Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[rongo]

So how should he have handled it?  

That depends entirely on what actually happened, *including* prior background, backstory, etc. 

 

I guess the reason I'm so touchy about all of this is I was set apart on Sunday to be a bishop again after about three years (different ward). I know firsthand how disgruntled or angry members can frame things and "go public" with inaccurate and misleading representations when they disagree with decisions, callings, releases, handling, etc. While there is a limited ability to respond on social media, key-holding priesthood leaders must be very careful about how they handle high profile media, and this puts them at a disadvantage over the likes of "informants" and Peggy Fletcher Stack, who can write what they want and be reasonably certain that they will be able to control the narrative. 

 

You (and others) are assuming a priori that this bishop "mishandled" this and that the account in the article is true and accurate (and not misleading). I see much reason to assume otherwise.

[mormonnewb]

The one-sided Tribune article doesn't provide enough perspective and information from the bishop's point of view for anyone to be able to rightly conclude that facts of this case are "quite clear." For all any of us know, this particular incident could have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back as a long-suffering bishop finally got to the point where he could no longer ignore rebellious and insubordinate behavior. I don't know. But one thing is for sure, it's almost always a bad idea to prematurely draw hard and fast conclusions after hearing only one side of a story.  

 

Yes, you would be quite correct if we were in a court of law rendering a verdict of guilt or civil liability.  But in the court of Internet opinion, a one-sided account is more than admissible.  Otherwise, we will never be able to again discuss an announcement made by the Church or any article in Deseret News for that matter.

 

For example, last week, there was a press release made about our beloved prophet's health (newsflash: he's getting older).  Can we believe the PR department's account?  Or must one of us interview his physician?  And do we need a signed affidavit from that physician's medical school, attesting to his graduation from said school?  You get my point.

 

Can we simply argue the issue here on the facts as presented to us?  Or do we need to convene a grand jury before we can even discuss the issue?

[rongo]

 

 

Can we simply argue the issue here on the facts as presented to us?  Or do we need to convene a grand jury before we can even discuss the issue?

Discussing it is what we've been doing, and what we're doing right now. But, you don't accept anything less than agreeing with you that the bishop "mishandled" this and that the "facts" in the article are gospel truth. 

[mormonnewb]

That depends entirely on what actually happened, *including* prior background, backstory, etc. 

 

I guess the reason I'm so touchy about all of this is I was set apart on Sunday to be a bishop again after about three years (different ward). I know firsthand how disgruntled or angry members can frame things and "go public" with inaccurate and misleading representations when they disagree with decisions, callings, releases, handling, etc. While there is a limited ability to respond on social media, key-holding priesthood leaders must be very careful about how they handle high profile media, and this puts them at a disadvantage over the likes of "informants" and Peggy Fletcher Stack, who can write what they want and be reasonably certain that they will be able to control the narrative. 

 

You (and others) are assuming a priori that this bishop "mishandled" this and that the account in the article is true and accurate (and not misleading). I see much reason to assume otherwise.

 

Can we all just agree that all of our statements are prefaced with "To the extent the facts are as presented in this one-sided (and likely false) account ..."?

 

As I see it, the question is not whether this particular bishop is in the right, but whether we should be encouraging teachers to discuss the subjects of the various essays in their instruction.  I think we can make a fairly accurate guess that SOME bishop SOMEWHERE is objecting to the use of these essays.  And perhaps, in some situations, it makes sense to do so.

 

For example, I'm not sure that they need to be taught in the nursery.  But at what age is appropriate ... 8, 12, 18, 47?  Or, with regards to the priesthood ban, do we simply say that anything that happened prior to 1978 is ancient history?  Or do we do as suggested by one person -- refuse to answer any questions but instead simply insert our testimonies of the "truthiness" of the Church?

 

I am more than willing to concede that we do not have enough definitive evidence to draw and quarter this particular bishop, but is there a larger issue to discuss here or do we need to simply close down the thread with a faith-promoting testimony of the truthfulness of MDDB?

[Robert F. Smith]

Good point!  The leaders send back all letters to local authorities.

