Soccer Mom's thread grabbed my attention.

[SoCalCoug]

Good post. It reminds me of a guy who used to be in our ward. His wife was a member, he was not, but he was fantastic. He came to church every week (skipped SS and Priesthood, but that isn't uncommon), came to all the ward activities, served on the ward activities committee, and even paid tithing on his income, which is, in my mind, incredible. I will say that all the members of the ward were great. They accepted him completely as he was, and there were no problems.

The missionaries, on the other hand, were sometimes more difficult. He loved having the missionaries over, and most of them behaved well, but there were a couple of problems. One time, an Elder asked him "Is drinking beer more important to you than being with your family forever?" He was seriously ticked off with that one. I was the WML at the time, and got after the Elder for what he did. The Elder came back and said something along the lines of "This guy isn't progressing, he either needs to commit to move forward or we'll have to drop him." I basically told them to go ahead and drop him then. He was gaining value from coming to church; the rest of us were gaining value from him coming to church. I don't see how anyone benefits from basically telling him "you are 100% with us, or we want no part of you."

I served my mission in Chicago, and this sounds like a guy I knew when I was in Griffith, IN. I think he even had a calling, but the way he explained it to us was that he never felt like he'd been given a testimony. When I was there, he'd given himself a year - he was going to try for a year and follow all the rules and commandments, and see if that worked for him. I never did get to follow up with him on that.

[YOhio]

This is a terrific thread. I agree with Nikuman about the big tent. Many of the issues I see in the earlier posts strike me as members behaving as if they are pretty unclear on the concept of being disciples of Christ. We all struggle with the implementation, but, we can at least do a decent job of understanding and buying the concept. To me, getting that right is what the Church is all about.

What I try (try!) to do is be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I remember once years ago when an elderly sister who was struggling with the onset of dementia was bearing her testimony, and she was going on and on. It started to get uncomfortable. I happened to be conducting the meeting but I was very young and inexperienced and did not know what to do. I found myself getting irritated and frustrated. Suddenly, our bishop stood up and put his arm around the woman, pulled her close, and whispered in her ear. She started to look embarrassed - mortified, really, as she realized what she had been doing. But he just squeezed her tighter and said, "Sister X, you can talk all day as far as I am concerned. I love hearing you. But we're going to let you finish now. Be sure to bear your testimony again next month." Then he gave her a peck on the cheek right there at the pulpit. She closed and went back to her seat. I don't think there was a dry eye in the place, and I am sure all those who felt irritated (like me) felt both chastened and instructed.

That's a bit of a meander, I know, but I learned more in that 30-second episode about how we should treat others whom we see as not measuring up than I had learned in the previous 30-plus years of my life. I wish we could bottle that approach and distribute it around the Church for use when needed.

I hope this makes sense, just a memory that sprang to mind.

Great story.

[byu71]

This is a terrific thread. I agree with Nikuman about the big tent. Many of the issues I see in the earlier posts strike me as members behaving as if they are pretty unclear on the concept of being disciples of Christ. We all struggle with the implementation, but, we can at least do a decent job of understanding and buying the concept. To me, getting that right is what the Church is all about.

What I try (try!) to do is be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I remember once years ago when an elderly sister who was struggling with the onset of dementia was bearing her testimony, and she was going on and on. It started to get uncomfortable. I happened to be conducting the meeting but I was very young and inexperienced and did not know what to do. I found myself getting irritated and frustrated. Suddenly, our bishop stood up and put his arm around the woman, pulled her close, and whispered in her ear. She started to look embarrassed - mortified, really, as she realized what she had been doing. But he just squeezed her tighter and said, "Sister X, you can talk all day as far as I am concerned. I love hearing you. But we're going to let you finish now. Be sure to bear your testimony again next month." Then he gave her a peck on the cheek right there at the pulpit. She closed and went back to her seat. I don't think there was a dry eye in the place, and I am sure all those who felt irritated (like me) felt both chastened and instructed.

