12 year old gay Mormon at church

[babe]

I have had a few run-ins with bishops myself (stake presidents too). That is one of the toughest jobs in the church but also one that can have the biggest impact on members and non-members alike. I do not know always what they are told to do, and I often do not agree with the selection process, but I can tell you that many times they really over-step their bounds. From hounding kids about sexual experiences to demanding financial accounting to get bishop's storehouse to things like you mention here. These kinds of things drive people away in droves. The members can say "it is not about the individual, it is about the church" or "we believe the church is true, but the members aren't perfect" all they want, but in the end each member in a leadership position is the face of the church to countless people, and it should be a concern of the church how those leaders represent their interests. My bro-in-law is a bishop and one of the worst I could imagine having. He started calling in every person getting anything from bishop's storehouse (read: people down on their luck who need food and other assistance) and grilling them about their finances. He required them to turn off their cable or internet, to get rid of an extra car, or other asinine things like that, or he would cut off their bishop's storehouse help. Of course people can't/won't do that. It is ridiculous. So he cut a bunch of people off. He told us his stake president asked all bishops to do this because they needed to preserve their budgets for important uses (who knows what that means, makes no sense to me). He talks about people in a degrading way if they are "poor" and stuff. It is disgusting.

But see there is the danger. It is easy to say "well that is one guy and he is doing a bad job of it, doesn't mean the church isn't true", and sure that might be right in theory, but it is a HUGE PR issue for the church to have people like that in leadership positions. Who knows how many people a bishop like that will directly alienate, but really it is the countless others that that person will tell, and then those people will tell, and so on, that is the true damage to the church.

Even if a bishop isn't that blatant, it is still ridiculous to brush off bad behavior by leadership and pretend it has no impact on the church. It does. And it needs to be addressed.

There are a lot of specific issues, mostly of fairly minor importance, that I take on with the Church organization and policies and officials.

One is actions like this particular Bishop, who I think had no right to discuss anything with privately out of earshot with her husband. If it were sought specifically on those terms by his wife, that would be entirely different, but she was not asking for anything like that. This is simply unholy meddling and seeking to disrupt a marriage relation.

Asking specifically about some extended financial information is also out of bounds.

A Bishop when looking at a matter of inactive members wanting to return to activity should "start running the clock" at the time of that presentation of formerly inactive members. All in all, it would be quite OK to just recommend they take a year of living forward from that time towards taking calls and otherwise resuming "temple recommend worthiness". It's "like, man, OK whatever you want, I'll just see if you still feel the same way a year from now, meanwhile lets just start living by the rules...."

 

[Bronco70]

I have had a few run-ins with bishops myself (stake presidents too). That is one of the toughest jobs in the church but also one that can have the biggest impact on members and non-members alike. I do not know always what they are told to do, and I often do not agree with the selection process, but I can tell you that many times they really over-step their bounds. From hounding kids about sexual experiences to demanding financial accounting to get bishop's storehouse to things like you mention here. These kinds of things drive people away in droves. The members can say "it is not about the individual, it is about the church" or "we believe the church is true, but the members aren't perfect" all they want, but in the end each member in a leadership position is the face of the church to countless people, and it should be a concern of the church how those leaders represent their interests. My bro-in-law is a bishop and one of the worst I could imagine having. He started calling in every person getting anything from bishop's storehouse (read: people down on their luck who need food and other assistance) and grilling them about their finances. He required them to turn off their cable or internet, to get rid of an extra car, or other asinine things like that, or he would cut off their bishop's storehouse help. Of course people can't/won't do that. It is ridiculous. So he cut a bunch of people off. He told us his stake president asked all bishops to do this because they needed to preserve their budgets for important uses (who knows what that means, makes no sense to me). He talks about people in a degrading way if they are "poor" and stuff. It is disgusting.

But see there is the danger. It is easy to say "well that is one guy and he is doing a bad job of it, doesn't mean the church isn't true", and sure that might be right in theory, but it is a HUGE PR issue for the church to have people like that in leadership positions. Who knows how many people a bishop like that will directly alienate, but really it is the countless others that that person will tell, and then those people will tell, and so on, that is the true damage to the church.

Even if a bishop isn't that blatant, it is still ridiculous to brush off bad behavior by leadership and pretend it has no impact on the church. It does. And it needs to be addressed.

100% agree with you. In presenting my concerns to church leaders or other members, I've heard "The Gospel is perfect, but the members are not" far too many times. I accepted it for a while, when I really wanted to be able to reconcile my concerns, but now it just sounds like a cop-out to me.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Bronco70]

And another thing... people trying to win me back to the fold love to go to the Uchtdorf talk about "doubting your doubts".

Does this even make sense? Didn't a young Joseph Smith have doubts about the churches of his day? What if Joseph Smith had doubted his doubts? What I'm really getting is "just automatically doubt anything contrary to what the church tells you."

I don't consider this a healthy approach.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JazzGal]

And another thing... people trying to win me back to the fold love to go to the Uchtdorf talk about "doubting your doubts".

Does this even make sense? Didn't a young Joseph Smith have doubts about the churches of his day? What if Joseph Smith had doubted his doubts? What I'm really getting is "just automatically doubt anything contrary to what the church tells you."

I don't consider this a healthy approach.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

I've asked people this question before and all I get is a blank stare. Everything about the beginning of the church (at least as far as the story is told) is about Joseph Smith asking questions. The Doctrine and Covenants is basically Joseph's questions and answers. Yet now asking questions feels like it is discouraged except within a very small parameter. The "doubt your doubts" phrase sounds as cult-like as it possibly can. Just obey and don't think often seems to be the message (yes, I know there are exceptions as some local leaders aren't afraid of questions). It's not a philosophy that will work for many people.

My brother-in-law was recently a bishop, and I asked him once how he handles people who are questioning things like church history and more recent policies. He explained that, at least for the youth, he held a session with them monthly where they could anonymously submit questions and then they would talk about them. If all bishops were like my brother-in-law, there would be fewer people leaving. He was definitely one of the good ones.

 

[colton]

I've asked people this question before and all I get is a blank stare. Everything about the beginning of the church (at least as far as the story is told) is about Joseph Smith asking questions. The Doctrine and Covenants is basically Joseph's questions and answers. Yet now asking questions feels like it is discouraged except within a very small parameter. The "doubt your doubts" phrase sounds as cult-like as it possibly can. Just obey and don't think often seems to be the message (yes, I know there are exceptions as some local leaders aren't afraid of questions). It's not a philosophy that will work for many people.

People often ignore the paragraph in Uchtdorf's talk just BEFORE the "doubt your doubts" line. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

He said, "It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions." So he's certainly not saying that people should never have questions.

My brother-in-law was recently a bishop, and I asked him once how he handles people who are questioning things like church history and more recent policies. He explained that, at least for the youth, he held a session with them monthly where they could anonymously submit questions and then they would talk about them. If all bishops were like my brother-in-law, there would be fewer people leaving. He was definitely one of the good ones.

Sounds like a great idea.

 

[babe]

"It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding.

yah, but don't write a book about what you found out. (j/k)