Libs Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Yes, I listened to Abby Huntsman's story, a couple of times. We don't really know exactly what her Bishop said...and, maybe, things have changed, a bit, since that happened? Would a Bishop, today, call a young woman in, if he discovered she was dating a non-member? Maybe? But, I've never, personally, known that to happen, and I have known young women dating outside the faith. When you live outside of Utah, LDS men are not that plentiful.
Sleeper Cell Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 As others have pointed out, we only have Sister Huntsman’s side of the story -- and probably even more important -- we don’t know if the bishop’s comment was the only factor, or merely the last straw.From her description of events, it doesn’t appear that the Bishop was telling her how she needed to live her life, nor did he threaten any church sanctions. At worse, it seems that he was giving her unsolicited advice on how she needed to live her life. Perhaps she felt that the bishop was high pressuring her, while the bishop thought he was merely expressing his love and concern.I thought that it was part of the bishop’s job description (and that of the pastor of most other churches) to give advice and counsel (hopefully, inspired counsel) to the ward members. Likewise, I thought it was part of the job description of each church member to decide whether or not it was truly inspired, and whether or not they would follow it.Indeed, what good is a church or church pastor who will only tell me what I want to hear?On the other hand, calling her in for such a discussion after only three weeks of dating seems a bit heavy handed. It is also possible that the bishop could have been more sensitive to her reaction and backed off before things got out of hand.In any event, I am thankful that I will never be called to be a bishop. I cannot imagine being in a position where I felt that I had to watch every word and action for fear of inadvertently offending a good and decent person and driving her out of the church.The closest I ever came to being in a bishopric was ward clerk. And I have never heard a story about someone leaving the church because they didn’t like the ward clerk.
Libs Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Our Ward Clerk was my HT, so I suppose he could have run me out of the church. Thankfully, he wasn't the kind to give unsolicited advice.
Garden Girl Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Okay... let's just take Sis Huntsman's words as she told her story...."...I just kind of get emotional about it, because for a bishop to tell me how I needed to live my life, and I would or would not be blessed because of it, was very difficult, and I know that I am one of many, many different women that go through experiences like that."First of all, a bishop is responsible for his congregation and it is incumbent upon him be familiar with them, and to pray for guidance in how to counsel them when needed. He told her he had been thinking about her situation and was concerned for her and her life... and so how do we know he wasn't inspired to call her in and give her counsel... important counsel... yes, about how she would be foregoing blessings in her future according to choices she may or may not make... Of course, being enamored with the young man, she didn't want anyone telling her what she didn't want to hear... that's human nature... and so she gets "offended" that her bishop would deem it his responsibility to offer his counsel... so what if it was unsolicited... and why should he have pulled back from his counsel... everything he said was true... and so she has cut off her nose to spite her face, and guess what... she is going to miss out on a lot of beautiful blessings because of it. And who knows, had she not gone off in a huff but continued with the young man and to attend church that he might have joined her in attending and perhaps even converted in the future. Happens all the time.I know what it is like to ignore counsel... I married my wonderful non-LDS husband, and we were very happy... but I became inactive although the Spirit tugged at me through the years until I finally had to tell my husband that I just had to return to Church... thankfully that good man supported me in my decision. I do think he was surprised at my TBMness... he died 3 years after I reactivated and judging by the way he helped me with callings, to attend temple, invite sister mishes over for dinner, I think he would have eventually converted (I overhead him tell a friend that if he ever joined a church he supposed it would be the Mormon church). Well, I am sealed to him now... GG
Duncan Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 my ysa bishop for two years after my mission sounds like this Bishop. I shake my head what he said to me and to others. He would tell everyone going to the Temple what all happens in there and it freaked people out and two people complained to the Stake Pres. and he shut him down. A Bunch of other stuff. His wife was nuts and they had a bad relationship so I suspect he delved so into others' lives to escape his own and to get away from his wife without divorcing her. A bunch of other stuff happened to but I won't go into it.
blackstrap Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 " the church is true,otherwise the missionaries would have destroyed it years ago..." occasionally applies to bishops,stake leaders,and home teachers.(as well as some relief society ladies.)
