The Pharisees and/or Rameumptum

[stemelbow]

Over the years I have experienced many a moment in which I have felt punched right in the gut which has caused me to wonder, "what am I doing here (here being in the Church)?" 

This happened recently as I listened to my SP's sermon to our ward.  Often we hear from him in our ward conferences or stake conferences but this time it was, for me, out of the blue.  Walked into sacrament to see him and his wife (whom I haven't seen before) on the stand.  Well she spoke and it was a pretty good talk--about being nice to people and serving.  Made me feel good. Then her husband got up and it sounded like he dismissed everything she said.  The spirit of his talk seemed diametrically opposed to his and frankly the way he started it sounded like he was chiding her a little or something, for not being by the rules enough, not being grateful for her honored station, or something.  It was a terrible start in my mind and maybe he did not mean to convey as much but I felt it. 

He proceeded to comment on a couple of things--some lady he met was in the foyer before the meeting, reading a magazine--an action he condemned.  Luckily we didn't know who it was, but I imagine she felt embarrassed unless she was with a different ward and didn't know she'd be called out.  Then he condemned a teenage boy for resting his head on the shoulder of his grandma during the meeting, as he was talking about people not being engaged in the meeting.  It was weird and awkward.  He tried to laugh it off after he said it, but....whatever.  He then condemned the ward for so many being as much as 5 minutes late (which is just silly).  I know a guy who came in a few minutes late with his daughter--a man who hasn't been to church in many years.  I know him because I've befriended him.  He walked in a little embarrassed looking sat down with his daughter.  But as the SP started talking, he and his daughter were just a couple of rows ahead of me, got up and left. The SP was upset upon our sustaining of Stake callings that were announced, saying he only saw minimal participation.  He then got on the topic of those who think differently.  He condemned such, in my mind, as I'm one.  He said please don't speak up if you have different thoughts and feelings.  This Church is top down, when you speak up you ruin meetings.  He ended on what he perceived as a happy note--saying how luckily and blessed we are.  I felt split between thinking the whole talk was either inspired by Pharisaic thought or from those at Rameumptum. 

I concluded his talk to be fear-based, and promoting an insular environment (so I guess both).  It was the exact opposite of what I like about the Church, and the direction I'd like to see the Church continue to move toward.  But he's my leader and according to his instruction I should just keep quiet and let him lead.  Can we be in the Church but not of the Church?  Can we promote what we feel is important or that which is our personal station in regards to our salvation, or should we be made to feel we don't belong and should keep quiet as to not distract others?  It brings into question for me, what's the point of Church?  to him it seems Church is for those who belong, to feel the Spirit and feel close to God.  For me Church is for everyone, whether they feel like they believe or not, to get together to genuinely share what's troubling them concerning life and salvation (of course I accept some boundaries on this front). 

Just curious of other's thoughts. 

[Storm Rider]

I suspect your SP was giving his ideas and thoughts.  His being the SP does not require that the members of the stake accept his opinion as gospel or as true.  He gave his thoughts and you did not like them because you have a different opinion.  That is acceptable in the Church.  

Just keep trying to live like Savior and move on.  

[Garden Girl]

Good morning Stemelbow...

Gosh... I guess I'm so used to my SP, a man who has proved wonderfully wise and sensitive while being firm in the gospel, that I can't believe a SP could express himself as yours did... that they really think that way...

GG

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Just curious of other's thoughts. 

I have found that, if we note that we think "differently," we must also acknowledge that we perceive and report "differently."

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Good morning Stemelbow...

Gosh... I guess I'm so used to my SP, a man who has proved wonderfully wise and sensitive while being firm in the gospel, that I can't believe a SP could express himself as yours did... that they really think that way...

GG

Sure, i'd love to feel like we can speak openly about his position in Church, but if I try to comment it's usually seen as a bad thing these days.  I would say perception impacts everything we do and surely my perception, my perspective on life and things saw the message differently than others that were there.  That's how it goes.  The other thing he's fond of doing is name dropping, as in alluding to his personal experiences with different Apostles.  In this past address he suggest in all my personal interactions with the 12... It feels to me like he's saying our point of instruction is him, all too often. 

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have found that, if we note that we think "differently," we must also acknowledge that we perceive and report "differently."

