- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello: I recently had an experience with the bishop, that I feel was a clear example of unrighteous dominion and spiritual abuse. It was covert and veiled, though clearly intended to “put me in my place” as a woman, and to silence me and intimidate me into compliance. I prefer not to discuss details here, though I will say I have only expressed my opinion about certain topics that are presently controversial, and declined assignments from time to time, as I have felt guided to do so. I am very clear that I will not allow him or any other man in the church to treat me that way again. I am considering options for how I might respond to him and this situation. I do not know the stake presidency well, and don’t know other women in the ward well enough to seek input from anyone about which of these men I might approach. While I want to address this, and set a clear boundary, I also don’t want to spark retaliation toward myself. I am considering writing a letter to Elder Holland and the general RS president, expressing my concerns and stating my boundary. Would they be likely respond in a helpful way, that was not the male “circling the wagons” like I have observed men in the church doing with others? I have heard that high councils talk/gossip about people in their meetings, and that stake RS presidents in more forward thinking areas report that they do not understand or consider a woman’s perspective. I live in a conservative area of a southern state, after having lived in a more progressive western state. Culturally, it feels like the 1970’s here.
My husband is unaware of the situation or the reasons that the bishop felt entitled to treat me the way he did. My husband is fairly new in the church and generally conventional in his thinking and attitude. He does not understand a woman’s concerns about the deep sexism in the church, because he truly does not see it, so I don’t think he would be a very strong ally for me in this instance.
Any other suggestions for dealing with this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Without any kind of details, there is no way I can offer any advice. Literally, I have no idea what advice would be appropriate. I’m not asking you to share any details; I’m just saying there’s nothing I can offer at this point. Also, I have served on the High Council twice, for a total of seven years, and we didn’t “gossip” about individual members in our meetings once in that time. In fact, we almost never talked about individual members at all – except in the context of a disciplinary council.
Finally, do you mind sharing why you would write to Elder Holland about the situation? If not, I understand, but I am curious.
Hi Joydiva, I want to say hi and hope you feel welcome here. I’m not sure I have any advice because because I don’t know what exactly happened, but I can understand why you wouldn’t want to be too specific about the details. Hope someone else here can be more helpful, but I did want to let you know I’m glad you are here.
I concur…but I’ve found that the local leadership is largely indifferent to these kinds of problems (I recognize I don’t have a lot of information to go on, regarding the problem shared here). I had an interpersonal problem a few years ago, and no one cared to do anything about it, until I insisted on a sit down meeting to address the issues head on. Also, throughout my life, I have found that if you go head-to-head with leaders, the probabilities are against you of getting satisfaction. In all context, church, business, etcetera, managers tend to view situations from the lens of their own interests and protecting the organization. And individuals who complain tend to be viewed as the people with the problem — not the church, not the leadership, not the culture.
They will let you invest huge amounts of time, and effort for decades, and then, when they feel you are dissatisfied with leadership or the church experience, tend to ostracize or blame the situation on you personally.
I hate to say this, but that is my experience. I would be inclined to attend a different Ward, or find a new one if practical. If you ever have to move, then consider ward boundaries.
Also, we have learned pretty consistently that you have to keep controversy out of the church — vent online and discuss here. It is never well received and almost always leads to some kind of censure when you share it at your local unit.
As others have said, it’s hard to advise without some more detail, but I understand your reasons for being reluctant to share. I would not be reluctant to confront the bishop in private, however. Bullies usually back down when confronted. I do also agree with SD, however, that in my experience going head-to-head with a local leader often leads to dissatisfaction and disappointment on your part – they do circle the wagons, as you put it, and they do have some power which they are usually willing to exercise even in an unrighteous manner – it depends on whether you are willing to endure whatever “punishment” they may dole out. I would not waste my time writing to church headquarters. Members are discouraged from doing so, and the couple instances of which I am aware the GA did not respond to the member’s concerns, they referred the matter back to the stake president and advised the memebr to speak to the local leaders. I suppose this might not happen in every case, but it is the likely outcome.
My experience is also that the high council does not gossip, they are a group of men who tend to have better things to do. Ward councils, on the other hand, have been known to gossip – but they should have better things to do as well.
DarkJedi wrote:I would not waste my time writing to church headquarters. Members are discouraged from doing so, and the couple instances of which I am aware the GA did not respond to the member’s concerns, they referred the matter back to the stake president and advised the memebr to speak to the local leaders. I suppose this might not happen in every case, but it is the likely outcome.
I agree, largely….I would normally not go to church headquarters unless it was a clear violation of something big, and the local leadership did not act on it.
Quote:
My experience is also that the high council does not gossip, they are a group of men who tend to have better things to do. Ward councils, on the other hand, have been known to gossip – but they should have better things to do as well.I agree that Ward councils are places of gossip – and in my experience, High Councils can be that way too if the the HC talk to their spouses or families about confidential matters. It depends on the professionalism of the local membership on which Stake Leaders draw. Also, Ward gossip can make it into the minds of Stake leaders, as all stake leaders are Ward members.
I have concluded through 30 years of service as a stake and ward leader that “there is no such thing as confidentiality in the church”.
You have to live your life that way….like they say in the southern swamp states — “if you see a lake, you have to assume there is an alligator in it”
I am sorry for your poor experience with the bishop. The church typically practices a form of paternal or benevolent sexism which is not usually overt but more of a “We’ll take care of all this administrative stuff so that you can focus on your supreme maternal duties.” If the offence wasn’t a clear crossing of some handbook line then going up the chain would probably not be very effective.
