mormonnewb Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 12 years ago or so, I taught, at least as I can recollect the same message that is contained in the Race essay when a young black male was asking questions in EQ, or I tried to, and I tried to keep it to LDS sources when I did. Most of the EQ at the time seemed to accept the message as a whole.A year and a half ago as the issue was brought up in EQ, I referenced the essay and talked about it a little. There were a couple of fellows who objected to the use fo the essay when the questions were asked, and not one had read it, at the time. I was glad the questions were asked and the essay was referred to then, but later I found out that some objected. Someone told the bishop on me, as it turns out. I teach Youth Sunday School, so for the next few lessons in both EQ and Youth SS I had a member of the bishopric with us, because they were concerned. I was not released and they did not specifically address the issue with me, other than one reference from the Bishop.As I see it, there are plenty of members who fear information, questions, unorthodox ideas. But such fears are unwarranted, as I see it. And to try and cultishly control things like some do, is a problem.The article in the paper draws concern from me. I too wonder why such a thing is found in the paper. I thought it was just me who had "handlers" assigned to him when he teaches. Every other month or so, I teach my EQ lesson to my fellow elders and some member of the stake presidency or high council. For a while, I thought I was auditioning for a new calling as stake jester, but I guess they were just concerned about possible heresy ... from me? Who would have thunk it?
ALarson Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Yeah, the no comment was pretty disappointing.I agree, but maybe they're trying to get more information before they respond. Hopefully the church leaders will realize that they need to do more to get the essays "out there". I still know of Bishops that at least claim they haven't heard about the essays and some who are aware of them, but haven't read them yet. Edited May 5, 2015 by ALarson
Thinking Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 It sounds like he went to the media, which people react to more than they probably would otherwise because now everyone knows what happened Is going to the media a bad thing?
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 This is my favorite LDS quote of the week, so far. However, the week is long and so I'm sure that someone (other than me, of course) will say something dumber by Thursday. Certainly, I've found that the best way to learn from my past mistakes is to simply forget all about the years in which I made them (and even if you don't think the ban was a mistake, you must concede that the explanations for it were mistakes ... read the essay). We can't simply cherry pick through history like my 8-year-old eating dinner at night. We actually have to eat a lima bean or two from time to time. Even better, is that the bishop gave this "counsel" to a man married to a black woman and a father of four (adorable) half-black children. Did he really think that this man would be comfortable with simply sweeping a century of racism under the rug? If this guy only thinks about how race affects his "babies" half as much as I do, it is still A LOT. I'm surprised that he didn't turn to his local leader and say, "Bishop, please!" I'm even more surprised that the Church isn't be more proactive in its PR efforts here. I don't know if they are aware or not, but this Church has an image issue with regards to race. Let me be more clear for those of you who went to BYU Idaho -- everyone thinks we are racist (yes, I'm teasing BYU-Idaho). But here is the headline that jumped off my FB feed this morning: This Mormon Sunday school teacher was dismissed for using church's own race essay in lesson With a picture of this man and his black wife and their four children. What's next? Is Cliven Bundy being invited to speak at the next GC? And the Church's response is "No comment"? Really? How about a comment like: "I know this looks bad, but we're really working on this whole perception of us as bigots"? Or how about saying ANYTHING? "No comment" is what you say AFTER be arrested for solicitation during Super Bowl weekend. It isn't what you say if you are genuinely interested in ridding yourself of your scarlet "R" (assuming that the Church really wants to). I'm not going to impute sinister motivations to the Church, or anyone in the Church. However I do believe that some in the Church are not comfortable discussing the race issue in a Church setting. It could have been handled a lot better by everyone concerned. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Is going to the media a bad thing?It might be. It depends on your intent and the veracity of what you tell them. I'm a media type, and I know that people often try to manipulate the media. And they all too often succeed. 2
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 I agree, but maybe they're trying to get more information before they respond. Hopefully the church leaders will realize that they need to do more to get the essays "out there". I still know of Bishops that at least claim they haven't heard about the essays and some who are aware of them, but haven't read them yet. We can hope. I long for a day when people feel comfortable actually sharing things pertaining to the welfare of their souls at Church. 1
ALarson Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Do we know if it was the teacher who went to the media about this? Maybe it was some ward member(s) who were unhappy about his release.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Do we know if it was the teacher who went to the media about this? Maybe it was some ward member(s) who were unhappy about his release. That may well be. I'm not familiar with the circumstances.
