I think you can travel ground that has been traveled before, and still make your own way across it, as opposed to following a trail.
From Mormon Women, a Flood of Requests and Questions on Their Role in the Church | NY Times
- Thread starter VINYLONE
- Start date
I think you can travel ground that has been traveled before, and still make your own way across it, as opposed to following a trail.
Of course. It is a difference of degree, not kind. We all follow to some extent, we all choose our own path to some extent. Some emphasize one of these over the other, some try to balance them.
I'm glad to see you accept that sort of reasoning some of the time.
It seems you do recognize religious people can make their own way on ground that has been traveled before.
I do believe being religious is a mix between blazing your own trail, and following God.
You have to be a mix of humble enough to know you may not know everything, and confident enough to follow what you understand God's direction for you is.
Religious folk believe there is some sort of supreme being out there that can give them direction or call to them.
Non religious folk believe they are the supreme being so to speak and get their direction from themselves as they see fit.
Either way each person has to decide what they have faith in, and follow that path if they so choose.
Also in thinking about the path or ground we travel, it can be the same road, trail, path as many other people, but it will still be different than any other person's "trail" and experience. I drive the same road to work every weekday, and I have a new experience every time. New people, new time, new weather, new road conditions, accidents, people traveling with me... different every day, and different from every other person on that same road.
The difference is that most atheist don't follow anything. They just live their lives. While most religious follow the church or god and look for answer. I do agree that this doesn't automatically a follower because both people can still follow or choose not too but religious people are more inclined because they general follow their god's teaching or churches. An atheist doesn't believe in GOD so there is no need to follow anything. Now in other aspects of their lives they may but not have a belief in GOD pretty much eliminates the need to follow. There are no 10 commandments or ordinances to do. Religion requires people to follow.
Come on your example isn't what I am talking about and you know it. I am talking about judging your neighbor not about being kind.
Mormons are no different than anyone else. There are plenty of judgmental people in the church. I know a lot of Mormons who think differently, who believe they are chosen of the Lord. I am sure this happens with a lot of religious people and it is probably the allure for most people. Who wouldn't want to be in the elite company of GOD if you believe in him. Of course your experiences can be different but I think you are being a little naive if you don't think your neighbor in Utah is judging you. Just for the record I believe non religious people are judgmental too. I think everyone is to an extent, however with religious people the judgment is more about your eternal salvation against a non-religious person judging you because of your job, clothes or the car you drive.
Sometimes it applies.
green
Well-Known Member
I think I agree. I don't think we can look at other people and call them followers or blazers. I think it really depends on the person's motivation. There are some people that seem to be blazers and they just do what they are told. There are others that seem to be followers, but they are truly doing what they want going their own way.
I tend to disagree with you that the church is supporting the family by giving them jobs to do free of charge. I see many Mormon families fall apart because the dad is overwhelmed with work and his church calling. The women are stressed out and worn out caring for several children. The church has created this issue because they like to brag about how their clergy aren't paid. Just recently the LDS church fired all the janitors and now require members to clean the church, putting more burden and time away from their families.
Yes members can say no but it was my experience that saying no too many times had consequences. I don't blame the Bishops and I don't believe it is divine intervention for Bro. Jones to be the cub scout leader. Bishops are under a lot of pressure to run their ward within a budget while dealing with their whole congregation family issues while ignoring/not having time for their own. I've talked to several Bishops some still active and some who have left the church. Both of them fessed up sometimes they just need to fill a position. It is a numbers game.
Some of the most messed up Mormon kids I knew came from parents who had major callings Bishopric, Elders quorum etc. If the church was truly concerned about the family they would either restrict the hours of all Bishops or they would pay them. Neither will ever happen but part of my decision for leaving the church besides the doctrinal issues I had were the fact that I couldn't see myself working two jobs and only getting paid for one. I sincerely don't believe that any church calling wins you points in getting to heaven. I respected most of the people who are willing to do this but I just couldn't see why and I did see many negative things come from it.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
The money issue is a big deal IMO. When they fired the janitors a good friend of my family lost his job of 20 years, with no severance and no notice. Now he cleans the same church, having been "called" to be the building coordinator or whatever they call it, for free while trying to work at a job that pays 2/3 of what his job as the head janitor over 3 buildings did. Nice slap in the face there.
