- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
jhp33, One thing I would suggest is that when you have an emotionally charged issue, you might consider speaking to the person face to face. That’s a great way to understand each other. The medium of email is uni-directional. It’s a great medium for conducting business, but it’s much less effective for conveying ideas that are in dispute. I think talking to the SP is a great idea, but honestly, emailing and cc’ing the bishop will almost certainly come across to them as combative. I think it would be good to try to diffuse the situation by asking if you could meet with the SP in person.
The issue you described has many facets. I think there are two that are big. One is the false teaching being levied on children who cannot discern, about what is scripture. This is easily fixed by not saying it is scripture in Primary… “Now we are going to have a quote from the Proclamation on the Family”. I think the second concern is that faced with this situation, it’s unclear to you how you should resolve it. You brought it up to your Bishop and he seemed to dismiss it as not an issue…. you don’t agree with that, so you are now asking the SP to help you understand what you can do. Does the SP just want you to sit quietly while that is going on or to stand up and say something? The reality is that the SP and even the Bishop understand what it means to stand up for what you believe. What you need to do is to help them understand that that is all you are doing… or trying to do. It’s so so so much easier to convey this in person than over email. I have even had phone conversations that didn’t go well, and would have been much better in person. One of the great things about talking, over emailing, et al, is that is is much easier to have a dialog where you can both strive to understand each other. Understanding the Bishop, for example, is just as important as his understanding you. You aren’t going to get any satisfaction if you are taking shots from the gallery, but if you can just talk through and understand each other, that’s a victory, no matter how small.
Old-Timer wrote:I feel like I should add a little bit to my last comment, but please don’t take it as siding with your Bishop or Stake President. I don’t mean it that way – at all. I just want to explain a little more why they might be reacting and react in a way that doesn’t please you.
Thank you. I really appreciate your insight.
I think behind all of this is my history with the bishop. He knows full well that I am struggling right now with church. If I was just some random member emailing him about this stuff, I could see him blowing me off a bit. But he knows that I have issues and that I am holding on by a thread right now.
That almost makes his reaction that much worse. As if he couldn’t care less whether this pushes me out of the church or not.
On Own Now wrote:jhp33,
One thing I would suggest is that when you have an emotionally charged issue, you might consider speaking to the person face to face. That’s a great way to understand each other. The medium of email is uni-directional. It’s a great medium for conducting business, but it’s much less effective for conveying ideas that are in dispute. I think talking to the SP is a great idea, but honestly, emailing and cc’ing the bishop will almost certainly come across to them as combative. I think it would be good to try to diffuse the situation by asking if you could meet with the SP in person.
I’ve thought about this a lot lately. I understand the arguments for and against certain types of communication. The fact is, though, that I am a written communicator. That is how I communicate best, and most effectively. No form of communication is perfect, and I choose the form that works best for me. The bishop is also free, instead of responding to my email, to pick up the phone if he so chooses.
That actually segues really well into the latest development.
The Stake President received my email and responded on my way home from work. He indicated that, in order to understand my concerns more, he feels like he should meet with me in person. Obviously, he values in-person communication, which is great considering we’ve never spoken before. I told him I would contact his ExecSec and get an appointment set up.
To be honest, I’m surprised as I expected a quick brush off via email and for him to automatically defend the bishop. He may still do that in our meeting, but at least he’s taking the time to meet with me.
Quote:at least he’s taking the time to meet with me.
Good. Just go in knowing it might or might not be what you want and try hard to keep expectations or demands out of it. If you can treat it as a chance to share your concerns and nothing else, you are less likely to be disappointed – and your joy will be more full if he actually understands and tries to help.
jhp33 wrote:I am a written communicator. That is how I communicate best, and most effectively. No form of communication is perfect, and I choose the form that works best for me.
I get you. Just remember that communication takes two people. Otherwise it would just be ‘mmunication’. It’s always proper and helpful to take into account how the other party communicates best, and then to allow for a choice of communication that works for both of you; and that might not be either party’s first choice. Recently, we have had posters on this site from [countries where English is not the native language]. There is no rule on this site, as far as I know, that posts must be in English, yet they both naturally did so, because they wanted to meet us on common ground to be understood as well as to understand us.You’ve gotten some excellent advise from Ray. Your meeting with the SP is a fabulous opportunity to communicate. In a very real way, my hopes and fears will accompany you, because I believe you will be speaking for many here who are like-minded and have little or no opportunity for this type of dialog. It’s a great chance for you to express concerns about fringe stuff being treated like Gospel, often with no checks in place. It will be a win if you can help him to be aware that there are people who are concerned. I doubt anything will change in regards to the proclamation or primary. Understand that he will also have some things to say. If you listen as earnestly as you hope he will listen to you then the rest will take care of itself.
Good luck. I hope it goes well, and if you get a chance, please let us know how it goes.
I used to quote other fictional literature and even the “scripture” of other faiths when I taught lessons or gave a talk in sacrament meeting. I could sense brief vibes of awkward reflection among some people … but I would argue with ANYONE that doing so as is purely “Mormon” as it gets. We’re supposed to draw from the best books and the best thinking, from any and all sources, because truth and knowledge come from God. Second, I also used to make it a point not to let that false teaching about “scripture” stand unchallenged: that anything a leader says is scripture. Conference talks are *not* canon scripture. Proclamations are not scripture. Policy manuals, lesson manuals, procedure manuals … are not scripture. We host an excellent article that describes the process by which a text becomes canon or doctrine: “Mormon Doctrine, What is Official and What Isn’t” by Donald Ashton
http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html Basically, it has to be acknowledged as a revelation and voted on by the WHOLE body of saints, approved “by common consent” as binding upon the church. Everything else is varying levels of inspiration, depending on your own personal revelation.