Very fair.  I agree.  I'm sure many took the talk much differently than I did.  I felt like that was a given, but agree it should be acknowledged. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Over the years I have experienced many a moment in which I have felt punched right in the gut which has caused me to wonder, "what am I doing here (here being in the Church)?" 

This happened recently as I listened to my SP's sermon to our ward.  Often we hear from him in our ward conferences or stake conferences but this time it was, for me, out of the blue.  Walked into sacrament to see him and his wife (whom I haven't seen before) on the stand.  Well she spoke and it was a pretty good talk--about being nice to people and serving.  Made me feel good. Then her husband got up and it sounded like he dismissed everything she said.  The spirit of his talk seemed diametrically opposed to his and frankly the way he started it sounded like he was chiding her a little or something, for not being by the rules enough, not being grateful for her honored station, or something.  It was a terrible start in my mind and maybe he did not mean to convey as much but I felt it. 

He proceeded to comment on a couple of things--some lady he met was in the foyer before the meeting, reading a magazine--an action he condemned.  Luckily we didn't know who it was, but I imagine she felt embarrassed unless she was with a different ward and didn't know she'd be called out.  Then he condemned a teenage boy for resting his head on the shoulder of his grandma during the meeting, as he was talking about people not being engaged in the meeting.  It was weird and awkward.  He tried to laugh it off after he said it, but....whatever.  He then condemned the ward for so many being as much as 5 minutes late (which is just silly).  I know a guy who came in a few minutes late with his daughter--a man who hasn't been to church in many years.  I know him because I've befriended him.  He walked in a little embarrassed looking sat down with his daughter.  But as the SP started talking, he and his daughter were just a couple of rows ahead of me, got up and left. The SP was upset upon our sustaining of Stake callings that were announced, saying he only saw minimal participation.  He then got on the topic of those who think differently.  He condemned such, in my mind, as I'm one.  He said please don't speak up if you have different thoughts and feelings.  This Church is top down, when you speak up you ruin meetings.  He ended on what he perceived as a happy note--saying how luckily and blessed we are.  I felt split between thinking the whole talk was either inspired by Pharisaic thought or from those at Rameumptum. 

I concluded his talk to be fear-based, and promoting an insular environment (so I guess both).  It was the exact opposite of what I like about the Church, and the direction I'd like to see the Church continue to move toward.  But he's my leader and according to his instruction I should just keep quiet and let him lead.  Can we be in the Church but not of the Church?  Can we promote what we feel is important or that which is our personal station in regards to our salvation, or should we be made to feel we don't belong and should keep quiet as to not distract others?  It brings into question for me, what's the point of Church?  to him it seems Church is for those who belong, to feel the Spirit and feel close to God.  For me Church is for everyone, whether they feel like they believe or not, to get together to genuinely share what's troubling them concerning life and salvation (of course I accept some boundaries on this front). 

Just curious of other's thoughts. 

Wow, man. That's rough.

I'm sure you took advantage of the chain of command to complain to his ecclesiastical leader. Oh...wait. That system doesn't really exist in the church. The SP is effectively where the buck stops so when the SP overreaches (which I have seen on many occasions) you are up the river without a paddle. It's a systemic problem that should be addressed, but like I've already said, there is no way to address it. The problem perpetuates itself.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The SP is effectively where the buck stops so when the SP overreaches (which I have seen on many occasions) you are up the river without a paddle. It's a systemic problem that should be addressed, but like I've already said, there is no way to address it. The problem perpetuates itself.

No, it's a personal problem. And here's what does exist, and what works wonderfully (and I know this from personal experience): if you think the Lord is with you and you can handle it, counsel with him about such concerns, face-to-face in good faith. If you decide not to run faster than you have strength, you can always have sufficient patience and faith.

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow, man. That's rough.

I'm sure you took advantage of the chain of command to complain to his ecclesiastical leader. Oh...wait. That system doesn't really exist in the church. The SP is effectively where the buck stops so when the SP overreaches (which I have seen on many occasions) you are up the river without a paddle. It's a systemic problem that should be addressed, but like I've already said, there is no way to address it. The problem perpetuates itself.

Forgive him if he did wrong and move on.

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Over the years I have experienced many a moment in which I have felt punched right in the gut which has caused me to wonder, "what am I doing here (here being in the Church)?" 

