stemelbow Posted June 6, 2016 Author Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/3/2016 at 6:12 PM, 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. I think you're correct. Why I gave HappyJack a thumbs up on his comment was because I do feel, in spite of you being right here, that there is no point in addressing it further. If anyone else in the ward took issue with the things he was saying I doubt it was issue enough to want to even discuss it. I may be wrong but if I didn't know my SP already at this point I'd probably feel more inclined to set up a meeting with him and talk it out a little. But I already know him. Already feel confident how it will go and don't feel like there'd be any positive to come out of it. Also, I'm not sure me going to a higher authority is going to do much. It'd have to be a few of us, and as I said I'm pretty sure no one in the ward is going to make an issue out of it. I'm in more of a cynical place than I should be, sure, but that's what I'm dealing with. I got my wife and we're both beyond it enough that we haven't even brought it up again after our first discussion or two about it. I brought it up here because I'm concerned it's a bit of a trend, as I suggested my SP is pretty clear in suggesting this is the type of message he's being instructed on from his personal interactions with the twelve.
stemelbow Posted June 6, 2016 Author Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/3/2016 at 4:21 PM, Bobbieaware said: 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. Completely fair, Bobbie. I agree with you and am ready to acknowledge my rendition of the talk wasn't at all complete.
Meadowchik Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On Thursday, June 02, 2016 at 7:24 PM, 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. We recently had a positive experience when confronted with a troubling top-down decision from our SP concerning us. Upon hearing of it, we wrote him a joint email expressing our concerns, my husband even getting defensive and asking to be released. The SP responded, clarifying and softening the original message. He didn't react explicitly to my husband's defensiveness when another might have gotten angry. Since then, any issue between us and the stake has been completely cleared up. Sometimes, it does work. I fully recognise, though, that this isn't always the case. We should talk to our leaders, though. Try to help them see things as they are for us and others. 1
stemelbow Posted June 6, 2016 Author Posted June 6, 2016 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: 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. I agree with this. If I did try and bring this up to area leadership, I wouldn't expect them to do a thing about it. I'd mostly want to get their impressions about direction of the Church. It'd make me feel more comfortable in Church myself if I knew leadership was more interested in some of that which I'm interested in rather than in what my SP is interested in. 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: If you want to avoid offending people in church you would be better served getting rid of Fast and Testimony meeting in any case. I don't know Sunday School has been a bit of a hotbed for offense in our ward as late. yesterday the teacher in meekness admitted she's not much in to politics but sees there is importance to being involved. She had a couple of people scold her, and carry it out for a few minutes for her admission. It really bothered them they said, that she would be a member of the Church and not be heavily informed. In my mind, I realized she who was doing the most of the scolding was less informed than the teacher. But the teacher handled the persistent attack very well and moved on.
Meadowchik Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On Saturday, June 04, 2016 at 4:36 PM, 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. 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. 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. Don't skip the step of actually reaching out to the SO, though.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/4/2016 at 3:22 PM, Robert F. Smith said: 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. Of course there's a chain of command in the church. We call it priesthood order. Only a person in higher priesthood authority can correct another priesthood leader. Power and control is a concept, practice, and reality that exists in every organization in the world. I'm not sure how you don't see this. 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. Good for you. I've had letters returned. I know Many people who have had letters returned. Do you really believe this isn't the standard practice within the church? 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. While not on the verge of psychological collapse, I've had a stake president who wildly overstepped his boundaries on a regular basis. Guess what happened. Nothing. Why? Because there was no one people could turn to for help. There was no accessible authority over the SP who could address the issues. 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. Of course there is a priesthood order. A bishop cannot correct or censure a SP. A High Councilor cannot correct or censure a SP. Not even his counselors can do that, although they would likely have more access to the next level of authority. For practical purposes, the SP is the end of the chain for most members. This is a problem.
