Yikes! Church member denied temple recommend for opposing church stance to SSM

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

There was an old radio program that my dad used to listen to... I don't remember much about it other than that it always ended with "and...THAT'S the rest of the story."

You're making me feel old.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

You know what else happens a lot? Some people with good intentions get sideways with the church due to an overzealous leader and folks begin to gossip and whisper and assume the worst about the person. Yes, there may be more to the story but it just may be that the bishop made a bonehead decision. Why is one scenario any more likely than the other?

The reason is experience. I've seen leadership and most leaders try to follow the temple recommend process by the book.

Whereas people denied recommends, usually need a cover story to conceal other matters.

Theoretically both are possible, but if I had to choose between a bishop and somebody denied a recommend, I'd place my bets with the bishop. I could err, but knowing nothing else, I'd bet I'd come out on top more than the other way.

I've rarely met somebody who didn't receive what they wanted from a bishop, who wasn't a little bit bitter or resentful.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by homeboy

You know what else happens a lot? Some people with good intentions get sideways with the church due to an overzealous leader and folks begin to gossip and whisper and assume the worst about the person. Yes, there may be more to the story but it just may be that the bishop made a bonehead decision. Why is one scenario any more likely than the other?

Good point...

I once had a bishop make what was obviously the most bone headed decision I had ever seen. It was a hard pill to swallow. It had to do with a family member and it took a whole lot of lip biting on my part to keep from badmouthing the guy.

In the end the bishop was released and the next bishop did the exact opposite. It was hard not to hold it against the ex-bishop but (other than a few years of frustration) it never cost us anything.

We could have gone either way... I wonder what would have happened to our family if we had not bit the bullet and decided to try to stick it to that bishop...

My attitude was that if he was wrong it was his problem and I'd let him deal with it. We'll have to wait and see if anything ever come of it... For now it worked itself out...

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

My sense is that this person is not giving us all of the relevant information. That is just based on the fact that whenever I hear a story that paints a person you would expect to be semi-rational as being an utter buffoon, I get that tingling feeling I have stepped in something stinky. Not to say that bishop's don't do dumb things, just to say that people always paint themselves and events in the best (or worst) possible light depending on their motivations. It is a rare person who does not suffer from this at least a little (PARTICULARLY when they think they are agrieved about something).

That having been said, I don't think the question about sustaining the prophet means that you have to agree with everything that is said or done. I just don't think it is that broad. I think that all of the required beliefs are covered with specific questions. Outside of that I think you are free to think whatever you want. You are not free to do (or not do) whatever want on the basis of that, however. I think that it is our obedience that is required first and foremost.

I (many years ago now) was party to a situation where a Bishop made a very bad error in judgment indeed and the Stake president sustained the decision. When a general authority was finally called upon to intercede and the bishop was released, the Stake president completely and utterly changed his tune. I still don't know whether he should be given credit for his obedience to his priesthood leader or whether when the rubber hit the road he pointed the finger and acted like he didn't know what had really occurred. The point of all this is, that while one should work through proper channels, there are several levels or appeal beyond the bishop and the church doesn't just stand behind bad decisions (though it may be that sometimes it does). It was faith reaffirming to me to see that his was true.

In any case, if this is all really true this guy's next step should be the Stake president. And then his area authority, etc. Notwithstanding the admonishments not to write letters to the brethren, these men can be surprisingly accessible and in the main are genuinely interested in seeing the right thing done.

Dan, a lot of times I don't agree with you but in this instance I do whole heartedly.

People like that who share this kind of information typically aren't telling the entire story, seek what many women call "validation" and have ulterior motives.

This guy's form of storytelling is akin to half truth's that the anti's or the "intellectuals" like to put on things, just so it fits the paradigm of their argument. Sophistry is alive and well in many forms.

[Robin]

I don't understand why people gripe and complain about stuff like this. Look dude, you are a member of a conservative fundamentalist church. This kind of stuff happens, and it is tacitly sanctioned from the top of the church because of the hierarchical nature of the system. What did you expect?

Whether the guys is telling the full story or not, his account is PLAUSIBLE.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Robin

I don't understand why people gripe and complain about stuff like this. Look dude, you are a member of a conservative fundamentalist church. This kind of stuff happens, and it is tacitly sanctioned from the top of the church because of the hierarchical nature of the system. What did you expect?

Whether the guys is telling the full story or not, his account is PLAUSIBLE.

I have to disagree with you here. This kind of stuff is not "tacitly sanctioned" by virtue of a heirarchical system. Church authorities recognize that bishops and stake presidents are prone to error. They are a lay clergy, for heaven's sake. They will blow some calls. When they do, the fact that they are part of a heirarchical system does not validate the errors.

There is a built in appeal system for exactly this kind of problem. He should take the issue to the stake president, and then to an area authority if necessary. The fact that an appeal system exists is proof that such errors are not "tacitly sanctioned."

I would also say he is a member of a conservative church, not a conservative fundamentalist church. "Fundamentalist" carries a lot of baggage with it in today's nomenclature that isn't accurate to apply to the church organization.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I have to disagree with you here. This kind of stuff is not "tacitly sanctioned" by virtue of a heirarchical system. Church authorities recognize that bishops and stake presidents are prone to error. They are a lay clergy, for heaven's sake. They will blow some calls. When they do, the fact that they are part of a heirarchical system does not validate the errors.

There is a built in appeal system for exactly this kind of problem. He should take the issue to the stake president, and then to an area authority if necessary. The fact that an appeal system exists is proof that such errors are not "tacitly sanctioned."

