- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There are couples in our Ward that are having trouble with our Ward’s culture…and have decided to take matters into their own hands — start attending another Ward and getting involved there. They can’t have a calling naturally, but at least they get a different Ward experience. Well, they were apparently warned that if they didn’t attend the Ward in which they live they would have their temple recommends revoked.
I was a little suprised at this. Actually, VERY surprised at this one, as the TR questions don’t ask if you attend your geographical Ward, unless you stretch the “do you attend your meetings” question to include attending in your own Ward. Personally, it sounds a bit like the local leadership viewing Ward members as employees again.
We continue to attend another Ward now, diving into our Ward on non-fast and testimony Sundays just so we are not perceived as villifying our Ward, which really does have cultural and operational problems. I often wonder — why can’t we as an organization look hard at ourselves, and when we see previously strong and active members attending different Wards regularly? Look for causes? Try to address those causes? Or are we just so smug in our “one true Church” status that we feel we have no obligation to do these differently when the members start voting with their feet?
Our Ward has some systemic problems.
IF you could pick the ward you attended then wards would be forced to be proactive and respond to the members or they would leave. As it is a ward can be dysfunctional and there is little a member can do other than to try and make an individual difference. But if they are not the Bishop what power do they really have. I think it is part of the general authoritative structure of the church. You do not get to pick your callings or how you contribute, or where you attend. Only those placed in authority get to choose for everyone. I’m trying to understand local church policies & politics. I can choose to be inactive for 20+ years & no action. No disfellowship or No excommunication.
(In fact, I went to the Bishop & wanted my name removed from the rolls & he talked me out of it.)
SD has a legitmate reason for attending a different ward & you are threaten with your TR being revoked.
If you can afford to move to another ward, you would probably be given a party to celebrate.
We all know members that have done this.
For a simple man like me, I know what the answer would be.
Family will always come first. (It wasn’t always that way.)
I wish you the best.
Mike from Milton.
Great questions, SD – and they really need to be asked and considered and addressed. Frankly, if I found myself in that type of situation, I would go directly to the Stake President and explain why I was attending a different ward – but I have the personality to take that route. I understand totally if others can’t.
If I couldn’t do that, I would not react and make the Bishop try to follow through with the threat. He can’t take my temple recommend away from me if I don’t give it to him, so if he tried it would have to go to the Stake President, at least – and I would have my chance to explain without having to initiate the conversation.
If someone asked me if I sustain and support my local leaders, I would say, honestly, that I do – but, given __________ and _________ I can’t attend church in my assigned ward. Let them deal with the mental shock of that statement.
A new family moved into our Ward, and with only ONE CLASS in the Sunday School class my daughter was bullied within, they decided to vote with their feet and come with us to a different Ward. They are only here for four months. My wife befriends new people, so when this woman explained her shock with the behavior of the kids in our daughter’s SS class, my wife shared how we go to a different Ward 2-3 Sundays a month as a result. So, being new to the area, they came to our house and drove behind us to the new Ward — and liked it. That’s voting with your feet….
I think Cadence has it right on…
Regarding Ray’s suggestion, I like it, however, the SP or BP could just tell the temple not to let you in if you show up after refusing to surrender your temple recommend. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have a list like that at the temple. But at every temple? Perhaps not… But I like how refusing to surrender it would create an opportunity to share concerns as Ray suggests. It would also make the BP think twice about making an issue of taking away the TR if he knows it might trigger a conversation with the SP about the operational problems in his Ward with the concerned member.
I’m open about the fact I don’t hold a TR right now. So, they have nothing to take away from me. And discussion, for me, would probably be a bit frustrating because they will come out with all the standard answers. And if you rebut them, then you are apostate.
I’m not agreeing with the “policy” or even saying it is a written policy. As I understand it our wards and stakes are arranged in geographical units to keep members from shopping around and picking what ward they want to belong to. It is another thing that differentiates us from other denominations. I don’t know if a bishop or stake president can actually take your temple recommend for attending another ward instead of your “assigned” ward on a regular basis. I think part of it is that if you don’t attend your own ward then the bishop has nothing to base issuing or denying a temple recommend on except for your own answers. I think if you haven’t been in the ward for at least year the bishop is supposed to contact your previous bishop. I don’t think this happens very often. I just had my temple recommend renewed and I’ve been in this ward for only five months and as far as I know my previous leader was not contacted. Back to the temple recommend questions. It could come down to how the leader interprets sustaining the local leaders.
