Why do we acknowledge symbolism and also demand literalism in our scriptural stories?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think reminding ourselves that we "see through a glass darkly" can help us not to drift too far to one side or the other.   It can be good to remind ourselves that we all certainly hold beliefs right now that are actually incorrect or incomplete.  Keeps us humble.

We are supposed to grow through revelation, which we would not seek, if we were all not "a little bit wrong".

Agency and all that. No robots allowed! 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am serious amazed with Abraham 4 after all the times I have read it.

I can see compatibility there with evolution- the EARTH and SEAS coming forth with species.

I also see clearly that God "organizes"/ creates all things by NAMING them, through The Word, The Messenger, Jesus Christ.

The Message of good news IS the WORD.

This is exactly compatible with the later work of perhaps the greatest 20th century philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein.  Without W's work, I would never have given the church a second glance.

This whole issue of literalism is what is stopping the church from being the Stone Cut Without Hands to roll forth and fill the earth.

Incidentally, no, the church is not a literal rock, in case we want to debate that too.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see

The symbolism of the Stone rolling forth should itself be teaching us the importance of symbols, but alas.

Incidentally Peter was also a human, not a rock.

I hope that symbolism doesn't cause anyone to leave the church.

 

 

 

There can be problems not just with taking literally that which should be understood as symbolic, but with misinterpreting the symbolism even after we have accepted that something is symbolic. 
 

For example, regarding the prophecy you mentioned about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, many, if not most, readers fail to properly grasp the time frame associated with that prophecy. When they do, they are prone to encounter a false clash between that and the prophecy in 1 Nephi that the church of the Lamb of God would be (relatively) few in number even as it spread forth with a global presence in the latter days. 
 

I believe the stone prophecy will not have its culminating fulfillment until well after the Second Coming of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium. We are setting the stage for that right now by spreading the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people and by inviting all to come unto Christ, even those who seem non-receptive. 

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we have to be careful to avoid drifting too far to one side or the other. We might scoff at folks who insist on the global flood story being literal, but taking too much of a non-literal bent can lead to taking (in my view) untenable positions such as rejecting the historicity of the Book of Mormon or propagating baseless suppositions such as it being only a matter of time before the Church contradicts its own position on same-sex marriage. 

I have faith (hope for things unseen) that the BOM is historical, but see no reason to abandon all the truths it teaches if it is not.

The truths are true regardless of whether they happened or not; same with Adam and Eve, the flood. etc

Please ponder that idea, in regard to the church's opposition to ssm

That truth, that God created gender for a reason, does not need history to prove it.

I see all ALL God's truths as eternal principles regardless of history, otherwise they would not be eternal.

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That comment may be full of grace but it doesn't reflect reality in the church.

How would that approach change the questions asked in temple recommend interviews and the declarations of worthiness one must attain to attend the temple and be a member in full/good standing? A lot would need to change. Bring it on, I say  

 

I don't think my comment would change the several questions concerning behavior, or the three questions concerning faith and testimony. The sustaining questions may be seen as a little of both, perhaps, and these wouldn't change, either. A person's perspective and understanding might alter how they answer, and how that might make the interview longer than it needs to be! At any rate, such good faith efforts help us become more Christlike and learn from experience in a beneficial way.

 "Of course the value of our understanding and belief is found in our behavior, so as long as someone is becoming Christlike, it doesn't matter whether we (or they) take things literally or figuratively and we (and they) learn from experience which works, and how well, and under what circumstances, etc."

 

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the stone prophecy will not have its culminating fulfillment until well after the Second Coming of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium.

Ok, that's possible. 

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are setting the stage for that right now by spreading the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people and by inviting all to come unto Christ, even those who seem non-receptive. 

I see it as a matter of interpretation, I don't disagree agree with you.

I just think we need to set the stage better now.  I am not a fan of all this millennium prep stuff we are going through now, when I think we could get there faster by concentrating more on a symbolic approach where appropriate.