I would also say he is a member of a conservative church, not a conservative fundamentalist church. "Fundamentalist" carries a lot of baggage with it in today's nomenclature that isn't accurate to apply to the church organization.

I am speaking from the way things worked on my mission... when I was ZL in one area, I had a particularly 'obedient' greeny as a comp. One night we came home and found our neighbors were moving. We knew our neighbors very well, and we were sad to see them leave. They had a little going away party. Since their door was directly opposite ours, as long as both doors were open, all missionaries had a clear view of each other at all times. The neighbors were having some beers with friends, and they had the t.v. on in the background. Nonetheless, I saw no problem spending a little time in their apartment, after hours, as long as everyone was together, and the elders were not veging in front of the t.v. So we were hanging and chatting. After about half an hour of this, my comp walks up with a solemn look on his face and the telephone in his hand. "Who is it?" I asked. "The mission president."

I took the call. "Your companion says that the elders in your apartment are at a party tonight. Is that the case?" I explained to the mission president everything that was going on. He said, "You were called as the leader of your zone. I trust that you would not allow your missionaries to be in a compromising situation. Please tell your companion what I just told you. Good night elder finderson."

I told him. He was pissed. I went back to the party.

Anyhow, this wasn't the first time that I have seen that kind of logic take place. People at the top usually defer to local leaders, even if the local leaders are 'breaking mission rules.'

Sure, there may be a system of appeals, but I would bet that it would often work out like the example of my mission president and greeny. When I talk about a hierarchical system, I don't necessarily mean a top-heavy system (though it can often be that as well).

As for the issue of 'fundamentalist or not,' I will tell you this -- if the term 'Christian fundamentalist' has meaning, then LDS are fundamentalists as well. That, rather than the suicide bomber vein, is the meaning I was suggesting. You might not like the term, but if you were to ask the man-on-the-street, "Is Mormonism a fundamentalist religion?" I would bet that you would get more yes votes than not.

[ute4ever]

An elder didn't like the idea of being at the farewell party, and instead of telling you so directly, he called daddy and hid behind him?

How shocking.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I renewed my recommend just last week and the conversation went almost the same with my Bishop and Stake President. When asked if I sustained the GA's I said something like, "I prayed and pondered about the suggestion to contact my Senators about the Marriage Ammendment and felt right about not doing so."

My Bishop said "You aren't the only one and I've never heard that you have to agree on everything to sustain leaders. I've certainly had my share of disagreements over the years. Just please don't make an issue of it at Church."

My Stake President made me a little nervous because he continued with the questions and then returned to the Marriage Ammendment issue at the end. But at the end he said, "I'm glad you trust me enough to talk with me about this. I believe you are keeping your covenants and am not reticent to sign your recommend."

And he did.

As to whether or not the Church is fundamentalist, I will say this: There are fundamentalist as well as intellectual tendencies in the Church. Strictly speaking, Christian fundamentalism crystallized in the 18th and early 19th centuries in formal and sometimes denominational conflicts. Fundamentalists were those who believed reason was corrupted as it is a faculty of man and man's nature is fallen. More intellectual groups continued to find reason fruitful. I can suggest articles on this subject if anyone's interested.

Missions tend to the fundamentalist side, but I was fortunate to have a Mission President who understood me. He even discussed with me what I was reading and seemed to enjoy our conversations.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Robin

I am speaking from the way things worked on my mission... when I was ZL in one area, I had a particularly 'obedient' greeny as a comp. One night we came home and found our neighbors were moving. We knew our neighbors very well, and we were sad to see them leave. They had a little going away party. Since there door was directly opposite ours, as long as both doors were open, all missionaries had a clear view of each other at all times. The neighbors were having some beers with friends, and they had the t.v. on in the background. Nonetheless, I saw no problem spending a little time in their apartment, after hours, as long as everyone was together, and the elders were not veging in front of the t.v. So we were hanging and chatting. After about half an hour of this, my comp walks up with a solemn look on his face and the telephone in his hand. "Who is it?" I asked. "The mission president."

I took the call. "Your companion says that the elders in your apartment are at a party tonight. Is that the case?" I explained to the mission president everything that was going on. He said, "You were called as the leader of your zone. I trust that you would not allow your missionaries to be in a compromising situation. Please tell your companion what I just told you. Good night elder finderson."

I told him. He was pissed. I went back to the party.

Anyhow, this wasn't the first time that I have seen that kind of logic take place. People at the top usually defer to local leaders, even if the local leaders are 'breaking mission rules.'

Sure, there may be a system of appeals, but I would bet that it would often work out like the example of my mission president and greeny. When I talk about a hierarchical system, I don't necessarily mean a top-heavy system (though it can often be that as well).

As for the issue of 'fundamentalist or not,' I will tell you this -- if the term 'Christian fundamentalist' has meaning, then LDS are fundamentalists as well. That, rather than the suicide bomber vein, is the meaning I was suggesting. You might not like the term, but if you were to ask the man-on-the-street, "Is Mormonism a fundamentalist religion?" I would bet that you would get more yes votes than not.

I have seen that kind of logic take place as well. Indeed, I think it has to take place to prevent the system from collapsing due to inaction at the lower levels. There must be a degree of confidence in the lower leadership.

That said, your story and the story cited in this thread are apples and oranges (assuming the story in the thread is true). In your story, the issue involved a fairly minor matter on which trusting leadership was an easy thing to do. In an ecclesiastical punishment case, I think the point of getting things right is more critical than trusting leadership. As a result, a higher degree of scrutiny is called for.