I have been at odds with the church over money for some time. I have a very close friend who lost his job, and had been a full tithe payer all his life. He had never asked for anything, and suddenly was on the outside looking in having lost a 6 figure paying job with nothing promising coming open any time soon. He approached his bishop for help, who said he would have no problem helping with house payment, food, etc. to help keep them on their feet. Then it got reviewed by the stake and presumably someone higher. First, they would not allow the bishop to pay his house payment until he sold all but one of his vehicles, even though 2 of the 3 he had were paid off and with 6 kids, 2 in college, they needed them all badly. Second, he had slipped on his tithing for a few months, and they wouldn't give him a food order or help with bills until his tithing was brought current. So he "owed" several months of "back-tithing" at the rate when he was making 150k per year, but had no income. So he sold one of his cars, used the money to pay tithing, gave the other car to his daughter so at least one of them would still be available, and then the bishop asked him to dip into his retirement to make ends meet. They said they needed to see a "sacrifice" to prove he was worthy of getting help or something like that. I seriously did not understand that crap. Full tithe payer, on the books, for 25+ years, but after 2-3 months missed payments to the church there is no help for the guy? And the church has how many billions? I could see it if this was someone with chronic "help-me" issues who then turns around and buys new cars and ****, but it was far from it.
So he went to Catholic Charities after a friend recommended it. He met with a pastor who checked out his financial situation, then helped him with his house payment and loaned him a car since missing the 3rd one was causing an undo burden on the family. He also provided food, all to someone who wasn't even a member of the same faith.
I have heard plenty of people, who have never been in this situation, tell me "well that was just that one bishop or stake pres, everyone else would help easily enough", but I had a few friends who ran into this so I knew this was the case in more than a few isolated examples. Still, I thought maybe it was more localized, until I lost my own job, and went through almost exactly the same rigamarole in a completely different stake and even state. Our stake president told us that they had to consult with higher leadership when "helping" a family would go beyond the ward budget, and that is the same kind of stuff they expected. Sell our 2nd car (nevermind the job I found required a commute of 40 min one way and we were living with my parents so the kids had to commute to school, etc.), turn off TV and the internet, catch up back tithing, commit to never stopping paying tithing, even as the bills and late fees piled up, with which we never got any help. We finally just stopped talking to the bishop because it was so dis-heartening. My family stepped in and helped us get back on our feet, and the bishop never brought it up again, even as he grinned from ear to ear every sunday like nothing had ever happened. I sincerely believe he was fully relieved not to have us free-loading off his ward budget anymore. Nothing we did was ever enough, we were always made to feel like useless people, even when while I had my job we had paid our tithing, and I had contributed a ton to help with activities and other needs in the ward, including providing secret santa through the bishop in addition to the secret santa we try to do each year as a family, but now we needed some help and you would have thought we were criminally trying to steal money from the church. Multi-billion dollar church can't give a little back to the people who pay into it all their lives without a full-on inquisition apparently.
Other than my family, you know who helped the most and made us feel welcome and even loved? Yep, Catholic Charities.
By their fruits ye shall know them....right?
Not sure you understood what I was saying. I don't think most callings require so much work that they are taking much time away from the family. Secondly I believe if done right the church and it's programs can/should support families, not the other way around. I have heard bishops counseled to only do church work on 2-3 days of the week and to put family obligations over many church related pressures/situations/needs. If you are seeing a calling as a second job with no pay, rather than willingly accepting one to do good for others and help them, then you are missing something or it's too much. If you are willingly accepting and doing a calling you know is from the Lord, it is not seen as a burden. The only callings I see as possibly time consuming ones are Bishop, RS President(cy), EQ President(cy), and Scout Leader. The rest should be fairly minimal in what needs to be done as to time.