Meadowchik Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 A couple years ago while we were still "new " in our ward and I worked in nursery, the meetings were at an end and I wanted to clean and vacuum the nursury room, but only after I had secured our twin toddlers in the car with their older siblings. That's when the stake Patriarch and ward member (who is also grandpa or father to half the ward) came up to me in the parking lot. He started by saying he didn't want me to speak, just listen, and then lectured me about leaving the nursury uncleaned. The part where he insisted I not speak hurt the most. I can manage explaining and can support the idea of keeping the chapel clean, but for him to claim the propriety of keeping me voiceless while reprimanding me is infuriating. It still is. However, he still does a lot of good in our ward and stake. Everyone is, as my parents frequently say, a mixed bag. 3
Meadowchik Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Regarding chain of command, isn't it correct that in many situations the bishop supercedes the stake president's discretion? 1
stemelbow Posted June 6, 2016 Author Posted June 6, 2016 32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: A couple years ago while we were still "new " in our ward and I worked in nursery, the meetings were at an end and I wanted to clean and vacuum the nursury room, but only after I had secured our twin toddlers in the car with their older siblings. That's when the stake Patriarch and ward member (who is also grandpa or father to half the ward) came up to me in the parking lot. He started by saying he didn't want me to speak, just listen, and then lectured me about leaving the nursury uncleaned. The part where he insisted I not speak hurt the most. I can manage explaining and can support the idea of keeping the chapel clean, but for him to claim the propriety of keeping me voiceless while reprimanding me is infuriating. It still is. However, he still does a lot of good in our ward and stake. Everyone is, as my parents frequently say, a mixed bag. My goodness. Not cool. Someone needs to have a talk with I'm and say, that's not how to deal with people. 1
bluebell Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: A couple years ago while we were still "new " in our ward and I worked in nursery, the meetings were at an end and I wanted to clean and vacuum the nursury room, but only after I had secured our twin toddlers in the car with their older siblings. That's when the stake Patriarch and ward member (who is also grandpa or father to half the ward) came up to me in the parking lot. He started by saying he didn't want me to speak, just listen, and then lectured me about leaving the nursury uncleaned. The part where he insisted I not speak hurt the most. I can manage explaining and can support the idea of keeping the chapel clean, but for him to claim the propriety of keeping me voiceless while reprimanding me is infuriating. It still is. However, he still does a lot of good in our ward and stake. Everyone is, as my parents frequently say, a mixed bag. That would have been so hard to deal with. I would have cried for sure (I cry whenever I get mad) and then that man would have been nose to nose with my husband (who is not at all afraid of confrontation or ever in awe of people in authority). It would have been bad all around. Did you ever get the chance to explain yourself?? Kudos for being so mature and being able to forgive him and see that the experience doesn't make him a bad person, just a flawed one. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 56 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Regarding chain of command, isn't it correct that in many situations the bishop supercedes the stake president's discretion? No. SP can override the bishop on anything he chooses.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: ................................................................................ I brought it up here because I'm concerned it's a bit of a trend, as I suggested my SP is pretty clear in suggesting this is the type of message he's being instructed on from his personal interactions with the twelve. Hogwash. This is certainly not what the Brethren want, and they would be quick to condemn it. I have never seen the like, and I have had many different stake presidents.
stemelbow Posted June 6, 2016 Author Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) Just now, Robert F. Smith said: Hogwash. This is certainly not what the Brethren want, and they would be quick to condemn it. I have never seen the like, and I have had many different stake presidents. Okee dokes. Thanks for your take. Judging from my past experience with many Stake Presidents, yes this is not normal behavior. I'm feeling like I can't trust my SP's take on him conveying messages to us from the twelve himself. Honestly, I don't get where he's getting that. Maybe by saying he's telling us what the twelve need us to hear, he's trying to build himself up rather than being genuine. Edited June 6, 2016 by stemelbow 1
Meadowchik Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 38 minutes ago, bluebell said: That would have been so hard to deal with. I would have cried for sure (I cry whenever I get mad) and then that man would have been nose to nose with my husband (who is not at all afraid of confrontation or ever in awe of people in authority). It would have been bad all around. Did you ever get the chance to explain yourself?? Kudos for being so mature and being able to forgive him and see that the experience doesn't make him a bad person, just a flawed one. Well I did stomp off with something like "No way an I listening to you, then!" We've both had time to cool down. He's now our home teacher and, despite being disabled with a bad leg, wants to help us start a crop of potatoes to get our garden going. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: ............................. SP can override the bishop on anything he chooses. Sounds like you are attributing all power in heaven & earth to the stake president, regardless of Handbook rules and guidelines, and regardless of the various councils and quorums which exist in that stake and ward. Perhaps you ought to question your own overriding church military command theory. Onward christian soldiers, marching as to war? That is not the LDS Church which I know. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: While not on the verge of psychological collapse, I've had a stake president who wildly overstepped his boundaries on a regular basis. Guess what happened. Nothing. Why? Because there was no one people could turn to for help. There was no accessible authority over the SP who could address the issues. A congregation of sheep, quiescent and unwilling to take responsibility. Very sad.
