Sustaining- "interesting" Interpretation

[St. Bookmark]

IPod touch

[Stargazer]

IPod touch

 

I guess I nailed it, then. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Oh, gosh.  I was teaching our high priests group and came upon the R-rated movie topic.  I tried to step carefully through the notion that we shouldn't rely upon the doggoned twits on the ratings board to determine what we should or should not watch, by way of whether something is rated R or not.  But our previous bishop who is now in the stake presidency spoke up in words that clearly indicated he was speaking ex cathedra, and stomped my intended point all to pieces by affirming the "Don't watch R-rated movies" trope.  I hope my eye-rolling didn't get noticed by too many of my fellow HPs.  I decided to go the safe route and appear to sustain him by just dropping my line of attack and continuing with the rest of the lesson.

 

Later, I asked him in private if he really thought that "Saving Private Ryan," rated R, was forbidden while it was perfectly OK to watch "The Expendables 3", rated PG-13?  Or worse, "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me", also PG-13?  I say "worse" only because Austin Powers is one long sexual innuendo.  In "The Expendables 3" there are at least 500 violent murders.  At least "Saving Private Ryan" has the decency to be somewhat historically accurate (leaving aside the mission itself, which never happened).  He saw my point.  Perhaps next time this subject comes up he will moderate his stance a tad.

Great points.

 

I sent my bishop a very gentle email early yesterday. I complimented some of his intiatives and then asked for clarification on this particular teaching about sustaining. I also shared 5 reasons why I think that interpretation is problematic. I think I hit a nice balance in tone so it didn't come across as negative or accusatory. It's only been one day but I haven't received acknowledgement of the email yet. Hopefully he's considering it and isn't offended.

[theplains]

Oh my gosh, I'm in agreement with you twice in a row!  And hell hasn't even frozen over!!  Wow.

 

[mfbukowski]

What, you wouldn't like to be King of the Ward?  Long live King Alan !!! 

 

That's what it bloody sounds like, the way HJW's leaders put it.  It scares the living daylights out of me, as well.  Your Majesty.

I kind of like "Your Holiness" instead.

[hagoth7]

...Instead of making a big deal of it I thought I'd let it slide for now, except when I got home my son told us about priest quorum where the bishop taught the same philosophy of sustaining. He used it as a kind of coercion to get them all to agree to sign up for 4 hours of missionary team ups every week....

In the context of my previous post, my core question here is...what is the problem with a priesthood leader calling teenagers to set aside their Xbox for 4 hours each week in order to better prepare for a full-time mission?

[Calm]

Not all kids are spending their time on leisure activities. Depending on the time they are being asked to go out, that might be school, work, helping the family, previous commitments. It should be on a case by case basis.

[Damien the Leper]

As a serving bishop myself I can only say that this approach scares the living daylights out of me!I'm not ready to be infallible just yet!Obviously, if what this bishop and SP have said is reported correctly, it is just plain wrong in my view.

When did you become a bishop? I want to say congrats but...You know. A tough calling like that I think it is best to say good luck.

[Storm Rider]

In the context of my previous post, my core question here is...what is the problem with a priesthood leader calling teenagers to set aside their Xbox for 4 hours each week in order to better prepare for a full-time mission?

 

The outcome - serving with the missionaries - is not the problem or the issue.  It is the method used to enlist the youths' participation in assisting with missionary service.  The appearance of loss of agency is the major concern combined with the aggrandizement or characterization of  priesthood leadership. 

[hagoth7]

Not all kids are spending their time on leisure activities. Depending on the time they are being asked to go out, that might be school, work, helping the family, previous commitments. It should be on a case by case basis.

Fair enough.

[Gilbert]

The further we go up the Church chain of authority we do expect our leaders to be more accurate in their teachings but they are still mortal men and women. It sounds like two men who are perhaps a little over zealous in making a point (a critical point I might add) and may need to tweak the way they present it. I always try to give my church leaders the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions. I'm certain I have taught bad doctrine in the past and hope those listening will forgive me when my abilities to instruct don't quite match up with my otherwise righteous desires to do so.