This happened recently as I listened to my SP's sermon to our ward.  Often we hear from him in our ward conferences or stake conferences but this time it was, for me, out of the blue.  Walked into sacrament to see him and his wife (whom I haven't seen before) on the stand.  Well she spoke and it was a pretty good talk--about being nice to people and serving.  Made me feel good. Then her husband got up and it sounded like he dismissed everything she said.  The spirit of his talk seemed diametrically opposed to his and frankly the way he started it sounded like he was chiding her a little or something, for not being by the rules enough, not being grateful for her honored station, or something.  It was a terrible start in my mind and maybe he did not mean to convey as much but I felt it. 

He proceeded to comment on a couple of things--some lady he met was in the foyer before the meeting, reading a magazine--an action he condemned.  Luckily we didn't know who it was, but I imagine she felt embarrassed unless she was with a different ward and didn't know she'd be called out.  Then he condemned a teenage boy for resting his head on the shoulder of his grandma during the meeting, as he was talking about people not being engaged in the meeting.  It was weird and awkward.  He tried to laugh it off after he said it, but....whatever.  He then condemned the ward for so many being as much as 5 minutes late (which is just silly).  I know a guy who came in a few minutes late with his daughter--a man who hasn't been to church in many years.  I know him because I've befriended him.  He walked in a little embarrassed looking sat down with his daughter.  But as the SP started talking, he and his daughter were just a couple of rows ahead of me, got up and left. The SP was upset upon our sustaining of Stake callings that were announced, saying he only saw minimal participation.  He then got on the topic of those who think differently.  He condemned such, in my mind, as I'm one.  He said please don't speak up if you have different thoughts and feelings.  This Church is top down, when you speak up you ruin meetings.  He ended on what he perceived as a happy note--saying how luckily and blessed we are.  I felt split between thinking the whole talk was either inspired by Pharisaic thought or from those at Rameumptum. 

I concluded his talk to be fear-based, and promoting an insular environment (so I guess both).  It was the exact opposite of what I like about the Church, and the direction I'd like to see the Church continue to move toward.  But he's my leader and according to his instruction I should just keep quiet and let him lead.  Can we be in the Church but not of the Church?  Can we promote what we feel is important or that which is our personal station in regards to our salvation, or should we be made to feel we don't belong and should keep quiet as to not distract others?  It brings into question for me, what's the point of Church?  to him it seems Church is for those who belong, to feel the Spirit and feel close to God.  For me Church is for everyone, whether they feel like they believe or not, to get together to genuinely share what's troubling them concerning life and salvation (of course I accept some boundaries on this front). 

Just curious of other's thoughts. 

Talk it over with God. Forgive him if necessary. I have had church leaders I disagree with and a very few I just did not like. I found that if I forgave them it got easier. Plus it is a prerequisite to getting forgiveness myself.

[Duncan]

I think it was Pres. J. Golden Kimball who said that some leaders lead and some are meant to try us

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, it's a personal problem. And here's what does exist, and what works wonderfully (and I know this from personal experience): if you think the Lord is with you and you can handle it, counsel with him about such concerns, face-to-face in good faith. If you decide not to run faster than you have strength, you can always have sufficient patience and faith.

 

Are you suggesting that a leader can never be the problem? Good luck selling that one to anyone who thinks.

You didn't address my statement that I see no system in place to address the oversteps of a stake president. Are you aware of an accessible process members can take if a SP says or does things that overstep his authority or are questionable in any way?

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that a leader can never be the problem? Good luck selling that one to anyone who thinks.

You didn't address my statement that I see no system in place to address the oversteps of a stake president. Are you aware of an accessible process members can take if a SP says or does things that overstep his authority or are questionable in any way?

A leader being "the problem" still makes the problem a personal, not systemic one! Are you thinking?

You clearly do not see a system, which is why I pointed one out. It is to counsel, which requires some personal responsibility. Two can create a council, and when one is a stake president for example, that council has some formal authority if such is warranted to resolve the offense at hand.  Anyone can get an appointment with him.

This council system functions when the parties keep their covenants, which is a personal matter between them and God. When they do, the system works, even if only for the person keeping the covenants. The Lord invites everyone in His body to do this (D&C 84:110), so that when the Spirit mediates, the system works for all who find themselves edified together.

If someone is weak in this system, he shouldn’t run faster than he has strength, but find someone strong in the Spirit who can help him navigate it D&C 84:106.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A leader being "the problem" still makes the problem a personal, not systemic one! Are you thinking?

