Of Converts, Choirs and Misguided Bishops

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

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 Reqiuem 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 Requieum 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.

Oh ye of little faith. You don't think the SP will try and use the Lord's will?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

I think you are in need of the SU tone and technique lecture,.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

Like I said-- I don't agree with the course of action he proposes, but he does offer an important perspective.

I'm frankly surprised by the vehement reaction from Mike and SIEQ. I think Tex is being very reasonable in expressing a valid point, even if it isn't necessarily the best solution.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

Btw, the line of thinking you are talking about is not he one in my posts, but I am sure you know that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Btw, the line of thinking you are talking about is not he one in my posts, but I am sure you know that.

You implied that by talking to the SP, music could be even further curtailed.

Was this interpretation wrong?

[Sleeping in EQ]

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.

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" is Tex's creedo.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

Like I said-- I don't agree with the course of action he proposes, but he does offer an important perspective.

I'm frankly surprised by the vehement reaction from Mike and SIEQ. I think Tex is being very reasonable in expressing a valid point, even if it isn't necessarily the best solution.

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).

[creekster]

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?

It's nuts.

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.

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You implied that by talking to the SP, music could be even further curtailed.

Was this interpretation wrong?

No, but your described 'line' of reasoning wasn't mine.

[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.