My own experience is that this does not necessarily happen.  Letters from yokels (for they are legion) are indeed rerouted back to local leaders, but the more serious matters are taken under advisement in SLC, and nice replies are often forthcoming.

 

Furthermore, Elder Robbins made perfectly clear in last October's GC, that they aren't interested in our opinions.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng .

The encounter of a Seventy with the President of the Twelve makes for interesting copy, but has little relevance to what prophets actually do and expect.  For, both here and in the previous point, one ignores two prime features of the Mormon Church at his peril: (1) the fallibility of its leaders, and (2) the horizontal and the decentralized nature of the Church organization at the local level.

 

 

So how does one say, "Salt Lake, we have a problem!"

 

And this is a problem.  Hopefully, this family won't leave the Church over this issue because their reason for departure would only further cement an impression that is already keeping far too many black people from even considering the Gospel.

We simply need to say, like Elder Bruce R. McConkie, that 

 

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

 

The final sentence is the key (bolded), i.e., they were fallible.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

Yes, you would be quite correct if we were in a court of law rendering a verdict of guilt or civil liability.  But in the court of Internet opinion, a one-sided account is more than admissible.  Otherwise, we will never be able to again discuss an announcement made by the Church or any article in Deseret News for that matter.

 

For example, last week, there was a press release made about our beloved prophet's health (newsflash: he's getting older).  Can we believe the PR department's account?  Or must one of us interview his physician?  And do we need a signed affidavit from that physician's medical school, attesting to his graduation from said school?  You get my point.

 

Can we simply argue the issue here on the facts as presented to us?  Or do we need to convene a grand jury before we can even discuss the issue?

 

Internet opinion is worthless.

 

The health of President Monson is not a controversial topic. There is not "other side" (unless you are President Benson's grandson).

 

We can argue based on the facts presented. I think the person who went to the press is leaving something out. You will now accuse me of ignoring "the facts". Do I have to get this supposition cleared with the judge before I am allowed to bring it in?

[mormonnewb]

Discussing it is what we've been doing, and what we're doing right now. But, you don't accept anything less than agreeing with you that the bishop "mishandled" this and that the "facts" in the article are gospel truth. 

 

Isn't there an argument that the facts are as presented AND that the bishop handled the situation correctly?

[The Nehor]

The answer is 42, but I don't think that is what you are looking for, so... Douglas Adams. My towel is packed, and I will take that cookie now.

 

[mormonnewb]

My own experience is that this does not necessarily happen.  Letters from yokels (for they are legion) are indeed rerouted back to local leaders, but the more serious matters are taken under advisement in SLC, and nice replies are often forthcoming.

 

One man's yokel is another man's prophet.  Unless there is more to their background than we know, this brother and his wife would likely be considered "yokels" by the powers that be.  After all, everyone doesn't have the sway that you and I have with the Brethren (or as they insist I call them, the B-Men).  So what is a yokel to do if he finds himself subjected to bishoporial abuse (whether real or imagined)?

 

 

The encounter of a Seventy with the President of the Twelve makes for interesting copy, but has little relevance to what prophets actually do and expect.  For, both here and in the previous point, one ignores two prime features of the Mormon Church at his peril: (1) the fallibility of its leaders, and (2) the horizontal and the decentralized nature of the Church organization at the local level.

 

For one, I really think that Elder Robbins was attempting to convey a message with that story.  It was a message that was repeated several times during last October's GC (i.e., "Don't worry your pretty little heads, we got this!").  But assuming he was just looking for a none-too-flattering President Packer story, the decentralized nature of the Church creates a "bishop roulette" of sorts.  I see it all of the time with my peeps in OW.  One board member may not hear at all from his/her bishop.  Another member will get a stern talking to.  And yet another will have her TR yanked away.  Same offense -- different punishment.

 

And as for the fallibility of leaders, someone needs to send out a memo.  My bishop certainly hasn't received the memo ... and neither have half the people on this board by my rough estimate.  And I'd estimate that this would be news to a few of the Brethren themselves.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not had time to do more than glance through this thread yet, but a couple of points come to mind.