I understand where you’re coming from Brian and appreciate that you have shared another perspective. I do submit however that were this a Dickens quote being shared as the scripture in sharing time the reaction of those involved would likely be very different. Sometimes it is very difficult to challenge these minds of things, especially in a meeting setting and without support. How would you proceed in this particular case?
DarkJedi wrote:I do submit however that were this a Dickens quote being shared as the scripture in sharing time the reaction of those involved would likely be very different.
Agreed on the point of that specific example. That would be an interesting experiment and an interesting point to make … but it would be hard to get away with it socially. I probably wouldn’t attempt that one. (probably …
😈 )I might be more tempted to do so than you might think. I believe Marley’s words about mankind being his business are as close to “love thy neighbor” as it gets. My son based a Sacrament meeting talk on a Tupac quote – and called him Brother Shakur. :clap: Brian Johnston wrote:I used to quote other fictional literature and even the “scripture” of other faiths when I taught lessons or gave a talk in sacrament meeting. I could sense brief vibes of awkward reflection among some people … but I would argue with ANYONE that doing so as is purely “Mormon” as it gets. We’re supposed to draw from the best books and the best thinking, from any and all sources, because truth and knowledge come from God.
Second, I also used to make it a point not to let that false teaching about “scripture” stand unchallenged: that anything a leader says is scripture. Conference talks are *not* canon scripture. Proclamations are not scripture. Policy manuals, lesson manuals, procedure manuals … are not scripture. We host an excellent article that describes the process by which a text becomes canon or doctrine: “Mormon Doctrine, What is Official and What Isn’t” by Donald Ashton
http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html Basically, it has to be acknowledged as a revelation and voted on by the WHOLE body of saints, approved “by common consent” as binding upon the church. Everything else is varying levels of inspiration, depending on your own personal revelation.
Awesome. Thank you, Brian. I printed that article out and will be studying it for the next few days.
My appointment with the Stake President is on Sunday morning. I will be sure to update you all as to the nature and outcome of the meeting. My wife is nervous, but I am calm as a summer’s morning.
😆 A further point of clarification: the actual text of our scriptural canon is what is “official,” NOTthe interpretation of it. It says what it says. What does it mean?
How do we implement the ideas in our life’s context?
What does someone with a organizational title think it says?
How are contradictions and paradoxes in the text reconciled?
etc.
All of that is personal opinion. We’re all on a journey of discovery and learning. We are all ultimately responsible for our experience.
Old-Timer wrote:My son based a Sacrament meeting talk on a Tupac quote – and called him Brother Shakur.
:clap: Hahah. Nice.
Well, this morning was my meeting with the SP. Ended up being a marathon (almost 2 hour) meeting. We started by me sharing my concerns about the Proclamation and referring to it as scripture in Primary. As expected, he went to D&C 68 and referenced the “if spoken by the Holy Spirit” definition of scripture. We went back and forth many times on the issue, talking about “little s” scripture and “big S” scripture and in the end, he wasn’t really persuaded that it was at all a problem. He was not aware of the Elder Packer talk a few years ago where the reference to it being a “revelation” was intentionally redacted, and that very much surprised him.
He then transitioned into a discussion about what exactly it is about the Proclamation that bothers me. I told him in general I don’t have a real problem with almost everything in the Proclamation, but that I’m not convinced that we’re not living in our own version of the priesthood ban, or Adam-God theory being preached by the prophet. I’m not convinced that God condemns homosexuality.
Of course, that sent us down that rabbit hole. We unpacked all of my thoughts and feelings about Prop 8, past statements from church leaders about homosexuality being a disease, shock therapy, etc etc. He agreed that the church has rightly shifted toward distinguishing between thoughts/feelings and acting on it. I could have left it at that, but I just couldn’t leave without going to the next level and taking a stand.
As we continued discussing, he started making comparisons between homosexuality and bestiality, a compulsion to steal, alcoholism, inability to marry and addiction to pornography. I began to get very flustered at that point and it was difficult for me to form my thoughts coherently because I couldn’t really believe he was going there.
We agreed to disagree on the issue at that point, and went back to the nature of prophets and my struggles with the fact that I don’t see the fruits of prophecy from our modern day prophets. He seemed blown away that I could possibly think that modern revelation has changed since Joseph’s day. I told him that, as I study the scriptures, I see distinct differences between the way God communicated between to his prophets and his people and how it seems as though it’s done today (philosophies of men, mingled with scripture..although I didn’t use those exact words).
Again, he wasn’t very convinced and kept repeating that he had a testimony that we are led today by a living prophet.
In the end, nothing really got resolved, but I was able to share my concerns and he was very receptive to me in general and patient with my concerns. There were some spots where it got a tad testy/contentious, but he always made a point to slow us down and make sure I understood that just because we didn’t see eye to eye on things, that didn’t mean he looked down on me.
We ended with me expressing my concern that I don’t know how to be a fully functioning part of the ward when I see things so fundamentally differently than most ward members. He acknowledged that this must be difficult and he empathized with my situation, but at that point he was running very late for his next meeting, so we didn’t get to unpack that fully.
So, bottom line, nothing changed, but it was nice to be heard and to be understood.
I am working on crafting an email to him with references to things that made him go “huh?” during our discussion. I will post tomorrow if it’s of interest to anyone.
Thanks, all.
I’m glad you were able to talk and that it wasn’t a total waste of time, JHP. Sometimes just being listened to is all that’s really needed, at least for our own peace of mind. I, too, become frustrated with people who think we have to believe everything just because we have a “testimony.” I have a testimony – my SP told me so several times during our interviews – but he is quite aware that my testimony does not include blind obedience. I think a carefully worded email is a good idea. My own recent experience with talking with the SP included an email between meetings, and he said that was very helpful to him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.