- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Let me begin be saying that I held off on posting this to see if I could calm down enough to approach the situation rationally. Alas, I am not having much luck with that. So please forgive my rant. First, some back-story:
So my youngest is turning 8 in the next few weeks and with the birthday comes a baptism. Our Ward and Stake do not do monthly baptisms and as such the baptism is up to me. My Bishop told me to just speak to WML to book the font and that I would just be given the keys to the building and I would have to fill the font myself. I just needed to the the Bishop know so that he, or one of his counselors, could be there. So I try to get a hold of the WML, phoned and emailed, but he never got back to me.
Second, some back-back story:
None of my family are LDS. All of my in-laws live in a city (or just outside) that is about 3 hours drive away. It doesn’t help that we live in a small house and have no space for even one of the families to stay with us, let alone 30 people. For my middle son’s baptism, most of the the in-laws were unable or choose not to make the trip down. Needless to say, it was a rather empty room and my son felt bad that most of his cousins weren’t there even though he had made it to all of his cousins baptisms.
Additionally, things between my MIL/FIL and I are strenuous at the best of times. So I have been trying to not upset them or cause any unneeded stress.
Lastly, the current situation:
Since it didn’t matter to my local leadership what happened with the upcoming baptism I thought why not have it close to my in-laws. My BIL is Bishop in a small rural ward that has a font in it’s chapel. They have space in their large house for us to stay. And I figured it is far easier for the 5 of us to travel than the 30 of them. It just makes sense.
So my DW checks with her family and they all think it is an amazing idea, especially coming from me (since I am considered grumpy and difficult by my in-laws). In fact my MIL is almost in tears with the possibility of having the whole family together for a baptism. My BIL Bishop says that his Stake only does monthly baptisms but since we are from out of town and the font is not being used, and it is in his building, he thought it would be great. I check with our Bishop and he thinks it is fine. Furthermore, he said that lots of people get baptized outside their home ward.
Fast forward a couple weeks. My BIL Bishop made the mistake of mentioning that we were doing this to one of his Stake leaders. Their response “Bishop, you are not allowed to do that.” My BIL said that he told them that lots of people do this. The response that followed is what really makes me mad. The Stake leader told him “That is not how our stake interprets the Church Handbook.”
😡 How Pharisaical of them.So no convenient baptism for my son. So we are on to plan B. My MIL said she would check with her Bishop to see if we could do it in their ward. The downside is they live on an acreage that is 40 minutes away from their building and we would have to stay at their place which is always stressful for everyone involved. However, this is still better than having to do it in our city.
We will see what comes, but I am honestly struggling with seeing anything Christ-like in the Church right now. It just seems to be full of Pharisees and hard-nosed bureaucrats. Why do I continue to be involved with an organization where 98% (or more) of members are not people that I would chose to associate with in any other setting? But I won’t start ranting about the negative behaviours that I feel are perpetuated by the typical Church member and the culture that dominates in the Church. At this moment if asked by leadership if I had a testimony of the Church I would honestly say “No, I have a rock solid testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ but not of the Corporation of the Church.”
End rant.
Our Stake interpreted the handbook the same way. We did not want a line-em-up baptism, so we flew back to Canada and did it there (we live in the United States) ‘so our family could be there’. It cost me $1500 in fare and car rental and hotels to have my daughter baptized. I empathize and sympathize.
That is so disappointing that they have to make it difficult for you. It certainly doesn’t seem like Christ-like behavior. I wish more leaders in the church were that way rather than being “by the book”, especially as you point out that the book can be interpreted so differently. My own son is getting baptized in a few months, and in our area it is the whole stake that meets at once. Since it will be after conference, I think there will be two months worth of kids all together. Since it is the whole state we won’t have any say of who speaks or prays or anything, so it will be a mass impersonal baptism for him. I don’t like that way either. I hope it all works out for you though, and that your son enjoys his experience most of all.
I’m sorry to hear this has been such an ordeal. To me, this comes down to a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law thing. This certainly seems like a special enough occasion as to warrant an exception. My bet is that if it were one of the grandchildren of a member of the stake presidency it would be perfectly OK to do what you want to do. I’m sorry I don’t have more to offer. It wouldn’t happen here because we’re in a rural enough area and the wards are far enough apart that we don’t do the monthly thing, every building has a font and it’s just a matter of scheduling and doing it. I was baptized in a stake baptismal service and I am an atheist now. Just sayin’. Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous. Ruthiechan wrote:Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous.
And who would that be? The Quorum of the Twelve? First Presidency? They’re not going to be sympathetic, from what I know they would not even respond directly to the member but
mightsend a letter to the SP, but not to tell him he’s wrong or to do anything differently. The instruction would be to the member through the SP and basically would have the SP guilt the member. DarkJedi wrote:Ruthiechan wrote:Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous.