In my life, I deal with this by only attending sacrament meeting and then jetting off to work. This prevents me from getting into a situation where I might be expected to share my opinion on things. I find it amusing when a speaker in SM says something quirky (today a speaker said, “Why do I have to struggle instead of being blessed with the gift of following blindly?”
😆 ). I find it claustrophobic when confined to a whole room of people sharing similarly quirky and mildly dangerous sentiments as though they were the ideal.When my bishop recently requested a surprise meeting with me and had the opportunity to “vomit” my concerns, I kept it vague and hopeful. Except for my specific struggle of being disillusioned with the model of righteousness=blessings, I didn’t bring up any doubts or contradictions. When he asked if I’d serve in a calling, I responded that I would serve in the right calling (that would fit my work/family schedule). When he asked if I had problems with the temple, I told him that I didn’t have any problems and would attend at least occasionally if I had a TR.
The more detailed account of our meeting can be found here:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4587 In summary, I have found that I need to “manage” my relationship with the ward, their expectations of me and MY expectations of them. It takes effort and measured responses but it is working for me so far.
Good luck and God Bless you in your effort to “stay a little longer.”
Roy wrote:
When my bishop recently requested a surprise meeting with me and had the opportunity to “vomit” my concerns, I kept it vague and hopeful. Except for my specific struggle of being disillusioned with the model of righteousness=blessings, I didn’t bring up any doubts or contradictions. When he asked if I’d serve in a calling, I responded that I would serve in the right calling (that would fit my work/family schedule). When he asked if I had problems with the temple, I told him that I didn’t have any problems and would attend at least occasionally if I had a TR.This is some of the wisest advice I’ve ever seen on StayLDS about how to handle interactions with priesthood leaders who call these kinds of meetings.
Joydiva wrote:Hello: I recently had an experience with the bishop, that I feel was a clear example of unrighteous dominion and spiritual abuse. It was covert and veiled, though clearly intended to “put me in my place” as a woman, and to silence me and intimidate me into compliance. I prefer not to discuss details here, though I will say I have only expressed my opinion about certain topics that are presently controversial, and declined assignments from time to time, as I have felt guided to do so. I am very clear that I will not allow him or any other man in the church to treat me that way again. I am considering options for how I might respond to him and this situation. I do not know the stake presidency well, and don’t know other women in the ward well enough to seek input from anyone about which of these men I might approach. While I want to address this, and set a clear boundary, I also don’t want to spark retaliation toward myself. I am considering writing a letter to Elder Holland and the general RS president, expressing my concerns and stating my boundary. Would they be likely respond in a helpful way, that was not the male “circling the wagons” like I have observed men in the church doing with others?
Not sure what exactly happened, but a higher up letter will most likely accomplish nothing. Two options: take someone trusted with you and discuss the situation with the bishop directly. Be willing to share with him specifically what was said or done to make you feel he was putting you in your place. I would not advise doing this without an impartial third party. Or go about your life and stay out of his office and out of his path, knowing that the Lord certainly knows all that is going on and being willing to leave it with Him. I know when you feel trampled on by someone in leadership, it can be very difficult to not let it influence your spiritual life. But if he meant to do what you think he did, why give him the satisfaction? The best payback is to pursue doing the good you are here in the world to do. Some things are shifting and on certain days, it seems too slow. Depending on the group of people involved, any group of leadership can easily slip into being guilty of gossip. That can also include RS presidencies, bishoprics, and even stake presidencies. I try to believe everyone is trying to do their best but I know there may be one or two in the crowd that can mishandle things. Good luck! Please feel free to vent to us as you need to.
As a matter of policy letters to general authorities are not answered but are sent to the members stake president to deal with. That puts you on the SP’s radar and at that point you likely will get a chance to air your concerns but it may not be what you want. Just a clarification, since my mother was one of Pres. McKay’s secretaries and she told me about letters were handled: Letters to General Authorities, including to the apostles, are opened and read by secretaries. Given the volume of correspondences the General Authorities receive, especially the Q12 and the FP, it has to be that way. They would get nothing else done if they tried to open and read all of their mail. If the letters are nothing but doctrinal or other general questions, they are forwarded to the person’s Stake President. If they are letters of thanks, they are given to the General Authority – or a summary is created, depending on the content and volume at the time. If they are about questions that are not doctrinal or general, and especially if they deal with somewhat tricky issues or are heart-wrenching to some degree, they might be given to the General Authority – but they might be sent to the Stake President. If they are hateful rants (and the apostles get FAR more of these letters than most members realize, including some really nasty, vile ones), they are put immediately in the trash.
The counsel to ask local leaders and not General Authorities and the practice of sending letters to the local leaders is the result of literally hundreds of letters sent regularly to the General Authorities asking “mundane” questions that can be answered at the local leader level. Seriously, it might surprise everyone how much mail they get that would make you say, “Someone really asked an apostle that question?!”
So, to echo GB, there is a decent chance a letter about abuse might be given to an apostle, IF and only if the person who opens and reads it sees it as something other than a simple matter that can be handles appropriately at the local level – but there is a good chance it will be forwarded to the Stake President if it is seen as a more straightforward, “standard” situation that can be handled adequately at that level. Not knowing anything at all about the actual situation, I have no idea which course would be taken.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.