- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I would like to know what is wrong with this church that we encourage members to police each other and rat each other out to leaders…
Yeah.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I also would reference Elder Holland’s and Pres. Uchtdorf’s most recent GC talks, as well as Pres. Uchtdorf’s fairly recent talk in which he said, “Stop it!” about judging others. I would go in humbly and openly stating support of the Church and leaders. I simply would say that I was trying to follow Pres. Uchtdorf’s latest message in General Conference and being honest about areas where I disagree with some other church members – that I want my voice to add to the diversity he said is so important.
It’s hard for someone to argue with one of the members of the FP, especially if you don’t make it about yourself and are meek and humble as you talk with him.
On Own Now wrote:kristmace wrote:So, apparently a member of the SP will be making an appointment to see me about this blog piece
What a great opportunity! One thing I think we all wish were different is in regard to our ability to provide feedback to the Church leadership…If he makes an appointment with you, presumably to try to understand you, then it’s a great chance to voice some concerns in a matter-of-fact way that doesn’t paint you as a militant.My suggestion is to go in with a small number of specifics that you wish were different, and keep emotions out of it. I don’t know if the stake presidency member wants to try to understand kristmace, when I heard this I thought it sounded more like he will probably try to pressure him to repent of his supposedly apostate and subversive views or at least stop openly promoting them. As far as disagreeing with Church leaders I wouldn’t expect to get much approval from most TBMs for this but I don’t need their approval to tell me it’s alright and basically unavoidable sometimes. Anyway, good luck kristmace and I hope your meeting turns out alright.
DA, Of course, there’s no way to tell at this point. It’s an opportunity, nonetheless. As to the question: “Is it OK to disagree with leaders?” I think it’s like asking: “Is it OK to breathe?” Anybody who says they always agree with leaders isn’t listening to them very closely because the leaders themselves don’t always agree. You can tell by how they talk about topics. They have different views. I just watched an old episode of Law & Order: SVU in which Robin Williams’ character pretends to be a police officer and tells a manager of a fast food restaurant to strip search a female employee. The manager does so because he wants to cooperate with authority, and he expects to be rewarded and given approval for his actions. Of course, the real detectives tell him “You’re an idiot. A voice on a phone tells you to violate that girl’s rights, and you do it.” So, he’s still responsible to make his own moral choices. So are we all.
So it turns out theyve decided not to see me as I’ve recently had a successful TR interview. Shame as i was all prepared with my top 3 things, and i was ready to dig my heels in if they asked me to stop blogging.
Sent from my Windows Phone 8X by HTC using Board Express
Then it’s a good thing they made the decision they made. kristmace wrote:So it turns out theyve decided not to see me as I’ve recently had a successful TR interview.
Shame as i was all prepared with my top 3 things, and i was ready to dig my heels in if they asked me to stop blogging.
Sent from my Windows Phone 8X by HTC using Board Express
Just an update on this. A member of the SP saw me after YMs last week. It was a really interesting and useful meeting.
I’ve heard lots of stories over the years of leaders being very dogmatic and uncompromising, and I’m really grateful that this wasn’t the case. His primary concern was for me and my family. He said right from the start that he didn’t want to discuss the ‘issues’ as I’d already recently done that with my Bishop and another SP member over a TR, and they had been satisfied that I was doing enough to warrant one. He also didn’t want any conflict or the inevitable disagreement if we discussed the whys or wherefores of my concerns.
He started by stating that he’d read the blog, and really wanted to know ‘where you’re going with this’. One of his first questions was whether this was an exit strategy. We discussed the wider implications for myself and my family, and ultimately he wanted me to be aware of where this could lead, and what the consequences would be.
I was really pleased that he didn’t ask me to stop posting things. I’ve got opinions about things like same-sex marriage that I freely express, and it really bothers me that some people feel that I should keep quiet just because I disagree with the church, yet it’s fine for them to post some very homophobic and misogynistic things.
He wants regular meetings. Maybe I’m his little project or maybe he’s trying to protect the other members from hearing things that could promote doubt. Either way, I felt his intentions were good, and I’m thankful he approached this from an angle of love rather than that of authority.
Good people can make all the difference. I hope this is a good thing in the long run and can help him (and others, perhaps) see the world through different eyes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.