[halconero]

Thank goodness for my Bishop. In my last ward there were some significant concerns with leadership which I brought up in my temple recommend interview with my new Bishop.

His response to me was that we are only obligated to sustain our leaders insofar as the sustain us in our emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical progress. Then he left it at that.

[HappyJackWagon]

In the context of my previous post, my core question here is...what is the problem with a priesthood leader calling teenagers to set aside their Xbox for 4 hours each week in order to better prepare for a full-time mission?

I think Storm Rider and Calm answered this perfectly.

 

I'll just add that in my email to the Bishop (which has yet to receive any response) I supported his goals and programs such as having the Priests go out with the Elders. I think it's a good thing, however, Sundays are fairly precious family time when we get together for extended meals with family. My son will have to miss those which is unfortunate. But even so, my main problem is not the end result, but rather the coersion used to get the priests to comply.

 

Somewhat ironically, we had a member of the 70 visit our area this past weekend. He used his authority as a 70 to tell the bishop that he should shave his well-maintained goatee.

 

There seems to be a systemic problem in the church when leaders feel empowered to tell someone to shave, or wear different clothing, or coerce others to doing their will based on their position. It's a little frustrating.

Edited October 19, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Zakuska]

I think Storm Rider and Calm answered this perfectly.

 

I'll just add that in my email to the Bishop (which has yet to receive any response) I supported his goals and programs such as having the Priests go out with the Elders. I think it's a good thing, however, Sundays are fairly precious family time when we get together for extended meals with family. My son will have to miss those which is unfortunate. But even so, my main problem is not the end result, but rather the coersion used to get the priests to comply.

 

Somewhat ironically, we had a member of the 70 visit our area this past weekend. He used his authority as a 70 to tell the bishop that he should shave his well-maintained goatee.

 

There seems to be a systemic problem in the church when leaders feel empowered to tell someone to shave, or wear different clothing, or coerce others to doing their will based on their position. It's a little frustrating.

 

The beard thing has always baffled me too.

 

http://i0.wp.com/www.wheatandtares.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/LDSprophets.jpg

 

It appears the first six of the first Prophets all sported beards. So did the Lord and most likely many of the original Apostles.

Your Bishop should have asked the 70... if Jesus or Peter were here today... would you give them the same advice?

Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[Stargazer]

There seems to be a systemic problem in the church when leaders feel empowered to tell someone to shave, or wear different clothing, or coerce others to doing their will based on their position. It's a little frustrating.

Well, what do you think of the rule that male temple workers must be clean-shaven? I've just asked my bishop to consider recommending me for service as a veil worker -- which, if it happens, I would be asked to shave off my mustache (if I had one, which I don't).

I do remember that when they first organized the Duesseldorf stake out of a mission district in Germany (back in the mid-70s), that the president of the Muelheim Branch had a beard. The member of the 12 who came to organize the stake, and who confirmed the branch president's call to be the bishop of the Muelheim Ward only commented to him that usually they asked for bishops to be clean shaven, but gave him permission to continue with the beard. Overnight he shaved his beard off, which when the Apostle saw that decided that he should be called into the High Council instead, and they called someone else to be the bishop. My companion at the time was perplexed, and wondered if his display of obedience and subsequent call to the High Council meant that the High Council was somehow a "promotion". I have thought of this periodically over these many years, and I have decided that those who are faithful in a few things are given responsibility for more things.

A beard is such a small matter. But on the other hand, so is coffee and tea.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

The beard thing has always baffled me too.

 

http://i0.wp.com/www.wheatandtares.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/LDSprophets.jpg

 

It appears the first six of the first Prophets all sported beards. So did the Lord and most likely many of the original Apostles.

