- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello everyone, I felt like I had a very spiritual experience in the training for the new handbook. I heard some things and saw some changes in the handbook that I had been praying for. In fact, they came at a time when it was getting harder and harder to go on. The training has given me backup to be a greater blessing to my ward. I have more flexibility to do all I can to put family first in my ward.
Has anyone else on staylds been to the training? What did you think? Did you see these changes as significant or just lip service? Have you noticed any new changes in the handbook that you like?
I didn’t attend the training since I unceremoniously got released from a leadership calling about a year ago…..however, there were lots of positive things I heard about the training from Ray and my wife who is a Ward leader. That there was a stronger RS presence in the training, that RS can come to PEC, that more time is dedicated to Ward Council, the Ward Council having a more active role. The emphasis on family first was good. The flexibility given with home teaching was great, that fact that Teacher development/training is now the Sunday School President. The notion that pressure needs to be taken off the Bishops. That it’s not all about the numbers, that it’s about people, that greater weight has been given to letters and phone calls in contact people via home teaching. The softened stance on homosexuality, striking language about feelings being a sin and focusing on actions instead. That people shouldn’t be run ragged with Church callings. I sort of like the idea that social activities are the responsibility of Ward Council and can be assigned to specific individuals — something I did routinely within my quorum. Lots of good stuff.
Negatives — not too many. Some don’t like the extension of temple recommend status to performing certain Melch Priesthood ordinances. Myself included, however, if we were raised in the Church with that expectation, it wouldn’t feel like such a shock now. The apparent strong discouragement of vasectomy isn’t really something I feel great about. They kept the 1 year rule regarding civil/temple marraiges — that has terrible consequences for non-member families with an LDS temple wedding on their hands; I’ve experienced that first hand.
Overall, a step in the right direction.
Lip service? Time will tell. We have a strong culture of bureaucracy in the Church, and the liberality of the changes will be put to the test when Stake Presidents react to liberal interpretation of policy by their Bishops. It’s one reason I don’t want to be a Bishop; the long hairy arm of the stake, with the Melch Priesthood leaders reporting to the SP, as well as meetings crawling with High Counselors waiting to correct everyone on policy is where the true test of whether there is as much liberality as they say.
Also, every widescape policy has unintended consequences — we shall see what bulletins and updates come out over the next year or so as we respond, as an organization to these changes.
Here is the summary Ray posted and the ongoing discussion. http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1989http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1989” class=”bbcode_url”> I want to believe that it is a step in the right direction, BUT, I’m so weary of getting hopes up only to be let down again and again. Perhaps Bishop, even with all the good quotes and direction the leaders mentioned, I’m still having a tough time reconciling the part where they say all that, and then change the MP ordinations and church ordinations from “worthy” to “temple worthy.” That is extremely dangerous, IMO, will chase many moderate mormons from the ranks, and goes against everything BKP said in last Spring’s GC.
cwald wrote:Here is the summary Ray posted and the ongoing discussion.
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1989http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1989” class=”bbcode_url”> Thanks for the link cwald. Ray did a superb job summarizing the meeting and hit all the things that struck me as remarkable.
cwald wrote:I want to believe that it is a step in the right direction, BUT, I’m so weary of getting hopes up only to be let down again and again.
Perhaps Bishop, even with all the good quotes and direction the leaders mentioned, I’m still having a tough time reconciling the part where they say all that, and then change the MP ordinations and church ordinations from “worthy” to “temple worthy.” That is extremely dangerous, IMO, will chase many moderate mormons from the ranks, and goes against everything BKP said in last Spring’s GC.
That’s a tough one for me too. Just FYI, my SP made a distinction between temple worthy and holding an actual temple recommend. He said that the restriction for MP ordination would be for those “involved with serious sin”. He did not elaborate and I didn’t want him to either. So, that made me feel better and that I have some breathing room on that issue. But, I realize that not all SPs will make that distinction. For the record, my SP is pretty conservative–nice guy though.
SilentDawning wrote:the long hairy arm of the stake, with the Melch Priesthood leaders reporting to the SP, as well as meetings crawling with High Counselors waiting to correct everyone on policy is where the true test of whether there is as much liberality as they say.