Insisting on historicity above testimony is the wrong way to go, imo.

We really make it tough on converts who hear of a six day creation, and run for the door and will never come back because they see us as fundamentalist kooks, when there ARE other ways to see it.

Edited January 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Which temple recommend questions and declarations of worthiness are impacted by whether someone interprets foundational texts literally or symbolically, in your view?

I will admit that I'm not super familiar with changes to the TR question language...so I looked up the current questions. I will also admit that none of the questions say anything like "literally" anywhere in them but the testimony questions are the ones I was thinking about. Testimony questions are specifically about correct belief.

Quote

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?

2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?

3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

When I think about these questions I also think about the Articles of Faith and I believe that the intent of the question is to match a person's testimony to the Articles of Faith.

Quote

Articles of Faith

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

I believe the intent of the 1st question is to measure our literal belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as literal individual personages and all of the ancillary teachings; such as Jesus being the only begotten son, born to a virgin mother etc.  Do you feel that someone could/should answer that question if they belief the 3 members of the Godhead are symbolic?

Question 2 directly matches up with AoF 2 &3. Again, I believe the brethren wish to measure the literal belief in the atonement, including the suffering in the garden and bleeding from every pore, physical resurrection, redemption from sin that literally would separate us from the presence of God. Do you think the brethren would accept a person's belief in a symbolic/allegoric atonement?

Similarly, I believe that the question about a testimony of the restoration is meant to elicit a belief in the literal events of the restoration. If I said I believe in the metaphorical restoration of the gospel, would that be sufficient? I don't think so because belief in that then informs the question about sustaining leaders. Must a person literally believe that leaders are called of God, or is symbolically called of God OK? Question 5 actually quotes D&C 42:41 as if it is literally the word of God.

Quote

Articles of Faith

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

Temple Recommend Question

4. Do you sustain the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

 

5. The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41). Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity?

 

I believe the intention of the "testimony" questions is to determine if the interviewee believes properly, meaning the things literally happened. I don't think belief in a symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical restoration, godhead, leaders called of God, atonement is what they are looking for.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I will admit that I'm not super familiar with changes to the TR question language...so I looked up the current questions. I will also admit that none of the questions say anything like "literally" anywhere in them but the testimony questions are the ones I was thinking about. Testimony questions are specifically about correct belief.

When I think about these questions I also think about the Articles of Faith and I believe that the intent of the question is to match a person's testimony to the Articles of Faith.

I believe the intent of the 1st question is to measure our literal belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as literal individual personages and all of the ancillary teachings; such as Jesus being the only begotten son, born to a virgin mother etc.  Do you feel that someone could/should answer that question if they belief the 3 members of the Godhead are symbolic?

Question 2 directly matches up with AoF 2 &3. Again, I believe the brethren wish to measure the literal belief in the atonement, including the suffering in the garden and bleeding from every pore, physical resurrection, redemption from sin that literally would separate us from the presence of God. Do you think the brethren would accept a person's belief in a symbolic/allegoric atonement?

Similarly, I believe that the question about a testimony of the restoration is meant to elicit a belief in the literal events of the restoration. If I said I believe in the metaphorical restoration of the gospel, would that be sufficient? I don't think so because belief in that then informs the question about sustaining leaders. Must a person literally believe that leaders are called of God, or is symbolically called of God OK? Question 5 actually quotes D&C 42:41 as if it is literally the word of God.

 

I believe the intention of the "testimony" questions is to determine if the interviewee believes properly, meaning the things literally happened. I don't think belief in a symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical restoration, godhead, leaders called of God, atonement is what they are looking for.

Disagree.  I will take my own God given testimony over your unwarranted interpretation

"Testimony questions are specifically about correct belief."

No, they are about your personal witness from God!!

Why do you think we have that check and balance system??