 

From my days as stake Sunday School president and ward gospel doctrine teacher, I clearly remember one principle: the bishop is ultimately responsible for the teaching that transpires in his ward. That means he is responsible to seek inspiration and entitled to receive it in carrying out that role.

 

So what does that mean?

 

First of all, as busy as he is, he needs to make it a point to acquaint himself with the curriculum materials that will or might be used in classes in his ward. If he's too busy to do that, he is just plain too busy.

 

Second, once he has done that, the teachers in the ward must bear in mind that they serve under his direction. When he makes determination that he says is inspired, they need to accept that without grumbling or murmuring, without playing the martyr and most definitely without making his job more difficult by seeking or entertaining outside publicity or interference or opening the Church up to ridicule or contempt.

Like you, Scott, I have been called and set apart at different times as a Sunday School President and as a teacher.  As President, I was very supportive of my teachers, did not order them about and interfere in their work, even though I attended all classes just to see how they were doing.  I had sincere words of praise and appreciation for them all.  As a teacher, I was never told that I had stepped out of line -- even though I freely used materials not in the manual.  The essays have come out since then, but I would not hesitate to fully utilize them today.  That's what they're there for.

[teddyaware]

Yes, you would be quite correct if we were in a court of law rendering a verdict of guilt or civil liability.  But in the court of Internet opinion, a one-sided account is more than admissible.  Otherwise, we will never be able to again discuss an announcement made by the Church or any article in Deseret News for that matter.

 

For example, last week, there was a press release made about our beloved prophet's health (newsflash: he's getting older).  Can we believe the PR department's account?  Or must one of us interview his physician?  And do we need a signed affidavit from that physician's medical school, attesting to his graduation from said school?  You get my point.

 

Can we simply argue the issue here on the facts as presented to us?  Or do we need to convene a grand jury before we can even discuss the issue?

 

Knowing I would never under any circumstances go to an anti-Mormon media outlet so as to publicly slam a Church leader, even if I believed he was in the wrong, and since the Sunday school teacher seems to have done exactly that, to my way of thinking he immediately becomes suspect. But holding him suspect is as far as I'm willing to go until more verifiable facts are known. I've learned through sad experience that the practice of jumping to what seems like obvious conclusions all too often finds one looking like a rash fool. But if I had to venture a guess, while relying on your incomplete facts method of judgment, with this one I'd say the Sunday school teacher is very likely a twit who's been rubbing the bishop's nerves raw for some time. But that's only a guess. 

[deli_llama]

Nehor,

Not only a cookie, but a cupcake with the added bonus of blue lips and a blue tongue. You sir are a man of integrity, generous beyond expectations, and should be held in the highest regard.

Maybe the SS teacher should have followed your example. No need for answers from the essays or non-answers from a testimony. Cupcakes are the only true answer to all of the world's troubling questions. I know this with every fiber of my being.

(And, the bishop would have never had to get involved. All would be well in Zion.)

[mormonnewb]

Knowing I would never under any circumstances go to an anti-Mormon media outlet so as to publicly slam a Church leader, even if I believed he was in the wrong, and since the Sunday school teacher seems to have done exactly that, to my way of thinking he immediately becomes suspect. But holding him suspect is as far as I'm willing to go until more verifiable facts are known. I've learned through sad experience that the practice of jumping to what seems like obvious conclusions all too often finds one looking like a rash fool. But if I had to venture a guess, while relying on your incomplete facts method of judgment, with this one I'd say the Sunday school teacher is very likely a twit who's been rubbing the bishop's nerves raw for some time. But that's only a guess. 

 

So our dear brother didn't act as YOU would have acted, he is now suspect?  Is this the teddyaware standard of what constitutes a "true Mormon"?  The range of Mormonism is really getting quite narrow around here recently.

 

One more thing ... when was it determined that the Trib was an "anti-Mormon" outlet?  Is that official board doctrine or just board lore?

