- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been thinking about this topic for a little while now. We recently had a Temple Recommend Interview. I don’t know why I get a TR, I never use it to go to the Temple. Maybe because I’m expected to get one.
Plus, it’s the only time I really have a conversation with the leaders of our ward & stake.
During the interviews, they ask the standard questions.
I like to mix things up from time to time. My answers sometimes are not always orthodox.
When they ask if I wear the garments as instructed in the temple. (The letter of the law). I don’t say yes as expected.
So, I have to say no. I won’t wear them to the Doctor’s office, to the gym, to go swimming, certain medical reasons or when going to
the hospital, etc. In every case, the Bishop & the SP say they don’t either.
Then the conversation shifts away from the letter of the law, to the spirit of the law.
They will then quote from President Nelson, who said that
we should review our own circumstances & prayerfully make a decisionas to what we should do.
Another time, I was being treated by my Doctor for some form of pain. (I don’t remember the specifics.) I do remember complaining
about the medication I was given. It made me very tired. So tired that it affected my ability to drive & work. The Doctor said that I
should drink coffee in the morning to counter the effects of the medication, or she could give me another (expensive) pill to counter
the side effects of the first. It never occurred to me that you could use coffee for medical purposes.
Shouldn’t we always review our own circumstances and prayerfully make decisions as to what we should do in life?
Or, is it more important to follow the leadership & apply the letter of the law?
For me, I have & always will, make my decisions based upon my own situation & prayerful consideration.
There is an interesting theory/observation made by Gretchin Rubin about people is that they tend to fall into 4 general patterns of behavior (labeled as “tendencies”) observed in responding to expectations. External Expectations– Standards of others about one’s behavior (Fidelity and WoW are examples) Internal Expectations– Personal Standards (New Year’s Day Goals for example) Broad Strokes Classification: Upholders– This group was born to meet external and internal expectations consistently. Questioners– This group is great at meeting internal expectations, but not necessarily external expectations. Obligers– This group tends to meet external expectations, but not necessarily internal expectations. Rebels– This group tends to reject expectations in all forms (both the external expectations of others and setting and meeting internal expectations). EXPLICIT EXAMPLE: Ministering (Quasi-Controversial:) )
Upholders– Run the system as implemented (gaining comfort form the external validation) and have less patience for innovation or non-participation (internally validating their expectation and judging others). Questioners– Tend to define the system rules to work for them and have more of a “good enough” approach. Obligers– May or may not meet an external expectation, but don’t necessarily have or need an internal expectation. Rebels– Across the board will not participate unless it is meaningful to them. May or may not reject participating at at theoretical level even. The church community goal is to deal with as many “Upholders” and “Obligers” as possible to ensure the work gets done, manage the “Questioners” to ask the right questions for innovation without loss of labor, and to shame the “Rebels” out of the group (because they are so hard to motivate).
The leadership tries to balance encouraging “strict obedience” because it benefits the Upholders and Obligers with periodic “spiritual inspiration” comments to give power back to the members. Plus, not all leaders have the same tendencies or perspectives.
These tendencies are just that – a weighing of options so that more often a specific type of option shows up. These are general habits of an individual over time, or more like, “more often then not” statements. FYI: I am most likely one of the “Questioner” category most of the time because I am more likely to follow the expectations I set myself and twist external expectations into my internal expectation. However, I come across very much as also being an “Upholder” because I do generally meet external expectations and I like “rules”. Wonderful explanation, Amy. When I was a missionary, I was accidentally kicked in the groin during a p-day soccer match. My testicles hurt for several weeks after that and turned noticeably bruised (black and blue). It was uncomfortable to sit down. Even worse, I found a painful lump that I don’t think was there before.
I emailed my best friend back in the states and asked for his mom (an RN) to give me her medical opinion. (we were not permitted to use email at this time.) She recommended that I get checked out by a urologist.
I tell all this to my MP and he makes the arrangements for me to be seen. The doctor tells me that the lump is scar tissue but that it should not impact my ability to father children later on (big relief). I then go to the mission office where the MP has asked for a report and I share with him the good news.
He then somewhat gently chastises me. He says that, as MP, he has a pretty good sense about these sorts of things but because I went around mission authority to seek medical advice and that advice was to be seen by a urologist – his hands were effectively tied.