I know there was a change as to the cleaning of the church buildings and I understand why. imo it has a lot to do with entitlement, and even still I see the same entitlement in most of the members with very few being willing to come and help clean. I understand it's a sacrifice, but I also firmly know that when I sacrifice for something good I receive much more good in my life in unexpected ways.
Also, in my experience with giving callings, we prayed about every one and did not extend a calling if it was not confirmed by the spirit and 3 of us agreed. Do all bishoprics do this, I have no idea, but I know we did all we could to do so. Often a name that made sense in our heads was not the name that we had confirmed to us. Also there is something powerful about asking a person if they will accept a calling and confirm to them that we prayed about it and it was their name we were given, and ask them to do the same. Another thing that helps people not be overwhelmed with their callings is to train them so they know what is required and ask them to simplify. Do what is required, follow the spirit, use your skills and imagination, but keep it simple.
As to some of the most messed up Mormon kids coming from parents with major callings. I have also seen some messed up kids from families of those with callings that require lots of time. I have also seem plenty from parents without these "high" callings. I've never done the math but yes I've seen it from both. I also think it's easy for people with these callings to think that they have to put their calling before their family because they need to set a good example for their kids by serving lots, and that they need to make sure everything gets done in their calling all the time, as well as the fact that at times they do not delegate, or give tasks to other capable people and spread out the burden. Sometimes though it doesn't matter who the parents are, a kid will do what the kid wants to do no matter the situation. I sincerely think if Bishops don't drop everything to be there for every "emergency", it will be good for their ward as well as their family. Sure there are true emergencies that they will need to do so, but many of the emergencies are just poor planing of someone in the ward. I like this saying - "poor planning non your part, does not constitute an emergency on my part".
You will be able to find people that take on too much with their callings and can't handle it any more. You will be able to find people that can handle their callings and still take care of their family. I think we need to break through the cultural norm in that people feel they have to do more than the last person with their calling, or do an activity bigger and better than the last one. I hope people will learn that if they bring something positive to a simple activity with a goal in mind, and have the spirit in that activity... they have achieved success. Don't get caught up in more, bigger, complicated.
I also see that people that reject callings are not looked at the same way in many cases. It really shouldn't be that way, but it is many times.
A few things don't jibe with this story. First, there is no "review" of bishops' welfare assistance by the stake presidency in the form that you describe. Bishops have full discretion to provide assistance to any member of their ward in need (although presumably the stake might inquire if the total welfare assistance provided by a particular bishop exceeded some limit). And there's certainly no review of individual cases--where the money has not even yet been disbursed!--by anyone higher up the chain than the stake (although presumably the area might inquire into a stake's finances if the total welfare assistance provided by the wards in a particular stake exceeded some limit). Second, being a full tithe payer is declared annually and not monthly so the whole "tithing brought current" bit doesn't ring true. Plus, being a full tithe payer is not even a qualification for receiving assistance from the church! Some bishops might make it their own requirement, but even that doesn't seem likely. Bottom line: either you have seriously misunderstood the situation, or else something seriously wrong is going on in your friend's area.
I wrote up this huge elaborate and confusing post that you said 10 times more clearly with these few lines.
This.
If Bishops are handling these situations like you describe, it saddens me greatly.
I read a quote from a former LDS prophet that said the main thing he wished he did differently as a Bishop was he wished he would have handled the welfare situations with more mercy and generosity. I am paraphrasing, but that's what I remember of it. I would hope Bishops would do the same and if you err, err on the side of generosity towards these families in need.