Popular Post ERayR Posted May 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 5, 2015 I thought it was just me who had "handlers" assigned to him when he teaches. Every other month or so, I teach my EQ lesson to my fellow elders and some member of the stake presidency or high council. For a while, I thought I was auditioning for a new calling as stake jester, but I guess they were just concerned about possible heresy ... from me? Who would have thunk it? Every time I teach in my HP group there are at least one former stake president, two or three former stake presidency counselors, four former bishops and sometimes a current member of the stake presidency. They must really be keeping an eye on me. 6
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Do we know if it was the teacher who went to the media about this? Maybe it was some ward member(s) who were unhappy about his release. In all honesty, if it happened as he describes, I don't blame him for going to the media. In fact, I very much appreciate it. I won't people in the church to be free to discuss "issues" and am not happy to hear a bishop is hoping to keep information from youth. 4
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Every time I teach in my HP group there are at least one former stake president, two or three former stake presidency counselors, four former bishops and sometimes a current member of the stake presidency. They must really be keeping an eye on me. Sounds intimidatin'.
Nevo Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Yeah, the no comment was pretty disappointing. The Church didn't comment on "the handling of the Sunday School incident"—which is completely appropriate. It did, however, issue a statement reiterating the importance of the essays: "[The Church] has communicated the value of these essays in many ways, including direct correspondence to priesthood leaders. In addition, church-owned media, social-media sharing and Facebook have been effective in making these essays more widely available. The essays are also translated into numerous languages." 4
thesometimesaint Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Every time I teach in my HP group there are at least one former stake president, two or three former stake presidency counselors, four former bishops and sometimes a current member of the stake presidency. They must really be keeping an eye on me. That was pretty much my experience as a HP group teacher as well. I could never figure out if they were there to keep an eye on me, or if I was there to keep an eye on them. 2
Popular Post mormonnewb Posted May 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Do we know if it was the teacher who went to the media about this? Maybe it was some ward member(s) who were unhappy about his release. Either way, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, unless the primary issue is "tattling." By the way, if it is, I'm more than happy to discuss that as well, but I think we need to go back to the First Tattler -- the person who complained to the bishop in the first place. (Here's a little hint: If you have a problem with something that I've said or done, then come to ME first. If we can't work it out, THEN you can run to the Bishop like a little ... never mind, I forgot what board I was on for a second). However, tattling aside, the larger issue seems to be our reluctance to deal with the race issue. Or is our thought that if we just ignore it, everyone else will forget about it? It hasn't been working for us for the last 37 years, but hey, maybe Year 38 is going to be our lucky year. Edited May 5, 2015 by mormonnewb 5
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 The Church didn't comment on "the handling of the Sunday School incident"—which is completely appropriate. It did, however, issue a statement reiterating the importance of the essays: "[The Church] has communicated the value of these essays in many ways, including direct correspondence to priesthood leaders. In addition, church-owned media, social-media sharing and Facebook have been effective in making these essays more widely available. The essays are also translated into numerous languages." Yeah that's good, but I guess I disagree with it being completely appropriate. I'd rather see something like, "if an instructor feels it appropriate to discuss the essays, and issues like race and the priesthood, then he/she should be free to do so, without interference from local authority". Or something like that. But I realize we'd not see anything like that from the Church in this era. Maybe someday. 1
ERayR Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 However, tattling aside, the larger issue seems to be our reluctance to deal with the race issue. Or is our thought that if we just ignore it, everyone else will forget about it? It hasn't been working for us for the last 37 years, but hey, maybe Year 38 is going to be our lucky year. I agree in principle but probably not in detail. 1