Precisely to allow us to determine if a prophet goes astray, or if the church is teaching false doctrines !

You are contradicting Moroni 10 AND James 1

I am glad Joseph did not put traditional canon above personal testimony 

Oh the benefits of being a convert!

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Disagree.  I will take my own God given testimony over your unwarranted interpretation

"Testimony questions are specifically about correct belief."

No, they are about your personal witness from God!!

Why do you think we have that check and balance system??

Precisely to allow us to determine if a prophet goes astray, or if the church is teaching false doctrines !

You are contradicting Moroni 10 AND James 1

I am glad Joseph did not put traditional canon above personal testimony 

Oh the benefits of being a convert!

 

I'm glad you take it that way.

But I don't believe that is what the modern church intends. We can disagree.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I will admit that I'm not super familiar with changes to the TR question language...so I looked up the current questions. I will also admit that none of the questions say anything like "literally" anywhere in them but the testimony questions are the ones I was thinking about. Testimony questions are specifically about correct belief.

When I think about these questions I also think about the Articles of Faith and I believe that the intent of the question is to match a person's testimony to the Articles of Faith.

I believe the intent of the 1st question is to measure our literal belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as literal individual personages and all of the ancillary teachings; such as Jesus being the only begotten son, born to a virgin mother etc.  Do you feel that someone could/should answer that question if they belief the 3 members of the Godhead are symbolic?

Question 2 directly matches up with AoF 2 &3. Again, I believe the brethren wish to measure the literal belief in the atonement, including the suffering in the garden and bleeding from every pore, physical resurrection, redemption from sin that literally would separate us from the presence of God. Do you think the brethren would accept a person's belief in a symbolic/allegoric atonement?

Similarly, I believe that the question about a testimony of the restoration is meant to elicit a belief in the literal events of the restoration. If I said I believe in the metaphorical restoration of the gospel, would that be sufficient? I don't think so because belief in that then informs the question about sustaining leaders. Must a person literally believe that leaders are called of God, or is symbolically called of God OK? Question 5 actually quotes D&C 42:41 as if it is literally the word of God.

 

I believe the intention of the "testimony" questions is to determine if the interviewee believes properly, meaning the things literally happened. I don't think belief in a symbolic/metaphorical/allegorical restoration, godhead, leaders called of God, atonement is what they are looking for.

You could be right, but there isn't any system in place to ensure that people understand your interpretation of the temple interview questions and answer according to that understanding.  If someone does only believe in an allegorical Atonement, for example, there isn't anything present in the questions to keep them from getting a TR, is there?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You could be right, but there isn't any system in place to ensure that people understand your interpretation of the temple interview questions and answer according to that understanding.  If someone does only believe in an allegorical Atonement, for example, there isn't anything present in the questions to keep them from getting a TR, is there?

 

Other than a priesthood leader who may more aggressive at protecting the doctrine and the sanctity of the temple. I've told stories before but Leadership Roulette is a thing   Some leaders may ask additional follow up questions to use the recommend interview as a teaching moment or the person answering may volunteer their perspective of non-literal belief to which the leader responds. Either way, I think if a leader uncovers a symbolic belief about these kinds of questions (doesn't matter how it is uncovered) that person may be denied a recommend. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad you take it that way.

But I don't believe that is what the modern church intends. We can disagree.

Well then I must be in the wrong church.

Silly me, I thought I was to have my own testimony of the principles!

I didn't realize I had to take everything without question like robots. (Sarcasm)

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Other than a priesthood leader who may more aggressive at protecting the doctrine and the sanctity of the temple. I've told stories before but Leadership Roulette is a thing   Some leaders may ask additional follow up questions to use the recommend interview as a teaching moment or the person answering may volunteer their perspective of non-literal belief to which the leader responds. Either way, I think if a leader uncovers a symbolic belief about these kinds of questions (doesn't matter how it is uncovered) that person may be denied a recommend. 