[Robert F. Smith]

One man's yokel is another man's prophet.  Unless there is more to their background than we know, this brother and his wife would likely be considered "yokels" by the powers that be.  After all, everyone doesn't have the sway that you and I have with the Brethren (or as they insist I call them, the B-Men).  So what is a yokel to do if he finds himself subjected to bishoporial abuse (whether real or imagined)?

I had a friend who would call his bishop by his first name and freely take exception to notions the bishop had which did not comport with my friend's idea of the Church.  And he got away with it.

 

  

.................................................

And as for the fallibility of leaders, someone needs to send out a memo.  My bishop certainly hasn't received the memo ... and neither have half the people on this board by my rough estimate.  And I'd estimate that this would be news to a few of the Brethren themselves.

Unrighteous dominion is a constant totalitarian temptation and can apply to anyone, so that is always a danger.  Yet, I certainly hope that you are correct, and that only a few of the Brethren have forgotten their very human nature.

[Coreyb]

Knowing I would never under any circumstances go to an anti-Mormon media outlet so as to publicly slam a Church leader, even if I believed he was in the wrong, and since the Sunday school teacher seems to have done exactly that, to my way of thinking he immediately becomes suspect. But holding him suspect is as far as I'm willing to go until more verifiable facts are known. I've learned through sad experience that the practice of jumping to what seems like obvious conclusions all too often finds one looking like a rash fool. But if I had to venture a guess, while relying on your incomplete facts method of judgment, with this one I'd say the Sunday school teacher is very likely a twit who's been rubbing the bishop's nerves raw for some time. But that's only a guess.

Though the Trib used to be anti-Mormon, they are not these days. They are pretty objective, if you don't count the Op-eds

[carbon dioxide]

If it was me, i would have answered the question and if it lead to me being released from my calling I would have no problem with that.  It is not like I ask them for callings.  They ask me so where is the loss to me if they replace me with someone else.

[rongo]

So just to check... rather than discuss the actual topic at hand, you'd prefer to discuss the people in the story and draw your own conclusions about the people involved with a limited supply of facts? Seems par for the course from many of you.

 

Are the essays appropriate lesson material for teenagers or not? Is the church the right venue for discussing the essays?

Of course the essays are appropriate material for teenagers. Good seminary, Sunday School, institute, etc. teachers have been teaching meaty stuff since the beginning ---- without the essays. 

 

They can also be misused. They are very carefully worded so as to leave room for multiple interpretations and takes. To draw people's attention to them and point out different interpretations or possibilities within a framework of faithfulness would be appropriate in a church teaching setting. To use the essays to, say, insist that the priesthood ban/polygamy/Book of Abraham, etc. were not God's will and were huge mistakes that we just need to mea culpa and move on (and away from), would be an egregious misuse.

 

But that's exactly what those who gnash their teeth in outrage at the bishop's alleged "mishandling" see the essays as saying. And, if directed by a priesthood leader or president to teach more faithfully, these same would sputter that they were "just teaching the essays that are on lds.org, so they're approved by the Church. What's wrong with teaching the essays?"

 

It's not "teaching the essays" that's the problem. It's how they're used, and what the underlying agenda is.

Edited May 6, 2015 by rongo

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................

...................................To use the essays to, say, insist that the priesthood ban/polygamy/Book of Abraham, etc. were not God's will and were huge mistakes that we just need to mea culpa and move on (and away from), would be an egregious misuse.

................................................................  

priesthood ban/polygamy/Book of Abraham, etc.

Are all these and "etc" of the same character?  To be classed the same way?  Is that what the essays say?

 

I think that it is an admirable thing to forthrightly admit one's error and move on.  But that is quite a different matter from providing a frank discussion of a subject (which was not an error) placed in historical context for the appreciation of later generations.  The essays treat some very different issues, which are of very divergent character.  We must not ignore those distinctions.

[sdc999]

Not had time to do more than glance through this thread yet, but a couple of points come to mind.

 

From my days as stake Sunday School president and ward gospel doctrine teacher, I clearly remember one principle: the bishop is ultimately responsible for the teaching that transpires in his ward. That means he is responsible to seek inspiration and entitled to receive it in carrying out that role.

