- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve said this before in at least one other thread, but I like the use of geographic boundaries to define wards and branches. I know there are issues in individual cases, and I know it causes grief sometimes, and I have NO problem with people attending another ward, where geographically possible, in cases where real harm is occurring . . . but I really like that the default is geographic boundaries, rather than allowing people to congregation shop. There is an element of learned tolerance and charity in having to try to worship with people who wouldn’t normally be one’s associates that I don’t want to lose. I don’t want us to adopt the individual salvationism of much of the rest of Christianity; I want to maintain the principle that Zion is the goal and that “atonement” is a communal process. Those things are jeopardized when people can change congregations for any reason whatsoever – like “irreconcilable differences” now means almost nothing in divorces. Divorces should occur when there truly are irreconcilable differences, so I’m fine with people changing wards and branches in truly exceptional circumstances, but I want it to happen only in those exceptional circumstances where there really are irreconcilable differences no matter how hard the person tries to make it work. Iow, I don’t want “common problems” to morph into “irreconcilable differences” – and I am positive that would happen without the geographic boundary default.
Iow, I don’t like making policies (in anything, not just the Church) based on exceptions. I like allowing exceptions in exceptional situations, not changing the default based on exceptional situations.
(Having said all that, I don’t like threatening to pull someone’s temple recommend if they don’t attend the ward that includes where they live. That’s the other end of the easy-way-out spectrum.)
SilentDawning wrote: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…..
Yeah SD, it makes life much less stressful and much more peaceful, doesn’t it. I’m glad to see you are doing better.
While I see the merits of Ray’s statement above, I’m also saddened that exceptions can be so difficult to acquire from the organization — at least, that has been my experience. To switch Wards means as much as three layers or approval (Home Bishop, Target Ward Bishop, Home Stake President). I agree with cWald that once you check out of the whole TR thing, all of a sudden, the organization seems to have no claim on you, unless you start trying to pull others away. It is far less stressful. At times I even question whey someone would pay large sums of money, agree to all kinds of terms, only to have that commitment used against the person when they don’t “behave” in ways the organization seems to want — on matters which seem not to have a huge impact on one’s personal salvation.
Now, in my particular Ward there is widespread dysfunction. I take some comfort in knowing that in spite of all the problems we’ve faced in our particular Ward in the last several years we’ve lived here, that only after my daughter was repeatedly bullied over a period of several years did we decide to do a partial self-removal (2-3 Sundays a month).
The Bishop of the new Ward invited us to their Ward party last Sunday, and I think we’ll go.
cwald wrote: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.
+1, however it is only a control mechanism if I care to have a TR. if I truly accept that the church does not control my access to God (God-Me-Church…which we’ve discussed several times), then I don’t give them the power to manipulate me (even if they teach God-Church-man).Heber13 wrote:+1, however it is only a control mechanism if I care to have a TR. if I truly accept that the church does not control my access to God (God-Me-Church…which we’ve discussed several times), then I don’t give them the power to manipulate me (even if they teach God-Church-man).
I was just looking to add a similar comment. Of course this isn’t the correct approach for everyone. We all need to do what’s best for us, and having a temple recommend is a good thing generally, IMO.
I personally haven’t bothered with one in many many years though. I called that bluff. They lost that hand of poker with me. Not going to “allow” me to have a temple recommend? Fine, whatever … no thanks then. I’ll just go do something else productive with my time and energy.
I feel like there just really aren’t any hooks grab on or buttons to push left on me… Sometimes I wonder if that’s good or bad. Like most things in the messy and complex life, a little bit of both.
Brian Johnston wrote:Heber13 wrote:+1, however it is only a control mechanism if I care to have a TR. if I truly accept that the church does not control my access to God (God-Me-Church…which we’ve discussed several times), then I don’t give them the power to manipulate me (even if they teach God-Church-man).
I was just looking to add a similar comment. Of course this isn’t the correct approach for everyone. We all need to do what’s best for us, and having a temple recommend is a good thing generally, IMO.
I personally haven’t bothered with one in many many years though. I called that bluff. They lost that hand of poker with me. Not going to “allow” me to have a temple recommend? Fine, whatever … no thanks then. I’ll just go do something else productive with my time and energy.
I feel like there just really aren’t any hooks grab on or buttons to push left on me… Sometimes I wonder if that’s good or bad. Like most things in the messy and complex life, a little bit of both.
All well and good unless you want to bless your grandson or attend a relatives temple wedding or sealing.
GB, I think that’s why Brian started with the disclamier that he used. 🙂 This is a question where there isn’t one universally right answer. Each person has to make that decision, based on their own situation and desire. A temple recommend is a wonderful thing – except when it isn’t.
Noted and appreciated. The blessing went fine, by the way. We had it at my ex wife’s home and my son-in-law who isn’t a member held him while we did the blessing. Even the TBM’s in attendance seemed ok with it. My wife wanted me to clear it with the bishop but I decided to not buy trouble. I decided a while ago now that I wasn’t going to let someone else tell me if I was ok or not. We all have to grow up sometime. That is great GB. Well done. When my husband and I were engaged, we attended in his home ward most weeks, but when it came time to get our live endowment recommend for the marriage, my BYU student ward bishop nearly refused to sign it because I hadn’t attended in that ward, even though my records were there. I had only moved into that ward two months prior, so he literally hadn’t met me, but my husband’s bishop didn’t have my records although he did do a marital pep talk with us. This BYU student ward bishop was very irate in the interview, and even pushed back from his desk in exasperation and declared he had no way of knowing whether I was attending church or not. I was thinking “Well, I just told you I was, didn’t I? Are you just assuming I’m a liar?” I felt like I was being singled out and punished as the representative of a common problem he encountered: low church attendance rates over the summer (this was in summer), and trying to run a ward nobody attended for a variety of reasons. The thought occurred to me at the time that some bishops like to make what is really all about you all about them. This was the biggest decision of my life for me (I was getting married, for crying out loud!) For him, I was just another irritating student hurting his attendance numbers.
Hawkgrrl’s story is a case in point…I’m ashamed to say I have been in the chair of the frustrated priesthood leader looking at everything from the perspective of myself — trying to achieve the goals being drilled upon me by the Stake, yet having to face the realities of a fluid and volunteer “workforce”….too bad this Bishop of Hawkgrrl’s was so egocentric about his own situation and couldn’t just take what she was saying at face value. Not any more…I think that one acknowledges that in spite of all the grand claims we make about our church, that ultimately, it’s a part-time organization, not to be viewed as a workforce, or “God’s army”…. People have been noticing we aren’t attending our Ward very often lately, which has been actually quite positive as my wife described the impact the repeated bullying, including gagging and attempted binding and forcible confinement of my daughter, threats of shootings, being picked up by her ears etcetera. People were aghast as they weren’t aware. We affirmed that we are not moving, that we will be in the Ward on a lesser basis, and that until the culture changes, my daughter and I will be holding Sunday School at the rear of the building one-on-one.
The more I find my own way in this church, the more I realize that members have a lot of control and power over their experience. We can attend whatever Ward we want to attend, and all they can do is threaten to take away TR’s or not give you callings. For some, this is not a big deal — particularly when there are systemic problems in the Ward. And voting with your feet certainly sends a strong message about the need for change when it’s done without fanfare and with solid reasons, as well as an open commitment to return to the Ward should the environment change.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.