That's a bit of a meander, I know, but I learned more in that 30-second episode about how we should treat others whom we see as not measuring up than I had learned in the previous 30-plus years of my life. I wish we could bottle that approach and distribute it around the Church for use when needed.

I hope this makes sense, just a memory that sprang to mind.

Great story and while I certainly have no problem hearing about Bishop and SP mistakes, it is nice to hear these to because I believe the vast majority of Bishops and SP's to be wonderful men and women.

[UtahDan]

I hope this makes sense, just a memory that sprang to mind.

None of us can ever focus too much on doing what Christ would do so please meander in that direction as frequently as you feel moved to. What a neat experience.

[I.J. Reilly]

Great story and while I certainly have no problem hearing about Bishop and SP mistakes, it is nice to hear these to because I believe the vast majority of Bishops and SP's to be wonderful men and women.

Have we cross dressers and transgenders among the bunch?

[byu71]

Have we cross dressers and transgenders among the bunch?

No, I like to be inclusive so I thought I would throw something out there for those not of the faith to feel good about too, (a reminder we treat women unfairly).

[Art Vandelay]

No, I like to be inclusive so I thought I would throw something out there for those not of the faith to feel good about too, (a reminder we treat women unfairly).

BS you are just hoping we get to a point where we start calling young inexperienced women to these callings instead of young inexperienced men. Then you go in and tell her you "now the rest of the story" life experiences and watch her reaction.

[Rosebud]

FWIW, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community at church and times that I haven't. I have known really fantastic leaders and really hurtful leaders. Likewise, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community in organizations outside of the church. There are times that I haven't.

A sense of community isn't enough to keep me active and paying tithing. Community can be found anywhere. To have value, church (for me) needs to be about worship. If I'm not worshiping, why waste my time? There are friendship and growth opportunities everywhere.

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky. There are SO many people who have been hurt by members they chose to trust. IMO, it is unwise to believe that your community is always safe and positive -- no matter how safe and wonderful it feels on the exterior.

[LA Ute]

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky.

I suspect that is a very small group, if people are honest with themselves. I know I am not in it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky.

Well, if you phrase the statement that way, I doubt anyone would make such a claim. I believe the question the other day was more narrow: bishops and stake presidents.

[smokymountainrain]

Knowing that I'm not the "only one."

Not the only one that doesn't "just love going to the Temple."

Not the only one that is bored by the 3 hour block. Not the only one that goes home from the 3 hour block MORE tired then when I arrived.

Not the only one that doesn't go to the temple regularly.

Not the only one that doesn't get great inspiration from reading a book over and over again.

I just read this for the first time. If it makes you feel any better, not only are you not the only one on these points, but based on my experience in the church, you are in the overwhelming majority of active church members. I can look at at least 80% (probably low) of the congregation on any given sunday in my Sandy, UT ward (doesn't get any more typical than Sandy, UT), and pretty much accurately describe them with what you've posted above.

[Surfah]

Well, if you phrase the statement that way, I doubt anyone would make such a claim. I believe the question the other day was more narrow: bishops and stake presidents.

I agree. And most have had at least an awkward moment, if not upsetting/hurtful encounter with a Church leader. But surely at some time or another each of us have offended or felt offended by some member of the community. I suspect the same can be said for a community of any kind. Even our blessed little CUF community. I don't think this is one that can be avoided no matter how principled the members of said community presume to be.

I guess that's why I try and take LA Ute's approach. I too try and be as much a part of the solution as I can.

[Rosebud]

I agree. And most have had at least an awkward moment, if not upsetting/hurtful encounter with a Church leader. But surely at some time or another each of us have offended or felt offended by some member of the community. I suspect the same can be said for a community of any kind. Even our blessed little CUF community. I don't think this is one that can be avoided no matter how principled the members of said community presume to be.

I guess that's why I try and take LA Ute's approach. I too try and be as much a part of the solution as I can.

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

It seems as if you discarded one straw man only to pick up another. Has anyone said that?

[The_Tick]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

I agree with you partially. But the Bishop is required to go over the Law of Chastity with your daughter at least once a year. How will that be handled?