Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
I'm with creekster here; it seems too easy to just pile on the bishop.
Obviously the man could've handled the situation better. Cancelling a musical number after weeks of practice on the morning it's supposed to be sung is just poor form. That's really an extreme measure that was overkill for the supposed offense.
That said, Bishops have the responsibility for maintaining a proper decorum for sacrament meeting, and believe me, if you lose control of the music you will, guaranteed, lose control of the Spirit in the meeting. It falls under his purview to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, and if he wants only hymns, I think that's his choice. It doesn't make him a white oppressor. His fault in this case is not making that clear to his counselors, and overreacting later.
I think there's a real risk in escalating this up to the Stake President and "raising hell." Is this really something that should be costing black members their testimonies? Is the church's truthfulness, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, the inspired origins of the Book of Mormon, contigent on one bishop's bad behavior? Are they hinged upon the choice of music used by a ward choir in an intermediate hymn?
I have seen people leave the church and lose their testimonies over trivialities because the minor offense grows and grows and grows. More people get involved, and more feelings get hurt.
My best suggestion to you and to your choir members, Requiem, is to let it go. It was unfortunate how it was handled, but escalating it will probably do more harm than good.
|
I would agree, if only all involved and/or offended could likewise do it. If people have been so deeply hurt that they bring their own membership into question, repairs need to be made irrespective of who was right.
Maybe they shouldn't be offended that the bishop won't let them sing a song. Maybe. But Paul taught that we shouldn't even eat meat if it offends our brother.