Yes, I'm thinking. I'm thinking that when there is a problem with no means of recourse, there is a systemic problem. Lets imagine that instead of a SP and stake member we are talking about a school principle and a student. If the principle does or says something offensive or inappropriate, or imposes an egregiously unfair consequence, there is a way for that student to challenge that principal. The student can go to a parent, to the superintendent, and even to board members if need be. There can be an outside arbiter between the student and the principal.

 

You clearly do not see a system, which is why I pointed one out. It is to counsel, which requires some personal responsibility. Two can create a council, and when one is a stake president for example, that council has some formal authority if such is warranted to resolve the offense at hand.  Anyone can get an appointment with him.

If the student and the principal counsel together but the student still feels like he's being mistreated he has something he can do about it. With a stake president, there is nothing that can be done unless you happen to have personal access to a general authority, which most people don't. Just because anyone can get an appointment with the principal doesn't mean that the student has recourse for bad decisions. The same is true of a stake president.

 

This council system functions when the parties keep their covenants, which is a personal matter between them and God. When they do, the system works, even if only for the person keeping the covenants. The Lord invites everyone in His body to do this (D&C 84:110), so that when the Spirit mediates, the system works for all who find themselves edified together.

And what happens when both parties don't keep their covenants.?ALL of the power rests with the SP. So if he's the one breaking his covenants, then counseling with him may do little to NO good. I'm mystified by your naïve belief that 1- the SP is never wrong OR 2- Even if he is wrong the other party can and should learn to live with it.

 

If someone is weak in this system, he shouldn’t run faster than he has strength, but find someone strong in the Spirit who can help him navigate it D&C 84:106.

What we are describing is a conflict between two individuals. However, when there is no way to seek remediation then the balance of power is unequivocally in one parties hands. There is no recourse for abuse.

 

Now, I recognize there are situations where SP's can get in trouble but it takes an awful lot for that to happen and I still don't know what the process would be to challenge a SP who is misbehaving or misspeaking.

So my simple question is this... IF I have an issue with the SP that I feel needs to be resolved, how do I go about challenging the SP in a way that someone in authority over him will listen? How do I make contact?

If your answer is "get over it", please don't answer. I'm looking for a thoughtful response.

[Mystery Meat]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Now, I recognize there are situations where SP's can get in trouble but it takes an awful lot for that to happen and I still don't know what the process would be to challenge a SP who is misbehaving or misspeaking.

So my simple question is this... IF I have an issue with the SP that I feel needs to be resolved, how do I go about challenging the SP in a way that someone in authority over him will listen? How do I make contact?

If your answer is "get over it", please don't answer. I'm looking for a thoughtful response.

Take it to the Lord. Call the Mission President. Discuss it with one of the SP's counselors. Discuss it with your Bishop. Forgive him. Don't get angry or become embittered if the result you desire does not transpire. Let the Lord be the ultimate judge, not you.

Depending on the questionable actions, any of the above may be appropriate. In the example in the OP, I would say taking it to the Lord and forgiveness are the only appropriate actions.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Now, I recognize there are situations where SP's can get in trouble but it takes an awful lot for that to happen and I still don't know what the process would be to challenge a SP who is misbehaving or misspeaking.

So my simple question is this... IF I have an issue with the SP that I feel needs to be resolved, how do I go about challenging the SP in a way that someone in authority over him will listen? How do I make contact?

If your answer is "get over it", please don't answer. I'm looking for a thoughtful response.

With things like the experience in the OP, it seems like the best response would be to make an appointment with the SP and talk to him about it. 

I think that's what the scriptures say to do. 

[Bobbieaware]

On June 2, 2016 at 10:44 AM, stemelbow said:

Over the years I have experienced many a moment in which I have felt punched right in the gut which has caused me to wonder, "what am I doing here (here being in the Church)?" 

This happened recently as I listened to my SP's sermon to our ward.  Often we hear from him in our ward conferences or stake conferences but this time it was, for me, out of the blue.  Walked into sacrament to see him and his wife (whom I haven't seen before) on the stand.  Well she spoke and it was a pretty good talk--about being nice to people and serving.  Made me feel good. Then her husband got up and it sounded like he dismissed everything she said.  The spirit of his talk seemed diametrically opposed to his and frankly the way he started it sounded like he was chiding her a little or something, for not being by the rules enough, not being grateful for her honored station, or something.  It was a terrible start in my mind and maybe he did not mean to convey as much but I felt it. 