Jeanne Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 On 6/2/2016 at 11:09 AM, stemelbow said: 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. Sounds like he is taking his position way more seriously than he should. Whatever happened to humility? It is a blessing to serve others..is it not? 1
Jeanne Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: That would have been so hard to deal with. I would have cried for sure (I cry whenever I get mad) and then that man would have been nose to nose with my husband (who is not at all afraid of confrontation or ever in awe of people in authority). It would have been bad all around. Did you ever get the chance to explain yourself?? Kudos for being so mature and being able to forgive him and see that the experience doesn't make him a bad person, just a flawed one. This is me...I cry when I get mad..then I get mad because I cried. Kudos to Meadowchik! 1
The Nehor Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: I don't know Sunday School has been a bit of a hotbed for offense in our ward as late. yesterday the teacher in meekness admitted she's not much in to politics but sees there is importance to being involved. She had a couple of people scold her, and carry it out for a few minutes for her admission. It really bothered them they said, that she would be a member of the Church and not be heavily informed. In my mind, I realized she who was doing the most of the scolding was less informed than the teacher. But the teacher handled the persistent attack very well and moved on. Another stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I try not to talk politics. Listening to the average "well informed" citizen makes me wonder if fascism might be better then letting that person have a voice in government. 2
thesometimesaint Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 21 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Another stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I try not to talk politics. Listening to the average "well informed" citizen makes me wonder if fascism might be better then letting that person have a voice in government. I'm not talking politics as this can apply to any social ideology. Fascism is great as long as you can stay off the crap list. The problem with fascism is staying off the crap list.
Eek! Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) In my limited experience, the leadership of the LDS church is more concerned with doing what's right than in protecting a local leader who has overstepped. Many years ago I was a ward mission leader. One Sunday two of our missionaries didn't show up. I went to see them later that day to make sure they were okay. They explained that they had been instructed by their Mission President to not attend church unless they had an investigator attending. That didn't sound right to me so I called around and found out who the Area President was and had a letter in the mail to him the next morning. By the following weekend, the Mission President had reversed his position and the missionaries were once again able to attend church freely. The Area President thanked me for letting him know. Unless things have changed since then, there is probably someone above the Stake President who can be contacted. Whether or not the situation described calls for that is a different question. Edited June 7, 2016 by Eek! 4
Tacenda Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 1:23 PM, Eek! said: In my limited experience, the leadership of the LDS church is more concerned with doing what's right than in protecting a local leader who has overstepped. Many years ago I was a ward mission leader. One Sunday two of our missionaries didn't show up. I went to see them later that day to make sure they were okay. They explained that they had been instructed by their Mission President to not attend church unless they had an investigator attending. That didn't sound right to me so I called around and found out who the Area President was and had a letter in the mail to him the next morning. By the following weekend, the Mission President had reversed his position and the missionaries were once again able to attend church freely. The Area President thanked me for letting him know. Unless things have changed since then, there is probably someone above the Stake President who can be contacted. Whether or not the situation described calls for that is a different question. That's odd that missionaries are instructed not to go to church.