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 My only criticism of the show was that the members spotlighted were not really very typical, i.e. a mixed-race family that apparently eschews cold caffeinated drinks; ... I submit that part is more typical than you think. To this day, I eschew caffeinated soda, and it has everything to do with my Mormon upbringing. In times past, it has been officially discouraged by the Church, even though it has never meant the denial of a temple recommend or hindered one from holding a calling in the Church. Soda with caffeine is not sold in the Church Office Building or -- unless things have changed -- on the BYU campus. Besides, the husband in the report admitted he has a Dr. Pepper once in a while, so it's not as though they are exemplifying slavish abstinence. And interracial couples are fairly common in the Church today. I was delighted to see one spotlighted on national television, especially as exemplary as the Jacksons.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Okay... let's just take Sis Huntsman's words as she told her story...."...I just kind of get emotional about it, because for a bishop to tell me how I needed to live my life, and I would or would not be blessed because of it, was very difficult, and I know that I am one of many, many different women that go through experiences like that."First of all, a bishop is responsible for his congregation and it is incumbent upon him be familiar with them, and to pray for guidance in how to counsel them when needed. He told her he had been thinking about her situation and was concerned for her and her life... and so how do we know he wasn't inspired to call her in and give her counsel... important counsel... yes, about how she would be foregoing blessings in her future according to choices she may or may not make... Of course, being enamored with the young man, she didn't want anyone telling her what she didn't want to hear... that's human nature... and so she gets "offended" that her bishop would deem it his responsibility to offer his counsel... so what if it was unsolicited... and why should he have pulled back from his counsel... everything he said was true... and so she has cut off her nose to spite her face, and guess what... she is going to miss out on a lot of beautiful blessings because of it. And who knows, had she not gone off in a huff but continued with the young man and to attend church that he might have joined her in attending and perhaps even converted in the future. Happens all the time.I know what it is like to ignore counsel... I married my wonderful non-LDS husband, and we were very happy... but I became inactive although the Spirit tugged at me through the years until I finally had to tell my husband that I just had to return to Church... thankfully that good man supported me in my decision. I do think he was surprised at my TBMness... he died 3 years after I reactivated and judging by the way he helped me with callings, to attend temple, invite sister mishes over for dinner, I think he would have eventually converted (I overhead him tell a friend that if he ever joined a church he supposed it would be the Mormon church). Well, I am sealed to him now... GGThank you for sharing your story, Garden Girl -- and for your sensible words. The Church has always urged its members to marry within the covenant for reasons that pertain very much to eternal happiness. A bishop that did not make certain his flock understood this would be neglectful. In this we are not so very different from most other faith groups, which also discourage interfaith marriage, for practical as well as religious reasons.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Edit: I have to add that it was kind of "lying for the Lord" when the church official was asked why the blacks were denied the Priesthood until 1978, the gentlemen answered that "we don't know why". But that's not quite true, even my struggling TBM husband was the one to speak out on that one.The "gentleman" is a member of the Seventy and the recently called Church Historian and Recorder. With all due respect, I think he is more qualified than you to express the position of the Church on this matter. And he did express that position accurately.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 The closest I ever came to being in a bishopric was ward clerk. And I have never heard a story about someone leaving the church because they didn’t like the ward clerk.Thank you for recognizing a ward clerk is not a bishopric member. Some are confused on this point. Regarding calling her in after three weeks, don't you think it's better to act early on in the relationship, before emotions make rational judgment more difficult?
rpn Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 No I don't think it is better to call someone in early. I think the "calling in" was part of our whole natural response to teach and correct and protect. Happens all the time in families when youth NEED love. Wasn't it pres monson who said teens need fewer critics and more _____ (don't recall the word he used)? The bishop had to have known that this kiddo had first hand knowledge of what happens when you marry a non-member, and had been taught the gospel. What is the point of calling an adult on the carpet to repeat it (and to argue how awful it is when she has had more experience on the point than him). (And, yes, I know I don't know the bishop's side of this.)
