- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
I think it would be wonderful if there were other folks who had TR that could do the job – but in small branches and wards, that’s not always an option.
Cwald, as someone who served in low commitment Wards and branches for years, don’t underestimate the power of a doer at the grassroots level. Figure out what you feel passion about, what you CAN do with integrity, and volunteer, and just do it. I have one brother who activated families, brought them to Church, moved people, was proactive in solving the problems that people presented before they even go to me as a leader (when they approached him), volunteered to make welcome packets, stepped up to organize socials, etcetera. He was worth his weight in gold.
If you want an intrinsic reason for serving, beyond the culture and commandments, harness your desire to help in the Ward as your own personal reason for doing things that you otherwise WOULD NOT DO. Let your desire to help the Branch be your motive, not the CK, not “following the prophet blindly”, but to simply make a contribution to this community and to help them — that seems to be a driving desire for you. Harness it and make it your reason for helping out to the full extent possible.
Also, reflect on the paraphrased statement from Joseph Smith who said “no unhallowed hand can prevent the growth of the gospel…it will be shouted from every mountain and reach every continent until the Great Jehovah shall say ‘The Work is Done'”. It’s funny, when they want to active you, they say the “need you”, but if you speak out in rebellion they quote the statement above. So, let that statement resonate with you and relieve you of the guilt you’re feeling.
Regarding everyone knowing your non-TR holding status. That’s their problem — it’s like throwing peiople out of the Church for wearing coarse apparel, as we see in the Book of Mormon. Shame on them!
SD – I like what you are saying and I agree. I can do, and I think I do do what you are suggesting, perhaps let me be more blunt why I have an issue with this and what the real issue is…
In order to have a branch, you HAVE to have the necessary priesthood officers which requires one to hold a TR – BP, clerk, counselors, EQP and HPL. Without me they are in jeopardy of NOT being able to fill the callings necessary to have a viable branch. I can do all the service I want outside of callings, within the church as you suggest, but if we don’t have the officers – we don’t have a church.
PS – I live about 86 miles (1 1/2 hours) from the closest ward, and about 110 miles (2 hours) from the Stake Center. My options are quite limited.
Two things: 1) One of the reasons I use the term “pure Mormonism” is because I see LOTS of really important, mind-blowing stuff in our teachings – but it often gets covered or hidden or obscured by the cultural minutae and “hedges about the law” that “Mormons” construct. In many ways, it really isn’t anything more than “pure Christianity” – but, in today’s organized Christianity, many of those things simply don’t exist. Therefore, I believe in “pure Mormonism”.
2) cwald, if you can’t hold certain callings, there is a mechanism in the Church to have Priesthood leaders make **assignments** outside of formal callings.
There is precious little formal restriction on that process.If you want to serve in a way that traditionally is limited to callings, suggest to your BP that you would be happy to do things “by assignment” that otherwise normally would be done within a calling. Assignments can last as short or long a time as a leader wants to ask and a member is willing to serve. Your BP then can tell the SP that the branch might be one person short of the standard list of necessary TR holders, but that there is a MP holder who is willing to serve by assignment and do the parts of the callings that don’t require a TR.The organizational system allows for a large degree of creativity at the local level – much more than most people realize; use it to your advantage. Granted, some SP’s are less willing to allow creativity, but a lot will depend on your BP and how he addresses the situation.
Old-Timer wrote:Two things:
1) One of the reasons I use the term “pure Mormonism” is because I see LOTS of really important, mind-blowing stuff in our teachings – but it often gets covered or hidden or obscured by the cultural minutae and “hedges about the law” that “Mormons” construct. In many ways, it really isn’t anything more than “pure Christianity” – but, in today’s organized Christianity, many of those things simply don’t exist. Therefore, I believe in “pure Mormonism”.
I’m okay with this.
Old-Timer wrote:T
2) cwald, if you can’t hold certain callings, there is a mechanism in the Church to have Priesthood leaders make **assignments** outside of formal callings.
There is precious little formal restriction on that process.If you want to serve in a way that traditionally is limited to callings, suggest to your BP that you would be happy to do things “by assignment” that otherwise normally would be done within a calling. Assignments can last as short or long a time as a leader wants to ask and a member is willing to serve. Your BP then can tell the SP that the branch might be one person short of the standard list of necessary TR holders, but that there is a MP holder who is willing to serve by assignment and do the parts of the callings that don’t require a TR.The organizational system allows for a large degree of creativity at the local level – much more than most people realize; use it to your advantage. Granted, some SP’s are less willing to allow creativity, but a lot will depend on your BP and how he addresses the situation.