Maybe, but I don't think it's a given. 

Leaders are not allowed to add additional questions to TR interviews, and if a person answers all the questions honestly and "correctly", it would be difficult for a leader to get away with withholding a recommend, especially since the handbook does not state anywhere that literal belief is required.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

....Leaders are not allowed to add additional questions to TR interviews, and if a person answers all the questions honestly and "correctly", it would be difficult for a leader to get away with withholding a recommend, especially since the handbook does not state anywhere that literal belief is required.

Exactly right. You ask the questions and listen to the spirit.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe, but I don't think it's a given. 

Leaders are not allowed to add additional questions to TR interviews, and if a person answers all the questions honestly and "correctly", it would be difficult for a leader to get away with withholding a recommend, especially since the handbook does not state anywhere that literal belief is required.

1- It hasn't always been that way and often times leaders have been encouraged to "follow the spirit" and ask follow up questions.

2- Leaders can withhold recommends. Its not a rare occurrence in my experience.

 

We can disagree, but as I stated before, I strongly believe that literal belief in the items i stated is expected and required in most cases. I think it would be rare for a leader to know someone views things like the Godhead, the restoration, the atonement, as symbolic only and still give a recommend.

Quote

Exactly right. You ask the questions and listen to the spirit.

And if the spirit directs that follow up questions are needed to correctly ascertain the level of the person's testimony? Or the spirit directs that the person shouldn't receive a recommend for any reason at all... what happens?

What happens is the leader asks the follow up questions or denies the recommend.

Edited January 6, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well then I must be in the wrong church.

Silly me, I thought I was to have my own testimony of the principles!

I didn't realize I had to take everything without question like robots. (Sarcasm)

 

That is what a lot of people are considering and why so many are stepping away.

[rongo]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly right. You ask the questions and listen to the spirit.

And what if the Spirit tells you to ask follow up questions? Some here would say a leader is duty-bound to ignore this and just take the "given" answer, even though he feels that something is wrong or off. 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- It hasn't always been that way and often times leaders have been encouraged to "follow the spirit" and ask follow up questions.

2- Leaders can withhold recommends. Its not a rare occurrence in my experience.

We can disagree, but as I stated before, I strongly believe that literal belief in the items i stated is expected and required in most cases. I think it would be rare for a leader to know someone views things like the Godhead, the restoration, the atonement, as symbolic only and still give a recommend.

And if the spirit directs that follow up questions are needed to correctly ascertain the level of the person's testimony? Or the spirit directs that the person shouldn't receive a recommend for any reason at all... what happens?

What happens is the leader asks the follow up questions or denies the recommend.

This is true, in practice. I agree with you that the intent from the Brethren is that bishops and stake presidents be the gatekeepers to the temple, and the preservers of the integrity of doctrine and the temple. There is careful tightrope-walking in the handbook because of the shift in Church society over the last decades, but my experience (and I think your experience) is that file leaders are going to back up bishops if they feel like someone isn't worthy to go to the temple --- or that people are not being fully honest in answering the questions (e.g., holding heterodox beliefs, but seeking to hide this by insisting on minimalism in answering questions). I have a hard time seeing a stake president, A70, or general authority overturning or remanding a bishop's decision on temple worthiness, even though people might feel that counsel to not deviate from the TR questions is the court of last resort.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is true, in practice. I agree with you that the intent from the Brethren is that bishops and stake presidents be the gatekeepers to the temple, and the preservers of the integrity of doctrine and the temple. There is careful tightrope-walking in the handbook because of the shift in Church society over the last decades, but my experience (and I think your experience) is that file leaders are going to back up bishops if they feel like someone isn't worthy to go to the temple --- or that people are not being fully honest in answering the questions (e.g., holding heterodox beliefs, but seeking to hide this by insisting on minimalism in answering questions). I have a hard time seeing a stake president, A70, or general authority overturning or remanding a bishop's decision on temple worthiness, even though people might feel that counsel to not deviate from the TR questions is the court of last resort.