He proceeded to comment on a couple of things--some lady he met was in the foyer before the meeting, reading a magazine--an action he condemned.  Luckily we didn't know who it was, but I imagine she felt embarrassed unless she was with a different ward and didn't know she'd be called out.  Then he condemned a teenage boy for resting his head on the shoulder of his grandma during the meeting, as he was talking about people not being engaged in the meeting.  It was weird and awkward.  He tried to laugh it off after he said it, but....whatever.  He then condemned the ward for so many being as much as 5 minutes late (which is just silly).  I know a guy who came in a few minutes late with his daughter--a man who hasn't been to church in many years.  I know him because I've befriended him.  He walked in a little embarrassed looking sat down with his daughter.  But as the SP started talking, he and his daughter were just a couple of rows ahead of me, got up and left. The SP was upset upon our sustaining of Stake callings that were announced, saying he only saw minimal participation.  He then got on the topic of those who think differently.  He condemned such, in my mind, as I'm one.  He said please don't speak up if you have different thoughts and feelings.  This Church is top down, when you speak up you ruin meetings.  He ended on what he perceived as a happy note--saying how luckily and blessed we are.  I felt split between thinking the whole talk was either inspired by Pharisaic thought or from those at Rameumptum. 

I concluded his talk to be fear-based, and promoting an insular environment (so I guess both).  It was the exact opposite of what I like about the Church, and the direction I'd like to see the Church continue to move toward.  But he's my leader and according to his instruction I should just keep quiet and let him lead.  Can we be in the Church but not of the Church?  Can we promote what we feel is important or that which is our personal station in regards to our salvation, or should we be made to feel we don't belong and should keep quiet as to not distract others?  It brings into question for me, what's the point of Church?  to him it seems Church is for those who belong, to feel the Spirit and feel close to God.  For me Church is for everyone, whether they feel like they believe or not, to get together to genuinely share what's troubling them concerning life and salvation (of course I accept some boundaries on this front). 

Just curious of other's thoughts. 

After seeing how some on this board condemned Elder Holland for what I thought was a perfectly wonderful devotional address, I'm wondering if some here have developed a hair-trigger negative response a consequence of WANTING TO FIND FAULT with the Church leaders. It would have been very interesting if I could have been there to hear the same talk to see if I would have interpreted its contents the same negative way. This is what Luke said some of the Lord's detractors were engaged in during his mortal ministry...

54 (the Lord's detractors were) Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him. (Luke 11)

While I believe you are genuine and sincere in your critique of the SP's remarks, and even believe it's likely some of your criticisms might very well be justified, I wonder if his talk was really quite as bad as you think it was.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Now, I recognize there are situations where SP's can get in trouble but it takes an awful lot for that to happen and I still don't know what the process would be to challenge a SP who is misbehaving or misspeaking.

So my simple question is this... IF I have an issue with the SP that I feel needs to be resolved, how do I go about challenging the SP in a way that someone in authority over him will listen? How do I make contact?

If your answer is "get over it", please don't answer. I'm looking for a thoughtful response.

All you’re doing is declaring that the problem has no means of recourse and labeling it systemic, so of course nothing could possibly resolve it and your closed perception is self-justified. LOL… even though I explained twice how a) it isn’t systemic (it’s personal) and how the council system works on a personal level, both individually and collectively to reconcile differences.

If you take a close look at what you wrote about the school, it mirrors some of what I wrote about the body, except there is a great difference between a student and his principal and a stake member and his president, which gives the member several advantages. Do you want me to review them?

An unworthy member and an unworthy stake president cannot participate in a workable or effective council together… but that goes far beyond the scope of the OP. Why the hysteria and escalation?

If you want to know what to do about a transgressing leader, read D&C 107:78-84 (and the Church Handbooks), on top of re-reading what I wrote.

Isn’t getting over such things a good thing to do, and exactly what you are asking how to do? Counseling in council is the recourse, if you really (want to) think about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/2/2016 at 11:24 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow, man. That's rough.

I'm sure you took advantage of the chain of command to complain to his ecclesiastical leader. Oh...wait. That system doesn't really exist in the church. The SP is effectively where the buck stops so when the SP overreaches (which I have seen on many occasions) you are up the river without a paddle. It's a systemic problem that should be addressed, but like I've already said, there is no way to address it. The problem perpetuates itself.

