Of Converts, Choirs and Misguided Bishops

[All-American]

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.

That's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? I don't see anything about a "flying leap."

[Archaea]

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.

If it's done tastefully and tactfully, I can see where it could help stop wounds from occurring.

We can disagree agreeably, and the bishop may have just been in a bad mood, may not be informed correctly.

[MikeWaters]

Often the non-courageous move is to do nothing, say nothing.

And that's what members do 99% of the time. They cloak it in "obedience" but really the answer is often they don't want to undergo the hassle required to disagree.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If it's done tastefully and tactfully, I can see where it could help stop wounds from occurring.

We can disagree agreeably, and the bishop may have just been in a bad mood, may not be informed correctly.

I'd very easily believe that the bishop had no idea how much the song meant to the choir, and that he may not have made the same decision with more information. Maybe he would have; who knows? But like I said, if significant damage has been done, it's time to stop worrying about who's right.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by All-American

That's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? I don't see anything about a "flying leap."

It isn't.

[Tex]

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.

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.

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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'd very easily believe that the bishop had no idea how much the song meant to the choir, and that he may not have made the same decision with more information. Maybe he would have; who knows? But like I said, if significant damage has been done, it's time to stop worrying about who's right.

You like to play peacemaker between the elements of the board, like with Tex and everyone else and Rocky and everyone else.

But there is no peace to be had.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.



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 his 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.

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.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.



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.

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.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You like to play peacemaker between the elements of the board, like with Tex and everyone else and Rocky and everyone else.

But there is no peace to be had.

I don't personally agree with the course of action Tex suggests. I do think it's an important perspective, the consideration of which will lead to a more correct approach to the problem. If one can understand both sides of a dispute, it will facilitate a resolution.