thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 Yeah, people keep forgetting about that. No you aren't suppose to write them, you are suppose to hand a note to your Bishop and then they are supposed to pass it up the line. And from personal experience and the experience of countless others....well good luck with that. Over the years I've had but one disagreement with how the Church operated in one small area of concern. It was quickly resolved to everyone's satisfaction by simply going to the person in charge of that concern. From my obvious limited experience that seems to be the norm.
rockpond Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 Over the years I've had but one disagreement with how the Church operated in one small area of concern. It was quickly resolved to everyone's satisfaction by simply going to the person in charge of that concern. From my obvious limited experience that seems to be the norm. ... as long as that person (in charge of the concern) is someone willing to communicate with you.
thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 I have no problem with solving the problem at the lowest level of authority needed to solve the problem. IE; If my Bishop can't solve the problem I'll work up the chain until it is solved. As I said I'm a bit of a prick kicker.
Stone holm Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 I have no problem with solving the problem at the lowest level of authority needed to solve the problem. IE; If my Bishop can't solve the problem I'll work up the chain until it is solved. As I said I'm a bit of a prick kicker.I have come to an easier solution, I just ignore the problem and the Church pretty much ignores me. It's a very good working relationship built on ignoring each other.
rockpond Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 I have come to an easier solution, I just ignore the problem and the Church pretty much ignores me. It's a very good working relationship built on ignoring each other. I tried that. Really enjoyed it for a couple of years and then they stopped ignoring me. (Not that they had ever truly ignored me, but a two year stint as cubmaster & primary teacher allowed me to stay quietly in the background.)
Stone holm Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 I tried that. Really enjoyed it for a couple of years and then they stopped ignoring me. (Not that they had ever truly ignored me, but a two year stint as cubmaster & primary teacher allowed me to stay quietly in the background.) Oh, well you just haven't let your political affiliations sufficiently known -- if you do that the Church tends to treat you like a leper, you just have to dodge callings as a Clerk. No Sacrament talks -- the joys of ignoring things.
rockpond Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 Oh, well you just haven't let your political affiliations sufficiently known -- if you do that the Church tends to treat you like a leper, you just have to dodge callings as a Clerk. No Sacrament talks -- the joys of ignoring things. Funny... but not with me in the bishopric... an Obama-sticker on your car will put you on my short list for sacrament meeting talks. And, I'm not a democrat.
Stone holm Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 Funny... but not with me in the bishopric... an Obama-sticker on your car will put you on my short list for sacrament meeting talks. And, I'm not a democrat. Lol...okay....point taken....I have a "I am voting for Obama and I am a Mormon" sticker on mine guess I best stay away from your Ward.
rockpond Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 Lol...okay....point taken....I have a "I am voting for Obama and I am a Mormon" sticker on mine guess I best stay away from your Ward. I think you understood what I was saying (because you know my views) but to be clear to other readers here... I wasn't saying I'd ask Obama voters to speak in sacrament meeting as some kind of retribution. I'd ask then to speak because I appreciate the diversity of voices.
Stone holm Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 I think you understood what I was saying (because you know my views) but to be clear to other readers here... I wasn't saying I'd ask Obama voters to speak in sacrament meeting as some kind of retribution. I'd ask then to speak because I appreciate the diversity of voices.That type of appreciation will get you in trouble in some Wards....lol...but my eldest son has lived in Wards like that...
thesometimesaint Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 Lol...okay....point taken....I have a "I am voting for Obama and I am a Mormon" sticker on mine guess I best stay away from your Ward. My political views are well known by my Bishop and Stake President. I refuse to have ANY bumper stickers of ANY type on my car. It's against my religion. 1
Stone holm Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 My political views are well known by my Bishop and Stake President. I refuse to have ANY bumper stickers of ANY type on my car. It's against my religion. Normally we don't, but my wife and I got so tired of being branded as social conservatives because we were Mormons, that we decided to do something about it. If we could somehow overcome the idea that all Mormons are John Birchers in Vermont, it would really help with our missionary efforts. Right now most educated Vermonters simply reject us out of hand because of our politics. It wasn't always that way, but after the SSM wars we definitely branded ourselves right out of the college educated convert market.
thesometimesaint Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 While it is true that if you lay down with dogs. You have to expect to get flees. Most people don't have all that good of memory of what some in a relatively obscure religion rant about. I think it is entirely possible to disagree with someone on a particular way a law is interpreted and still give them the benefit of the doubt about their religion.