Also, every widescape policy has unintended consequences — we shall see what bulletins and updates come out over the next year or so as we respond, as an organization to these changes.
Loved your analysis SD. Spot on!!
I think it is good to be cautious. Yes, we have already had a few “discussions” with the Stake and I can see the pressure you are referring to. However, the bishoprics in our stake have won a few battles already with the back up of this training on their side.
stealthbishop wrote:That’s a tough one for me too. Just FYI, my SP made a distinction between temple worthy and holding an actual temple recommend. He said that the restriction for MP ordination would be for those “involved with serious sin”. He did not elaborate and I didn’t want him to either.
So, in your opinion, as a Bishop, is the average Joe who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and drinks a beer or five on the weekend — involved “involved in serious sin?”
In your opinion, how many bishops today would agree with you on this kind of judgement?
Word of Wisdom issues are not serious sin. I view sexual abuse and physical abuse of children as one of the most serious sins. Abuse of spouse would be another serious sin. Other bishops–tough to say. Bishops truly are like judges. Judges interpret the law and we all know there are good judges that make decent decisions and bad judges that should be impeached. Same is true for bishops but you can’t impeach them–you can vote to oppose them rather than sustain them but that would be gutsy beyond beleif and I’m sure people are scared of the potential consequences.
I don’t know how many there are out there who would interpret things the way I do. I hope there are more and more.
stealthbishop wrote:He did not elaborate and I didn’t want him to either. So, that made me feel better and that I have some breathing room on that issue. But, I realize that not all SPs will make that distinction. For the record, my SP is pretty conservative–nice guy though.
This relates to the comment Bridget made in another thread about when she asked if she could use quotes of good people outside the Church, and was told No, and if you don’t like it, you can be released from your calling….or similar….I find that it’s best not to ask.
As a Bishop, I would be inclined to err on the side of leniency, and would NOT want the people above me to legislate everything down to for me; that’s one way of preserving freedom — letting general guidelines stay as general guidelines.
Sometimes we simply ask WAY too many questions. Are we driving you crazy with all our questions Ray? Perhaps its because we CARE too much as John Dehlin said in his utube video. Besides Hugh B. Brown said “He who has never doubted has never thought.” Maybe we do think too much and should lighten up. I still like this joke I read that happened in church: Church lady with a large chest gives a talk in front of the congregation. She gets emotional and starts crying through the talk. She ends with apolgizing and saying she wishes she weren’t such a big boob. Bishop, gets up and says, ‘Sister, don’t feel bad, I like big boobs.”
bridget, what I meant is that sometimes we ask questions of leaders – and they feel like they have to provide an answer – and that answer isn’t something we like or want to hear – and we could have avoided the whole situation if we simply hadn’t asked the question in the first place and just gone ahead and done what we believed was right. I didn’t mean anything about this forum and asking questions here. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
Let me give you an example from the CHI training, since the CHI is the topic of this post:
Pres. Beck told about a RS President who was standing outside a home, pacing back and forth, concerned that she hadn’t heard back yet from the Bishop about what she could do to help the sister and family in the home. She had left a message for him asking him what she could do.
Pres. Beck related that her advice to this sister was, to the best of my recollection:
Quote:You have authority in your position as a President. Do what you feel impressed to do – and then go to the Bishop and tell him what you did.
I know that the culture of the Church in the past hasn’t supported that advice, but it was said more than once that organizational presidencies in the Church need to be empowered to seek and act on their own inspiration for their own stewardships – that they need to “ask less” and “do more”. It also was said that the Bishop (and everyone else) needs to realize that the Bishop will not receive all the revelation for the ward – that all who have official responsibilities within the ward may receive revelation for their organizations (and families, in the case of parents). Again, a statement that, in some important ways, we need to ask less and do more.
That’s what I meant by saying sometimes we ask too many questions.
Oh, Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. I didn’t attend the training but DH did. He was very impressed, and I was with what I heard from him. I think there are positive steps in the right direction. I also agree with stealthbishop that we should keep expectations reasonable, and that some “judges” are better than others. Beware the hanging judge!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.