 

So what does that mean?

 

First of all, as busy as he is, he needs to make it a point to acquaint himself with the curriculum materials that will or might be used in classes in his ward. If he's too busy to do that, he is just plain too busy.

 

Second, once he has done that, the teachers in the ward must bear in mind that they serve under his direction. When he makes determination that he says is inspired, they need to accept that without grumbling or murmuring, without playing the martyr and most definitely without making his job more difficult by seeking or entertaining outside publicity or interference or opening the Church up to ridicule or contempt.

And therein lies the problem.    With that mentality, the church would then be a 'perfect' place.  If everyone would just remain quiet and never challenge the authority, things would run quite smoothly.    The church continues to have a Huge problem - communication.  They don't even communicate with their own leaders.  The fact that many on this board - members- that state that many in their own wards are unaware, is a problem.  If bishops are unaware then they are ineffective.  Ineffective leaders lead to chaos within the organization.  And this is what is going on in this ward - and probably many others.  And it's not the bishop's fault, the church is setting them up to fail with their lack of communication.  And it will continue to happen and in your words, 'opening up to ridicule or contempt.' 

[sdc999]

Knowing I would never under any circumstances go to an anti-Mormon media outlet so as to publicly slam a Church leader, even if I believed he was in the wrong, and since the Sunday school teacher seems to have done exactly that, to my way of thinking he immediately becomes suspect. But holding him suspect is as far as I'm willing to go until more verifiable facts are known. I've learned through sad experience that the practice of jumping to what seems like obvious conclusions all too often finds one looking like a rash fool. But if I had to venture a guess, while relying on your incomplete facts method of judgment, with this one I'd say the Sunday school teacher is very likely a twit who's been rubbing the bishop's nerves raw for some time. But that's only a guess. 

have you ever seen those videos where a little kid just up and pummels a big kid.  At first glance, you think that's unacceptable and then you find the big kid has been a bully.  The little kid responds in a way that he would normally never do.  Maybe the bishop is the power hungry twit that cannot manage his own ward effectively.  Someone complains and he's not strong enough or educated enough to answer them and refute them so he takes it out on the teacher. 

I was involved with a power hungry twit of a bishop once.     Although, the media would have eaten the story up, the stake president was made aware of the situation.  One of the quotes from member to the stake president, "If you want to know why people view our religion as a cult, just spend a week or two at our ward."  He was removed a short time later.

So, holding him suspect was NOT as far as you were willing to go - you ended with calling him a likely twit.  

[teddyaware]

have you ever seen those videos where a little kid just up and pummels a big kid.  At first glance, you think that's unacceptable and then you find the big kid has been a bully.  The little kid responds in a way that he would normally never do.  Maybe the bishop is the power hungry twit that cannot manage his own ward effectively.  Someone complains and he's not strong enough or educated enough to answer them and refute them so he takes it out on the teacher. 

I was involved with a power hungry twit of a bishop once.     Although, the media would have eaten the story up, the stake president was made aware of the situation.  One of the quotes from member to the stake president, "If you want to know why people view our religion as a cult, just spend a week or two at our ward."  He was removed a short time later.

So, holding him suspect was NOT as far as you were willing to go - you ended with calling him a likely twit.  

 

I was humoring poster mormonewb by playing "the game" by his own rules. Nevertheless, what is it about "I don't know" that you don't understand? Go back and reread my post and you'll see even though I was having fun with mormonewb, I made it clear that based on the Tribune story there are not enough facts to come to any conclusions. And in case you didn't know, one-time criminal "suspects" are cleared of having committed crimes all the time. And the word "likely" is a far cry from an absolute pronouncement of definite guilt. And what is it about the words "only a guess" that you don't understand? And I must say in your case It seems as if your bad experience with a former bishop has prejudiced your thinking in this matter to the point that you find it difficult to consider the possibility that the bishop may be the one who's in the right. Based on what little information there is in the article, do you believe it's possible the bishop may turn out to be the one in the right?