Stone holm Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 While it is true that if you lay down with dogs. You have to expect to get flees. Most people don't have all that good of memory of what some in a relatively obscure religion rant about. I think it is entirely possible to disagree with someone on a particular way a law is interpreted and still give them the benefit of the doubt about their religion. I would agree with you if Mormonism was still a relatively obscure religion. When I was a child in the 50's and 60's, I would say that very few Americans would have been aware of what political rants Mormons were associated with, but now in 2013 most educated Americans are no longer ignorant about what political stances Mormons are associated with and to the extent any remained that pretty much got changed by the media with the Prop 8 debacle. Now although there are still a vast number of Americans who are relatively clueless as to what Mormon religious beliefs are, they tend to be very well informed about the fact that many Mormons are politically right wing. We got some relief during the primaries as the two Mormon candidates came off very sensible in comparison to their competitors (which was a pretty low bar) -- but that later got erased. So now it is more like that Mormons are known for the majority of the members political stances, than for what we actually believe. More are likely to know our opposition to SSM than are likely to know who Joseph Smith, Jr. was. The face of Mormonism is more likely to be Mitt Romney and Glen Beck, than President Monson and his counselors. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Haven't we been told NOT to write to the Brethren (Seventies, Apostles, First Presidency)? I don't doubt that some are willing to listen and respond but others have decided that we shouldn't write any of them.Could you CFR that order or commandment? Actually it is discouraged in favor of local priesthood leaders (bishop, stake pres), but there is no ban on writing to them. If they perceive that your problem is best dealt with by local priesthood leaders, they will forward such material back to your own area. So, it is unwise to send the Brethren nonsense letters. Those who have very serious matters to discuss will make their own decision on this. My own experience is that the Brethren listen to and appreciate helpful information on grave matters.
Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Could you CFR that order or commandment? Actually it is discouraged in favor of local priesthood leaders (bishop, stake pres), but there is no ban on writing to them. If they perceive that your problem is best dealt with by local priesthood leaders, they will forward such material back to your own area. So, it is unwise to send the Brethren nonsense letters. Those who have very serious matters to discuss will make their own decision on this. My own experience is that the Brethren listen to and appreciate helpful information on grave matters.Robert surely you have heard them admonish the members not to do that?
Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Could you CFR that order or commandment? Actually it is discouraged in favor of local priesthood leaders (bishop, stake pres), but there is no ban on writing to them. If they perceive that your problem is best dealt with by local priesthood leaders, they will forward such material back to your own area. So, it is unwise to send the Brethren nonsense letters. Those who have very serious matters to discuss will make their own decision on this. My own experience is that the Brethren listen to and appreciate helpful information on grave matters.See 21.1.24 General Handbook of Instructions. Discouraged from calling or writing, letters bounced back to local leaders. Sending inquiries up through channels is by and large a waste of time.
rockpond Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) See 21.1.24 General Handbook of Instructions. Discouraged from calling or writing, letters bounced back to local leaders. Sending inquiries up through channels is by and large a waste of time. Thanks for providing the CFR. I also seem to recall a letter from the First Presidency that we read from the pulpit within the last year or two. But I don't have an archive of those to draw from so I could be mistaken. In any case, the handbook is the authority on such things. Edited November 21, 2013 by rockpond
ritcheymt Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 When I was first investigating the Church in 1993 and would come home to my father's house to find a copy of The Godmakers on the coffee table stuffed with bookmarks on pages containing issues he wanted to challenge me about, I learned an important principle. As I opened the new set of scriptures someone had given me to begin looking up the issues Dad threw at me, I stayed calm, thought of him as a partner even when he got a little aggressive, and just tried to seek the truth. What I learned there, as in the many anti-Mormon presentations on "cults" I'd been subjected to during youth conferences growing up as a Protestant, is that I could feel when the Spirit was present, when it left the room, which subjects lead to edification and which subjects produce a time-wasting stupor of thought. And while I'm not saying we're all alike and that we should all respond the same way to the same stimuli, what I've learned is that I cannot maintain the presence of the Spirit when I'm high-centered on perceived mistakes by the Church. For me, focusing on perceived mistakes by the Church leads to confusion and a stupor of thought rather than clarity and peace. I love to wrestle with problems -- I do it all day with gusto -- but I don't like to waste time on issues that produce a stupor of thought and zero edification for me. I think Satan wants us to focus on our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Christ taught us not to consider the mote without first considering the beam, and to those who would stone the woman taken in adultery, he asked first for the sinless among them to cast the first stone, and when they had left, simply told the woman to go and sin no more. Heavenly Father, I think, is not about dwelling on the mistake, especially the mistake of others, but about moving on. 4
Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Thanks for providing the CFR. I also seem to recall a letter from the First Presidency that we read from the pulpit within the last year or two. But I don't have an archive of those to draw from so I could be mistaken. In any case, the handbook is the authority on such things. Yeah they read letters like that on a regular basis. The only time that I have seen a letter to the Church Offices in Salt Lake actually bear fruit was when there was an anti-Mormon group in Indiana which was passing out anti-Mormon tracts with a cover that was identical to the old cover of paperback B of M's -- in that case the Church sent a letter advising the group that the cover was copyrighted and that they needed to cease and desist. Have never seen a letter on a doctrinal or personal issue ever bear fruit.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 I would agree with you if Mormonism was still a relatively obscure religion. When I was a child in the 50's and 60's, I would say that very few Americans would have been aware of what political rants Mormons were associated with, but now in 2013 most educated Americans are no longer ignorant about what political stances Mormons are associated with and to the extent any remained that pretty much got changed by the media with the Prop 8 debacle. Now although there are still a vast number of Americans who are relatively clueless as to what Mormon religious beliefs are, they tend to be very well informed about the fact that many Mormons are politically right wing. We got some relief during the primaries as the two Mormon candidates came off very sensible in comparison to their competitors (which was a pretty low bar) -- but that later got erased. So now it is more like that Mormons are known for the majority of the members political stances, than for what we actually believe. More are likely to know our opposition to SSM than are likely to know who Joseph Smith, Jr. was. The face of Mormonism is more likely to be Mitt Romney and Glen Beck, than President Monson and his counselors. We're the Boomers. Most are completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of LDS live outside of the US, and that those members don't give a rats behind about American politics. I'm a kinda of a language purist. Words have meanings. Marriage is a religious construct. So by definition It can be only a religious union between a man and a woman. So I agree with the Church on its definition of marriage. That being said I think we handled the Prop 8 debate rather poorly. California already had Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. Those met all the legal requirements to be a marriage in all but name only. I have nothing against the religion of Beck and Romney. Politics is another question.
Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 We're the Boomers. Most are completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of LDS live outside of the US, and that those members don't give a rats behind about American politics. I'm a kinda of a language purist. Words have meanings. Marriage is a religious construct. So by definition It can be only a religious union between a man and a woman. So I agree with the Church on its definition of marriage. That being said I think we handled the Prop 8 debate rather poorly. California already had Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships. Those met all the legal requirements to be a marriage in all but name only. I have nothing against the religion of Beck and Romney. Politics is another question.True, right up until we start trying to export our politics as well. I believe Pres Uchtdorf's approach about being careful about doing that is a sound admonition.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 See 21.1.24 General Handbook of Instructions. Discouraged from calling or writing, letters bounced back to local leaders. Sending inquiries up through channels is by and large a waste of time. Chain of Command to borrow a military phrase. Most issues can and aught to be solved/resolved at the local(Ward) level. Very few of us have issues broad enough in applicability that the General Authorities must become involved. Long gone are the days when any member could walk up to Joseph Smith to get a question/issue resolved. As I said I've had only one issue that couldn't be resolved at the local level, and had no problem going high enough in the Church structure to get it resolved.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 True, right up until we start trying to export our politics as well. I believe Pres Uchtdorf's approach about being careful about doing that is a sound admonition. Man is a political animal was said a long time ago. Both religion and politics are unavoidable, but I do try to keep them separate in my public life. Pres. Uchtdorf is a very wise man.
Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Chain of Command to borrow a military phrase. Most issues can and aught to be solved/resolved at the local(Ward) level. Very few of us have issues broad enough in applicability that the General Authorities must become involved. Long gone are the days when any member could walk up to Joseph Smith to get a question/issue resolved. As I said I've had only one issue that couldn't be resolved at the local level, and had no problem going high enough in the Church structure to get it resolved. I don't really have a problem with that, except people keep posting how easy it is to contact a GA and how willing they are to respond, etc etc. Actually, I don't have much of a problem with it at all, as I pretty much ignore what is coming out of Salt Lake anymore and trust in the local members to keep me in line -- I have confidence in them.
Recommended Posts