And who would that be? The Quorum of the Twelve? First Presidency? They’re not going to be sympathetic, from what I know they would not even respond directly to the member but
mightsend a letter to the SP, but not to tell him he’s wrong or to do anything differently. The instruction would be to the member through the SP and basically would have the SP guilt the member. I dunno. It feels like everyone who gave permission ought to confront him, Bishops and everything. Brother, you making a pleasant event turn into a stressful one. Please soften your heart toward this. The man needs rebuking. Anyone who supports it. This is supposed to be By Common Consent, everyone is cool with it except this guy. He ought not to have that much power. He needs to know that he’s hurting people. Write a letter of grievance, have everyone involved with the baptism sign it, have the Bishops present it to the stake. Find the area leader and lodge a complaint. See if you can get any previous Stake leaders to also agree. Or see about getting the Bishops to flat out tell him it’s not his jurisdiction and DO IT ANYWAY. That last part probably not gonna happen but it’s still an option.
Ruthiechan wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Ruthiechan wrote:Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous.
And who would that be? The Quorum of the Twelve? First Presidency? They’re not going to be sympathetic, from what I know they would not even respond directly to the member but
mightsend a letter to the SP, but not to tell him he’s wrong or to do anything differently. The instruction would be to the member through the SP and basically would have the SP guilt the member. I dunno. It feels like everyone who gave permission ought to confront him, Bishops and everything. Brother, you making a pleasant event turn into a stressful one. Please soften your heart toward this. The man needs rebuking. Anyone who supports it. This is supposed to be By Common Consent, everyone is cool with it except this guy. He ought not to have that much power. He needs to know that he’s hurting people. Write a letter of grievance, have everyone involved with the baptism sign it, have the Bishops present it to the stake. Find the area leader and lodge a complaint. See if you can get any previous Stake leaders to also agree. Or see about getting the Bishops to flat out tell him it’s not his jurisdiction and DO IT ANYWAY. That last part probably not gonna happen but it’s still an option.
I’m not disagreeing with you, Sister. Sadly, I don’t think any of that will happen with TBMs under the Corporation of the President. Honestly I don’t see why the guy with absolute power can’t see that this is a special circumstance and/or that the brother-in-law bishop can’t appeal to his common sense. But I guess it’s true what they say, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Ruthiechan wrote:Why are you all just saying fine to this guy? You got permission from lots of people. Go over the SP’s head on this. I mean seriously this is ridiculous.
If it was my own Stake, I’d be tempted to do so but it isn’t. My BIL is honestly a good guy, very TBM, but a good guy. He has always been a good and obedient latter-day saint and as such has always been “rewarded” with leadership callings. He was called as to the HC at 23 and as Bishop at 33. It simply isn’t in his nature to confront his SP. Also, because I respect and love my BIL and his family, I don’t want to stir things up from my end. He has to live in that Stake and he has a reputation to uphold. I simply wouldn’t do that to him.
On another note, my MIL called and said that her Bishop has given the okay to do it in their ward’s building. We just have to hope that we can book it. It isn’t ideal, for various reasons, and will cause my MIL, DW, and I more stress but it is better than holding it here in our city in that more family will be able to attend.
I’m going to say this carefully but directly: You have ONE person (a local leader) who is making this difficult and many people (including multiple local leaders) who aren’t. It’s not “The Church” this time that is at fault, especially since the handbook does not prohibit what you want to do. It happens all the time. It’s one local leader. Don’t generalize one leader into “why do I stay in a church that . . .” when it isn’t the Church that is doing this.
Now, to the practical response:
Do it where the local leader understands and will do what almost everyone else would do, and ignore the Pharisaical SP. Thank the Bishop who is allowing it to be done in that building.
Last, in my experience, just a policy thing:
Generally, the Ward Mission Leader has nothing to do with baptisms involving 6-year-old children who aren’t considered converts. Generally, the Primary President deals with those baptisms.
Old-Timer wrote:
You have ONE person (a local leader) who is making this difficult and many people (including multiple local leaders) who aren’t. It’s not “The Church” this time that is at fault, especially since the handbook does not prohibit what you want to do. It happens all the time. It’s one local leader. Don’t generalize one leader into “why do I stay in a church that . . .” when it isn’t the Church that is doing this.While I agree with you on the principle of this statement, my experiences over the last 21 years as a member and the previous years growing up in and LDS community as a non-member, I find that this ONE person’s personality is all too common among the leadership of the church at the local level. Now, you may have experienced something different, as may have many others, so consider yourself blessed but in my life this is a very common type of person who represents the Church as local leaders. So it is the church doing it. Try as we may to separate the local leaders actions from the Q15, the argument that they are just normal people doing their best begins to sound trite. I can cut Bishops some slack for just trying their best, as there are so many Bishops but the Church has to do a better job selecting and training SPs, in my opinion.
Old-Timer wrote:Thank the Bishop who is allowing it to be done in that building.
I will as he is a friend that I have know since I was a newlywed.Old-Timer wrote:
Generally, the Ward Mission Leader has nothing to do with baptisms involving 6-year-old children who aren’t considered converts. Generally, the Primary President deals with those baptisms.That was my understanding as well but apparently our ward is an anomaly.
But overall, as always thank you for your advice. The baptism will happen and for that I am thankful.
I know there are too many local leaders with that type of personality – but when it comes to this particular issue, I would be shocked if the VAST majority of local leaders weren’t like the Bishops in your post. With regard to this issue, I think relatively few local leaders would fuss about it like the SP did. I’ve seen lots of similar situations in multiple states and regions around the United States, and that has been my experience. Of course, your area might be different – but even in your post, the SP is outnumbered.
That’s all I’m saying.
Canucknuckle wrote:Old-Timer wrote:
You have ONE person (a local leader) who is making this difficult and many people (including multiple local leaders) who aren’t. It’s not “The Church” this time that is at fault, especially since the handbook does not prohibit what you want to do. It happens all the time. It’s one local leader. Don’t generalize one leader into “why do I stay in a church that . . .” when it isn’t the Church that is doing this.While I agree with you on the principle of this statement, my experiences over the last 21 years as a member and the previous years growing up in and LDS community as a non-member, I find that this ONE person’s personality is all too common among the leadership of the church at the local level. Now, you may have experienced something different, as may have many others, so consider yourself blessed but in my life this is a very common type of person who represents the Church as local leaders. So it is the church doing it. Try as we may to separate the local leaders actions from the Q15, the argument that they are just normal people doing their best begins to sound trite. I can cut Bishops some slack for just trying their best, as there are so many Bishops but the Church has to do a better job selecting and training SPs, in my opinion.
Old-Timer wrote:Thank the Bishop who is allowing it to be done in that building.
I will as he is a friend that I have know since I was a newlywed.Old-Timer wrote:
Generally, the Ward Mission Leader has nothing to do with baptisms involving 6-year-old children who aren’t considered converts. Generally, the Primary President deals with those baptisms.That was my understanding as well but apparently our ward is an anomaly.
But overall, as always thank you for your advice. The baptism will happen and for that I am thankful.
I agree that one person, especially one person with pretty much absolute authority, can indeed make life difficult for people and this is all too common in the church. I’m not blaming the church, it is the individuals involved. However, it is church policies and procedures that make this possible. Still, it is the choice of the individual to abuse that power.
I have found over the years that it is very difficult for local church leaders to admit they may have been, or actually were, wrong. I’ve contemplated on this in the past and concluded it probably has multiple reasons but the foremost reason is that if they admit they’re wrong about something then they may have to admit they’re wrong about something else – the same old slippery slope that led some of us to our crises of faith and/or cognitive dissonance.
Canucknuckle wrote:
While I agree with you on the principle of this statement, my experiences over the last 21 years as a member and the previous years growing up in and LDS community as a non-member, I find that this ONE person’s personality is all too common among the leadership of the church at the local level. Now, you may have experienced something different, as may have many others, so consider yourself blessed but in my life this is a very common type of person who represents the Church as local leaders. So it is the church doing it. Try as we may to separate the local leaders actions from the Q15, the argument that they are just normal people doing their best begins to sound trite. I can cut Bishops some slack for just trying their best, as there are so many Bishops but the Church has to do a better job selecting and training SPs, in my opinion.For inner peace reasons, I think Ray’s advice is good — if you can really internalize and accept the argument that its not the church, it’s an isolated act by a single leader — over and over and over again — some people can find peace.
The sad part is that my experience concurs with Canucknuckle’s reasoning above than the anomaly theory Ray proposes. Although the handbook doesn’t forbid a dedicated baptism, the talks over the pulpit, manuals and even the temple ceremony all reinforce a culture of strict obedience to the leaders above us. Therefore, it’s less risky for a priesthood leader to simply obey local policy than to live by the spirit of the law — and risk censure from his SP. When I was in leadership, I attended a training meeting on it where the SP said he was going to adopt that procedure.
So, I think it’s not necessarily lack of training, it’s the cultural norms flowing from the manuals, history of expected obedience, Mormon-making (where talks center on creating loyal organizational soldiers rather than simply good people), and the culture the GA’s constantly promulgate to the membership.
The other thing, I was inspired recently by some of the leadership writings of Max Dupree, very prolific and timeless writer on leadership.
He listed what he felt were the “rights” of individuals in organizations that were truly committed to an inspirational culture. One is the “right of appeal”. I find in our church, the Bishopric is always reading letters that members should not take up issues with the GA’s – they should work only with their “local leaders”. You can appeal somewhat to Stake Presidents when Bishop’s do questionable things, and certainly, appeals over the heads of local auxiliary and priesthood leaders to Bishop’s are common. But you get to a point in the hierarchy (the SP) level, you’re essentially out of options. And my 30 years in the church tells me that going over the head of priesthood leaders is generally considered disloyal. The higher you go, the less right of appeal there is. In fact, you can even damage your own standing with the local leaders if you appeal over the heads of the SP.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.