GingerRed Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Yes, I listened to Abby Huntsman's story, a couple of times. We don't really know exactly what her Bishop said...and, maybe, things have changed, a bit, since that happened? Would a Bishop, today, call a young woman in, if he discovered she was dating a non-member? Maybe? But, I've never, personally, known that to happen, and I have known young women dating outside the faith. When you live outside of Utah, LDS men are not that plentiful.Exactly!! I would like to hear that Bishops side of the story! I'm not going to just take her word for it. She could be quoting him out of context, or twisting his words around etc. Some of what she said could be false, depending on what she really meant.......like "and I couldn't go back"...is she talking about not being welcomed back in? Or did she mean, she felt like she 'couldn't go back' because of the animosity between them now.....the whole interview with her is just sad, really.
Judd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 I doubt that had things been said differently that Huntsman's daughter would somehow be active. What I don't understand is the push for understanding from the church and being more accepting, loving, and forgiving of weaknesses, but then the long-ago actions, off-handed comments, or follies of church members aren't even considered in the discussion as something that can be viewed upon with love and forgiveness.
rpn Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 And if yourdh believes we DO know why the racial ban happened in thechurch, I'd like to know his sources. Because there is a record of committees appointed several times during church history to figure that out without finding it. Mortals, being human, have stepped in their their own explanations, but that isn't history. That is speculation. Why is refusing to speculate or repeat speculation "lying".
Sleeper Cell Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Thank you for recognizing a ward clerk is not a bishopric member. Some are confused on this point.Regarding calling her in after three weeks, don't you think it's better to act early on in the relationship, before emotions make rational judgment more difficult?Perhaps. As I said, I have never been a bishop and am thankful that I will never be called to that position. One of the reasons is that I am very reluctant to offer unsolicited advice (or even solicited advice) to an individual about her personal life. Doing this, of course, is one of the primary duties of a bishop (perhaps, in some ways, the primary duty).(On the other hand, I have no problem with offering unsolicited -- and less than tactful -- advice to the elected officials of my small town -- but that’s a different story).I must shamefully confess that my first reaction to your thoughtful comment was the obvious snide comeback (another reason why I will never be called as a bishop). However my momentary obnoxiousness (fortunately repressed) did lead me to ask whether we can find an even better way to act before emotions can cloud judgment. For example, before the interview.Maybe we could teach the youth (and maybe, not just the youth) a little about some of the dilemmas a bishop can face. For example, a generalized scenario could be based on elements of Sister Huntsman’s story (suitably modified to hide her identity) and some of the reactions in this thread. Such a scenario could be made the basis for a class discussion. This would be an extremely challenging lesson to teach. Among other problems, the instructor would have to avoid the “blame game” and focus on a conscientious bishop who is trying to do his best and a sister who appears to be a decent person.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 No I don't think it is better to call someone in early. I think the "calling in" was part of our whole natural response to teach and correct and protect. Happens all the time in families when youth NEED love. Wasn't it pres monson who said teens need fewer critics and more _____ (don't recall the word he used)? The bishop had to have known that this kiddo had first hand knowledge of what happens when you marry a non-member, and had been taught the gospel. What is the point of calling an adult on the carpet to repeat it (and to argue how awful it is when she has had more experience on the point than him). (And, yes, I know I don't know the bishop's side of this.)How do you know she was an adult at the time? (The Huntsman daughters are not very old.)As a membership clerk, I know that it is the duty of the bishop to conduct semi-annual private interviews with youth in the ward (one of the twice-yearly interviews can be delegated to a counselor). Dating and relationships potentially leading to marriage are very much appropriate matters for discussion in these interviews, it seems to me. And how do you know the interview was not conducted with a spirit of love, concern, respect and gentle correction and warning? Often, there is resentment regardless. (And I'm speaking in generalities here. Obviously I don't know the backstory in this instance. Neither do you and neither does anyone participating in this discussion from what I can tell.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Perhaps. As I said, I have never been a bishop and am thankful that I will never be called to that position. One of the reasons is that I am very reluctant to offer unsolicited advice (or even solicited advice) to an individual about her personal life. Doing this, of course, is one of the primary duties of a bishop (perhaps, in some ways, the primary duty).Indeed. And I don't see that what little can be known from this incident forces the conclusion that the bishop acted improperly or unwisely. We'll never have the opportunity to hear the full story, because bishops have a solemn obligation to keep such things private and confidential, even when someone else doesn't.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2012 Posted August 25, 2012 Oh, yes, I know that it is strongly encouraged to marry within the church. I think that's an understatement. Just saying, that marrying outside of the church, doesn't always mean that one will be forever "deprived of the blessings" of the church....which is what Ann Huntsman, claimed, her Bishop told her. That could have reference to having offspring who grow up faithful in the Church and worthy of eternal family sealing within the covenant. In my own case, I shudder to think how difficult it would be to raise children in today's world who were faithful to gospel principles if I did not have a wife who was also dialed in to that objective.And I doubt the bishop was talking in terms of a permanent deprivation of blessings. He was probably speaking of greatly increased risk. It would be irresponsible of him not to give that warning.