Oh? I have never heard this, and I have never heard of it happening, and I have been told by the BP and the SP personally that I MUST have TR to have so and so calling. Are you sure we belong to the say church? So are you suggesting I can have the assignment of BP or EQP, and not actually have the calling? Where can I find this information? I’m quite sure that the CHI does NOT agree with your statement – and in our stake, the CHI is equivalent to the BoM and Bible as far as being considered Absolute Truth and doctrine.
I am eating lunch today at work with the HC, and I will explore your suggestion. In fact, I’m going to print your comment off and quote you, if that is okay?
Thanks Ray for the insight — I hope my SP is as open minded as apparently yours is.
Quote:but that there is a MP holder who is willing to serve by assignment and do the parts of the callings that don’t require a TR.[/b]
Question Ray — I don’t know what you mean by this. What “part” of “any” calling, even a bishop or SP, that requires one to hold a temple recommend, or better put, what part of a calling could one NOT perform if they don’t have a TR. Are there meetings they can’t attend? Blessings they can’t give, ordinations they couldn’t perform?
Perhaps just use EQP/HPL/BP counselor as an example, as that is the calling(s) that I will need to understand at this time.
I guess I see a TR as a piece of paper that states that the BP/SP have decided one is
“worthy”to attend the temple and hold a leadership position. Where does it apply to a church calling and the work within that calling, or am I misreading your comment? And I’m not being “flippant” her, I am interested in the concept. Short answer, as my VERY devout parents used to say: Quote:If your eternal salvation isn’t at stake, it’s often easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
I say it that way, since there really are very few written, mandated restrictions on what can be done through assignment. For example, if the BP and/or SP doesn’t feel comfortable calling you as a capital “C” or “A” Counselor or Assistant, how about as a HPG/EQ/MP little “a” advisor to the President/Group Leader/Branch President? You might or might not be set apart in an assignment, but you can receive a blessing that includes direction and promises relative to your performance of the assignment. Theorhetically, the only real distinction is that you won’t be given the “right and authority” of independent revelation to act in a calling, but you still can serve and help and advise and give whatever input your BP asks you to provide.
This approach (assignment instead of calling) was used a lot in one of my former wards in order to give new converts meaningful responsibilities (since it was a reasonably large ward where all the classic callings were filled already) – and it’s not that different than Pres. Hinckley serving as a 3rd Counselor in the FP for a time. It could be argued that his “calling” was a “made up” calling generated out of desperate need that might not exist ever again, but it doesn’t lessen the work he did – and it doesn’t lessen the legitimacy of his calling. The general idea is the same: If there is a need, find a way to address that need within the existing parameters of the organizational structure, if possible – and modify the structure, if necessary.
Again, all that is up to your BP – and your SP, perhaps. It’s something I certainly would try if I was your BP, at least in the vacuum in which I am commenting right now. I can’t speak for your actual situation. That’s a responsbility of his calling.
Ray, you’re killing me here man. Look I get what you are saying and I believe you are correct, but what you are talking about just doesn’t happen on my planet. 
Look, I like your perspective and I agree with you that it is the WAY IT SHOULD BE, but from every experience I’ve had, on my planet the things you are saying is just a fantasy world.
Probably your comment about the SP has a lot to say about the policies and such is true. I have been issued callings in the past from the BP, only to have the SP deny the request — because of the TR requirement.
If this kind of thing you are talking about happens in the church in your area – I commend the leadership there and I’m happy for the LDS members in those areas. I also appreciate and I’m thankful that you, and folks like you, are willing to “tow the line” enough to be in those leadership positions so that perhaps someday what you are talking about on your planet, might become reality on my planet as well.
CWald, is your branch in a true crisis? The doors about to be shuttered and the branch dispersed to surrounding wards? If not, I wouldn’t worry about this. I’ve seen them limp along for years. IN one Ward they had a single priesthood holder doing EQ and HP, and he had an uncommitted counselor/assistant. In another Ward they had to redefine a boundary to get a Bishop. You’ll be amazed at how they can survive, also by reaching deep into the pool of less actives to fill chairs left by brethren like you and me.
SilentDawning wrote:CWald, is your branch in a true crisis?