JulieM Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) The Church didn't comment on "the handling of the Sunday School incident"—which is completely appropriate. It did, however, issue a statement reiterating the importance of the essays:"[The Church] has communicated the value of these essays in many ways, including direct correspondence to priesthood leaders. In addition, church-owned media, social-media sharing and Facebook have been effective in making these essays more widely available. The essays are also translated into numerous languages."Then why are there still ward and stake leaders who haven't heard about or read the essays? What information and instructions were in the "direct correspondence to Priesthood leaders", does anyone know? Edited May 5, 2015 by JulieM 4
stemelbow Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Then why are there still ward and stake leaders who haven't heard about or read the essays? What information and instructions were in the "direct correspondence to Priesthood leaders", does anyone know? I would say leaders seem to be aware, in my experience, that the essays are there, but many are not aware of the issues involved, or the content of the essays, generally. I think the Church can send messages to leaders to make them aware, but they can't force leaders to read them, or understand the issues involved, if they do read them. But you ask a good question. I'd like to know too. Edited May 5, 2015 by stemelbow
HappyJackWagon Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 I agree, but maybe they're trying to get more information before they respond. Hopefully the church leaders will realize that they need to do more to get the essays "out there". I still know of Bishops that at least claim they haven't heard about the essays and some who are aware of them, but haven't read them yet. I recently brought the essays to the attention of a Bishop in our Stake who is also a CES Director. He didn't know about them. The church is certainly capable of mobilizing a PR campaign (think Meet the Mormons) yet many in the church don't know about the essays. They clearly didn't want to draw attention to them, but put them out for those who were seeking. It's often assumed that the church doesn't comment because they are keeping confidences. That is true in some cases but in others it is simply because they don't have anything positive to say. The church doesn't want to 2nd guess a bishop who may have made a silly decision. They don't want to defend the previous race policies. They want it to go away, hence, "no comment". Like someone else mentioned, I hope they can become savy enough to realize that "no comment" isn't a positive strategy. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Then why are there still ward and stake leaders who haven't heard about or read the essays? What information and instructions were in the "direct correspondence to Priesthood leaders", does anyone know? The direct correspondence they are referring to was a letter that was placed into the communications library. Bishops have the opportunity to go into the library and see what is new out there. It wasn't a physical letter mailed to Bishops and they didn't even receive a notice that there was something they needed to review. It all depended on whether or not the Bishop proactively went to this online communications library, scrolled through dozens of notifications, found the essays message, and then read it. Poor communication channel. 2
ERayR Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Then why are there still ward and stake leaders who haven't heard about or read the essays? What information and instructions were in the "direct correspondence to Priesthood leaders", does anyone know? Because unlike us denizens of the internet most of them have real lives. You know jobs, families and Church callings. 4
JulieM Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Because unlike us denizens of the internet most of them have real lives. You know jobs, families and Church callings.Um, ok. Of course I know that! But they received "direct correspondence" from Salt Lake. One would think that would carry enough importance that they'd at least take the time to read the essays. That's all I was saying here.And again I ask if anyone knows what instructions or information was in that correspondence to Priesthood leaders or is that too confidential to post here? Edited May 5, 2015 by JulieM 1
rongo Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 nice unfounded well poison. Not really. Not at all, actually. Who goes to the media upon being released from a calling? Who does that? It's not unfounded to find that there has to be a backstory to this beyond "I used the essays on lds.org to answer a difficult question and got released." 1
JulieM Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 The direct correspondence they are referring to was a letter that was placed into the communications library. Bishops have the opportunity to go into the library and see what is new out there. It wasn't a physical letter mailed to Bishops and they didn't even receive a notice that there was something they needed to review. It all depended on whether or not the Bishop proactively went to this online communications library, scrolled through dozens of notifications, found the essays message, and then read it.Poor communication channel.Oh wow, thanks HappyJackWagon for the information.No wonder many leaders aren't familiar with the essays! 2
Recommended Posts