:wtf: You mean to tell me that the MP had a feeling (spiritual inspiration) that it wasn’t serious and would have preferred to have me take some ibuprofen, wait out the pain and discomfort, and possibly worry for years about my ability to father children?I dutifully acted contrite until I left the mission office with my companion.
I do not blame my MP. He was trying to exert control over several hundred young people distributed in various rural areas of a foreign country and some of his only tools to maintain control were shame and guilt.
However, in this case the MP was annoyed that I had sought an outside opinion because it limited his ability to control the situation. I believe that he might have sought to control the situation in a way that was not in my best interest. As the mission president, he might be considering the lost half day of productivity and medical fee for the checkup. But if I was his biological son, I imagine that these considerations would wash away and he would have erred on the side of having me seen by a medical professional.
I feel that this situation has, in retrospect, been instructive for my relationship with local church leaders. They are focused on what is good for the ward or the church generally and not primarily focused on what is good for me individually. It is up to me to set boundaries. I give what I can give and do what I can do freely and without expectation but I am very wary of doing more than this.
You can call this “spiritual inspiration” if you wish, I like to think of it as self-care.
Something is fishy in his response. 1. He could have not authorized your going to a doctor rather then setting up the bureaucracy to provide the medical care.
2. How is it on you that he felt bound by your seeking out an initial medical opinion informally for your situation before contacting him and following the procedures to get the care?
NOTE: If anything, he should feel good feelings towards you because you worked out on your own a way to get some preliminary information before requesting his attention (and resources) to resolve the injury.
3. If he is anything like the mission president I have, he took your medical concern to his wife who actually did the executive functioning to match up the church insurance to a medical professional in your area (and maybe even the scheduling and related logistics). So, his in-interview time and attention and the 5-10 minutes to delegate the actual responsibility to someone else is worth chastising you for?
Yes, he would have probably preferred that you not have a medical situation on his watch that required any of his attention:) BUT that is what is he was paid the generous stipend to administer:)
Quote:They [the church leaders who are administering the unit] are focused on what is good for the ward or the church generally and not primarily focused on what is good for me individually.
– These are the same leaders that benevolently insist that “they know best” about what should happen equally on the unit and individual levels – up until they don’t. It doesn’t take much to find a topic outside their league of “knowing best” – which is pretty much taking the abstract doctrinal framework (as understood by the leader) and applying it to the pastoral side of living – disability, divorce, abuse, trauma, identity dynamics, conflict resolution, lifestyle priorities (non-church based – the church will tell member lifestyle priorities at the drop of a hat).
AmyJ wrote:
– These are the same leaders that benevolently insist that “they know best” about what should happen equally on the unit and individual levels – up until they don’t. It doesn’t take much to find a topic outside their league of “knowing best” – which is pretty much taking the abstract doctrinal framework (as understood by the leader) and applying it to the pastoral side of living – disability, divorce, abuse, trauma, identity dynamics, conflict resolution, lifestyle priorities (non-church based – the church will tell member lifestyle priorities at the drop of a hat).
I am big on the “individual adaptation” clause in the family proclamation. Why wouldn’t we want members to adapt general principles to their individual circumstances? In Sunday School a few years ago, I brought up the “individual adaptation” and how wonderful it was that we can essentially be taught correct principles and then govern ourselves.
The teacher, a former stake leader, pushed back stating that we should be careful thinking that our circumstances excuse us from following the gospel path as strictly and earnestly as we otherwise might.
I understood his message to be that for a small subset of people, the traditional nuclear family is impossible and if you belong to these groups then your bishop can be merciful and release you from the expectation – but be very careful of deciding for yourself that you qualify to “individually adapt” lest you enter into apostacy.
It’s pretty maddening. Let people live their lives and form their families and provide financially and parental nurture the best way that they can.
MM in the OP referenced garment wearing. My wife has a condition HS or hydrogenitis that garment wearing and even bra wearing exacerbates. This has resulted in multiple surgeries over the years to remove abscesses. She was medically advised to reduce layers and increase airflow and she told this to her bishop who essentially gave her permission to follow medical advice. When I had my faith crisis, I stopped paying tithing. Because I was the sole income provider, DW felt that my not paying tithing was also her not paying tithing and felt an obligation to push me into becoming a better man by paying. When she met with the bishop, he said something like “Your tithing is separate from your husband and is acceptable. As for pushing him to pay his tithing, let’s give him some time and space.”
