Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
Don't listen to him.
Most of us believe in a church where disagreements can be talked about. It IS appropriate to talk about this to your ecclesiastical leaders.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ
As usual, our board moderate sides with official power and suggests anyone who disagrees should take a flying leap.
|
This is incorrect. She can certainly go talk to the stake president if she wishes. I'm simply suggesting there can potentially be negative consequences for doing so, such that the negatives outweigh the potential benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-American
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.
|
I hate to sound trite here, but Elder Bednar had some sage advice on this point in a recent conference. We're not talking about a bishop who made a racist statement over the pulpit, we're talking about the cancellation of a choir number.
That's not to say it wasn't poorly handled, and I do agree that leaders need to be more sensitive to these issues. Hinckley spoke a decade ago with great passion about a convert he taught on his mission who left the church because of the boorishness of one member. Does anyone remember this talk? Hinckley tried in vain for decades afterward to rekindle his faith with no success. It was a terribly sad story.
I'm not excusing the bishop's behavior, and if you absolutely MUST go speak to the SP, then by all means. But this is a good opportunity to teach converts how to handle the imperfections of men in leadership. The lesson will be lost if Cain is raised instead.
EDIT: Here's the Hinckley talk. 1997 Priesthood session.
http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...-64-21,00.html