rodheadlee Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 7:13 AM, Meadowchik said: A couple years ago while we were still "new " in our ward and I worked in nursery, the meetings were at an end and I wanted to clean and vacuum the nursury room, but only after I had secured our twin toddlers in the car with their older siblings. That's when the stake Patriarch and ward member (who is also grandpa or father to half the ward) came up to me in the parking lot. He started by saying he didn't want me to speak, just listen, and then lectured me about leaving the nursury uncleaned. The part where he insisted I not speak hurt the most. I can manage explaining and can support the idea of keeping the chapel clean, but for him to claim the propriety of keeping me voiceless while reprimanding me is infuriating. It still is. However, he still does a lot of good in our ward and stake. Everyone is, as my parents frequently say, a mixed bag. Grrrr, arrrggggh. I would have spoken and told him things he didn't want to hear. You are a better person than me.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 11:06 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Sounds like you are attributing all power in heaven & earth to the stake president, regardless of Handbook rules and guidelines, and regardless of the various councils and quorums which exist in that stake and ward. Perhaps you ought to question your own overriding church military command theory. Onward christian soldiers, marching as to war? That is not the LDS Church which I know. While you keep saying this I haven't seen any valid reason for why the command structure isn't accurate. In a military command you have various ranks. One rank is higher than another and a higher rank can therefore override a lower rank. In the church, we don't have rank but we do have priesthood office and priesthood keys. The person holding keys directs the work of all within that stewardship. A bishop holds keys to the Aaronic priesthood but can also delegate some keys to others, like the Deacons Q President. So the Deacons Q Pres. has keys but he cannot do whatever he wants. He still works under the supervision of the bishop who is a higher key holder. The same is true for the relationship between a Stake President and a Bishop. The stake President holds and passes on some keys to the bishop, but supervises the use of those keys. Therefore, if the bishop oversteps or misuses those keys, the SP can step in to make corrections. This works very much like a command structure, or as we would call it in the church, a priesthood structure. Who steps in to correct the SP? I'm still waiting for an answer on that. The Area Authority 70? Does he hold keys? And even if the area authority 70 holds keys, we've already established that access to him is more limited. 1
CV75 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: While you keep saying this I haven't seen any valid reason for why the command structure isn't accurate. In a military command you have various ranks. One rank is higher than another and a higher rank can therefore override a lower rank. In the church, we don't have rank but we do have priesthood office and priesthood keys. The person holding keys directs the work of all within that stewardship. A bishop holds keys to the Aaronic priesthood but can also delegate some keys to others, like the Deacons Q President. So the Deacons Q Pres. has keys but he cannot do whatever he wants. He still works under the supervision of the bishop who is a higher key holder. The same is true for the relationship between a Stake President and a Bishop. The stake President holds and passes on some keys to the bishop, but supervises the use of those keys. Therefore, if the bishop oversteps or misuses those keys, the SP can step in to make corrections. This works very much like a command structure, or as we would call it in the church, a priesthood structure. Who steps in to correct the SP? I'm still waiting for an answer on that. The Area Authority 70? Does he hold keys? And even if the area authority 70 holds keys, we've already established that access to him is more limited. This is a different question than who to go to gripe about a stake president's communication and management style. “The stake presidency is accountable to members of the General Authorities of the Church for the administration of their stake.” http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Stake_President,_Stake_Presidency “A stake president is assisted by two counselors and a group of 12 men called a high council. These leaders have a significant amount of local autonomy to make decisions regarding the members in their stake.” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/stake-president “Members of the Presidency of the Seventy or Area Presidency travel frequently within the assigned area to teach and encourage local leaders and members of the Church. Area Seventies are also assigned to consult with and instruct stake presidents in their area, under the direction of the Area Presidency or Presidency of the Seventy.” https://www.lds.org/topics/church-organization/how-the-church-is-organized?lang=eng “The specific duties of an area presidency include implementing the policies and instructions of the General Authorities presiding over them; instructing area leaders and members in the principles of the gospel; selecting and training regional representatives, stake presidencies, and mission leaders; counseling with local leaders, members, and missionaries about Church-related, personal, and spiritual problems; establishing priorities for a broad range of Church activities; supervising the work of area staff personnel; conferring with community and religious leaders on social and moral issues of common concern; and making regular reports to higher Church leaders on conditions and progress in their area.” http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Area,_Area_Presidency His transgressions are discovered and disciplined in the same way as any other member: by and large and eventually (especially when it becomes public or common knowledge anyway), through self-reporting. This reporting structure falls under the selection and counseling of stake presidents by the area presidency as described in the paragraph above.
Recommended Posts