Surprise meeting with Bishop

[Anonymous]

This makes me have hope there is a Bishop somewhere who is kind. I know there are, they just seem so far away. Thanks for sharing.

I find myself preparing conversations in my head and rereading quotes to make sure I don’t buckle. Maybe I won’t have to use them, pretty sure I will.

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed reading this. Thanks, Roy.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Roy.

God bless the good Bishops of the world. They carry a heavy burden, and so many do so without complaint and with real love.

[Anonymous]

I began this thread when I was laying the groundwork to baptize DD 2 years ago.

It is now time to prepare for DS’s upcoming baptism.

I scheduled a meeting with the bishop a few weeks ago but it was postponed until recently. I went to the church building a few minutes early and was the first person to meet with bishop.

Initially he made some light inquiries into how work was going and if I might soon have Sunday’s off. I explained to him that there may indeed be some changes at work soon that will increase my work load but give me weekends off – so it is a double edged sword.

I then told him that Roy Jr.’s baptism is coming up. I explained to him that because of the winter weather and the failing health of DW’s parents we have opted to hold the baptism in Utah where they live. I reminded him that we had discussed using Skype to broadcast DD’s baptism (two years ago) to allow them to see it but that request had been denied. We are also planning to ask my FIL to play a more active role in the process by doing the confirmation. (because I do not have a TR and the CHI implies that one should have one for confirmation – I thought this concession might prevent possible roadblocks to the approval process. I did not share that rational with my bishop.)

I told him that we already have the building scheduled in Utah and that the bishop from there has requested my bishop to contact him. Bishop said that he would give him a call and that such was standard procedure when one bishop has geographical jurisdiction but another has worthiness jurisdiction over some participants.

He then told me that he would like to meet with me again in October and that we would also do the pre-baptism interview for DS at that time. I asked if we would be present for the interview of DS and he responded “generally not.” I told bishop that my son is socially awkward and may find the meeting overwhelming. He went into fair detail about what the questions may be so we can prepare DS. Bishop told me that he skips the chastity related questions.

Then things turned to tithing (it always does…). Bishop invited me to become a full tithe payer. I thanked him for the invitation. He came up with a litany of reasons why I should pay tithing. 1) because it is the only commandment that I can obey perfectly. (I nod – even though I have no desire to be “perfect” and there are some big assumptions about what it means to pay perfectly when the exact standard is between you and the Lord) 2) because to hold some calling require holding a TR. (I told him that I was hoping to go back to primary when my work schedule changes and he heartily agreed that I would be welcome there) 3) because God is withholding blessing that He really wants to bestow. (I stay silent) 4) because DW and I need to go to the temple for our individual spiritual and marital health. (I concede that DW would love that) 5) because trying to pay tithing just prior to a child’s wedding is discouraged and may backfire. (I stay silent, I really have no plans to do that but Bishop makes it sound like it is a common attempt)

Many of these justifications were tone deaf when considering the main reason why I do not pay tithing that I explained to bishop two years ago. (the reason is a disillusionment with the tithing=blessings model)

I realized two things. 1) that bishop might not remember why I do not pay tithing. 2) that bishop is giving me reasons why he finds it important to for him to pay tithing. This is perfectly ok in itself. I just need to be aware that he is speaking from his perspective and would be limited in his capacity to understand mine. It would be counterproductive to challenge his assumptions.

The meeting ended well. I brought things back around to the baptism. I will see Bishop again in October. There never was any suggestion that my ability to baptize DS would be tied to tithing payment. There may come a day when this bishop or a replacement bishop becomes more insistent and confrontational about tithing – but for now I prefer to keep things pleasant with a spirit of goodwill.

I plan to prepare DS for his interview by reminding him that his baptism is an important step to show his desire to follow Jesus. I do not plan to make it about the LDS church.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

He asked me why I would obey all the other commandments and not this one. I responded that I believe the gospel habits make me a better person or at least don’t hurt me (in the sense that abstaining from drinking coffee and tea doesn’t make me a better person). Payment of tithing could help me be a better person (if done for the right reasons) but the cost would be so great that it might be smart to find other less expensive ways to exercise generosity and humility.

Brilliant!!! I chuckled when I read this one…!

Quote:

At one point he invited me to pay tithing once more and then paused for my response. I told him that I was thankful for his concern, I felt that it was genuine. I told him that I wasn’t going to commit to anything on the spot but that I would discuss it with DW and make it the subject of thought and prayer.

Good answer. Great answer.

Quote:

At one point he asked me how I felt about the plan of salvation? I told him that I was in favor of it and then asked if he could be more specific. He asked if my testimony of the plan was stronger, weaker, or about the same as it was before we lost our daughter. I told him that my knowledge and certainty was gone, but that I did have hope and faith (which is a hope for things unseen).

Another great answer. My daughter calls it a “swerve”. I have to confess that as he probed these questions I had the words MayDay! MayDay! Mayday! running through my mind. I feel that you were in a situation where if you gave a wrong answer he might have revoked your ability to baptize your daughter.