Given the assumption that stemelbow's observations are correct, that stake president is way out of line, and you are right to commiserate with him.  However, the notion that there is no recourse is false.  There were undoubtedly many in that congregation who felt as stemelbow did, including possibly the bishop.  Any high councilman present, along with the SP's wife, may have been embarrassed to be associated with such an arrogant and unchristian attitude.

One might very well take that complaint to the ward bishop first, pointing out that the SP likely guaranteed that the man and his daughter will never return to any LDS meetings, and causing not a few loyal members to wonder how such a prig could ever have been called to such a position.  If no satisfaction is gained there, then the next recourse is to the area seventy.  If that doesn't work, then take it to one of the Brethren -- in writing each time.  There can be no excuse for such high-handed behavior.

[Rivers]

I believe it was Vanessa Hudson who said that she learned it is better to work with church leaders rather than against them.  We're all in this together as a body of saints.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Given the assumption that stemelbow's observations are correct, that stake president is way out of line, and you are right to commiserate with him.  However, the notion that there is no recourse is false.  There were undoubtedly many in that congregation who felt as stemelbow did, including possibly the bishop.  Any high councilman present, along with the SP's wife, may have been embarrassed to be associated with such an arrogant and unchristian attitude.

One might very well take that complaint to the ward bishop first, pointing out that the SP likely guaranteed that the man and his daughter will never return to any LDS meetings, and causing not a few loyal members to wonder how such a prig could ever have been called to such a position.  If no satisfaction is gained there, then the next recourse is to the area seventy.  If that doesn't work, then take it to one of the Brethren -- in writing each time.  There can be no excuse for such high-handed behavior.

Complaining to the bishop or a high councilman about the stake president is like complaining to your assistant manager about your manager. Your manager still holds the power even if the assistant commiserates with you. The assistant has no power to correct the manager.

If I have a serious problem with the SP and need to contact the area authority, how do I do I find out who the authority is and how do I contact him? I'm not seeing any contact info on LDS tools so I'm guessing it will take a bit of sleuthing.

If you address letters to the brethren, they will be returned to your stake president.

Quote

CV75- All you’re doing is declaring that the problem has no means of recourse and labeling it systemic, so of course nothing could possibly resolve it and your closed perception is self-justified. LOL

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think that failure stems from you not understanding the word "systemic".

If the system does not allow for recourse, there is, by definition, a systemic problem.

If you would like to prove how there is currently a systemic solution to the problem then I'm all ears.

There are solutions to systemic problems so your claim that "nothing could possibly resolve it" is absurd. If there is a system problem of communication, you add communication. If there is a systemic problem concerning access to the chain of command, you create a new process to address the systemic problem. That kind of systemic problem is really what we have here. For the average member the chain of command stops with the SP. The average member does not have access to any higher authority. This is a problem created by the system which means it is a problem that can be addressed by the system. But before a problem can be addressed it must first be recognized.

 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CV75- ...

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think that failure stems from you not understanding the word "systemic".

If the system does not allow for recourse, there is, by definition, a systemic problem.

If you would like to prove how there is currently a systemic solution to the problem then I'm all ears.

There are solutions to systemic problems so your claim that "nothing could possibly resolve it" is absurd. If there is a system problem of communication, you add communication. If there is a systemic problem concerning access to the chain of command, you create a new process to address the systemic problem. That kind of systemic problem is really what we have here. For the average member the chain of command stops with the SP. The average member does not have access to any higher authority. This is a problem created by the system which means it is a problem that can be addressed by the system. But before a problem can be addressed it must first be recognized.

You haven’t demonstrated that the problem you’ve identified is actually systemic, and you especially haven’t demonstrated that the solution put forth in scripture and handbooks doesn’t address the problem. Hence, you haven’t demonstrated that you understand the problem, its nature, or the solution.

This isn’t as important, but I don’t think you understand what I was “claiming.” You are the one that said, “That system doesn't really exist in the church. …you are up the river without a paddle …like I've already said, there is no way to address it. The problem perpetuates itself.” And it seems you are going to argue and defend that position despite what several posters have already pointed out as the fault(s) in it.