Thoreau — when I read your post, I thought it was largely true, but I don’t see how it benefits individual members who, for one reason or another need/want the flexibility to experience a different Ward. The geographical attendance policy does set us apart from other demoniminations, but I don’t see how being different is necessarily good. Brian once commented that the geographical boundary restriction does force members to work out their problems in their wards (“bloom where you are planted”) but the policy also tends to make lepers of people who, for one reason or another, feel a need to move on. You aren’t really accepted in the Ward you are migrating to, and you stop being relevant (by choice) in your old Ward. Your only alternative is to buy a house or get an address in a different Ward. And that is a huge lifestyle disruption.
But that strays a bit from the point — the revocation of temple recommends for things the leaders just plain don’t like.
Ultimately, we are all volunteers in the church, and many of us pay to be volunteers…it strikes me as hugely strange that the church still seems to think of us as employees of the church.
I had a similar thought when they read the letter forbidding submitting the names of celebrities or holocaust victims to the temple. That policy itself wasn’t necessarily objectionable, but the rejoinder that anyone who violates the policy would be stripped of their rights to the website seemed a little heavy-handed for an over-the-pulpit announcement.
I have a real problem when the church uses the temple recommend as a control mechanism to manipulate members behavior and emotions. It just doesn’t feel right to me. That is all I will say on this thread for now.
SilentDawning wrote:Well, they were apparently warned that if they didn’t attend the Ward in which they live they would have their temple recommends revoked.
I’d be surprised if their TRs were revoked, but I could see them having a problem getting them renewed. To me it’s pretty clear that the “do you attendyourmeetings” question implies “do you attend the meetings in the unit to which you have been assigned?”, but I suppose there is wiggle room there. Heaven knows I’ll be nuancing my answers next time, if there is a next time. I’m not sure what happens when you go into a TR interview, give the “correct” answers (i.e. “yes” or “no” as the case may be) and the interviewer doesn’t believe you. I suppose it depends on the interviewer and if he sees his role as active or passive in the interviewing process. I think we need to remember that temple attendance is a privilege that we earn by playing by the rules that have been established for that purpose, whether or not we agree with those rules.
Quote:
Or are we just so smug in our “one true Church” status that we feel we have no obligation to do things differently … ?
Absolutely. Perhaps “smug” is a little strong, but certainly people aren’t going to be in a big hurry to go around experimenting with “the Lord’s Church”. I wonder how priesthood leaders who give people a hard time for attending other units would react if people responded with “Alrighty, then. I know there’s a Baptist church just down the street that would love to have us attend”.With recommends being computerized now they do not have to have a list of members holding recommends that cannot enter at every temple. They can just “turn it off” and your recommend is no longer valid at any temple. This isn’t just for the purpose of situations like the one stated in this thread but handy if your recommend should be lost or stolen. Off topic: I’ve been assured that they do not use this system to track how often people actually attend the temple. I know that the Bishop does not receive any sort of report. But if there is a way to gather statistics this easily you know information is being stored somewhere.
observant wrote:Off topic: I’ve been assured that they do not use this system to track how often people actually attend the temple.
Riiiight.
:shh: 🙂 I have been very curious if they were tracking the temple attendance now since the recommends are computerized. In my local area, the withholding of temple recommend and callings has been threatened to keep people in their wards. However, with permission of both bishops, it is allowed. It does bother me too that this kind of threat exists. However, to bring up one point, it does complicate VTing, HTing and compassionate service if you live far away from the out of boundaries ward you want to attend. Even though you might not mind traveling, others might mind traveling to you. This concern could be diminished by offering to have your HTer or VTer visit you at church. We are attending another ward from where we are zoned. Our Bishop called us in and (after verifying that we weren’t switching wards to have our mornings free to attend non-LDS churches) told us that he would seek further direction from the Stake President. He said that the SP’s typical response on the matter was “NO” as a general rule and then sit down and see if we can come up with an acceptable exception to the rule. This seems to be how our stake balances the competing needs between setting boundaries against flagrant ward hoping and also accommodating families that for one reason or another really do need to attend elsewhere.
The good news is that none of this matters to the member being “disciplined” (if you want to call it that, due to having a recommend revoked) if you don’t have a desire to be a fully integrated member of any Ward, or be a regular temple-goer or holder. It DOES matter to the person that is using the policy to size up the organization and the methods it uses to “encourage” its membership.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.