Quote:

He asked me if I would object to having a calling (not that he had one ready at the moment) and I told him that I had no objections. I was in favor of contributing if there could be a calling that would fit with my schedule (I go to work immediately after SM). I even recommended door greeter.

Another question that might have disqualified you from baptizing…good answer.

Quote:

There were multiple times when he made statements and assumptions that I didn’t quite agree with but I just nodded my head, or said “yup”. In a way it was almost as though I was dealing with a child or an older person that has had life experiences so different than mine that they are just incapable of understanding my position and polite courtesy was more important than brutal clarity. It might be said that this approach is inauthentic. I can understand why it might seem so. At a different time in my life, having the bishop to validate some of my feelings would have been a stronger need – but not so now. He is just a man, a good man trying to do his best. I no longer see him as my confessor or my judge or as a representative of my God. He is still a gatekeeper to certain administrative functions that I desire to be a part of. For those that might still see this as dishonest, that’s ok – I was never burdened with an overactive sense of honesty anyway. That might be one of my imperfections that the Atonement will make whole in the next life – I’m ok with that.

I agree with all of this. I do the same thing now, and chalk up even grossly objectionable statements as a result of lack of breadth in experiences, or just a different life paradigm.

Quote:

felt that I left the meeting with an intact relationship with the bishop, my options open, and – as a bonus – I presumably get to baptize and confirm DD.

Nice job. I have learned this lesson recently. I ticked off a public figure recently and I seemed to miss the concept that you need to make friends with people in power even when you don’t agree with them. And that you have to keep deeply divergent opinions to yourself for the sake of options and progress.

Also, you avoided putting the Bishop in the unfortunate position of having to tell you “no” to baptizing your daughter, and risking plunging you and your family into more crisis, and even jeopardizing getting your DD’s name on the church and any other spiritual blessings that go with baptism. Overall, a great example of how to talk to priesthood leaders.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Roy wrote:

“In conclusion the bishop’s wife mentioned that she has her own trial that has been ongoing for the last 10 years and shows no sign of resolution. How she would love to be released from that emotional burden and have that child “return.” I knew from my talk with the bishop that she was referencing her son that has embarked on a path of addiction and crime for the last decade.”

Wait … She LITERALLY said she would rather have her child DIE rather than have HER AS A PARENT have to deal with the burden of her child’s addiction.

How come in LDS society, this is an acceptable comment? We don’t talk this way about caring for ventilator-dependent quadriplegic children. We don’t talk this way about other burdens that life hands us.

If life is about trials, making mistakes, and learning through experiences, shouldn’t we claim our children .. No matter what their struggles?

Recently, our RS president was talking about her oldest son and his wife who have left the church. I asked if they had children. She said, “Thankfully no. It would be terrible if they decided to have children.” I had to blink for a minute, and process the statement.

So:

1 — If your child leaves the church, they should never reproduce.

2 — If your child have a drug or legal/criminal problem, it would be better for them to just die.

Wow. Hardliners ..

I like to think that as long as there is life there is hope. Once life is gone, change in this life is not possible. But until life is gone, the potential for change remains. Keep praying for change .. NOT for death.

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

Quote:

Roy wrote:

“In conclusion the bishop’s wife mentioned that she has her own trial that has been ongoing for the last 10 years and shows no sign of resolution. How she would love to be released from that emotional burden and have that child “return.” I knew from my talk with the bishop that she was referencing her son that has embarked on a path of addiction and crime for the last decade.”

Wait … She LITERALLY said she would rather have her child DIE rather than have HER AS A PARENT have to deal with the burden of her child’s addiction.

How come in LDS society, this is an acceptable comment? We don’t talk this way about caring for ventilator-dependent quadriplegic children. We don’t talk this way about other burdens that life hands us.

If life is about trials, making mistakes, and learning through experiences, shouldn’t we claim our children .. No matter what their struggles?

Recently, our RS president was talking about her oldest son and his wife who have left the church. I asked if they had children. She said, “Thankfully no. It would be terrible if they decided to have children.” I had to blink for a minute, and process the statement.

So:

1 — If your child leaves the church, they should never reproduce.

2 — If your child have a drug or legal/criminal problem, it would be better for them to just die.

Wow. Hardliners ..

I like to think that as long as there is life there is hope. Once life is gone, change in this life is not possible. But until life is gone, the potential for change remains. Keep praying for change .. NOT for death.

And let’s not forget the GA that said something like “there is no latter-day saint parent that wouldn’t rather see their child buried alive than subjected so sexual abuse” or something like that. I was a product of those days when people could say such things over the pulpit without any ripples of disagreement from the crowd.

I wonder what the equivalent statements are in our day — that are horrendous, but against which we feel no disagreement — that future generations will point at and consider people like us, today, barbarians…

[Anonymous]

Roy — wondering if you can expand on this one:

Quote:

5) because trying to pay tithing just prior to a child’s wedding is discouraged and may backfire.

