- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Amen, SD – amen! There’s a HUGE difference between “supporting and sustaining”, “agreeing” and “accepting everything said”. SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Sounds like your leader doesn’t know how to deal with people in your situation, so he’s resorting to guilt tripping.
Maybe he was a Catholic or Jewish mother in a previous life.
I think I was that priesthood leader at one point in my life, although I never actually laid on the guilt trip. But I thought it a million times. I think the key is to realize the poor guy’s been placed in a situation where he has to achieve a really hard goal that is unrealistic in most wards. I would do your best to support him in even some minimal way, out of empathy for the guy until he comes to his own, more accepting and peaceful philosophy.
I know. The EQ pres is just getting hassled from his higher ups and so he has to hassle me to cover his behind. I feel for him, but I don’t want to support a program I don’t agree with out of sympathy. That probably makes me sound heartless, but that’s the way it is.
Well, if supporting him that way isn’t feasible, you could consider having “the talk”. One of my HP members did that with me when I visited him once. He wasn’t coming to priesthood meeting, and was generally mentally absent, did not do home teaching. I asked him to do these things. And he basically told me (rather nastily) what he would and would not do.
I left kind of offended by his manner, although I didn’t show it, and yes, when SP members above me asked what his deal was, I told them (so, that might happen to you, so you have to be prepared that your “talk” will likely get disseminated among some of the leadership above the EQP and maybe even his presidency). We were all a bit judgmental about the guy. So, that’s another price you might have to pay — realizing the leaders MIGHT be judgmental in the back office.
While I don’t recommend using his nasty tone, after that, I knew where he stood and I just left him alone — for over two years.
Anyway, back to your issue — coming clean and being up front with what you will and will not do as a member of the quorum is part of setting boundaries in the Church. Politely, kindly, and with respect for the guy’s feelings and likely frustration, explain the boundaries to the EQ President, have reasons ready for his responses to your concerns, and then leave a free man, recognizing the possible fall-out — which by the way, may not be visible. I would also throw in a statement that you leave yourself open to change your mind someday, but on your own timetable in case you do change your mind. And, perhaps there are things you ARE willing to do in the quorum to help this person — if so, mention them. If there isn’t anything, don’t go there.
Being up front with the guy is also merciful because he likely won’t keep beating his head against the wall with trying to change you. Personally, I would rather have people hot or cold so I don’t invest precious time trying to get results with the person. Like me, he might put you on the back burner until you come around. If he escalates the problem to the Bishop, and the Bishop chooses to actually talk to you about it, well, rewind — give your reasons, set your boundaries, have answers for his likely responses, and then leave a free man. Repeat as needed….loop.
Brown wrote:I know. The EQ pres is just getting hassled from his higher ups and so he has to hassle me to cover his behind. I feel for him, but I don’t want to support a program I don’t agree with out of sympathy. That probably makes me sound heartless, but that’s the way it is.
For many years, I have just laid it out on the line with both my own assigned home teachers as well as the EQ Presidents. Of course, this doesn’t work if you are trying to fly low under the radar and/or appear different than how you really want to support programs. But I have to say … that’s just the cost of doing business that way. We get guilt trips and hassled until we communicate something very different and set different boundaries.
I have told my home teachers in the past that it simply isn’t spiritually productive to come visit me because it will cause more disharmony in my house (which was true). I asked them to say hi to me at Church, and if they wanted, they could get together as a HT companionship and spend a few minutes praying for my family to be blessed. If they did those two things, I would 100% back them up as having done their home teaching for my family. Unorthodox? Yes, very much. Did it work? Yes. They were given the blessing of serving my family as priesthood holders, and I got the type of service that was the most helpful to me and my family. Win-Win. BUT … I had to “pay the price” of opening my mouth and telling them I wasn’t walking in lock step with the program expectations.
I have not been doing HT the past year, and told my EQ Pres that my situation wasn’t such that I was going to do that. Again, outed as not being “normal,” but I don’t EVER get those emails or questions about my “numbers.”
Actually, i’ve been feeling prompted lately to talk to the EQ Pres and tell him I would be willing to home teach 1 or 2 “tough” families, ones with really hard gospel problems, or perhaps a part-member family where one spouse is very sensitive to Church issues. I was thinking “Hey, that’s actually a situation where my peculiar talents and outlook might really benefit someone.” Might be a win-win? *shrug*
Brian Johnston wrote:Brown wrote:I know. The EQ pres is just getting hassled from his higher ups and so he has to hassle me to cover his behind. I feel for him, but I don’t want to support a program I don’t agree with out of sympathy. That probably makes me sound heartless, but that’s the way it is.
For many years, I have just laid it out on the line with both my own assigned home teachers as well as the EQ Presidents. Of course, this doesn’t work if you are trying to fly low under the radar and/or appear different than how you really want to support programs. But I have to say … that’s just the cost of doing business that way. We get guilt trips and hassled until we communicate something very different and set different boundaries.
I have told my home teachers in the past that it simply isn’t spiritually productive to come visit me because it will cause more disharmony in my house (which was true). I asked them to say hi to me at Church, and if they wanted, they could get together as a HT companionship and spend a few minutes praying for my family to be blessed. If they did those two things, I would 100% back them up as having done their home teaching for my family. Unorthodox? Yes, very much. Did it work? Yes. They were given the blessing of serving my family as priesthood holders, and I got the type of service that was the most helpful to me and my family. Win-Win. BUT … I had to “pay the price” of opening my mouth and telling them I wasn’t walking in lock step with the program expectations.
I have not been doing HT the past year, and told my EQ Pres that my situation wasn’t such that I was going to do that. Again, outed as not being “normal,” but I don’t EVER get those emails or questions about my “numbers.”
Actually, i’ve been feeling prompted lately to talk to the EQ Pres and tell him I would be willing to home teach 1 or 2 “tough” families, ones with really hard gospel problems, or perhaps a part-member family where one spouse is very sensitive to Church issues. I was thinking “Hey, that’s actually a situation where my peculiar talents and outlook might really benefit someone.” Might be a win-win? *shrug*
I think this post is an example of the kind of brilliance Brian brings to this forum.
I did “return the keys” to my bishop and indicate I was finished with HT. I had been in the saddle for half a century, and that may have helped in his acceptance of my notification. He even thanked me for my extended service. Also a factor, is that I am known as an “alternate” Mormon. I say what I want to say. My rejection of HT may have been a relief to my bishop. Recently I got a new bishop and he tried to give me home teaching families again. I mentioned my agreement with the former bishop. He appeared surprised, but let the matter drop. George wrote:He appeared surprised, but let the matter drop.
Yes, I leave this topic satisfied that in the end, we are what our legal status to the Church suggests we are — volunteers, not employees.
And hopefully, volunteers with compassion for our frustrated or developing leaders, but in the end, we are simply volunteers in spite of what those above would have us believe. There are times when I feel our leaders want all the commitment that comes from a paid person, but with volunteer resources, in the Church. And that volunteerism, when given unconditionally, is often taken for granted.
I must say my ward understood well my feelings on home teaching when I joined the church. I explained to everyone that I would be happy to teach a couple families with a companion due to my limited knowledge being a new member, but I would not allow anyone to come to my house due to my wifes feelings on the church. Turned out my home teacher was the eq pres and we would talk a bit after services on Sundays. They were always really quick and did the trick for all involved. Like many things, I believe more could be achieved by being more flexible with the members. i know this sounds cliche, but I just do it- meaning-I walk over to their home knock on the door and say hello, how are you? That is the extent of my home teaching.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.