I also found it strange that the Stk Pres. was so involved in the case, as I believe it is the Bishops final say as to who gets help and how much. The whole back tithing thing seems wrong and I have only heard council to start from then on to pay tithing and to not try to play catch up. There should be a difference in the help given to a family in a short term situation vs a long term situation.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I know that in my case, the stake president actually called us in for an interview to discuss the situation. The bishop talked about reviewing his budget and the stake president pretty much confirmed that, and my friend (who lived in Salt Lake City at the time, not sure what ward or stake) had a similar interview. The stake president was the one who asked us to catch up our tithing. He asked how long we had not been paying it, I told him it was 3 or 4 months since I lost my job, and he asked me to do what I could to catch up and pay on what we had coming in from then forward. I said we would try, but that I had no idea how when I had zero income. Then in the next interview with the bishop he said the stake president told him we had committed to catching up our tithing and they would help after we did. Seemed insane to me at the time. But that is what they asked of my friend as well, so I thought that was sort of the way it went now a days. But I think his was actually in a tithing settlement, as he lost his job in October/November timeframe, I lost mine in January, so it might have been in that forum. I just remember him calling me asking if I could help him out since he had to figure out how to get current on tithing, and that is when he told me what they had told him.
I thought that in our case the bishop and stake president seemed to deal with every thing very strangely. The stake president was something of a control freak, even making inspections on Saturdays to make sure they had cleaned properly and things like that, with full-on "rebukes" when he felt it was not done the way he wanted it done. And our bishop was something of a weenie. He never wanted to deal with these kinds of things, which is why we tried to help as much as we could when we were doing well.
One thing I think they need to fix is consistency. One obvious issue is that it isn't handled by "the book" if there is one. Maybe that is by design, I don't know.
But, as I expected, people doubted what we had been through. Not a single mormon I have told about it has taken it at face value, but that is what happened with us. People I know that had previously been bishops said they would never handle things that way, but more than one person I know who had been a bishop told me he had similar conversations with stake presidents to what we did. I think it is a bigger issue than people either know about or care to admit. I have met maybe a handful of people who say they had a good experience when going through something like this, but many who said the whole thing was dehumanizing more than anything else. It is entirely possible that I misinterpreted literally everything that was said to me, as my friend could have as well. I fully admit that no matter what that is not a fun experience and it is possible that my personal difficulties made it hard to be objective no matter what and perhaps tainted the experience. Sure, anything is possible. It is also possible that it happened exactly the way my wife and I remember it.
I would be curious to hear from other people that had turned to the church for similar help and what their experience was. I am beginning to believe it is heavily sugar-coated when you are not on the receiving end of the issue.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but I think it is something that should be addressed.
I thought that in our case the bishop and stake president seemed to deal with every thing very strangely. The stake president was something of a control freak, even making inspections on Saturdays to make sure they had cleaned properly and things like that, with full-on "rebukes" when he felt it was not done the way he wanted it done. And our bishop was something of a weenie. He never wanted to deal with these kinds of things, which is why we tried to help as much as we could when we were doing well.
One thing I think they need to fix is consistency. One obvious issue is that it isn't handled by "the book" if there is one. Maybe that is by design, I don't know.
But, as I expected, people doubted what we had been through. Not a single mormon I have told about it has taken it at face value, but that is what happened with us. People I know that had previously been bishops said they would never handle things that way, but more than one person I know who had been a bishop told me he had similar conversations with stake presidents to what we did. I think it is a bigger issue than people either know about or care to admit. I have met maybe a handful of people who say they had a good experience when going through something like this, but many who said the whole thing was dehumanizing more than anything else. It is entirely possible that I misinterpreted literally everything that was said to me, as my friend could have as well. I fully admit that no matter what that is not a fun experience and it is possible that my personal difficulties made it hard to be objective no matter what and perhaps tainted the experience. Sure, anything is possible. It is also possible that it happened exactly the way my wife and I remember it.
I would be curious to hear from other people that had turned to the church for similar help and what their experience was. I am beginning to believe it is heavily sugar-coated when you are not on the receiving end of the issue.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but I think it is something that should be addressed.
