Of Converts, Choirs and Misguided Bishops

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Because the subtext of what Tex says is when a leader speaks, the issue is over.

And me and SIEQ don't agree (if I can take the liberty of assumign with SIEQ thinks).

Tex can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see that subtext in this particular discussion.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tex is raising this so that official power will be excused from accountability, pure and simple. We need to step lightly so leaders can maintain their un-Christian biases? So they don't lash out with even greater craziness?

His attitude confirms my argument (and by the way, I am not blaming leadership. This is a Church problem and it won't be remedied until the rank and file stop perpetuating it.).

The folly of Tex's approach is exposed for all to see. "Official power must be excused at all costs" it's Tex's creedo.

This is really quite disingenuous. Had the bishop done something truly abusive, like making a racist comment over the pulpit, or publicly exposing someone's privately confessed sins, then I think action would be more justified.

Not all situations play into your "speak truth to power" populist credo, SIEQ.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Because the subtext of what Tex says is when a leader speaks, the issue is over.

That is certainly not my subtext.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think you're wrong here SIEQ. Tex's point is a good one, depending on the SP. It is possible a strident objection will only cause an unenlightened SP to side strongly with the bishop and perhaps to address the matter in a way Req wouldn't like ina leadership meeting which will almost guarantee the music possibilities will be squelched. Is this right? no, but it is real and must abe accounted for.

I understand your sentiments, and in many respects I agree. OTOH, I have the type of relationship with my stake president, or entire stake presidency, I wouldn't mind calling up the state president, after having spoken with my bishop about the issue. OTOH, my bishop would have allowed the music and never would have disallowed it. We have revival music, Polynesian music, African American spirituals, guitars, horns and everything, but then again we're just sinners in Sin City, so what do we know.

The key is the presentation. If it's presented in a good, polite way, it has the possibility of being examined fairly.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I once had a Bishop, whom I knew pretty well, and he asked me in an interview if there was anything I could suggest to him, so he could do his job better.

The question made me very uncomfortable. Because of the cultural biases I am so accustomed to. Why would someone called as Judge in Israel ask me how he could do his job better?? What if I said something?

After a lot of stammering, I mentioned something pretty trivial, and maybe it was a backhanded compliment, can't remember what it was. But I immediately regretted it, because I came to realize he is the sort of man so intent on doing things right, that he beats himself up.

It's rare for someone like that to be called, in my experience.

To be honest, I would probably end up doing what Tex says. Steam about it for a while, but not do anything. Not talk to the Bishop, no one. I just don't care enough to put myself on the line, most of the time. And I consider that a failing, not a strength.

Let me tell you that I know from personal expereicne that peole have very strong feelings about music in Sacrament meeting and many people are not shy at all in expressing these views to bishops. I have fouhgt this same fight myself many times and in my experience a clam approach always works better.

[dallas dan]

Why is it that we are so scared to question our leaders? I am the same way. I don't mean to implicate that we publicly flog the gentleman. But I don't see any problem in questioning someone, and coming to an understanding of the reasons behind a decision. These individuals are men, just like you or me. They are not infallible, and do not make every decision under the spirit. Just because we sustain these individuals doesn't mean there should be blind obedience.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Let me tell you that I know from personal expereicne that peole have very strong feelings about music in Sacrament meeting and many people are not shy at all in expressing these views to bishops. I have fouhgt this same fight myself many times and in my experience a clam approach always works better.

in other words, mental torpor.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

strange that I seem to be defending him, but here is the question: Do you live in a perfect stake with perfect leaders? If not, you better account for the people involved if you want to change polcies or decision, otherwise you might go of in a way that will be counterproductive. This seems pretty easy to me, but maybe I am missing something.

No, what you're saying is true, but the fact is that Tex's response is a default setting to excuse leaders and perpetuate problems. He's a company man through and through, and those African Amercian converts were being overly sensitive in his book. The fact that that Bishop should have taken a page from Elder Bednar's talk and not been offended by the music doesn't speak to the larger point I'm making.

Never mind that some American Churches, beginning in the 19th century, maintained white exclusivity over African American gospel music being "too lively" and "insufficiently dignified." Never mind that there isn't a single selection, (not one!), that wasn't penned by someone of white, European descent and arranged for European instruments. African Americans are often aware of these things, because they have often been on the short end of the stick on them.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

No, what you're saying is true, but the fact is that Tex's response is a default setting to excuse leaders and perpetuate problems. He's a company man through and through, and those African Amercian converts were being overly sensitive in his book. The fact that that Bishop should have taken a page from Elder Bednar's talk and not been offended by the music doesn't speak to the larger point I'm making.

Never mind that some American Churches, beginning in the 19th century, maintained white exclusivity over African American gospel music being "too lively" and "insufficiently dignified." Never mind that there isn't a single selection, (not one!), that wasn't penned by someone of white, European descent and arranged for European instruments. African Americans are often aware of these things, because they have often been on the short end of the stick on them.

And I think it's a shame that you're using this unfortunate circumstance to advance this agenda of yours.

It may be that in some future day the hymnal will contain more music consistent with African culture, and I think that will be an exciting day.

This is not the time or the place to fight that fight.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is really quite disingenuous. Had the bishop done something truly abusive, like making a racist comment over the pulpit, or publicly exposing someone's privately confessed sins, then I think action would be more justified.

Not all situations play into your "speak truth to power" populist credo, SIEQ.



That is certainly not my subtext.

People like you always move "the line" beyond the action that took place. You always give reasons for not taking action. You make my point with every post.

My populist credo? It's called Common Consent.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

And I think it's a shame that you're using this unfortunate circumstance to advance this agenda of yours.

It may be that in some future day the hymnal will contain more music consistent with African culture, and I think that will be an exciting day.

This is not the time or the place to fight that fight.

Pathetic, Tex. The fact is, African American's are often all-too-aware of these things and white folks usually aren't. Had that fact about the hymn book even occurred to you before I mentioned it? It's occured to many African American Mormons, that's for sure. And now you're trying to make this discussion about me, instead of the issue. Yea, it's about the time you usually play that card.

And what is my agenda, other than acknowledging the fact that problems in the Church can't just be pawned off on leaders and that we all have individual responsibilities to do what we think is right? Have you not heard of Common Consent?