Yeah, and the Lord and the original 12 all wore clothing that if you wore it today they would think you to be a refugee from a Nativity scene. I think I shall show up for church next Sunday dressed like Peter, James and John did. I can't grow a beard that quickly, however, so it might not be as effective.

[mfbukowski]

Well, what do you think of the rule that male temple workers must be clean-shaven? I've just asked my bishop to consider recommending me for service as a veil worker -- which, if it happens, I would be asked to shave off my mustache (if I had one, which I don't).

I do remember that when they first organized the Duesseldorf stake out of a mission district in Germany (back in the mid-70s), that the president of the Muelheim Branch had a beard. The member of the 12 who came to organize the stake, and who confirmed the branch president's call to be the bishop of the Muelheim Ward only commented to him that usually they asked for bishops to be clean shaven, but gave him permission to continue with the beard. Overnight he shaved his beard off, which when the Apostle saw that decided that he should be called into the High Council instead, and they called someone else to be the bishop. My companion at the time was perplexed, and wondered if his display of obedience and subsequent call to the High Council meant that the High Council was somehow a "promotion". I have thought of this periodically over these many years, and I have decided that those who are faithful in a few things are given responsibility for more things.

A beard is such a small matter. But on the other hand, so is coffee and tea.

I think it is about looking "conservative".  These statements have no basis other than my opinion and what I was thinking about the issue at the times mentioned.

 

In the 40's and 50's no one had beards except beatniks and George Albert Smith- but he had one because it was "conservative" and looked like a "prophet".

 

Heck everyone knows prophets need to have beards.  

 

In the later '50's the beatniks turned that around and it became "Bohemian" to wear a beard.

 

David O Mckay- no beard.  First prophet without one

 

It was clear that in the '60's long hair and beards meant you were a "hippie" and actively making a point by growing them, and that was true at first.  Long hair and beards were a statement that you were "anti-establishment".  You couldn't get a job if you had a beard- it was a sign of rebellion.

 

In the mid to late '70's it became no more than the fashion along with gold chains etc.

 

Missionaries were always required to look "conservative" and "clean cut" and had dress standards.  It seemed unfair that the missionaries had dress standards but leadership did not.   So in my recollection, if the missionaries had to do it, all of leadership should show the example

 

I had long hair and a moustache starting at age 16 and off and on, long hair down my back about half way, the beard came and went repeatedly.  When I joined the church I trimmed the moustache.  Moustaches became fashionable and a statement after the Beatles album "Sargent Pepper"

 

I was eventually called to a position which required me to attend PEC and I was told I had to shave my moustache.  I was like 32 or 33 and had it from its first growth- I had never shaved my lip!

 

But I did out of obedience.  I saw no reason for it other than that.  It was good for me to sacrifice that little thing, even though I did not see the reason for it at the time- the reason was to learn obedience.

 

So now just think of it as taking on yourself missionary standards because you are now in leadership and must give a good example to missionaries.

 

In a way it has become a sign of "rank" to be "clean cut" and look "conservative".  White shirt, dark suit, nice tie is the "uniform", like it or not.

 

Nowadays you have trouble getting a job with major tattoos, back then it was long hair and a beard.

 

You guys are just not old enough to remember that!

 

So why can't apostles have tattoos on their faces and necks??

 

Why don't we just tattoo on ourselves temple marks and not deal with garments?

 

I am sure someday that will be the topic of conversation.

Edited October 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, what do you think of the rule that male temple workers must be clean-shaven? I've just asked my bishop to consider recommending me for service as a veil worker -- which, if it happens, I would be asked to shave off my mustache (if I had one, which I don't).

A beard is such a small matter. But on the other hand, so is coffee and tea.

Veil workers can have beards at our temple, but to be an ordinance worker they must shave.

 

Confusing cultural norms or preferences for commandment is a problem worthy of challenge. I see no reason to conform simply for the sake of conforming. Obedience to a man and his preference is not the same as obedience to God's law.