It happened in our ward two years ago, where the bishop did not give a couple their temple recommend, and they went to the stake president and he gave it to them.

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It happened in our ward two years ago, where the bishop did not give a couple their temple recommend, and they went to the stake president and he gave it to them.

Wow. I would be very careful about overriding something like that, because it undermines his authority. Unless he was completely beyond the pale, of course.

Were they friends of yours? I'm wondering if this was common knowledge --- i.e., if they talked to others about this. That would also undermine the bishop (unless they only told close friends, but even then, you know how people talk and word gets around).

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Wow. I would be very careful about overriding something like that, because it undermines his authority. Unless he was completely beyond the pale, of course.

Were they friends of yours? I'm wondering if this was common knowledge --- i.e., if they talked to others about this. That would also undermine the bishop (unless they only told close friends, but even then, you know how people talk and word gets around).

Not exactly friends but in the same group of friends.  I doubt it was common knowledge.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not exactly friends but in the same group of friends.  I doubt it was common knowledge.

Did they have bad feelings towards the bishop (did they talk disparagingly about him)? Were they smug that they "won" the TR battle? I'm trying to picture this coming up in casual conversation. 

If you're comfortable sharing, what was the disagreement about?

Edited January 6, 2022 by rongo

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Did they have bad feelings towards the bishop (did they talk disparagingly about him)? Were they smug that they "won" the TR battle?

If you're comfortable sharing, what was the disagreement about?

They were not fond of the bishop but it started before the TR issue, and I think they've had issues with every bishop that since I've been in the ward so I don't think anyone took their feelings for him very seriously.  I don't believe they were smug about the reversal.  And I don't believe the bishop had hard feelings either.  It was kind of an interesting issue (that I don't want to share because I don't want to accidentally provide enough information for someone to know who I'm talking about).

I think it's good that one man alone is not the gatekeeper to the temple.  That's a lot of power for one fallible person to weild.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It happened in our ward two years ago, where the bishop did not give a couple their temple recommend, and they went to the stake president and he gave it to them.

Something similar happened while I was bishop. It definitely colored my attitude towards the SP afterwards. He overrode me when I denied a TR, but the recommend still requires 2 signatures. I know I never signed it so I'm not sure what he did (maybe he had one of my counselors co-signed, or maybe one of his). That's a different problem IMO.

I had a couple who were in leadership positions. One was High Council, the other was YW Pres. The SP had heard some rumblings about some bad behavior on their part so asked me to pay attention in case I became aware of anything. Not long after that I got a call from their teen daughter who was running away because of physical abuse in the home. I started talking to her but when they found out she was talking to me the went around me and took her back to her previous bishop for counseling ( our ward had recently been created so they went back to their old ward/bishop) The SP approved this move.

Still, it was TR time and they had to come to me for that. They admitted to behavior that I consider physically abusive so I would not give them a recommend. Considering that the woman was also the YW Pres and she was directly involved in physically assaulting her daughter (who was one of our YW) I released her from the calling. They got upset, had their records moved from the ward back to their old ward (with SP approval). They got their TR and the brother continued serving on the HC and later replaced me as bishop.

So IMO this couple behaved poorly but the SP backed them up despite their continued bad and abusive behavior. They got their recommend so I suppose they won the battle. But I lost a TON of respect for the SP and even more when this family was moved back into the ward and he was called as bishop to replace me. I have zero confidence in the inspiration of callings after that. And in case you think the SP was a bad guy or a poor leader, he is actually a very nice man who is now a general authority.

Edited January 6, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They were not fond of the bishop but it started before the TR issue, and I think they've had issues with every bishop that since I've been in the ward so I don't think anyone took their feelings for him very seriously.  I don't believe they were smug about the reversal.  And I don't believe the bishop had hard feelings either.  It was kind of an interesting issue (that I don't want to share because I don't want to accidentally provide enough information for someone to know who I'm talking about).