Can you expand on the backfiring part?

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

2 — If your child have a drug or legal/criminal problem, it would be better for them to just die.

Just to clarify – I do not think that the bishop’s wife meant that she would want him to die but rather that she would want him to return to the church and the family the way he was before all the drug stuff. But you are correct that this sentiment still exists among us. Mormon Doctrine actually repeated the whole “It would be better for a missionary to come home in a pine box than without his virtue intact.” I believe that it was BY that said that women should fight to the death before acquiescing to be raped. I specifically had to refute that quote in a SS class. Talk about blaming the victim.

Brian Johnson talked about his MIL or grandmother in law lamenting every time she saw them that they were not strong in the church. It was like, “Hellooooo! We are right here and can hear you. We are living and rather happy and wish you could be happy for us.”

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Roy — wondering if you can expand on this one:

Quote:

5) because trying to pay tithing just prior to a child’s wedding is discouraged and may backfire.

Can you expand on the backfiring part?

He said this part both this last visit and two years ago prior to my daughter’s baptism.

He said that the Stake President is wary of people that will start paying tithing just prior to the temple wedding of a close relative (like a child). The tithing will need to be paid for a sufficient amount of time to indicate that this is a lifetime change and not just a momentary tit for tat / quid pro quo payment. The bishop will need to have met with the individual and receive assurances that the tithing will continue after the event. Only if the bishop is confident that this is to be the case will he and the SP support a recommend. If the individual begins tithing payment too late to properly establish a track record they may find their recommend request denied and they may miss out on the event.

For me personally I want to baptize my children and ordain DS to the priesthood (thus continuing on my priesthood line of authority). I am ok with the prospect of waiting outside for any future temple sealings. However, I will not tell my bishop this. He believes that the temple weddings of my kids are leverage that can be used to get me into tithing compliance at some point. It is to my benefit to not disabuse him of this notion.

In writing the proceeding I feel it makes me sound manipulative and calculating. I do not feel that way, although I can understand why it may appear that way to others. I am trying to give the bishop only the amount of information necessary to allow me to perform the baptism. My immediate goal is only a few months in front of me. What point would there be in arguing with my bishop about a hypothetical temple sealing nearly a decade away?

[Anonymous]

I have really been scratching my head on why the church does not allow sealings within days of a civil marriage. I have heard it before, but reading Roy it made me do a head-slap and say, “because some people would give up on paying tithing just to get into the temple”. Not that I had not thought about that before, but it just hit me how I think this really must be a big part of it.

[Anonymous]

There is Leadership roulette in play here as well. There are bishops and SPs who would indeed issue a TR without any commitment to pay tithing long term or pay for a certain amount of time beforehand. The question is “Are you a full tithe payer?” It can honestly be answered yes if you have paid a full tithe one time from your last paycheck. I do realize, of course, that you have no defense if the bishop or SP won’t issue a recommend based on one week’s tithe.

LH, while I see how that conclusion is reached I don’t believe that is the reason why the US marriage policy is the way it is. On the other hand, I don’t know why it is the way it is and if that explanation works for you, so be it. I am one of many who would really like to see that policy changed, I believe it serves no useful purpose.

[Anonymous]

The policy was put in place in a time when very few people were marrying people whose family weren’t church members, so there weren’t the widespread issues of exclusion that occur so often now. The waiting period was for repentance and understanding, since the large percentage of non-temple marriages were due to issues of chastity and conversion.

The policy also reflects the reality in America that religious ceremonies carry civil benefits – since people married in the temple, for example, don’t have to have a separate civil ceremony to receive those benefits. It creates a situation in which being married civilly can look to many like devaluing temple marriage for those who could marry in the temple if they chose to do so.

We live in a radically different world now, so I would love it if the policy changed to match what has to happen in so many other countries. It made sense in the past; it no longer does.

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

Wait … She LITERALLY said she would rather have her child DIE rather than have HER AS A PARENT have to deal with the burden of her child’s addiction.

How come in LDS society, this is an acceptable comment? We don’t talk this way about caring for ventilator-dependent quadriplegic children. We don’t talk this way about other burdens that life hands us.

If life is about trials, making mistakes, and learning through experiences, shouldn’t we claim our children .. No matter what their struggles?

I will reply to this as if Roy hasn’t clarified what this woman meant. I wouldn’t be so hard on her. Addiction can cause life shattering misery. We don’t know what her son has been through. I am one who sees death as a release from pain.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, you said:

Quote:

I am one who sees death as a release from pain.

My response is, who’s suffering the pain? The person with the addiction? or the family that is enduring the humiliation of their

family member? Death is the easy way out.

Speaking as one who has gone through addiction & recovery, it is a painful process. It’s suppose to be painful.

You come through the process & never want to forget. I firmly believe that I’m a better person for it.

I would never want to repeat the process. Pain can be a big motivator for change.

[Author]

Posts