HappyJackWagon Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 13 minutes ago, CV75 said: 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. sigh.... Chain of command directly impacts the reporting process, or as you like to call it, "griping" about a stake president. So now that you seem to accept the chain of command structure (priesthood structure) which I've been talking about from the beginning, maybe its time you now try to address how ecclesiastical abuses, incorrect teachings, or general concerns are brought to the attention of a higher authority by those who are effected. You seem to be saying that all I have to do is communicate with a member of the Area Presidency? That sounds easy. Well, not really. It's not easy at all. So I stand by my comments that there is not a mechanism within the church where members can have their concerns about a stake president addressed.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 I think we've all had some experience with leaders who were, shall we say, less than ideally suited for leadership. Sometimes you have to work around them or go over their heads, but I don't understand why it's a bad thing to express one's unhappiness with a leader's behavior. If it really bothered me what a leader had done, I would go and talk to him or her myself. In fact, I've done that before. It's a heck of a lot better than sitting quietly and going along with things you don't think are right. 2
stemelbow Posted June 9, 2016 Author Posted June 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think we've all had some experience with leaders who were, shall we say, less than ideally suited for leadership. Sometimes you have to work around them or go over their heads, but I don't understand why it's a bad thing to express one's unhappiness with a leader's behavior. If it really bothered me what a leader had done, I would go and talk to him or her myself. In fact, I've done that before. It's a heck of a lot better than sitting quietly and going along with things you don't think are right. I haven't been really looking for advice on how I should handle this. It was more about the questions and comments in my final paragraph. I've had a few discussions with my SP. I know what would come of it.
jkwilliams Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I haven't been really looking for advice on how I should handle this. It was more about the questions and comments in my final paragraph. I've had a few discussions with my SP. I know what would come of it. I know. I was just responding to what you said about staying quiet. Speaking to him might not have a positive reaction from him, but at least you'd get it off your chest. Again, I don't know why people think that church members shouldn't speak up when they believe something is wrong. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) Your SP is only following the example set by those above him in authority... Here is an example posted by a believer on another board. Quote It was the end of our stake conference [Elder] Bednar had given talks for his apostle visit. It was the closing hymn and I noticed two YSA Women stand up to sing. Keep in mind they were almost in the last row way back in the gym. The hymn ended and the member was about to walk up to the pulpit to give the closing prayer but [Elder] Bednar stopped him and said: “I noticed two young women who took it upon themselves to stand up during the hymn. This is unacceptable. You must look to the brethren before doing such things. If the presiding authority is sitting, stay sitting. If he stands then stand. Brothers and sisters remember look to the brethren.” Although he didn’t call them out by name there were at least a hundred people who saw the young ladies standing. I noticed one of the girls crying and still sitting in the back long after the end of the meeting. This was one of the first times I every remember disagreeing with an apostle. Forgive me but the word "Pompous" comes to mind... Edited June 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 3
CV75 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: sigh.... Chain of command directly impacts the reporting process, or as you like to call it, "griping" about a stake president. So now that you seem to accept the chain of command structure (priesthood structure) which I've been talking about from the beginning, maybe its time you now try to address how ecclesiastical abuses, incorrect teachings, or general concerns are brought to the attention of a higher authority by those who are effected. You seem to be saying that all I have to do is communicate with a member of the Area Presidency? That sounds easy. Well, not really. It's not easy at all. So I stand by my comments that there is not a mechanism within the church where members can have their concerns about a stake president addressed. CFR that “chain of command” is used in the Handbooks or scripture. A “chain of command” structure is very different than priesthood organization due to the latter’s requirement for council and presidency. One needs to understand the kingdom’s structure and process as defined in the scriptures before he can work with it, whether in consultation with a Handbook or not. Spiritual problems require spiritual structures and processes, spiritual mechanisms and a spiritual perspective. Area presidencies identify and resolve issues within the stakes by being quick to observe in carrying out the responsibilities and activities listed in the quotes and links I provided, and there are many ways of doing that. This is why you can’t give an example where ecclesiastical abuses, incorrect teachings, and general concerns have not been corrected, and if you can give a example of where they have been corrected it is because various people knew how to work with the principles and mechanisms of council and presidency. Those who don’t understand them can’t very well engage in having their concerns about a stake president addressed. Their faulty understanding feeds false expectations and misconceptions, and vice-versa. Our responsibility as members is to understand and practice them. It entails personal responsibility in good faith and in being quick to observe (oneself as well as the Lord and others), an individual appointment, and following up with the stake president on whether and with who he has counseled. He’s (just) a person too, you know! So stop insisting that things don't exist that do.