I didn't misunderstand what you said. I am sure there are a lot of willing and happy Mormons who think like you but it doesn't change the reality that the LDS church has a great setup. You wonder why they can build all those temples and shopping malls but they can't pay janitors to clean the church or a Bishop/Stake President/Relief Society/Elders who is taking A LOT of time away from his family. So you a minimize this fact by saying all positions don't require a lot of time. While this is true it still doesn't address the fact that LDS church takes advantage of their membership by overburdening them with another "job". The fact that you see benefits to serving the LORD is why you are still a member and I am not. Yes other kids get in trouble but you start to wonder when the dedicated Bishop is rarely home that it isn't the main reason why their children act out or the women goes nuts. I've known several bishops kids and almost all of them have complained about it.
There are plenty of Bishops who can handle the responsibility and I respect them for being more dedicated then me. I am just saying that is seems ridiculous when the church promotes the idea of the family and then they demand so much from its members that it affects the family. I know many people who have left the church who share the same feelings.
I am not going to argue that you are sincere in thinking that every calling needs to have a spirit confirmation nor would I discount your belief in believing in the "Spirit" but I find it hard to believe that GOD or the spirit wants Bro. Jones to spend 40 hours a week away from his family. We can agree to disagree but I just don't believe it.
I understand this is not a right or wrong argument. I respect that you have had different experiences and I too have experienced some of what you have mentioned. However, I think you are being somewhat naive if you don't think this is an issue. I know this is how the LDS church sells the job of "serving the lord" but in my reality I think it is taking advantage of people. Yes people can say NO but even you admit that does aways go well.
You (and others) may or may not feel there is a relationship, but I suspect that it's not a surprise the LDS is heavily associated with a a political party that refers to a "culture of dependency", while the Catholics tend to split in the same way as the general population.
I am not shocked that many members sugared-coated their experiences because they don't want to think that the church is also a business and that there are bean counters in charge. I am sure that not all bishops are like this either. However, I think this is a bigger problem than members want to believe. My sister was pretty much treated the same way. It was humiliating to her and our family, I was no longer in the church but when I was I paid my tithing and so did my parents. My sister was a stay home mom when her husband decided he didn't want to be married or pay for food/rent for his kids. My sister had callings and had volunteered to work on the church owned farm and at Deseret industries (I did as well) several times prior to this event. She had never taken a handout in her life. She went to the Bishop heart-broken and embarrassed to ask for help. She was willing to work for the food while looking for work and taking care of her kids didn't leave her much time she was still willing to work for it. However, before the church would approve any assistance they made her go through her family members and friends first. She had to provide proof that she needed help. So the mormon church worth billions of dollars can't help out a single mother? I was newly married and had my own bills but I helped her as much as I could. I was pissed if I had been a member I probably would have gone down and yelled at the bishop. A few months went by and my sister was working a minimum wage job and fell behind some bills and again the church looked the other way. Anyways it was confirmation to me that I made a good decision to leave the church years earlier. I felt bad for my sister and I know she was publicly embarrassed. It was a mixed bag as far as her friends - some helped and others didn't but few criticized the church. It has been years since this happened and I still feel the same outrage when I think about. I don't really hold my disgust when I hear some members talk about how charitable the church is.
Are you telling me that the bishop doesn't know that you haven't paid tithing until the end of the year. COme on colton, really? Yes pretty much any time you are called to "serve" tithing is mentioned. Heck, when my father was in disfellowship status he could still pay tithing. Now I don't know if this is still the case it certainly happened in the early 70s. So as you are questioning validity of his story you do leave room of the possibility that it might be true. I don't know whether it is true or not but my experiences with the church are. It has also been my experience that many members choose to discount things that don't already support what they believe is true. That's fine if it makes you sleep better at night.
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said... which is that tithing settlement doesn't happen until the end of the year. It's not expected that every person will pay monthly, and in fact some do not. I myself had a year where we paid all of our tithing at the end of the year. No one batted an eye.
I've never had it be mentioned when a calling was extended to me. Never.
I think that was my second option listed, wasn't it?
Does being rude help YOU sleep better at night?