 

From my post: " I've learned through sad experience that the practice of jumping to what seems like obvious conclusions all too often finds one looking like a rash fool."

Edited May 6, 2015 by teddyaware

[rongo]

priesthood ban/polygamy/Book of Abraham, etc.

Are all these and "etc" of the same character?  To be classed the same way?  Is that what the essays say?

 

 

No, it isn't. But that's the use that the "pushing change" crowd put them to. I've sat down with members, at other bishops' request (testimony and apostasy issues) to talk specifically about the essays, and I point out the specific language of them. They are very carefully worded, and do *not* say what certain people say or want them to say. I think you and I agree on this.

[rongo]

  The church continues to have a Huge problem - communication.  They don't even communicate with their own leaders.  The fact that many on this board - members- that state that many in their own wards are unaware, is a problem.  If bishops are unaware then they are ineffective . . . And it's not the bishop's fault, the church is setting them up to fail with their lack of communication.  

I don't think you can lay this at the Church's feet. Each bishop/stake president has a different background, personality, temperament, etc. --- and each will emphasize different things accordingly. All have been made aware of the essays (what you call the "huge problem" of communication), but not all will want to emphasize or use them. This isn't the Church's fault. It seems like you want the Church to come out with a manual about the essays and require that they be discussed in depth on 5th Sundays or something. 

 

Some will think they are really great and lead out in discussion about them, and others will not be interested at all. But, this doesn't have anything to do with a "huge problem" of "communication."

 

The essays do not solve thorny problems by declaring anything definitively. They give background and context and offer possibilities and alternatives. Their value is thought by the Brethren (I think) to be that they are there as a resource and something that we can refer people to.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

All bishops in our stake have been asked to read all the essays and report when they are done.

 

That's great. I wish all stakes would do that. They are recognizing the need.

The essays started coming out about 2 years ago and the major essays have been completed for about 6 months IRRC. So just think if every major issue took 1 1/2-2 years to get traction in the church. The items that are most important to HQ catch on much faster than that.

Also, regarding someone elses post about bishops receiving notification when new items are updated to the communications library- Even if that is the case, which I dispute, they still must wade through many, many communications before coming across the right one. I would be absolutely shocked if any bishop reviews ALL of the communications. I don't know that its possible. Also, I've heard from many bishops that they never received any paper copy of the letter but I can't confirm that none did. For example, Stakes could have printed them off and mailed them out to bishops.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course the essays are appropriate material for teenagers. Good seminary, Sunday School, institute, etc. teachers have been teaching meaty stuff since the beginning ---- without the essays. 

 

They can also be misused. They are very carefully worded so as to leave room for multiple interpretations and takes. To draw people's attention to them and point out different interpretations or possibilities within a framework of faithfulness would be appropriate in a church teaching setting. To use the essays to, say, insist that the priesthood ban/polygamy/Book of Abraham, etc. were not God's will and were huge mistakes that we just need to mea culpa and move on (and away from), would be an egregious misuse.

 

But that's exactly what those who gnash their teeth in outrage at the bishop's alleged "mishandling" see the essays as saying. And, if directed by a priesthood leader or president to teach more faithfully, these same would sputter that they were "just teaching the essays that are on lds.org, so they're approved by the Church. What's wrong with teaching the essays?"

 

It's not "teaching the essays" that's the problem. It's how they're used, and what the underlying agenda is.

This is a point that had occurred to me as well.

 

From time to time, I see people citing the essays to claim that the Church has admitted that the pre-1978 priesthood restriction was wrong. The Church has done no such thing, and the essays don't say that.

 

So, if (and it's a big "if") a teacher is doing that in a class and is misinterpreting or misapplying an essay to back up his claim, he needs to be taken to task and even released when necessary. It won't do to protest that he is within bounds because the essays themselves are correlated and appear on lds.org.

 

 

 

Caveat:

 

Let me be clear in saying I have no reason to believe or conclude that what I have just described is what has happened in the incident under discussion here. I don't think any of us know one way or the other.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd