Anybody else feel this way about Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching?

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The practicality of it is more pragmatic than theological, I think.  If you believe you are sealed for eternity for example, you are more likely to take that relationship seriously rather than go after the next pretty face you see.

Believing you have a God-given responsibility makes one feel that one really should take the responsibility seriously, as you should.

Quite honestly I think that is why men have the priesthood, to give them a psychological structure of leadership.  It is almost like a tribal thing, perhaps acting like hunting parties, where there are assigned roles of leadership.  You don't do your job, the village doesn't eat.  "You guys go to the right, and chase the buffalo this way and then we will go to the left and get him with our spears".  Kind of like American football, actually as well. 

Pregnant and nursing women are not going to go out and chase down game.  Lose the baby and the village loses a valuable member.  It's hard to nurse while running with a spear, and if men don't get off their duffs smoking funny stuff in the medicine house, nobody is going to eat.

I think evolutionary forces have programmed men to think that way about leadership and is largely what gets up off the couch to go to work and earn a living or even do our home teaching.  

Keys have a very practical purpose- it defines who has specific responsibilities. Yes of course all should participate but without an organization to participate IN- with leaders- there is nothing.  Someone has to call the meeting together and determine the purpose of the meeting to participate IN.  THAT is the person with the "keys"- whatever the term, THAT is the function. That is the way groups work

There is a lot here that I agree with. I actually think the way the priesthood is set up church-wide all the way down to the ward level is genius. (Or inspired. Maybe both.) And, as you point out, it has to do with the way that men are naturally programmed to function, which is different than how women are programmed to function. As an administrative system the priesthood is marvelous. But I have come to lose faith in priesthood "power." I believe in priesthood "authority" by which I mean the ability to ordain and set apart quorum leaders and others to various positions and offices. In my mind priesthood authority is the organizational basis and structure of the system which exists so that it can operate effectively. But I struggle mightily to believe that there is legitimate "power" in exercising the priesthood. For example, the Melchizedek Priesthood is said to possess the power to seal in heaven what is sealed on earth. Of course this is miraculous if true. But it's not something that can be tested, which is fine I guess because we're supposed to have faith and all of that. But I think we can test on some level, for example, whether the Aaronic Priesthood really does have the keys to the ministering of angels. And based on my experience I'm sorry to say I have lost faith in this aspect of the priesthood. Same thing goes with blessings of healing and patriarchal blessings. We perform the ordinances and everyone pretends that we are really exercising an actual power. But I'm tired of telling everyone that emperor is wearing clothes when from where I'm standing he obviously isn't. This all ties back to Elder's Quorum and Home Teaching because of my experience in feeling like a toy soldier. There are just some aspects of the priesthood that don't feel right to me despite the fact I think it has been enormously successful in leading the church for almost 200 years. And I strongly suspect that some of the voices in this thread expounding on the ideal way an Elder's Quorum is supposed to function have had similar experiences but just aren't willing to admit yet that the emperor is naked.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I caught "in the ward" which is why I went to LDS.org and saw this:

before responding. I also understand that the boys will not have the responsibilities that the men will have.  Not planning on lecturing or debating it.  Just feel it is important for some, including my sons, to know as I find many who do not know.

Fair enough, and that is a good point for training Teachers Q presidents and Deacons Q presidents.

It helps them to actually learn leadership in their quorums when they know that they are one of only 4 in the ward who have leadership keys, even though they are young men..

In my life experience, it seems that boys at first identify heavily with their mothers and later need male role models to learn male roles (self-evident!)  Certainly looking to these other brethren as "fellow key-holders" helps their desire to become better leaders themselves.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, JarMan said:

And I strongly suspect that some of the voices in this thread expounding on the ideal way an Elder's Quorum is supposed to function have had similar experiences but just aren't willing to admit yet that the emperor is naked.

I have seen actual miracles of healing through the power of the priesthood.  I hope you get to see/feel some of that some time, but until you do I know that the "emperor" has very visible garments and temple robes if you really concentrate and look hard enough.

[theplains]

13 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Now however, I have two home teachers who visit me faithfully every month.  I cannot tell you how much I appreciate their visits as it is the only way I feel like I have the Priesthood in my home.

Are you aware that all believers in Christ are members in a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9)?

Thanks,

Jim

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The practicality of it is more pragmatic than theological, I think.  If you believe you are sealed for eternity for example, you are more likely to take that relationship seriously rather than go after the next pretty face you see.

Believing you have a God-given responsibility makes one feel that one really should take the responsibility seriously, as you should.

Quite honestly I think that is why men have the priesthood, to give them a psychological structure of leadership.  It is almost like a tribal thing, perhaps acting like hunting parties, where there are assigned roles of leadership.  You don't do your job, the village doesn't eat.  "You guys go to the right, and chase the buffalo this way and then we will go to the left and get him with our spears".  Kind of like American football, actually as well. 

Pregnant and nursing women are not going to go out and chase down game.  Lose the baby and the village loses a valuable member.  It's hard to nurse while running with a spear, and if men don't get off their duffs smoking funny stuff in the medicine house, nobody is going to eat.

I think evolutionary forces have programmed men to think that way about leadership and is largely what gets up off the couch to go to work and earn a living or even do our home teaching.  

Keys have a very practical purpose- it defines who has specific responsibilities. Yes of course all should participate but without an organization to participate IN- with leaders- there is nothing.  Someone has to call the meeting together and determine the purpose of the meeting to participate IN.  THAT is the person with the "keys"- whatever the term, THAT is the function. That is the way groups work

So, putting aside the baggage of the metaphysical elements of the term and focusing purely on the pragmatic, I think you raise some of the common myths, and I'm no sociologist, but the skeptic in me wants to push back on your assumptions.

First, I think the, God is watching us motivation, while effective in some ways, has its limits and also negative elements.  I would propose from my observations that this frequently inspires negative elements of fear based motivation, more often than it inspires altruistic type motivations within our contemporary culture.  

You seem to assert that men are by nature inferior psychologically and require this kind of motivation to be successful.  I find this assumption somewhat offensive and an outdated paradigm that unfairly positions men.  The idea that priesthood is needed to compensate for an inferior position is part of the folk lore often parroted in Mormon circles.

Look at how men perform throughout society outside of the Mormon church, whether in business, government, non-profits, social groups, etc.  Successful examples are numberless, without any need for keys to perform their jobs.  Regular group dynamics apply everywhere, I don't see anything uniquely superior about the Mormon structure that can be attributed to this construct around keys.   

Edited May 19, 2016 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I would ask to also have him keep in mind those who are not prospective elders, but for all intents and purposes are though I know they may be few and that's why they are not talked about.  I only say this because they may not come up on the list as prospective - my son was ordained, but never started in any way the missionary process or going to the temple etc.  The bishop just felt it was "time" for him to be ordained.    

I will definitely pass that along to him.

[Mars]

jarman, it's very difficult to open yourself up and be honest and take this kind of criticism and review of your thinking.  thank you for having the courage to do that.

[Garden Girl]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

There is something wonderful about NOT being assigned friends.  I think I felt about RS visiting teaching as some men feel about home teaching.  What good happens should happen no matter whether it is an assignment or not.  I didn't mind my home teachers, but I really didn't like the thought that they visiting because.."I did not have any priesthood in the home".  That being said, I was doing fine without it.  Must be a woman thing.

Jeanne... 

I have never been made to feel I was "assigned" or a "project" for my home teachers.  And make no mistake... I'm a very independent woman and do not run to my home teachers for every little thing... and you can sniff all you want at my desire to feel the influence of the priesthood in my home, but I am grateful for the spirit my home teachers bring... for the same reason I have had my home blessed when I purchased it, and a couple years ago after a kitchen renovation project that brought many workers into my home.  I look upon my home as special place of peace.. a holy place to stand... I'm glad you feel fine without the priesthood... but do not agree it has anything to do with being a "woman."   

 

6 hours ago, Rain said:

 In regard to teaching and the manuals, Rain, see my answer to Ahab, below...

 

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Thought provoking questions and comments are the keys to good teaching.  Saying things in strange ways that make people want to question what the heck you are talking about or what the heck you mean.  Trying to stay pretty much on topic, of course.  Getting people to think outside of the box or boxes they are accustomed to think in and helping them see different ways to see things they already think they know.  Common sense issues.

 

Ahab... 

I agree... inviting participation through discussion is always better than a teacher who simply reads a lesson... In my ward, anyone called as a teacher has to participate in a class for several weeks titled "Teaching -- No Greater Call" which helps immensely, particularly for those teachers who are inexperienced...

 

 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have seen actual miracles of healing through the power of the priesthood.  I hope you get to see/feel some of that some time, but until you do I know that the "emperor" has very visible garments and temple robes if you really concentrate and look hard enough.

I am a miracle of a healing blessing by the power of the priesthood... as I've shared previously... as my non-LDS cardiologist discovered...

GG

[toon]

My take.

I'm not interested in home teaching -- haven't done it in at least 15 years.  Home teachers will sometimes come by.  I enjoy them, even though sometimes I can certainly think of other things I'd prefer to do.

Manuals, meetings, EQ, etc. -- I find them boring.

But I don't hate any of that, and I certainly understand that many people love it.

[toon]

27 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I have never been made to feel I was "assigned" or a "project" for my home teachers.

I have little doubt that I've been an "assignment" and a "project."

But I've never questioned the motives or sincerity of anyone who may have been assigned to me.  I generally get along with people and enjoy their company.  That someone visited or invited me out because they were asked to do that seems beside the point.  That said, I'm stubborn, so I don't think any of these projects were ever that successful.

 

[Jeanne]

52 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Jeanne... 

I have never been made to feel I was "assigned" or a "project" for my home teachers.  And make no mistake... I'm a very independent woman and do not run to my home teachers for every little thing... and you can sniff all you want at my desire to feel the influence of the priesthood in my home, but I am grateful for the spirit my home teachers bring... for the same reason I have had my home blessed when I purchased it, and a couple years ago after a kitchen renovation project that brought many workers into my home.  I look upon my home as special place of peace.. a holy place to stand... I'm glad you feel fine without the priesthood... but do not agree it has anything to do with being a "woman."   

 

 

 

I am a miracle of a healing blessing by the power of the priesthood... as I've shared previously... as my non-LDS cardiologist discovered...

GG

GG

i am glad that your experiences are different.  I am sure your HT loved you would visit you anyway!  My HT would not give me a Hi or a wave of hello but once a month. 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, JarMan said:

I find it to be a major invasion of privacy for people to invite themselves into my home, pretend to care about me, all the while not-so-covertly gathering information that they can take back to the EQP which may ultimately find its way to everybody at Ward Council. Meanwhile they get to literally check the box and thus ensure they are one step closer to salvation. 

Is that what you think home teaching is, then?  

Quite frankly, it sounds like you cobbled together the worst possible justification for home teaching and took that for a fact.  It's as if a man were to characterize his wife as only cooking, cleaning, and loving him because he paid for clothes, food, and a place to live.  Is this why most wives love their husbands?  Is this why most home teachers visit their families?  Is it the purpose of home teaching to make sure that all members of the church toe the line?  Sounds like that's what you think, which if true, is quite sad.  You actually sound quite cynical, sorry about that.

I've been an Elders Quorum President, and I've been a Branch President, and because of other callings have attended more Ward Council and Priesthood Executive Meetings than you can shake a stick at.  Hundreds of times.  It doesn't work the way you're claiming, or at least, it better not.

Have you ever actually been home teaching?  When you did, did you do it just to check the box then, and didn't really two figs about your assigned families?  And I suppose you've gotten checklists for what things to check out to report back on?  Like, do they have pictures of the temple on the wall, or the First Presidency?  Did the place smell like tobacco smoke, but all the ashtrays were out of sight?  Things that you could tattle-tale to the bishop about?  If so, then that would be nuts!  You're there to actually care about your assigned families, and if you don't care about them, well, then pray about caring for them!  It seems to me that one of the reasons we are here on earth is to learn to truly care about our fellow human beings.  A good start on that goal is to learn to care about the two or three families you are asked to home teach.  If you can't bring yourself to care about them, well, then perhaps you could at least check to make sure they are doing OK, and if there's anything they need that the ward could help them with -- if they wanted any help.  That wouldn't take that much effort would it?

As for major invasions of privacy, well, darn, I guess you could tell your home teachers to say hello to you at church and leave off with the home visits?  "How's it going, Br. JarMan?"  "Fine!"  I have a home teaching situation at the moment where the wife is highly antagonistic towards the Church, so I talk with her very active husband on Sunday at Church to see how they are doing.  Their garage burned down and damaged their home a few months ago, and the ward was all ready to jump into action to help them out, but ended up doing nothing because the wife didn't want any help.  We respected her desire and didn't invade her privacy.  The Church is there to HELP, if help is desired, not be invaders.  My home teacher is great guy and I enjoy his visits, with his young son.  When my late wife was on her deathbed last year, my home teacher made sure that he was available to help out in any way he could, and if he told the Bishop about our situation at all, he did so to make sure that the resources of the ward would be made available to us.  

I've been a home teacher for many years, and the only time I've ever reported about anything in connection with the families I've been visiting is if they have been having problems that we as a ward could help them with.  Since most of my families have been doing OK, that means that I haven't reported anything about them.  And occasionally I've been told things by the husband or wife that they felt comfortable telling me, but didn't want repeated, and so I've done what I could to help them myself.  Last Saturday the High Priests Group showed up at a single sister's house to do a service project on her yard.  Occasionally things with some families are going poorly due to economic reasons, and it's important for the Home Teachers to advise them about seeing the Bishop for assistance.  

You know, you could do your home teaching out of a genuine desire to be helpful to your fellow human beings.  Do you really think that your home teachers only "pretend" to care about you?  And that's all there is?

 

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Stargazer

[Rain]

I felt like a check mark with one VT once.  On the last day of the month I would find a little craft dropped by my door or her daughter would bring it by.  I got awfully irritable about it and wished she just wouldn't do it.  I didn't need the crafts - didn't want them either.  

A year of so later I found out about some things she was dealing with.  Suddenly I sorrowed for my feelings towards her.  She was doing the very best she could do and cared for me in the only way she could.  I'm more charitable towards my VT now.  

Edited May 20, 2016 by Rain

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have seen actual miracles of healing through the power of the priesthood.

Coincidentally, I went home teaching last night (and had a lovely visit!), and afterward we started sharing some personal testimonies in the car. I will happily teach all things related to the Restored Gospel, but I can only bear witness to things that I have, well, personally witnessed. Two categories formed the core of my in-car testimony last night: (1) God speaks to His children, including by His own voice, through dreams and visions, and by means of angels; and (2) there is real power in the priesthood, including things like restoring sight to the blind and raising the dead. Every day I feel so grateful for what we have ... and have access to!

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

There is something wonderful about NOT being assigned friends.

This sounds nice but presumes a certain level of omniscience most of us don't seem to possess. A few months ago, a good home teacher tipped me off that a Church brother of mine had been admitted to the psych ward of the hospital and could use some love. I immediately got myself there for a visit, but I'm so glad that someone was 'assigned' to be his friend on behalf of all of us.

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Sky said:

I don't hate EQ, but sometimes I get bored with monotony of it.  I barely know anybody's names in my EQ.  It's like we just come and go every week and there is a lack of deep, interpersonal connection.  It sort of feels like "going through the motions" at times, and superficial.  And honestly, I don't know what to do to change that, other than trying to do my home teaching and trying to make friends with at least one or two other quorum members.  Not easy to do though, for some reason.  I know people are busy with their families and such, and it's hard to forge meaningful connections in a 1-hour meeting per week, but still.  The women seem better at this to me, in general.  

I enjoy the manuals and the teachings for the most part, though.        

Sounds like you would do well to try to get to know some of the people in your quorum.  Are they a particularly prickly lot, who look down their noses at everyone else?  You don't really need to forge meaningful connections, and anyway, people generally start with acquaintanceship before moving on to friendship.  I would suggest that you make it a point to learn one new name per week, and maybe find out what they do for a living.  You might be surprised to find that once you show some interest in other people, that they may magically return the favor by showing interest in you.

I recommend "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.  

Edited to add:

Your signature line says: "As I have loved you, Love one another.  This new commandment:  Love one another.  By this shall men know Ye are my disciples, If ye have love, One to another."  If you consider this to be something meaningful, rather than being just some nice window-dressing to put in your posts, then let me gently suggest that loving one another starts by not being standoffish, but actually exerting yourself to get to know those other people in your quorum.  You might be pleasantly surprised by the result.  Or, perhaps, you will find that they are all a bunch of self-involved, close-minded, and stuck-up clods.  Either way, you learn something.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Stargazer

[Raingirl]

19 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Forgive me, JarMan, for posting here as a woman... but let me give you my perspective...

I had reactivated into the Church for three years prior to my dear non-LDS husband's death.  So, since reactivating I've not had the Priesthood an actual part of my home (dh preferred not to have the home teachers visit).  Now however, I have two home teachers who visit me faithfully every month.  I cannot tell you how much I appreciate their visits as it is the only way I feel like I have the Priesthood in my home.  They are faithful in their stewardship, and as a 75 year old widow I know they are there for me (like in February when I had an auto accident during a heavy rain/wind storm, and I called one of my home teachers and all I had to say was... I'm in need of help... All he asked was... where are you.  I told him and he said... I'll be there in 10 minutes... )

Every month when they visit we have some general conversation, then they give a spiritual lesson, and when they are ready to leave, they give a prayer that is almost like a priesthood blessing.  Can you possibly understand, JarMan, just what my home teachers mean to me?

GG

This.  Times a thousand.

I'm a convert.  I'm single There is no priesthood in my family.  Unless I marry, there probably never will be.

I would love to have Home Teachers who actually did their home teaching, instead of whining about it and finding every excuse in the book not to do it.  Or simply not bothering to show up on the rare occasion when they actually do make an appointment.  Yeah, that really makes a new convert feel welcome.  Not.

In my first ward, when I was so new that I was barely dried off from the baptism, my home teacher's wife stood up in RS and threw a temper tantrum about her husband having been assigned a single sister. The horror!  Was she worried that single sisters would try to seduce her husband or something? Never mind that he never bothered to do his home teaching.  Just like he never bothered to keep the appointments when he was the ward Mission Leader and was supposed to accompany the missionaries on their lessons with investigators.

I would love to have someone to call when I need a blessing.  I can't even remember the last time I received a blessing.

I hear stories similar to Garden Girl's - home teachers helping out with practical needs. Not just for widows or other single sisters, but for families as well.  Not only do I not have any priesthood in my family,  I don't have a boyfriend, father, brother, uncle or whoever to call when I need help or guidance with things like small home repairs or car advice.  I know a woman who is divorced and has an adult son living at home, but her home teachers are constantly doing stuff around the house for her (and she could well afford to hire help).  I am not saying home teachers should be a private, free handyman service, but I have MS and there are some things that are simply beyond my physical abilities.  If I can't do it and can't hire it done (which I never can), it simply doesn't get done. These stories about home teachers doing those sorts of things seems like an urban legend to me.

But, yeah, I'd be happy with a monthly lesson/visit and someone to call when I need a blessing.  And, you know, not have to wait until the next time I have a major car accident to make it happen.

I once had a meeting with my bishop and someone from the stake.  Just prior to our meeting, they were part of a larger meeting. When that meeting ended, the bishop brought them out to where I was waiting to introduce them to me.  I know this is going to cause eye-rolling and snickering, but standing there with all of those good, kind, righteous priesthood holders - the thought that popped immediately into my brain was "the power of the priesthood".  You could feel it.

Home teaching (and visiting teaching) isn't about whether the teachers are having fun.  That's not why it's done.  It's about the other person.

Home teaching has the potential to make a huge difference in lives.  In ways that we can't even imagine.  And that includes the lives of the home teachers.

Okay, that's the end of my rant.  Having more contracts to write at work than there are hours in the day makes a girl cranky. 

 

[Garden Girl]

My mom passed away suddenly of a massive heart attack at age 80, leaving my dad on his own at age 85.  Fortunately my dad was able to stay in their Rialto home in So Calif... and though I lived up here in Oregon, I knew he had a faithful home teacher that had served my folks with love for several years.  After my mom died he continued with my dad, who was now experiencing serious glaucoma and could not drive.  Dad's HT would pick him up for Priesthood/Church, plus do other special things when needed.  Both my folks loved him and appreciated his genuine caring through the years.  Our family talked to dad several times a week.

One hot July Saturday morning Dad's HT was busy out and about running errands etc before the 100+ degrees set in for the day... He would later tell me how he had finished and was rushing home when he received a prompting to go and check on my dad... He said he was in a hurry to get home and so he ignored the prompting, saying to himself that he would see my dad in the morning when he picked him up for Church so he continued toward home.  As he drove, again came the prompting for him to check on my dad... this time he wondered what to do, when again he got the very strong prompting,... go check on Clyde!  So he turned and drove to dad's house... The front door was open, the dog standing at the screen door, barking.  He looked in and could see my dad, laying on the floor.  He broke into the house and found my dad unconscious... later that evening at the hospital dad would pass away.  It was his HT who had called us and stayed with dad... and who would notify us of dad's death.   How we appreciated the loving care he had shown my folks...  

GG

[JarMan]

The thing about this whole thread is that it's sort of a microcosm of Elder's Quorum. Some people have been encouraging. Some have expressed their testimony about the way things operate. And others have criticized posters they don't agree with for, among other things, not being Christ-like enough.

I must admit, though, to being a bit surprised at how many people assume there must be something wrong with me. I get it, though. I lied down on the virtual couch and spouted off about a deeply entrenched (I won't say beloved, though) church institution. Maybe there IS something wrong with me. Or maybe I have a rational view of the way things work based on my own intuition and life experiences. And maybe people can be conditioned to believe something hokey if it's repeated often enough. 

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/19/2016 at 10:38 PM, JarMan said:

So we've got a new EQP. He's a young guy with a young family, just graduated from BYU and teaches seminary for a living. He's a genuinely good guy and he decided to hand out a short survey on Sunday asking about what we liked and disliked in EQ.  I wrote down that I hate everything about EQ. I hate the manual. I hate home teaching. I hate being home taught. Elder's Quorum is the worst hour of my week unless my HT's were over that week, then it's the second worst hour. 

Anyway, I feel a twinge of regret about survey-ambushing him like that, but I answered honestly like he asked us to. So now that I've lain down on the virtual couch, can anyone tell me: am I normal or is it common to feel this dissatisfied with everything EQ related? 

EQ is the worst meeting for me because it is the last meeting.  After 2 hours I am ready for a break.   I am not a big fan of the manuals.  I understand the important purpose for them but I think EQ would be a lot better if we all just picked a topic and started talking on it.  I have always felt that teaching to the needs of those in the meeting is more important than teaching a preset course outline with the goal of teachings all those topics that have been selected for us. 

As for home teaching, I have not had a big testimony of it.  I understand that it can be very important and if done right is an inspired thing but many of us do it simply for the purposes of getting it done by the end of the month.  And I don't like teaching from the Ensign first presidency message. I think a better way to home teach would be for the HT to ask the families on what topics or lessons they need to hear.  If the family has nothing then the First Presidency message should be taught but that should not be the default message.  Plus if I teach the First Presidency message to the families I teach, do I really want to hear it from my home teachers? 

[Ahab]

Just now, JarMan said:

The thing about this whole thread is that it's sort of a microcosm of Elder's Quorum. Some people have been encouraging. Some have expressed their testimony about the way things operate. And others have criticized posters they don't agree with for, among other things, not being Christ-like enough.

I must admit, though, to being a bit surprised at how many people assume there must be something wrong with me. I get it, though. I lied down on the virtual couch and spouted off about a deeply entrenched (I won't say beloved, though) church institution. Maybe there IS something wrong with me. Or maybe I have a rational view of the way things work based on my own intuition and life experiences. And maybe people can be conditioned to believe something hokey if it's repeated often enough. 

It's all about perspective and attitude.  People can be either negative or positive about anything and everything.  It's a choice.  And you can be one way or the other.  We all can.

[JarMan]

I want to expound a little on why I perceive HT to be an invasion of privacy. Whenever I bring up my objection to anyone about it they will, without fail, tell me how important it is for the bishop to have eyes and ears out there. Some things are important for the bishop to know. I realize that. But so much is not. Before I was the GD teacher I spent about two and a half years as ward clerk, serving under two different bishops. Both bishops were very good about limiting the personal information they shared. I even attended a disciplinary hearing for a member that brought that member back into full fellowship. Since I wasn't there for the initial disciplinary action I didn't even know what the member had done. And the bishopric didn't share it with me. I just wrote up my report based on what I heard and moved on. The specific sin was never even mentioned in the council. 

But I was also part of many ward council meetings and PEC's. At those meetings personal information flowed freely. Ward leaders appeared to feel entitled to be in the know. Sometimes it was almost a contest of who had the most details. It was all couched, of course, in the guise of trying to help and things were announced soberly in semi-hushed tones so it was all good, right? I know some of you will say that this is not the way things are supposed to operate and I whole-heartedly agree. The problem is that this IS the way it operates. 

While I'm venting, a few years back our SP asked all home teachers to gather information from our families. He wanted us to ask three questions and report back. The questions, if I remember correctly, had to do with whether the families were having FHE, family prayer, and I think the last was whether they had a food storage. I was EQ Secretary at the time and it was my job to compile the answers for the report. I was a good soldier back then and I remember my families giving me funny looks before reluctantly answering the questions. I was actually called to be secretary again a few years later but turned down the calling based on my previous experience. I had felt like an assembly-line worker making widgets rather than somebody making a difference. I'm sure that was as much my fault as anything but at that time I was honestly doing the best I knew how to do. 

[jkwilliams]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The practicality of it is more pragmatic than theological, I think.  If you believe you are sealed for eternity for example, you are more likely to take that relationship seriously rather than go after the next pretty face you see.

Believing you have a God-given responsibility makes one feel that one really should take the responsibility seriously, as you should.

Quite honestly I think that is why men have the priesthood, to give them a psychological structure of leadership.  It is almost like a tribal thing, perhaps acting like hunting parties, where there are assigned roles of leadership.  You don't do your job, the village doesn't eat.  "You guys go to the right, and chase the buffalo this way and then we will go to the left and get him with our spears".  Kind of like American football, actually as well. 

Pregnant and nursing women are not going to go out and chase down game.  Lose the baby and the village loses a valuable member.  It's hard to nurse while running with a spear, and if men don't get off their duffs smoking funny stuff in the medicine house, nobody is going to eat.

I think evolutionary forces have programmed men to think that way about leadership and is largely what gets up off the couch to go to work and earn a living or even do our home teaching.  

Keys have a very practical purpose- it defines who has specific responsibilities. Yes of course all should participate but without an organization to participate IN- with leaders- there is nothing.  Someone has to call the meeting together and determine the purpose of the meeting to participate IN.  THAT is the person with the "keys"- whatever the term, THAT is the function. That is the way groups work

Let's just accept for the sake of argument that you are right about our human tribal past and ignore that not all societies, past or present, have been patriarchal, and some cultures have women as the hunters (the Aka, for example). Anyone who has children knows that raising a family and running a household require the same organizational and leadership skills as those required to "chase down game." And anyone who has served at all in ward leadership knows the Relief Society are often much more efficient and reliable than the priesthood at getting work done.

