- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I do know that at the local level PEC level that HC are there to report back to the SP about goings on in the ward. One thing I did in a Ward was reported to a member of the SP and I was told to stop it. I also spoke to a branch president whoninwork closely with and he was also concerned about reports back to the SP as justification for certain practices. The JC as head of church is another reason, but there are a healthy dose of leaders who want to look good to the higher ups. One reason they like to send unspent Ward budget funds back to the originator even when there are legitimate needs in the ward or stake for those funds. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
SilentDawning wrote:I do know that at the local level PEC level that HC are there to report back to the SP about goings on in the ward. One thing I did in a Ward was reported to a member of the SP and I was told to stop it. I also spoke to a branch president whoninwork closely with and he was also concerned about reports back to the SP as justification for certain practices. The JC as head of church is another reason, but there are a healthy dose of leaders who want to look good to the higher ups. One reason they like to send unspent Ward budget funds back to the originator even when there are legitimate needs in the ward or stake for those funds.
Interesting. Another form of leadership roulette, I suppose. We are not asked to report back on wards or bishops. Sometimes we are asked sort of general questions about our perception of things in the stake, like how keeping the Sabbath day holy implementation is going. We’re asked these questions as a group and we are free to say what we like (what is said there stays there) but none of us directly say things like “Coruscant One-Thousand-Third Ward isn’t using the ward council to plan sacrament meetings.” We do say things like “I’ve encountered some topics that probably aren’t appropriate for sacrament meeting” naming the topic but not the ward. One might surmise that we’re talking about the unit we advise, but that’s not always the case since we get assignments to go do interviews or sustainings in other wards and speak in other wards as well. We did recently discuss what we’re supposed to do when we encounter something that’s off, and the SP told us we’re sometimes in a tough spot there because we don’t preside – but we can advise and point out correct procedures in the handbook or scriptures and he suggested that if we feel the need to do so we should do it privately and quietly with the bishop. I once did this with sustaining procedure (they consistently said “sustain us” as opposed to the person being sustained). He also said if there was something major to bring it to his attention privately (not in stake PEC or stake council). I know I haven’t done that and don’t know if others have, but I do know that wards generally don’t major problems.
Closer to topic, I think I’m more like Nibbler. I feel for this young lady and I see the damage it’s doing. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t happen in my stake, but I also think I’m close enough to my SP – and he’s open enough – that I might bring it to his attention. I probably wouldn’t if I had the SP described in the OP. Were I her parent I might talk to the guy and attempt to get clarification – but I would have to feel strongly impressed to do so. I might consider talking to the AA or a GA if I felt strongly enough. On the other hand, I rarely have such strong impressions, so probably would ride it out.
I believe a LARGE measure of what leaders do in these situations is determined by their own experience and the traditions they have carried on from their own childhood and internalized teachings. I’ve been disciplined, and I’ve learned from others the VAST divergence in how policy is applied. The idea of a safeguard time-frame wait can be appealing for those who want to ‘safeguard’ the sanctity of the priesthood or the temple, but there is a really big hole in that policy, even as outlined by the church.
Reprove betimes with sharpness,……and afterwards show forth an increase of <
> I can count on a single hand the amount of love and support I received during the past 2 years since my discipline.
These leaders — I don’t think they like their jobs that much, or at least I don’t think they understand their jobs. If they are gunna get after someone for sin, they SURE AS HELL BETTER love them through the repentance process.
That, in my opinion, is the biggest hole in this hole dilemma. And,..a massive black hole it is. No wonder so many are lost after they are knocked down, and especially after they are blessed by a “court of love.”
When I was bishop, and completed a repentance process like the one in the OP, I would always tell the person that the repentance was complete, and they NEVER needed to bring it up with any other church leader, ever again, including the SP! In fact I read to them the 2nd to last question
Quote:
Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
I would reinforce that this “misdeed” had been resolved.Sheldon wrote:When I was bishop, and completed a repentance process like the one in the OP, I would always tell the person that the repentance was complete, and they NEVER needed to bring it up with any other church leader, ever again, including the SP! In fact I read to them the 2nd to last question
Quote:
Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
I would reinforce that this “misdeed” had been resolved.It depends on the sins and what action if any was taken. If you have been formally disciplined, a copy of the court results are sent to HQ. Those records are NOT destroyed. If you re-offend and another disciplinary court is held, as far as I know, the records are re-opened and those sitting in judgement for resolving the sins are made aware of the past mistakes as well.
I don’t think it is as cut and dry.
And, if you have formal action taken against you like excommunication, you are prohibited from holding the office of Bishop or SP for the remainder of your life. So, there are certain things that are NOT expunged from the record.
Quote:I would reinforce that this “misdeed” had been resolved.
Bless you Sheldon.
I think Sheldon has good advice. In any case, the SP should have honored the Bishop’s declaration that the deed had been repented of in the eyes of the church. SilentDawning wrote:I think Sheldon has good advice. In any case, the SP should have honored the Bishop’s declaration that the deed had been repented of in the eyes of the church.
for the record…I agree with Sheldon as well.
Yes, Rob4hope is correct, if there was any formal discipline, the SP saw the paperwork, and signed off on it. I’m thinking off all the times I worked with youth and sexual sins, none of which I ever handed formally. Also, I once had an older sister, new to the ward, ask for a temple recommend. She stated that after her divorce many years ago, she had slept with a boyfriend. It had been many years, never reoccurred, and she was sorry. After a few months of meeting with me, I signed a temple recommend for her, and told her she never had to bring this up again. The smile on her face as she left the office made my day! Sheldon wrote:Yes, Rob4hope is correct, if there was any formal discipline, the SP saw the paperwork, and signed off on it. I’m thinking off all the times I worked with youth and sexual sins, none of which I ever handed formally. Also, I once had an older sister, new to the ward, ask for a temple recommend. She stated that after her divorce many years ago, she had slept with a boyfriend. It had been many years, never reoccurred, and she was sorry. After a few months of meeting with me, I signed a temple recommend for her, and told her she never had to bring this up again. The smile on her face as she left the office made my day!
I can understand the reason they have certain policies:
1. If you have been excommunicated, you will never be called as a bishop or SP, or higher. Those things will not come your way.
2. They keep records, even though they say your are forgiven. Apparently God remembers the sins no more, but the church does.
Its about protecting the good name of the church. They keep those records because there are situations where (and this is something I can understand), if any previous knowledge of past indiscretions were known or came out, it could cause the church to loose face. It is emphasized as a precedent that JS said he wasn’t guilty of any malignant sin. I’ve heard many, when sharing his story, really emphasize that.
Likewise, if someone committed adultry, embezzled, or something else that required discipline, the church doesn’t want those people, even if they have repented, called into certain leadership assignments. Though I can understand this, it has always seemed strange considering the mess up Alma’s boy had, and the fact that he was later referred to as “a man of God”.
I have no problem with some restrictions (sexual abuse of a minor keeping someone from working with children or youth), but I also believe in repentance and full forgiveness. The line, to me, is that God might forget, but we are not commanded to do so. We simply are told to forgive. There is a vital difference between those two things, and one can forgive without forgetting and while still employing restrictions. After all, an alcoholic usually shouldn’t take a job in a bar, and a bar owner shouldn’t be criticized for not hiring alcoholics.
It’s when the restrictions don’t match the sin that everything gets wonky.
I appreciate the sympathy and advice provided by everyone who commented on this problem. I’ve been able to communicate much of it to the parties involved as options. Currently, the young woman is working through her bishop to get a few answers to some of these questions. I’ll try and follow up and let you know how things go. Again, much thanks!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.