment.

Here’s a great case of where we can’t assume our leaders “perfect” or always inspired. In this case, the Bishop couldn’t even read the handbook properly.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

This has been on my mind all day….I find what the SP did scarier than the Hallowe’en costumes I saw today.

Regrettably, the Handbook issued in 2010 says that if someone has been involved in sexual transgression, and even heavy petting, then they should wait a year to give enough time to show repentance, before being recommended for missionary service. It can be as long as three years for really serious transgressions, and if it’s repeated and with multiple partners, or for an extended period of time with one partner, the person can’t be recommended for missionary service at all. See the attached two JPGS which are screenshots from the Handbook.

But in spite of what the handbook says, this is a case where if the Bishop was more lenient than the Handbook, the SP should have honored it.

It’s stories like these that create the seeds of disaffection that can afflict you later in life.

I hope the prospective missionary in this case can get past it, and that there are no more instances of leadership lapses like this one in her life. In this case, the Bishop screwed up, the SP played it by the book, and the member picks up the tab in deflated expectations and hardship. Shame on the SP for not exercising better judgment.

Here’s a great case of where we can’t assume our leaders “perfect” or always inspired. In this case, the Bishop couldn’t even read the handbook properly.

I read this with interest. I’m sorry this happened. I also have lived in stakes where such practices have happened.

I hope the damage done can somehow be mitigated and softened.

When such things have happened to me, I find i have no desire to even try. I hope this doesn’t happen to this woman. It is not what I envision the gospel is about.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of the parents going to the SP in sort of humble bewilderment. Expressing that the daughter had born the fruits of repentance and was flourishing in this new path that she was taking and how difficult this in now being for the family.

That, I believe, is the approach that has the best chance of him reversing his decision….but I look at it as being 50/50.

Writing to the Presiding Bishop should help for future cases – but I find it unlikely to help in this instance.

I would be careful not to appear adversarial, I believe that will only tend to marginalize the young lady and her family from the church community.

I am sorry for the pain that your family is feeling.

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry that happened.

1) I’d talk to the young woman to reassure her that she has been forgiven and that there’s nothing to concern herself with, especially when it comes to her standing with the lord. I wouldn’t shy away from telling her that the stake president is wrong, humans make mistakes, and that the mistake is entirely his. I wouldn’t advertise that to the world, I’d only tell the young woman. I’d probably frame it as someone placing policy before people.

2) I’d do nothing to correct the outcome of the interview with the stake president. I know this represents the attitude of a defeatists but we’re talking about waiting things out for a few more months, right? I guess my fear is that any confrontation (peaceful, forceful, neutral, whatever) would only create more problems for her and her family. Maybe that’s the world tainting my expectations. Talk to him? There’s the risk of entrenchment plus he probably feels like he has the handbook on his side. Go over his head to a presiding bishopric? I’d worry that the SP would get some sort of chip on his shoulder, hold some grudge against the family for going over his head.

I don’t know how difficult a SP could make someone’s church life but if it’s a matter of waiting a few more months I’d be inclined to avoid potentially creating more problems. I’m a pushover that way.

[Anonymous]

I was in a similar situation when I wanted to leave on a mission, but my issues were financial. My SP did something that haunted me the rest of my life. It created a “former sins return” situation which made me less resilient to leadership abuse that happened later on, and ultimately and cumulatively led me to the place I am today — less active, but supportive of my family.

He was a young stake president — in his mid-thirties and a self-made millionaire. I have often wished I could write to him and explain the impact his hard-nut approach to my mission throughout my life. I almost did it a couple months ago. But I stopped short as I suspect he would just send it to my Stake President, or write back something that would disturb my inner peace — and happiness really is the object and design of our whole existence.

But I wish these guys would see the long shadows they cast on people’s lives when they behave this way, when they put policy ahead of people, and when they fail to assume accountability for their mistakes or the people they are leading.

Shame on this guy, and the BP for not reading the manual more carefully.

If I were the girl, with my current state of mind, I would consider just staying home. A mission is not “required” for her, and it’s hard. You only hear about the few miracles and how great it is from people who had good experiences. Who knows her personality, but there may well be other things she could do over the next 18 months or more that she finds fulfilling and that will bless her life — instead of serving a mission, I would have loved to have studied music and had those skills developed my whole life, rather than serving a mission, and then having to develop these skills over my lifetimes. Or getting a jump start on her career. That opens up a different of worms, though — questions like “Why are you NOT serving a mission?” questions — but looking back, there are so many wonderful experiences you can have when you are young, feel so little pressure to save for retirement, and have so much energy and enthusiasm…but I personally wouldn’t mind the leaders seeing that its a privilege to have a volunteer express a desire to serve a mission, and that poor judgment has its consequences — such as lack of commitment from the volunteer, disillusionment, and alternate choices.