cinepro Posted August 26, 2012 Posted August 26, 2012 That is putting our blessings contingent upon the actions of someone else.Blessings are contingent on the actions of someone else all the time.Maybe in an eternal, long-range view sense of "blessings" we can say things will be evened out in the end. But as far as short-term and medium-term blessings go, the actions of others can be very influential.
Libs Posted August 26, 2012 Posted August 26, 2012 I think that's an understatement.That could have reference to having offspring who grow up faithful in the Church and worthy of eternal family sealing within the covenant.In my own case, I shudder to think how difficult it would be to raise children in today's world who were faithful to gospel principles if I did not have a wife who was also dialed in to that objective.And I doubt the bishop was talking in terms of a permanent deprivation of blessings. He was probably speaking of greatly increased risk. It would be irresponsible of him not to give that warning.Perhaps. It's difficult to know what the actual situation and problem was, without the Bishop's exact words and tone, in which it was said. Maybe, he was unkind or too harsh....or, perhaps, Abby was too young and in love to really hear him. Or a little of both. Difficult to know, for sure, with only one side of the story.
rpn Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Because Abby Huntsman met her dh (then her boyfriend) when she attended University of PA, that is why I think she was an adult. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/fashion/weddings/29HUNTSMAN.html
Scott Lloyd Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Because Abby Huntsman met her dh (then her boyfriend) when she attended University of PA, that is why I think she was an adult. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/fashion/weddings/29HUNTSMAN.htmlRegardless, I don't view it as improper at all for a bishop to give warning or advice just because one is past age 18. If anything, it is more important than ever for young single adult Church members, since that is the time in life when they are most at risk for falling away.And even at my advanced age, when any bishop I might have is likely to be younger than I, I would hope he would have enough courage and concern to try to reclaim me if he thought I was headed down the wrong path.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 cinepro:How so?As it pertains to the short term, I think I see what cinepro is saying. I can illustrate with an example or two.The blessing of driving on streets and highways with minimal hazard is hindered to some degree by someone's decision to drive drunk or ingnore traffic regulations.The blessing of having my children attend school in a safe and non-threatening environment is impacted by behavior of bullies.The blessing of religious freedom could be impacted by those who agitate for the denial of tax-exempt status to one or more churches.I could go on. It's not hard to conceive of scenarios where blessings are hindered or curtailed by others' exercise of their own moral agency.
Mark Beesley Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 As it pertains to the short term, I think I see what cinepro is saying. I can illustrate with an example or two.The blessing of driving on streets and highways with minimal hazard is hindered to some degree by someone's decision to drive drunk or ingnore traffic regulations.The blessing of having my children attend school in a safe and non-threatening environment is impacted by behavior of bullies.The blessing of religious freedom could be impacted by those who agitate for the denial of tax-exempt status to one or more churches.I could go on. It's not hare to conceive of scenarios where blessings are hindered or curtailed by others' exercise of their own moral agency.You have a rather expansive view of what constitutes a blessing. Not that you are wrong, but I thing some might scoff. If I, using due care, cross the street without getting hit by a car, is that a blessing? At what point does free agency come into play?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.