It's one thing to say that you believe men and women are given different roles by God, which I believe is standard LDS doctrine. It is quite another thing to assert that, because men traditionally did the hunting, they are "programmed to think that way about leadership." What you seem to be saying is that men have innate leadership abilities that women do not, that evolutionary forces have led to men getting up off the couch and going to work or doing their home teaching while women stay home on the couch and nurse the babies. 

When my daughter was about 12, she asked me why Heavenly Father likes boys more than he likes girls. I asked her what she meant, and she said, "Boys can be anything they want, but girls can't." I told her that she, like any other woman, could be anything she wanted in life. She shook her head and said, "No, I can't have the priesthood." My wife explained the standard doctrine of the church, that, for whatever reason, men had the responsibility of holding the priesthood. Never would we have told her that evolutionary forces had programmed men for leadership abilities that women don't have. 

That's absurd. And that practicality isn't pragmatic at all. It's just groping for a rational explanation for church doctrine where there really isn't one.

Edited May 20, 2016 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So, putting aside the baggage of the metaphysical elements of the term and focusing purely on the pragmatic, I think you raise some of the common myths, and I'm no sociologist, but the skeptic in me wants to push back on your assumptions.

First, I think the, God is watching us motivation, while effective in some ways, has its limits and also negative elements.  I would propose from my observations that this frequently inspires negative elements of fear based motivation, more often than it inspires altruistic type motivations within our contemporary culture.  

You seem to assert that men are by nature inferior psychologically and require this kind of motivation to be successful.  I find this assumption somewhat offensive and an outdated paradigm that unfairly positions men.  The idea that priesthood is needed to compensate for an inferior position is part of the folk lore often parroted in Mormon circles.

Look at how men perform throughout society outside of the Mormon church, whether in business, government, non-profits, social groups, etc.  Successful examples are numberless, without any need for keys to perform their jobs.  Regular group dynamics apply everywhere, I don't see anything uniquely superior about the Mormon structure that can be attributed to this construct around keys.   

Agreed. In mfb's post, there's a curious contradiction in that he seems to be asserting that men are more inherently suited to leadership and organization at the same time the church provides a leadership structure and psychology that men don't have naturally but need to succeed. I'm really surprised to see these kinds of outdated notions pop up these days. Seems I'm not alone.

Edited May 20, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Mars]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

The thing about this whole thread is that it's sort of a microcosm of Elder's Quorum. Some people have been encouraging. Some have expressed their testimony about the way things operate. And others have criticized posters they don't agree with for, among other things, not being Christ-like enough.

I must admit, though, to being a bit surprised at how many people assume there must be something wrong with me. I get it, though. I lied down on the virtual couch and spouted off about a deeply entrenched (I won't say beloved, though) church institution. Maybe there IS something wrong with me. Or maybe I have a rational view of the way things work based on my own intuition and life experiences. And maybe people can be conditioned to believe something hokey if it's repeated often enough. 

I really don't think anyone thinks there's anything wrong with you.  I don't.

The advice was solicited, and it centers around what you can change.  That's always the way it works.  Your EQ may very well be totally dysfunctional.  Uninspired teaching and totally inept leadership.  Home teachers who don't care one iota for you but are doing it because they're nagged into it by everyone around them.  You haven't described it this way.  I'm just trying to paint a realistic worst-case scenario picture.  This would be it.

You can't make them be sincere.

You can't make them teach better.

You can't make the other brethren have a more deep sense of brotherhood.

You can be sincere.  You can choose to believe the best in people and watch them rise to your expectations.

You can contribute to class discussion by sharing thoughts that occur to you or preparing ahead of time.

You can reach out to other brothers to deepen the sense of brotherhood.

The focus on you isn't an attempt to blame you or set up a tribunal where you're the defendant.  The focus on you is to remind you what you can change.