The other thing that bothers me is that when you are non-member, less active, everyone is NO NICE. But when they have you committed, then they take you for granted. I’ve seen it so many times before. This is a case in point.

Note, I don’t necessarily disagree with a missionary waiting a year if they had been involved in serious sexual transgression, but what bothers me is how the SP and BP are taking NO RESPONSIBLITY in raising her expectations and then deflating them, without any thought of their own errors in the process.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Note, I don’t necessarily disagree with a missionary waiting a year if they had been involved in serious sexual transgression, but what bothers me is how the SP and BP are taking NO RESPONSIBLITY in raising her expectations and then deflating them, without any thought of their own errors in the process.

I find this interesting as well. As a manager, if a supervisor under me made a misguided promise I would honor it and then talk to the supervisor about other ways to handle the situation for “next time.” And yet the church does not operate as though we members are customers. One cannot “Have it your way.”

I assume that this SP sees himself as a gatekeeper to the temple. It is his job to ensure that no unclean thing enters in. Perhaps he takes that part of his job very seriously and would rather err on the side of caution. From our perspective he is putting policy over people. Perhaps from his perspective, he is putting the sanctity of the Lord’s house above individual accommodation.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Note, I don’t necessarily disagree with a missionary waiting a year if they had been involved in serious sexual transgression, but what bothers me is how the SP and BP are taking NO RESPONSIBLITY in raising her expectations and then deflating them, without any thought of their own errors in the process.

I find this interesting as well. As a manager, if a supervisor under me made a misguided promise I would honor it and then talk to the supervisor about other ways to handle the situation for “next time.” And yet the church does not operate as though we members are customers. One cannot “Have it your way.”

I assume that this SP sees himself as a gatekeeper to the temple. It is his job to ensure that no unclean thing enters in. Perhaps he takes that part of his job very seriously and would rather err on the side of caution. From our perspective he is putting policy over people. Perhaps from his perspective, he is putting the sanctity of the Lord’s house above individual accommodation.

My situation, as a new convert of a year and prospective missionary, underscores the lack of concern over the individual. My SP told me in rather harsh terms to stay at home and pay for the entire mission, and get completely out of debt, when I was working as a pizza delivery driver. And he knew my non-member parents had refused to let me live at home to save. As an idealistic convert of 20, I was not prepared for this. I left the meeting rather bristling at the SP, and refused a ride home from him even though it was very, very cold and the bus was a long way to home.

I showed up 2 years later with the money for the mission, and he refused to let me speak alongside other leaving missionaries at a priesthood meeting. I think he was afraid of what I would say. When I was on my mission, he told my then girlfriend that he was impressed with what I had done, in clearing off my debt and saving for the entire mission, leaving at 23 years of age. He mentioned how he “thought we would never see [me] again” after the night I refused a ride from him.

That struck me as very telling. He KNEW he had upset me. He knew that his hard-nut approach (as described by a few members when I told them my story) put my very commitment at risk, yet he did nothing. He was harsh when I objected to his suggestion I stay at home and just get out debt was not in harmony with the spirit of missionary work and SWK’s “every worthy young man should serve a mission” statement. There was no follow up through my Bishop, no encouragement — clearing off the Stake debt the previous stake president had incurred was more important to him than supporting a trail blazer in the gospel, with no family support — myself — as the only member, and a convert in my born again Christian family.

That is why this story of our missionary really causes me angst. I feel for her. Even waiting a few months can seem like an eternity, and I ended up waiting 2 years while I figured out how to pay my debts (something I was willing to do regardless) and save for the entire mission.

It’s one reason I find this church hard to commit to now — policy and organizational interests seem to trump charity toward individuals in so many cases. The SP is afraid of the Mission President who might hear the history of this young woman it could reflect badly on him. Bishops are always afraid HC will report non-compliance with policy to their Stake President, etcetera.

[Anonymous]

I don’t disagree with you SD. Church leader’s represent church interests. They are not primarily there to advocate for individuals.

SilentDawning wrote:

It’s one reason I find this church hard to commit to now — policy and organizational interests seem to trump charity toward individuals in so many cases. The SP is afraid of the Mission President who might hear the history of this young woman it could reflect badly on him. Bishops are always afraid HC will report non-compliance with policy to their Stake President, etcetera.

While I do not know the individuals involved, I do not think we can assume that leaders are working in fear that someone will report their personal judgment non-compliance. What I do believe we can observe is that we have a hierarchy system and culture that is very conformist. Most leaders would be very wary of speaking out of turn or stepping out on a limb on behalf of the church. I believe that part of this is the belief that JC runs the church. If the handbook is how He wants me to administer my little corner of His kingdom, then who am I to deviate?

In other words…Perhaps it is not that simple.

[Author]

Posts