Maybe. Probably. Possibly. Or perhaps they are using all this TR as leverage in an attempt to control my behavior.
We have a branch that has about 18-22 members (kids and adults) attending most weeks, and 40-50 folks attending the next. (I would be part of the 18.) We have anywhere from 0-10 “investigators” on any given week. We have a primary that has 2-4 kids most weeks, and than 12-18 on certain weeks. We have about 8 women and 4 MP holders who attend regularly, and about another 4 men who show up occasionally. The branch has started and been absolved three times in the last 15 years. We have been going steady since my kids have become pre-teenagers — 6 years now.
I have been involved directly and tangentially in two branches that were closed. Both were smaller than yours, cwald, but I know your situation personally. Fwiw, I doubt and seriously hope the discussion isn’t a manipulation. If it is, shame on them – but I doubt it. If they’re talking about it, it probably is a real possibility.
Also fwiw, I understand your “fantasy world” comment. We are subject to individual views of local leaders, and I can’t criticize directly not knowing the overall situation directly. As in many things, it simply is. I’ve come to accept that.
Ah, I’ve lived in a branch similar to what Cwald describes. I think part of the problem in the organization of the church is that we tend to think we need to have this and that and the other to really function properly, such that we lose sight of the whole purpose of the church in the first place. Although we could also probably argue about the purpose of the church, I’m confident that just about all members could agree that Jesus doesn’t care if this particular unit decides not to have an executive secretary or a sunday school president or a WML. I commend cwald for being one of the “18”, despite the mess, and one who is obviously committed to helping his church function and exist in an area of few members. He’s certainly helping and blessing the lives of those in that area. A smart BP or SP would understand that a TR is not the only ticket to service and that everyone who is willing can help out. I think SP’s in stakes with lots of big wards and few branches have a hard time understanding how branches are very different.
One upside to being in such a small branch is that even though “everyone” knows cwald doesn’t have a TR, “everyone” is only a couple dozen people. Everyone else probably doesn’t know, notice, or care.
Not trying to minimize the problem, amigo, just trying to give it some perspective.
Cwald — the other thing to remember is these units have down and up periods, and if the Stake thinks its in a temporary down period, then they sometimes just wait it out and do nothing. Also, sometimes seniors missionaries, and sometimes regular missionaries serve as branch presidents or key positions in the ward, like Ward MIssion Leader. In one case, they allowed a person from another part of the stake step in as Branch President. Also, you don’t need much to keep a unit running on fumes. You need the Sunday meetings and a basic administrative staff. This means a partial Bishopric and some Sunday school teachers and a Sunday primary and a RS President. Even the records can be a mess for long periods of time. The finances have to be right, though, and the Sunday meetings need to run without apostasy….you can even run the branch without much youth leadership with Bishopric counselors standing in for YM leadership if necessary on Sunday or even activity night (if any). When I was Stake YM President, we had a Ward that didn’t even have a YM president for months on end. The Bishopric did the Sunday meetings and they held no activities, but the ward kept going.
SLC has a ratio of Melchizedek Priesthood Holders to total membership that I think they use to determine how much can be done in a unit. I think it was 18 members on the rolls per 1 Melch Priesthood holder was the point where all you can do is “keep store” as one leader said once. He didn’t even say that MP holder had to be a TR-holder either. I heard this in a meeting years ago when I was in some leadership position. What’s your ratio?
And if they do close the branch, the pressure is off you. You will be diffused into another Ward where you don’t stick out as a much. Granted, you’ll have travel time, but I think you’ll feel less pressure until you work through Stage 4. Your kids will likely have a bigger youth program to be involved in, which is good.
Regarding their controlling behavior — the TR stuff emanates from the top of our organization, and these local leaders have just bought into the culture and policy — it’s not something they are targeting you personally with — it’s probably something they consider with anyone they want in leadership. I was told I needed a temple recommend before they called me into the Bishopric after 7 years of inactivity for example.
Also, I don’t see how the TR questions control behavior in a way that is nakedly self-serving to the organization, except for tithing. All the other questions are simply there to promote the LDS perception of clean living and believing the basic doctrines.
And finally, this is the leaders’ problem to work through — the supply of labor for the branch. Your major issue is your trial of faith — that’s squarely your jurisdiction first and foremost. So, I say “Give what is the leaders’ to the leaders, and what is Cwald’s, to Cwald”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.