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: CFR that “chain of command” is used in the Handbooks or scripture. A “chain of command” structure is very different than priesthood organization due to the latter’s requirement for council and presidency. One needs to understand the kingdom’s structure and process as defined in the scriptures before he can work with it, whether in consultation with a Handbook or not. Spiritual problems require spiritual structures and processes, spiritual mechanisms and a spiritual perspective. Area presidencies identify and resolve issues within the stakes by being quick to observe in carrying out the responsibilities and activities listed in the quotes and links I provided, and there are many ways of doing that. This is why you can’t give an example where ecclesiastical abuses, incorrect teachings, and general concerns have not been corrected, and if you can give a example of where they have been corrected it is because various people knew how to work with the principles and mechanisms of council and presidency. Those who don’t understand them can’t very well engage in having their concerns about a stake president addressed. Their faulty understanding feeds false expectations and misconceptions, and vice-versa. Our responsibility as members is to understand and practice them. It entails personal responsibility in good faith and in being quick to observe (oneself as well as the Lord and others), an individual appointment, and following up with the stake president on whether and with who he has counseled. He’s (just) a person too, you know! So stop insisting that things don't exist that do. This is getting absurd and tedious, and since I no longer care if you can or cannot grasp the obvious, this will be my concluding post. You're welcome I've never once claimed "chain of command" language is used in the handbooks so your CFR is moot. We call it priesthood line of authority. I've made this point many times. Lines of authority are outlined in great detail in handbook 1 as well as in the D&C. Let's cut to the chase. I will simply call for a CFR for any official source or documentation that the general membership has access to, that describes how they can have their concerns addressed by a higher authority than their SP. I'll be pleasantly surprised if one exists.
CV75 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is getting absurd and tedious, and since I no longer care if you can or cannot grasp the obvious, this will be my concluding post. You're welcome I've never once claimed "chain of command" language is used in the handbooks so your CFR is moot. We call it priesthood line of authority. I've made this point many times. Lines of authority are outlined in great detail in handbook 1 as well as in the D&C. Let's cut to the chase. I will simply call for a CFR for any official source or documentation that the general membership has access to, that describes how they can have their concerns addressed by a higher authority than their SP. I'll be pleasantly surprised if one exists. https://www.lds.org/topics/prayer?lang=eng
CV75 Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I've never once claimed "chain of command" language is used in the handbooks so your CFR is moot. We call it priesthood line of authority. I've made this point many times. Lines of authority are outlined in great detail in handbook 1 as well as in the D&C. No, we don't. This is what priesthood line of authority is: http://tech.lds.org/wiki/Priesthood_Line_of_Authority If you keep conflating the principles and terms, you won't see the mechanism that exists! If you look up / word search "concerns" in the D&C, it will always be associated with the operation of councils for managing temporal matters using spiritual principles. Edited June 9, 2016 by CV75
Eek! Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: That's odd that missionaries are instructed not to go to church. I think the intention was to give the missionaries a strong incentive to make sure they had investigators attending church. When I wrote to the Area President (Morrison, as I recall), I included a photocopy of the newsletter from the mission president with the instructions so that he had documentation rather than just an allegation (the missionaries were not at all reluctant to let me make the photocopy - they were as upset by it as I was). Of course being the argumentative so-and-so that I was and still am, I couldn't resist including in my letter a tabulation of the things I thought were wrong with the instruction, including: 1. It punished the missionaries for someone else's actions (investigators who declined to attend church). 2. Missionaries need their spiritual batteries recharged probably more than anyone else does. 3. Ward members benefit from the presence, participation of, and bonding with the missionaries as well. 4. It puts mission rules above one of the Ten Commandments, and to the extent that missionaries are examples to ward members, sets a bad example. 5. It forces the missionaries into hypocrisy for teaching that church attendance is a commandment and then not attending. 6. It's a manipulative misuse of authority and therefore sets a bad example for future church leaders - the missionaries - as to how authority should be used. . Edited June 9, 2016 by Eek! 3
Calm Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 Yeah, the mission president really didn't think that one through. It would be like telling someone if the person he was tutoring in class didn't pass the test, she (the tutor) would be kicked out of class herself. Makes no sense.
Eek! Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Yeah, the mission president really didn't think that one through. It would be like telling someone if the person he was tutoring in class didn't pass the test, she (the tutor) would be kicked out of class herself. Makes no sense. I was very impressed with and encouraged by how quickly the Area President addressed the situation. 1
Tacenda Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Eek! said: I was very impressed with and encouraged by how quickly the Area President addressed the situation. You know it kind of makes me wonder if more mission presidents have done this or have been instructed to do this. I rarely see our Stake missionaries. Maybe once in the past while. Maybe the missionaries on this board could give insight. I know my husband visited many non LDS churches on his mission in the south. It could vary, mission to mission.