In both of these scenarios the bishop gave permission to lighten up and DW has held to that authoritative permission for years afterwards. Everytime that DW is in conversation about these topics she brings up how the bishop at the time gave her permission to individually adapt.
I’m just at a place where I’m starting to wonder if God/Jesus would want us to seek permission for everything and not trust our own judgement.
Roy wrote:
I am big on the “individual adaptation” clause in the family proclamation. Why wouldn’t we want members to adapt general principles to their individual circumstances? In Sunday School a few years ago, I brought up the “individual adaptation” and how wonderful it was that we can essentially be taught correct principles and then govern ourselves.
In theory, “individual adaptation” of church doctrine or culture isn’t problematic. In practice, a respectable amount of members take comfort from abiding by the rules rather then refining the rules to create a life worth living.
The real problem with “individual adaptation” is that when it is properly wielded, it gives members autonomy to decide for themselves how to live the rules rather then bolstering the church organization’s autonomy to dictate the rules to the members.
EXAMPLE: Tithing.
Assuming “individual adaptation” allows the member to determine where they are going to pay tithing and how much. The church that allows for “individual adaptation” allows for the “Gross vs Net” determination and in theory would allow “tithing” to be paid to other organizations to count for the community credit of being law-abiding. For a lot of members (especially in leadership), donating to a food bank (following Malachi to provide a social net) is not the purpose of tithing (and they think that the LDS version does it better).
Roy wrote:
The teacher, a former stake leader, pushed back stating that we should be careful thinking that our circumstances excuse us from following the gospel path as strictly and earnestly as we otherwise might.I understood his message to be that for a small subset of people, the traditional nuclear family is impossible and if you belong to these groups then your bishop can be merciful and release you from the expectation – but be very careful of deciding for yourself that you qualify to “individually adapt” lest you enter into apostacy.
It’s pretty maddening. Let people live their lives and form their families and provide financially and parental nurture the best way that they can.
One of the things I have found interesting is how “family oriented” our church is to make and create linear connections between individuals and pass on a legacy. It matters who the parents are, who got married, ages, etc. But while the majority of us have blood relations and legal relations that we hang out with, there is a whole lot of “found family” and friends that aren’t defined as “family” in LDS terms.
The “traditional nuclear family” as talked about in the Proclamation says nothing about the handicapped extended family who live with you (except in the “death or disability” clause), the friends who are closer to you than your siblings, and other family formulations such as at dorms, etc.
I understand that part of the “Proclamation” was an to attempt to write out why gender (and man-women marriage family structure) was doctrinally important during the start of the governmental/legal de-coupling of gender and marriage (pun quasi-intended, you’re welcome). I also mourn that women were not included in writing the document at the time – I think some paragraphs and sentences were clunkily written to highlight aspects of family structures and omit other aspects of family structures because it was a fairly homogenous male panel of writers trying to define policy & doctrine.
When it comes to strict obedience, I don’t find much opportunity for growth in the model: Entity A: Do this.
Entity B: Okay.
I find more learning and growth in the model:
Entity A: Do this.
Entity B: Why?
Entity A then goes on to teach the reasoning behind the request and entity B can decide whether that reasoning is sound or whether it applies to their situation.
LDS narratives have the story about Adam and Eve, how they offered sacrifice without even knowing why, just out of strict obedience. After they had shown that they would be obedient they were blessed with the knowledge behind why they were commanded to offer sacrifice.
It’s a good story but I don’t know how well it works in real life.
Entity A: Do this
Entity B: Why?
Entity A: I’ll tell you after you do it.
It feels like a setup to get someone to do something that they might not otherwise do if they understood the reasons behind the request. I also appreciate how we’re not always in a position to understand things until later.
I’d also point out that we’ve got to crawl before we can walk. Sometimes situations call for strict obedience, sometimes they call for relying on personal spiritual inspiration. Sometimes the same situation can call for moments of both. Sometimes strict obedience can establish habits that lead to personal spiritual inspiration.
End game in Mormonism, or the end game before we watered down some teachings to fit into wider Christendom, if we’re meant to become like god, I think that means we’re meant to rely less and less on strict obedience to someone or something else and rely more and more on strict obedience to self.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.