- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
He also might have seen the enormous response and decided he needed to take a step back and talk with John personally. He’s a relatively new Stake President, and he might have thought he understood the situation better than he realizes now. People generally will assume whatever they are predisposed to believe. It’s all speculation, so I choose to be happy about the change and not try to guess exactly why it might have happened.
I’m pleased with the word “de-escalation”. And I hope they spare John the hassles of another round of “investigations” as he calls them. Thanks for the reference, hawkgirl. 🙂 I don’t have any firsthand knowledge on the de-esclation, but since we’re playing the speculation game, I suspect the (new) SP thought John intended to resign when John indicated that he didn’t want contact because his (new) bishop was being a bit of a tool after he had met weekly with his previous bishop and been through enough really. So, misunderstanding, SP calls for him to either resign or to convene a church court to do it for him, probably based in part on poor understanding from the (new) bishop. John’s statements of surprise indicate that the situation is different than the SP was led to believe. Again, total guesswork. Was church HQ behind it? Not sure. But the SP might have thought it was more cut & dried than it was, either from information received from above him or below him or both. The de-escalation may support the theory this is a local initiative and not necessarily initaited by SLC — assuming the SP didn’t act out of line and was “encouraged” to initiate the de-escalation by SLC. I have also found that on certain issues, the SP will contact someone higher up when they feel they are in a situation that is unusual or high profile.
mom3 wrote:I hope I don’t put you in jeopardy. PM me if you want. Good luck.
It turned out to be nothing more than a simple “rescue” attempt.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
cwald wrote:mom3 wrote:I hope I don’t put you in jeopardy. PM me if you want. Good luck.
It turned out to be nothing more than a simple “rescue” attempt.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Did it work?
DarkJedi wrote:cwald wrote:mom3 wrote:I hope I don’t put you in jeopardy. PM me if you want. Good luck.
It turned out to be nothing more than a simple “rescue” attempt.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Did it work?
No.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Not necessarily. In the letter the SP offered to meet with John and John requested the meeting. I continue to believe that the vast majority of local leaders are good men just trying to do what they think is right. I think he may see that talking to John, especially since they have never met, is the right thing to do especially given the gravity of the situation.Just another perspective on this. I recently attended a training the stake presidency had with bishops (no, I’m not a bishop but I won’t go into the circumstances that found me there). Among other issues discussed were disciplinary councils. Our stake president (a real nice guy by the way) said that it had been made clear to him by those above that bishops and stake presidents that refuse to hold such councils will be released from their callings. Obviously, I don’t know what the circumstances are regarding this recent development but it doesn’t have to come down as a direct order from SLC. The policy in place already puts some pressure on individuals in these positions. And if the circumstances are public, they may feel they have to do something about it or risk consequences of a removal from their position.
Gerald wrote:Just another perspective on this. I recently attended a training the stake presidency had with bishops (no, I’m not a bishop but I won’t go into the circumstances that found me there). Among other issues discussed were disciplinary councils. Our stake president (a real nice guy by the way) said that it had been made clear to him by those above that bishops and stake presidents that refuse to hold such councils will be released from their callings. Obviously, I don’t know what the circumstances are regarding this recent development but it doesn’t have to come down as a direct order from SLC. The policy in place already puts some pressure on individuals in these positions. And if the circumstances are public, they may feel they have to do something about it or risk consequences of a removal from their position.
Very interesting. That certainly puts perspective on some things I’ve seen locally.
Sounds like a nice “out” for a tired bishop.
cwald wrote:DarkJedi wrote:cwald wrote:It turned out to be nothing more than a simple “rescue” attempt.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Did it work?
No.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk[/quote]
The questions was really rhetorical, but I also expected you to answer!
Gerald wrote:Quote:
Just another perspective on this. I recently attended a training the stake presidency had with bishops (no, I’m not a bishop but I won’t go into the circumstances that found me there). Among other issues discussed were disciplinary councils. Our stake president (a real nice guy by the way) said that it had been made clear to him by those above that bishops and stake presidents that refuse to hold such councils will be released from their callings. Obviously, I don’t know what the circumstances are regarding this recent development but it doesn’t have to come down as a direct order from SLC. The policy in place already puts some pressure on individuals in these positions. And if the circumstances are public, they may feel they have to do something about it or risk consequences of a removal from their position.Honestly I think my bishop might welcome a release at this point.
It’s part of the calling. Even though I want it done only when there is no question it is needed as a last resort, someone who refuses to do it shouldn’t be in that position. It becomes a semantics debate but I could see that communication causing a stressed out BP to err on the side of caution. That’s to say that they’d be so worried about the SP’s comments that even minor issues become reasons to hold disciplinary councils. I think those who are only asking questions don’t need to worry about being disciplined. KATE KELLY WENT WAY BEYOND ASKING QUESTIONS. She: 1. Founded an organization
2. With teachings that are not in line with church’s teachings
3. That seeks to recruit followers
Quote:Today, Sunday, 17 March 2013, is the 171st anniversary of the establishment of the first Relief Society. In the Relief Society minutes, we read that Joseph Smith said that the Relief Society would be a “Kingdom of Priests.” He also literally ordained its first female leaders. In the same minutes, Emma Smith is described as being set apart but not ordained, with an explanation by Joseph Smith that Emma had already been ordained and therefore did not need to be ordained again, but merely set apart for this particular calling. Joseph Smith described the Relief Society as one that would be analogous to the male priesthood organization. We wish to mark this significant day in history with our own act, and the
founding of another women’s organization: Ordain Women… In a church that cherishes the value of restoration, we hope to encourage our leaders to restore women to their rightful place as leaders and priesthood holders. Ordain Women is committed to making our faith a place where we can live up to our full divine potential, and we believe that the only way women will be able to have genuine equality and live up to this potential is by being able to be ordained to the priesthood.
…We ask the brethren to bring to fruition our beloved prophet Joseph Smith’s original vision for the Relief Society sisters to over 7 million female members of the church today. We ask that women be ordained and participate fully in all levels of service within the church….
Join us, as equality missionaries, in making our plea heard. –
http://ordainwomen.org/organizing-the-women-after-the-manner-of-the-priesthood-2/
I highlighted the words about founding an organization and seeking recruits. Some teachings I see that are not in line with church teachings are:-Emma Smith was ordained to a priesthood office.
-It is their right to hold the priesthood.
-Women cannot be considered equal until they are ordained to the priesthood.
-Joseph Smith intended for women to hold the priesthood.
*I am not saying I agree or disagree with those teachings. They are things that appear to me to be not in line with church teachings.*
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.