- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
I have certainly felt used, taken advantage of and unappreciated by others in the church, SD. And I have felt my opinion was not valued and worse, invalidated.I am not at all certain any of that was intentional nor am I certain that from others’ points of view they see it the same way.
I rarely, if ever think indifference, or even sometimes, what we feel is leadership abuse, is intentional. And clearly, others don’t see their behavior the same way we do. If they did, many of use would feel a lot more accepted than we do in our wards. In fact so much of what we discuss here is how to navigate meetings with priesthood leaders who can’t even begin to see our point of view.
But I do believe our emphasis on covenants, basic job descriptions that come with certain ordinances/covenants create this assumption that we should just serve for its own sake, without any need for validation, consideration, and sometimes even respect. This is what my friend said to me a couple weeks ago — that what I call “the conscription model of service” is partly a result of the obligations associated with the covenants we make.
I remember when I was really hurting about 20 years ago, I explained what had happened to me, and how it had affected my commitment to hold a TR recommend. The Bpric members initial response was “what abou8t the covenants you made??” . His first jump was that regardless of what you’ve experienced, you made a promise, so we expect you to keep it.
The part that gets me is that you make a covenant once in your lifetime, and are held to it for eternity. There is no allowance for growth, change, reactions to life experiences that influence your testimony or credence of those covenantsetcetera. Some of us made baptismal covenants at 8 years of age. We now have the eyes of adults. Is there allowance for that? Some of us made temple covenants in our early 20’s or late teens, but with age, have seen sides of the church that seem not to make it worthy of our unquestioning obedience and commitment.
But leaders will hold covenants over your head simply to get you to do things they want, to serve the organization. I’ve seen that over and over again. And they WILL take you for granted. Object, and you’re in the dog house….one reason so many of us are unwilling to share our true feelings, doubts, etcetera with local leaders.
I don’t disagree with that, SD. I do think that at least where I live there is some softening and understanding that people see things differently. I’m not the only one on our high council who recognizes that there are a variety of reason for people to turn down a calling and we often have the discussion about whether or not an individual will accept a calling (sometimes related to very active members). That’s not to say we also don’t have some hardline HCs, we do, and they will make comments like those you allude to – we’ve made covenants, home teaching is part of our priesthood responsibility and they can’t just say no, etc. Their point of view is different from mine, and I’m OK with that whether they are or not. I clearly don’t see the covenants the same way they do. Perhaps it’s because I’m about as lightminded as they come. I am at the point, and have been for some time, where it doesn’t matter to me what they think. I like Ray’s “you call me, you get me” line. I used that when called to the HC. If you don’t like what I stand for and how I’ll do the job, then don’t call me. If after I’m in the job you don’t like what I’m doing, release me. No matter what, I’m going to do what I think is right and what’s right for me and I’m neither going to apologize nor be upset about it (at least not for very long).
We recently had a conversation (council) about overburdened organizations and people. The more hardline SPC just came out and said we don’t have to do everything and to simplify or even eliminate (or at least put on a back burner forever). I think that’s solid advice.
SD presses LIke button :thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.