Post tithing settlement thoughts...

[The_Tick]

I am wondering if this is something that I should have just thought and not said...

It was just myself and TK2 in the TS interview thing. TS is over and Bishop asked me the following question:

"How are things going for you Church wise? I am a little concerned about you and your family."

My response:

"I have come to terms with a few things. I love being a member of the Church and am glad that I belong. I have realized that while I belong to the same Church as you and everyone else I attend with, I don't feel like my beliefs are ever going to be the same as everyone elses. Other than that I think we are doing great."

He gave me the quizzical look and asked me to continue serving and praying.

**************

Now I don't worry about it being a career limiting move, because I am fine teaching my Sunday School class and doing my small bit in the EQP.

Is the Bishop's office a safe zone where I should be able to convey those types of thoughts and not worry about it?

I sat through 5 years of PEC and have heard stuff that I know I probably shouldn't have, but I am worried that my being honest may have yet again raised my family on the radar.

[Jacob]

It should be a safe zone. I doubt most members with doubts, or trying to come to terms with certain things have a safe zone they feel they can honestly discuss such things. There is probably often a barrier even with their family and maybe spouse And I think that's a bad thing.

[Green Monstah]

You were just honest. That's not a bad thing. You may get a few extra visits, etc....but look at the bright side, no heavy-duty callings during the current Bishop's tenure. Cha-Ching!

[TripletDaddy]

I am wondering if this is something that I should have just thought and not said...

It was just myself and TK2 in the TS interview thing. TS is over and Bishop asked me the following question:

"How are things going for you Church wise? I am a little concerned about you and your family."

My response:

"I have come to terms with a few things. I love being a member of the Church and am glad that I belong. I have realized that while I belong to the same Church as you and everyone else I attend with, I don't feel like my beliefs are ever going to be the same as everyone elses. Other than that I think we are doing great."

He gave me the quizzical look and asked me to continue serving and praying.

**************

Now I don't worry about it being a career limiting move, because I am fine teaching my Sunday School class and doing my small bit in the EQP.

Is the Bishop's office a safe zone where I should be able to convey those types of thoughts and not worry about it?

I sat through 5 years of PEC and have heard stuff that I know I probably shouldn't have, but I am worried that my being honest may have yet again raised my family on the radar.

Tell nothing to your Bishop that you are unwilling to have broadcast to the rest of the ward through back channels.

I really believe Bishops act with all good intent (in other words, Bishops don't talk to you and then pull aside so and so later to say, "you will never guess what I just heard..."). Nevertheless, many Bishops are not trained or accustomed to the rigors of strict confidentiality and, frankly, I am not even sure Bishops are bound by strict confidentiality in the same way an attorney or doctor might be.

As such, we often sit in a PEC wherein a Bishop directly or indirectly discloses sensitive personal family info to others, who then tell someone else. It is inevitable.

I would not be surprised at all if you are a topic at the next PEC. Again, not in a malicious way, but rather in the Spirit of..."what can we do for The Tick's family? I just had a conversation with them and I don't think they are doing very well..." This leads to a bit more discussion and before you know it, several people are inside your safe zone.

I would imagine/hope that these sorts of discussions extent to almost every subject save for the most severe of infractions...chastity, for example.

[pellegrino]

It should be a safe zone. I doubt most members with doubts, or trying to come to terms with certain things have a safe zone they feel they can honestly discuss such things. There is probably often a barrier even with their family and maybe spouse And I think that's a bad thing.

truer words have never been spoken.

I was talking with my HT this past summer, who is also a member of the EQP and he's willfully unaware of many church history issues, because as he said "I'm either all in or all out and I'm afraid that what I'll find there will put me out." I can understand that, but the unfortunate result is that he didn't want any "controversial" issues discussed in EQ lessons and he was annoyed at some quorum members who were trying to "sneak them in." We talked about it and I brought up the point that once they've encountered something (multiple first vision accounts for example) it's going to eat at them and they need to discuss it. Why push that discussion out of the church? It makes otherwise faithful members feel marginalized. Where else are they going to discuss it? He hadn't thought about that and conceded that I had a good point. It showed in some of the lessons he taught later as he was not only tolerant of offbeat questions that could be seen as threatening, but allowed discussion to go on rather than cutting it off and moving on.

[thesaint258]

I somewhat agree with DDD. I think it depends on what kind of bishop you have. I've had bishops who I would trust with pretty much anything, and I've had others to whom I would never tell anything. If you believe your bishop to be the trustworthy kind who won't let things slip, I think sharing something like you did is fine, and I wouldn't worry about it.

[wally]

Tick,

I agree with DDD's assessment.

I would only add that based on the short exchange you describe; I don't think that you have given him that much cause for a full-on mobilization of the ward love brigade to your home. Honestly, and I don't know any (if any) back-story here, but what you said to him seems relatively benign.

But even if your family were to receive the “charity treatment” as a result of this chat, you are still in the driver’s seat to determine how big of deal it becomes, because they don’t really have any specific information to do anything with. If you ignore it, it will go away when there is another superseding need.

[pellegrino]

DDD is right. My wife has had a tough time fitting in with our latest ward. She has felt that the RS presidency is non responsive to the needs of a large group of sisters in the ward. She decided to speak to the bishop about starting a few initiatives that she had floated by the RS presidency and basically got a "We don't do that in this ward" response. I expressed my reluctance at the idea, that it could backfire and label her as a project and suggested that instead she bring it up directly with the RS president one on one, offering to spearhead the initiative. She felt strongly that the thing to do was to talk to the bishop.

Needless to say within a week the RS president (who had never even so much as called her before) had reached out to her a few times with token gestures of "I just want to make sure your needs are met" and it was very clear that information had been exchanged through back channels. She was upset (furious really) let the RS president have it and has now began looking elsewhere in our neighborhood community for the support that normally she would get through the RS. It's kind of a crappy situation.

[UtahDan]

It should be a safe zone. I doubt most members with doubts, or trying to come to terms with certain things have a safe zone they feel they can honestly discuss such things. There is probably often a barrier even with their family and maybe spouse And I think that's a bad thing.

You are describing CUF for a lot of people.

[wuapinmon]

You are describing CUF for a lot of people.

[YOUTUBE]WtHTc8wIo4Q[/YOUTUBE]

[grapevine]

I came across a talk boyd gave were he discussed bishops and confidentiality. He said when someone says talk to the bishop and everyone knew about it. Boyd said the bishop probably didn't say a word but someone said go talk to the bishop. Then someone told someone in the car pool about it and everyone knew without the Bishop saying a thing. The grapevine said something not the Bishop. I am paraphrasing and cannot remember were that talk is off the top of my head. But it is in the Ensign.

[San Juan Sun]

The grapevine said something not the Bishop.

Speaking in the third person Grape?

[Jacob]

You are describing CUF for a lot of people.

That's right. But I'm not sure that's such a good thing. It would be better if a person could speak more candidly with family and trusted members. People they actually know and who might be able to be more helpful and encouraging as the member struggles.

[Surfah]

That's right. But I'm not sure that's such a good thing. It would be better if a person could speak more candidly with family and trusted members. People they actually know and who might be able to be more helpful and encouraging as the member struggles.

I agree with this. Not that anonymous internet relationships can't be meaningful.

[Jarid in Cedar]

That's right. But I'm not sure that's such a good thing. It would be better if a person could speak more candidly with family and trusted members. People they actually know and who might be able to be more helpful and encouraging as the member struggles.

But without such a person available, it is nice to have a place that you can openly air out the dirty laundry. CUF would have been a god-send for me if it had been around 7-10 years ago.