The Nehor Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: sigh.... Chain of command directly impacts the reporting process, or as you like to call it, "griping" about a stake president. So now that you seem to accept the chain of command structure (priesthood structure) which I've been talking about from the beginning, maybe its time you now try to address how ecclesiastical abuses, incorrect teachings, or general concerns are brought to the attention of a higher authority by those who are effected. You seem to be saying that all I have to do is communicate with a member of the Area Presidency? That sounds easy. Well, not really. It's not easy at all. So I stand by my comments that there is not a mechanism within the church where members can have their concerns about a stake president addressed. They can tell God who outranks everyone else. Seems odd people demand the right to complain about managers to VPs and middle management when the CEO is available. 2
The Nehor Posted June 9, 2016 Posted June 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Yeah, the mission president really didn't think that one through. It would be like telling someone if the person he was tutoring in class didn't pass the test, she (the tutor) would be kicked out of class herself. Makes no sense. A Zone Leader tried to enforce that on his zone in my mission. He was junior companion after the next transfer. 😉
Robert F. Smith Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 11 hours 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. You keeping arguing for the dictatorship of the proletariat military command structure, even though you admit that the LDS Church has no ranks, and it is obvious that you actually believe in that sort of nonsense. In addition to which you seem dedicated to the belief that "we've already established that access to" the Area Seventy is limited. We have done no such thing. Indeed, you were shown a website where such an authority could be accessed very easily. You need to understand D&C 121:36-46, along with similar sources of Church governance: Quote 36 . . . the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and . . . the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. ....................................................... 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; 44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. 45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. 46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. As a graduate of Marine Corps bootcamp, D&C 121 just doesn't bring back to my mind any notions of military command structure, and I have never experienced it within the LDS Church. Once in a long while I might hear an awful story about unrighteous dominion. My real question would be: Why haven't you noticed the fundamental problem we are dealing with in this thread? How is it that you have failed to make these distinctions, HappyJack? 1
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is getting absurd and tedious, and since I no longer care if you can or cannot grasp the obvious, this will be my concluding post. You're welcome I've never once claimed "chain of command" language is used in the handbooks so your CFR is moot. We call it priesthood line of authority. I've made this point many times. Lines of authority are outlined in great detail in handbook 1 as well as in the D&C. Let's cut to the chase. I will simply call for a CFR for any official source or documentation that the general membership has access to, that describes how they can have their concerns addressed by a higher authority than their SP. I'll be pleasantly surprised if one exists. Talk to God who has ultimate authority. But no, there is no end run to the Seventies or the Apostles. The leadership does not have the time or resources to open up a complaint box running all the way up the earthly chain in the same way you would be hard-pressed to speak to your senator or the President about a secular problem. If you do not believe God is at the helm then the earthly leadership has no claim to lead you or anyone else in anything and church leaders do not have civil authority so any abuses can be rectified by ignoring them.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: Talk to God who has ultimate authority. But no, there is no end run to the Seventies or the Apostles. The leadership does not have the time or resources to open up a complaint box running all the way up the earthly chain in the same way you would be hard-pressed to speak to your senator or the President about a secular problem. If you do not believe God is at the helm then the earthly leadership has no claim to lead you or anyone else in anything and church leaders do not have civil authority so any abuses can be rectified by ignoring them. The CEO doesn't seem to be accepting calls. The church is an earthly structure, run by earthly people, aimed at following God's will. In such an earthly set up, it seems reasonable there would be an earthly way to make corrections. 1
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The CEO doesn't seem to be accepting calls. The church is an earthly structure, run by earthly people, aimed at following God's will. In such an earthly set up, it seems reasonable there would be an earthly way to make corrections. He took mine last night and this morning. Did you try leaving a message?
HappyJackWagon Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 30 minutes ago, The Nehor said: He took mine last night and this morning. Did you try leaving a message? Awesome! What did he say? I've left numerous messages. Maybe he likes you better than me.
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2016 Posted June 10, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Awesome! What did he say? I've left numerous messages. Maybe he likes you better than me. He told me that my plan to volunteer for a specific organization is a go, that my sins are forgiven, that I need to stop slacking on my workouts, to call someone today, and that he loves me. Also, that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. Well, he did not actually tell me that but it sounds good. 2
Recommended Posts