Having Trouble with this

[Anonymous]

In our Church meeting recently, they played this clip below. The part that got me at the outset was the part where Thomas S. Monson thanks the general membership for their service in their Wards, Stakes and Branches, as well as their donations.

At about 20 seconds to 40 seconds in the video:

http://lds.org/general-conference/watch/2011/04?lang=eng&vid=895226075001

Justaposed with experiences I keep reading about like this:

Quote:

I asked the Bishop about a month ago to release me. I suffer from depression and my husband lost his job and worked for only 2 months our of this entire year so far. The Bishop refused to help us and I felt like all the supports I had just snapped. I wrote my Bishop a letter after I had a really awful night (trying not to commit suicide) asking him to release me. He talked to me 2 weeks after that to see how I was doing and see if I still wanted to be released. I did and he asked me to wait until they could find someone to replace me. I teach Sunbeams and it seems like nobody wants that calling.

I’m also seeing a counselor that suggested that I REALLY need to go to Relief Society. I have told my bishop all of this. Then I suggested to our Primary President that I could teach with my husband (who teaches the 12-year-olds) and then he and I could go to Priesthood and RS (because his class is all in young men’s and women’s for the last class of the day).

I just found out today that he won’t let us do that and he told the Primary President that he wanted to keep me where I was. I’m really frustrated and am considering telling the President that I won’t do it anymore or just going to a different ward for the rest of the year until he gets the message that I want to be released.

I have thought about this and prayer about it and talked it through with friends and family and I know that I need to be in RS. I just don’t know how to get my Bishop to see this and realize how serious I am about this. I feel like we sometimes need to give them an ultimatum. “You either release me, or I’m going to a different ward”

Words can be very inexpensive to utter; doing what is best for members who are suffering is where the real appreciation shows, in my view.

I had trouble getting through the whole 16 minute video above after that opening from Thomas S. Monson as stories like one I quoted above came to my mind in full force. I WAS thankful at least President Monson gave some appreciation, but at the same time, it seemed VERY hollow.

[Anonymous]

Local leaders should be more sensitive. But there you go … when I use the word “should” I immediately invoke the reality that life doesn’t seem to ever meet up with the ideal on a consistent basis.

My heart goes out to the woman in the quoted story. I feel bad that she is to the point of considering suicide. I REALLY relate to the pressures of asking for help (which I hate) and her husband out of work for most of the year.

But I can’t help thinking this poor woman will ever find peace if she can’t say “no” to something as small as teaching a primary class once a week. Why does she need to wait for dramatic permission to quit a voluntary task after giving large amounts of advance notice? Especially when she can clearly see the leader is not responding. I can tell you how they will find a replacement immediately! She stops teaching. She sets a simple healthy boundary. She also seems to be depending on a therapist to make the decision for her. In her mental world, she is pitting the authority of the therapist against he authority of her Bishop to avoid making decisions and asserting herself.

Am I wrong? Is it that impossible? Life is a great big disappointment — been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. Other people do not live up to the ideals we have for them. We are going to run into people at some point in our life that we have to set boundaries with, that require ultimatums and consequences.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

But I can’t help thinking this poor woman will ever find peace if she can’t say “no” to something as small as teaching a primary class once a week. Why does she need to wait for dramatic permission to quit a voluntary task after giving large amounts of advance notice?

I can answer that question. This may not be true for her, but it is certainly true for me. I scored high on a trait called “Responsibility” on a personality test I had to do through my work. That trait came with a profile that generally fits the population of Responsibility people, although we all recognize there are different “brands” of it. The profile suggested people high in responsibility can’t stand being held responsible for something and then stop doing it. It violates their sense of self to be in a position, yet not functioning. Their responsibility is a defining characteristic they respect in themselves so to not function seems unconscionable.

I did exactly what you suggested Brian — stopped functionoing, and it threw me further into the doldrums to know that my name was all over the calling yet I was doing nothing.

That is the only bit of reasoning I can give for why people need a formal release from something. It’s one reason my next calling may well have to be reframed as an assignment if I’m going to accept it.

[Anonymous]

So which one is easier to change?

Somebody can change their dysfunctional feelings of responsibility (this is causing psychological harm to them, responsibility at some level is a good thing), or they can change all the other people in the Church (leaders especially) so they are never offered too much responsibility.

Well … I think the real answer is both. LDS Church *should* do a better job training leaders and managing the human resources requirements of the programs they are offering (but there I go using that ideal word “should” again). Taking personal charge of the institutional relationship to the me as an individual though will produce the most immediate benefits.

[Anonymous]

You are probably right. Although personality traits can be hard to change. In my case, I took responsiblity for their lack of action, and DID get my time back, but I lost a certain amount of self-respect, as well as reputation in the Ward as a result.

It’s like you say, the sooner you can get on your own clock the happier you will be. I think we also need to recognize how hard it is for someone with Responsiblity to turn their back on somethign they haven’t been officially released from. Responsibility is actually quite a valuable trait in the right environment. It takes a significant amount of mental discipline to keep it in check when it’s place in an administratively indifferent environment, though.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

In the 1960s and ’70s, a Mormon was defined, Shipps says somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as someone who “was preparing for a meeting, going to a meeting, in a meeting or going home from a meeting.”

That’s because an LDS congregation is staffed entirely by a lay clergy and a beehive of volunteers; the whole system would fail without having a predictable number of members willing to commit to “active” involvement.

Perhaps the church’s back is to the wall. The trend in the US generally is towards less “volunteerism.” As this trend affects the membership, they may look to other churches that demand less and seem to offer more in terms of programs and friendliness. But the more you relax the demands of church participation, the fewer willing volunteers you may be able to count on to keep the local organizations running. I’ve heard complaints about the 3 hour block, yet it is my understanding that the 3 hour block represented a consolidation of church meetings when it was first instituted.

We just had our ward conference and the SP talked on sacrifice that we will soon be called upon to make (some new program that he was very circumspect about) but that if we recommit ourselves and make the needed adjustments that we would be blessed (he was also very circumspect about the blessings. He seemed to drift from group blessings of increased attendance rates to individual blessings of increased peace at home and back.) The church programs need our sacrifice.

Perhaps both the appreciation shown by TSM and the reluctance/guilt pressure to release displayed by some local leadership are two sides of the same coin, One the carrot – and the other – the stick!

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

In the 1960s and ’70s, a Mormon was defined, Shipps says somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as someone who “was preparing for a meeting, going to a meeting, in a meeting or going home from a meeting.”

That’s because an LDS congregation is staffed entirely by a lay clergy and a beehive of volunteers; the whole system would fail without having a predictable number of members willing to commit to “active” involvement.

Perhaps the church’s back is to the wall. The trend in the US generally is towards less “volunteerism.” As this trend affects the membership, they may look to other churches that demand less and seem to offer more in terms of programs and friendliness. But the more you relax the demands of church participation, the fewer willing volunteers you may be able to count on to keep the local organizations running.

Quote:

I think the answer is bigger Wards where people don’t have to go from one demanding calling to another. And where there is enough people in your auxiliary to share the burden.

My theory now is that the Church favors small Wards because it reduces the cost of buildings. Multiple small wards can be served by a small building. One big Ward cannot, requiring lots of space during peak periods and then having huge amounts of space under-utilized during non-peak periods.

The members pay the price in terms of having multiple callings, working without seeing results, and being stretched for years upon years at a time.

[Author]

Posts