Everyone in the Church has access to the chain of command, and it begins with oneself, which is about as personal as you can get. That is probably why you’re not recognizing the simple solution, and why you’re not recognizing that the “average member” (as you put it) doesn’t typically parlay with the stake president’s “higher authority” because he is personally equipped to employ the actual solution.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Complaining to the bishop or a high councilman about the stake president is like complaining to your assistant manager about your manager. Your manager still holds the power even if the assistant commiserates with you. The assistant has no power to correct the manager.

Your "chain of command" conception is what misleads you here.  If anyone can speak with the stake president and be frank with him, it is likeliest to be the bishop or a  high councilman, some of whom are unafraid to address such issues.  Power of control is a business and military concept which does not apply in such circumstances, something which you need to grasp.

If I have a serious problem with the SP and need to contact the area authority, how do I do I find out who the authority is and how do I contact him? I'm not seeing any contact info on LDS tools so I'm guessing it will take a bit of sleuthing.

Yes, and so what?  It can be done.

If you address letters to the brethren, they will be returned to your stake president.

I have never had a letter to the Brethren returned, and I have sent some serious letters.  There are some notorious cases where letters have been rerouted, as with missionaries in the French Mission in the late 1950s, which allowed a major apostasy to continue for awhile -- when finally the parents of a missionary spoke personally with someone they knew in the Twelve, and then finally something was done.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think that failure stems from you not understanding the word "systemic".

If the system does not allow for recourse, there is, by definition, a systemic problem.

If you would like to prove how there is currently a systemic solution to the problem then I'm all ears.

The stake president under discussion here is in obvious trouble, perhaps having a psychological breakdown.  In all my years, I have yet to meet such a character in that position.  It must be quite rare for anyone to go off the deep end like that as an SP.  Many members will already have become aware of it in several wards.  The problem needs to be handled.  Prayer and fasting may be called for, before action is taken, but the problem must be dealt with.

There are solutions to systemic problems so your claim that "nothing could possibly resolve it" is absurd. If there is a system problem of communication, you add communication. If there is a systemic problem concerning access to the chain of command, you create a new process to address the systemic problem. That kind of systemic problem is really what we have here. For the average member the chain of command stops with the SP. The average member does not have access to any higher authority. This is a problem created by the system which means it is a problem that can be addressed by the system. But before a problem can be addressed it must first be recognized.

There is no "chain of command" in the LDS Church, and that may be the source of your misunderstanding.  The same sort of misunderstanding appears in citizens who believe that the President of the US is their "commander in chief."  He is not.  He is only commander in chief of the armed forces.  He is not our boss.  We are his boss.  He serves us.  Thus, despite the deference and respect we might show, our stake president is our servant.

 

[canard78]

I'm usually on your "side" @HappyJackWagon, but I'm inclined to agree with some of the points @Robert F. Smith makes. 

It's fairly easy to find out who your area authority is:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-announces-2016-area-leadership-assignments?lang=eng

(there's a similar list for 2015, given these changes apply from August 2016).

As to whether the Area leadership will take any action is another thing. It will depend on their experiences and interactions with @stemelbow's SP.

As for the talk today. Yes, I think he was out of order. I don't think a "forgive and forget" approach, as suggested by others, is enough. Depending on how far you want to put your head above the parapet I think giving feedback to him or the area president directly or asking others in leadership to do so would be reasonable. 

[The Nehor]

Of course if you honor is sufficiently impugned and the da,age to others sufficient then the only honorable recourse is to challenge your Stake President to duel.

 

I am not convinced there is any need for this "reporting leaders" thing people go on about. If it existed it would be complained about as area presidents or stake president's dismiss the accusations (rightly or wrongly). In addition our leaders are busy enough without needing to investigate the talk President or Bishop so and so gave last week.

 

If you want to avoid offending people in church you would be better served getting rid of Fast and Testimony meeting in any case.

[stemelbow]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 8:28 PM, The Nehor said:

Forgive him if he did wrong and move on.

Talk it over with God. Forgive him if necessary. I have had church leaders I disagree with and a very few I just did not like. I found that if I forgave them it got easier. Plus it is a prerequisite to getting forgiveness myself.

I hold no ill will towards him.  Forgiveness was offered as soon as he started talking in my mind.  I do feel his position and thoughts come from somewhere.  They aren't out of the blue.  He's in the system and runs it as asked, in his mind.  I don't fault him for that.