Of Converts, Choirs and Misguided Bishops - Page 5 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Tex · 07-30-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You are excusing the bishop's behavior. And you cherish sounding trite. Like the fellow who says, "I don't mean this to be racist, but, " you want to be trite without being called on it.

Again, not true. By getting the stake president involved, you run the risk of overreacting in exactly the same way the bishop overreacted.

MikeWaters · 07-30-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Again, not true. By getting the stake president involved, you run the risk of overreacting in exactly the same way the bishop overreacted.

???? What's going to happen? Excommunication?

A phone call?

Tex · 07-30-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Me personally, I wouldn't venture to tell somebody else when to not be offended or how to interpret Elder Bednar's talk. My concern is 1), to not be offended, 2), to not cause offense, and 3), to ease the pain and offense caused to my fellow members.

I think you do everything you can to help out those members who are still in their relative spiritual infancy; if you err, may you err on the side of showing love and concern for a brother in Christ.

I'm not sure if I'm dictating to these folks that they shouldn't be offended. I am suggesting it shouldn't cost them their faith.

I agree with everything else you said. Had the bishop really been trying to "err on the side of showing love and concern" he would've let the matter go, and allowed the number to be performed.

Sleeping in EQ · 07-30-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Again, not true. By getting the stake president involved, you run the risk of overreacting in exactly the same way the bishop overreacted.

Absolute and complete poppycock.

creekster · 07-30-2007, 05:33 PM

Let me just add another comment. I love music, and I think most of LDS music is boring or bad or both. I am fully supportive of Req's goal and frustration. That having been said, you guys are just too hard on the bishop. Being a bishop is very very difficult. You get pulled a lot of ways and you just can't please everyone. Believe it or not, this sort of issue is exactly the type that people get worked up about. I find it amusing that MW thinks people won'[t speak up about this sort of thing as, within my experience, this is exactly the sort of thing that people get very exercised about. PLay a trumpet in sacrament and you can guarantee the bishop will get a lot of calls about it and too few if any will be positive. SO take it easy on the guy and just work reasonably to change the approach. Also, when you hear or see something you like in Sacrament, make sure you give the bishop positive feedback so he knows there are people out there that like it and he has something to balance against the complaints.

I am now off to the mountains.

MikeWaters · 07-30-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure if I'm dictating to these folks that they shouldn't be offended. I am suggesting it shouldn't cost them their faith.

I agree with everything else you said. Had the bishop really been trying to "err on the side of showing love and concern" he would've let the matter go, and allowed the number to be performed.

It's easy for us on CG to know that we are often surrounded by mostly well-meaning occasional idiots.

A black convert may not as easily recognize this. They may tend to lionize church authorities, whereas a lifelong member would not.

All-American · 07-30-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure if I'm dictating to these folks that they shouldn't be offended. I am suggesting it shouldn't cost them their faith.

I agree with everything else you said. Had the bishop really been trying to "err on the side of showing love and concern" he would've let the matter go, and allowed the number to be performed.

Of course it shouldn't cost them their faith. You know that, I know that, and probably every faithful member here knows that.

But THEY may not know that. If they don't appear to have learned that lesson, great care should be taken to avoid presenting them with situations that test them to a greater extent than they can handle. It's not our job to test their faith; life will perform this task most splendidly without any help from us.

creekster · 07-30-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Absolute and complete poppycock.

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.

Tex · 07-30-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

???? What's going to happen? Excommunication?

A phone call?

Don't be so melodramatic, Mike.

There are lots of potential scenarios for the wounds to widen. The SP could throw his whole-hearted support behind the bishop (and perhaps even chastise Requiem for bringing it to his attention), further alienating her and her choir.

Or, he could whole-heartedly agree with her and bring down the boom on the bishop. This could create resentment in the bishop for Requiem and these members, further widening the rift between him and those he is supposed to be serving.

Or, the stake president could agree, delicately speak with the bishop about it, the bishop could humble himself and admit his error, and all is well in Zion.

There's no way for any of us CGers to know these men or how they will react. The risk, IMO, is not worth the possible negative outcomes, given that all we are talking about is an intermediate hymn.

MikeWaters · 07-30-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

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.

It's already squelched.

What is there to lose?

If you do nothing, you have to wait for a new Bishop, but if you talk to the SP, you might have to wait until there is a new SP?

That's not a line of thinking I can understand.

07-30-2007, 05:33 PM	#45
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Let me just add another comment. I love music, and I think most of LDS music is boring or bad or both. I am fully supportive of Req's goal and frustration. That having been said, you guys are just too hard on the bishop. Being a bishop is very very difficult. You get pulled a lot of ways and you just can't please everyone. Believe it or not, this sort of issue is exactly the type that people get worked up about. I find it amusing that MW thinks people won'[t speak up about this sort of thing as, within my experience, this is exactly the sort of thing that people get very exercised about. PLay a trumpet in sacrament and you can guarantee the bishop will get a lot of calls about it and too few if any will be positive. SO take it easy on the guy and just work reasonably to change the approach. Also, when you hear or see something you like in Sacrament, make sure you give the bishop positive feedback so he knows there are people out there that like it and he has something to balance against the complaints. I am now off to the mountains. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.