I think it's good that one man alone is not the gatekeeper to the temple.  That's a lot of power for one fallible person to weild.

 

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Something similar happened while I was bishop. It definitely colored my attitude towards the SP afterwards. He overrode me when I denied a TR, but the recommend still requires 2 signatures. I know I never signed it so I'm not sure what he did (maybe he had one of my counselors co-signed, or maybe one of his). That's a different problem IMO.

I had a couple who were in leadership positions. One was High Council, the other was YW Pres. The SP had heard some rumblings about some bad behavior on their part so asked me to pay attention in case I became aware of anything. Not long after that I got a call from their teen daughter who was running away because of physical abuse in the home. I started talking to her but when they found out she was talking to me the went around me and took her back to her previous bishop for counseling ( our ward had recently been created so they went back to their old ward/bishop) The SP approved this move.

Still, it was TR time and they had to come to me for that. They admitted to behavior that I consider physically abusive so I would not give them a recommend. Considering that the woman was also the YW Pres and she was directly involved in physically assaulting her daughter (who was one of our YW) I released her from the calling. They got upset, had their records moved from the ward back to their old ward (with SP approval). They got their TR and the brother continued serving on the HC and later replaced me as bishop.

So IMO this couple behaved poorly but the SP backed them up despite their continued bad and abusive behavior. They got their recommend so I suppose they won the battle. But I lost a TON of respect for the SP and even more when this family was moved back into the ward and he was called as bishop to replace me. I have zero confidence in the inspiration of callings after that. And in case you think the SP was a bad guy or a poor leader, he is actually a very nice man who is now a general authority.

It's only a sample size of two, but this tends to support my suspicion that when there is an overriding of a bishop (barring clear, obvious malpractice), there are a host of red flags indicating that it's not a good idea. 

I don't know if you were privy to explanations, @HappyJackWagon, but did he ever justify or rationalize his choices in this matter? As you describe it --- holy smokes. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, rongo said:

 

It's only a sample size of two, but this tends to support my suspicion that when there is an overriding of a bishop (barring clear, obvious malpractice), there are a host of red flags indicating that it's not a good idea. 

I don't know if you were privy to explanations, @HappyJackWagon, but did he ever justify or rationalize his choices in this matter? As you describe it --- holy smokes. 

Yes- he said he didn't want to drive them away from the church.

There's quite a bit more to the story of course but details would only make the couple look worse IMO.

This SP really was a good guy and I like him in a lot of ways and was even a very good leader in a lot of ways BUT this is just one example of him throwing me under the bus to placate members. One other really good story  

-There was a couple in the ward my wife and I were friends with and I'd spent a lot of time with the couple working through some issues. The lady became a bit fixated on my and had a legitimate mental break. She broke into our home and left bullets on the nightstand. She then also started posting on her blog, facebook, telling anyone who would listen that I was "monitoring" and surveilling her 24/7. Like NSA level surveillance. She claimed I was bugging her home with audio and video and then tormenting her by having the ward sing songs in sacrament that I'd heard her singing via surveillance earlier in the morning...you know, just to let her know I was watching. It was crazy. She also made statements about how it is better for 1 leader to perish rather than allow a ward to dwindle in unbelief. She actually admitted that she thought I should die as a protection for the ward.

In any case I was in very close contact with the SP about this every step of the way. I made notes of every interaction etc. Everyone who heard this lady knew she had a serious mental problem, but then the SP started regularly asking me questions like "Do you have surveillance cameras placed in every room of the woman's home?" Or "Are you bugging her car?"  SERIOUSLY? 

Eventually, her husband and I tricked her into checking herself into a hospital for psych evaluation to prove to me that she wasn't crazy. They held her for 2 months, got her good meds and then released her. They moved quickly after that. But the lack of support from the SP was infuriating.