- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Had an interesting experience in our Ward last week. Our Bishop produced a document called ‘AChieving Exhaltation” or similar in which he listed 40 things we should be doing. It was basically the list of some of the basic temple recommend commandments, and more. But he expanded well upon beyond what I, and most others, felt was appropriate, even giving how often a person should perform certain commandments….. For example, keeping the Sabbath Day meant a lot of things including “not watching TV”. WoW meant “eating fruits and vegetables and exercising at least twice a week” and also “abstaining from caffeinated drinks”. “Performing service for others twice a week”…etc. Of the 40 items, I think 18 of them were things I would consider matters of personal conscience and judgment.
Our High Priest Group Leader, a multi-time Bishop and stake calling holder multiple times devoted HP Group to discussing one of the items — the caffeinated drinks item. He pulled out the article from the church website we’ve been discussing regarding PR, and quoted the part that caffeinated drinks are not part of the WoW. However, he said he supported the Bishop’s laundry list (although he didn’t call it that) saying “the Bishop can challenge us to go beyond the stated requirements for a TR if they want”. And that what wanted everyone to know he was supporting the Bishop, and was only qualifying the list since we have been asked to distribute the list to all our home teaching families and he didn’t want to imply it was all official declarations from the Church. Plus we have a non-member in our HPG, which I’m sure influenced his commentary.
I wanted to share this as a how our HPGL handled what I felt was micro-management and the confusion of personal philosophy with current policy or even doctrine. Our HPGL supported it, while qualifying it and correcting any implications some might infer from it.
I think he went a bit beyond the mark in asking the quorum to distribute the list to their HT families, but nonetheless, this is how he dealt with what I felt was a case of questionable church leadership.
Comments?
I believe heartily in supporting our leaders by helping them avoid mistakes. Perhaps this HPGL later had a private talk with the bishop to point out the folly of such a list as this. Perhaps not. Either way, I can see a gung ho bishop produce such a list with good intentions; however… Although I might agree with many items on this list, (including a positive approach to the WoW), it is nothing but a hedge around the law. These things can backfire, bigtime. Having a church full of people who descend into mental health problems because they feel guilty over tiny things is one unavoidable result, IMO.
I believe that we can all individually be called to live a higher law by the Holy Spirit when God feels we’re ready; but it comes through an individual prompting that does not apply to others. Turning these promptings into a list and handing it out is at best asking others to live commandments that were meant to be individual, and at worst teaching for doctrine the word of man.
SilentDawning wrote:Had an interesting experience in our Ward last week. Our Bishop produced a document called ‘AChieving Exhaltation” or similar in which he listed 40 things we should be doing.
It was basically the list of some of the basic temple recommend commandments, and more. But he expanded well upon beyond what I, and most others, felt was appropriate, even giving how often a person should perform certain commandments….. For example, keeping the Sabbath Day meant a lot of things including “not watching TV”. WoW meant “eating fruits and vegetables and exercising at least twice a week” and also “abstaining from caffeinated drinks”. “Performing service for others twice a week”…etc. Of the 40 items, I think 18 of them were things I would consider matters of personal conscience and judgment.
I think he went a bit beyond the mark in asking the quorum to distribute the list to their HT families, but nonetheless, this is how he dealt with what I felt was a case of questionable church leadership.
Comments?
I support them the exac same way I support my boss at work. One of those ways is positive feedback to things that aren’t working or unproductive in what he is trying or doing. I am open and honest on both what is working or not working. I say it in the best positive way that I can. Sometimes the things are way off and harmful to employees at times and I gently let him know I can’t follow him down that route if he chooses to do so, even though I support him as manager. Supporting doesn’t mean disregarding my virtues.
I find this particularly interesting because I talk to my Orthdox Jewish friends about hedging(we call it fences and fences around the fences, and fences around the fences around those fences etc.) It is a common theme in which Vhrist calls the Pharisees out all the time on in the NT. Were I find it ironic is we do it a lot just like in this case. This is where I see Christ calling “missing the mark”. We have lessons on how the Pharisees are wrong in doing this and that Christ was right for pouting it out yet when we do it “it is righteous”. It’s almost like silently saying “the Pharisees are wrong for doing it but when we do it it is ok because we are gods true church. In reality there isn’t a difference here in what the Pharisses were doing and this list. When I talk to Orthdox Rabis they use the same reasoning and logic as what you just heard. They labsl it as how righteous are you? Righteous enough for fences or righteous enough for fences on the vences, or perhaps super righteous in which you make fences on the fences on the fences of those fences of those fences. Are we being any different then that here? Are we being different then the Pharisses in this example? When I can’t tell the differnce between the reasons, logic and arguments for such I begin to wonder.
I like the HPGL’s approach, generally. Personally, I would have talked with the Bishop after the meetings and explained my concerns about the things on the list about which I felt uncomfortable – and the whole list-making approach. I would have told him I was talking with him privately because I support and sustain him in his calling and have no desire to challenge him publicly – but I also would tell him that I can’t distribute the list to others in good conscience, since I simply don’t agree with some of the things on the list. I would tell him that, as my local leader, I think he deserves to know that I feel so strongly about it and why – and to know upfront why I don’t be doing all of the details of what he was asking. I would tell him I appreciate the principle of it and his obvious concern for me and everyone else, but that I just couldn’t accept it and still follow the dictates of my own conscience.
I would say all of that quietly, gently and meekly – with a smile on my face at the end.
it helps a lot, as I’ve said in other threads, that everyone knows I’m an active, believing member. I have the type of chapel cred needed to say something like that, in the right way.
I tend to agree with Ray. I personally would have gone in private and shared my concerns. I might have found a way to use a Sunday lesson to broach the subject of commandments that are black and white and those that are matters of conscience. Funny thing, I had just taught that VERY THING the week before in HP Group regarding the Sabbath Day, indicating that it will be different for each family on matters such as TV, music, etcetera, and even the level of rigorous activity. I also said that many commandments are a matter of conscience, and there is room for personal judgment given the diversity of circumstances that people have. We can’t cover them all with rote rules… So, to find this list distributed in the Sac meeting right after my lesson last week was an interesting coincidence….almost like I inoculated the flock before exposing them to a partial virus…(a bit of a harsh analogy but you get the idea). And then to find it a topic of discussion in our HP Group this Sunday was also interesting.
I most certainly would not have asked to hand it out to HT families. I took copies out of respect for the HPGL but they will not be distributed to my own HT families.
Sounds like legalistic pharasicial apostasy from the local leadership to me. I would not have supported him and would have spoken up….so other members would know that false teachings were being presented as doctrinal truths. This has to end if the bleeding is to stop.
Perhaps that is why church is not working for me at this time. Nothing good would have come from it if I had been attendence.
I can only hope local leaders will listen to Uchdorf…their own prophet…and correct the course that so many church members are careening down.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
SD, I think the Bishop is concerned about your teachings and opinion, and is starting to perhaps “innoculate” the members against you? Just my opinion.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
SilentDawning wrote:… Our Bishop produced a document called ‘AChieving Exhaltation”… saying “the Bishop can challenge us to go beyond the stated requirements for a TR if they want”….
Comments?
And he would be going in direct opposition of the prophet’s counsel in doing so.
This has to end.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
As someone who has been very guilty of personalizing things in the past, I can say with pretty good judgment that I don’t think it was directed against me. If it was just me, I think my priesthood leader would have spoken to me about it, or the Bishop would have…to publish a list and have the entire ward distribute to HT and VT families in the Ward is overkill to correct a lesson to 10 people on one Sunday. And as you have said before Cwald, I’m moderate — I don’t offend at church (at least, not yet). I’m very careful to preserve my ability to go back into full activity/TR-holding at any time if I want.
Perhaps this is a matter of how one views “authority”. When I was a child I viewed it someone who was higher then me. As an adult I see it as neither someone higher or lower, just with a different job. I don’t see jobs as more important or less important. All are important, just different. We all depend on each others support to do each of our jobs effectively. We are all interwoven. We all need each other from the page to the squire to the knight to the king. Sometimes we lose sight of that. So this is how I personally carry all my relationships from family to friends to work to church now. Interdeendent with different but equal jobs that support one another. cwald wrote:SilentDawning wrote:… Our Bishop produced a document called ‘AChieving Exhaltation”… saying “the Bishop can challenge us to go beyond the stated requirements for a TR if they want”….
Comments?
And he would be going in direct opposition of the prophet’s counsel in doing so.
This has to end.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
He wasn’t saying that he was elevating the TR Standards though — he was saying that he was encouraging us to live beyond them, to stretch us. That, at least, is how the HPGL reframed the list. I personally believe the list is the Gospel according to the Bishop, without necessarily attaching it to the TR process….but I agree, he was out of line and distributing it without explanation, and expecting everyone to follow it was a mistake for his leadership.
It’s sad when bishops get a little authority, as they suppose… I would be quite direct in private meetings with both the bishop and HPGL on this matter. They could pass out the papers to HT, and I would throw them in the trash.
What is it about “whoso declares more or less than this as my doctrine cometh from evil”
The “whoso declares statement” is an accident waiting to happen as it gives absolutely no room for continuing revelation. SilentDawning wrote:The “whoso declares statement” is an accident waiting to happen as it gives absolutely no room for continuing revelation.
IMHO, Not so. It simply clarifies that there is the “doctrine of Christ” and then there is “church doctrine and rules” and there is a vast difference between the two. Continuing revelation shouldn’t change the core ‘Doctrine of Christ”, but may be relevant for counsel.That said, is the Bishop’s counsel consistent with the simple, plain and precious “doctrine of Christ” or is it going beyond the mark.
I am happy you are able to be positive about this SD. I respect your view…even if I don’t share it. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.