Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
I’m curious about where in our doctrine it says that by raising your hand you are stating you believe they have been called of God. I haven’t heard that before. Again, I am not disagreeing, I simply want to understand where you are getting that impression/belief/implied meaning of raising your hand.
It doesn’t (see my reply to Ray). But when I was a TBM I believed it, and I’m pretty certain I wasn’t the only one and that there are still millions who do believe it. TBMs have a lot of doctrine that isn’t doctrine, as I am sure you are well aware.
Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, there is literally nothing in the handbook or anywhere else that says sustaining someone by raising our hands indicates we accept that the person was called of God in any literal way – no matter what some members might think. The higher the hierarchical position, the more such an understanding is implied, but it certainly isn’t explicit at the lower levels, especially.
I haven’t been ignoring you, Ray, and you make a good point. I put little stock in handbooks these days, anyway, and would be much more likely to have a belief based on scripture than on any handbook or what any GA said. I constantly encounter non-doctrine that most members of the church would probably think is doctrine (that’s why I take breaks from LDS.net). That’s another thing I’m sorting out, what is and isn’t doctrine. I agree with you that sustaining the Q15 as prophets, seers and revelators implies that they are called of God (and I believe they might be) and that less implication is present in lower levels. The whole process of calling an SP or bishop would indicate that there should be some revelation involved (and GAs have testified of such in the past), so I’m not there yet. I have concluded that the nursery leader and librarian and home teachers are not called of God. I also recognize that the AofF is referring to the priesthood, not callings – but I’m not sure all priesthood holders are called of God, either.
My head is starting to wrap around what you and SD are saying, my thoughts are evolving.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:I’ve come here with an open mind to try to redefine what I believe about sustaining (and I still have to work out the whole “called of God” thing), but yes, as now constituted my idea of sustaining includes that the person is called of God. That definition is evolving, but that’s still where I am right now.
So, you mean that in raising your hand, you are stating that you believe the person is called of God, but only if they are a Stake President or Bishop — correct? I’m not challenging the idea, I am simply trying to make the connection between sustaining and called-of-God leaders.
Yes and no. At one point, when I was TBM, I truly believed everyone – even the nursery leader – was called by revelation (at least inspiration). My evolution of thought on the process has come about during my crisis of faith. I actually don’t believe any of them are called of God anymore, but I do think some of them
shouldbe – particularly those in leadership positions. When I raised my hand in the past to sustain, I was indicating that I believed they were called of God in my mind and in my beliefs at the time. I haven’t come full circle yet, and part of that is because (how many times can I say this?) I am still struggling with the whole called of God thing. I know that I have been discussed in WC because I have been part of a “Rescue” effort on at least two occasions. (I didn’t realize it at the time, I only recently discovered the program.) I’m not really upset about that – I don’t want to be anyone’s project and I don’t want a friend who has been assigned to me, but I see this as the WC doing their job. FWIW, I must have been recycled to the bottom of the list both times because neither ward council member came back. So for me the bottom line with this issue is, were they really doing their jobs, or were they just gossiping? Did they discuss beyond what needed to be discussed?
Either way, my experience has been much like SD’s and I have reached the same conclusions. When I went inactive I could hear the crickets chirp – no contact at all for a few weeks, then a couple sweet souls did come by but it was short lived. Basically I felt (and still feel) that if I wasn’t there they really didn’t care – I learned who my friends were(n’t). Likewise, I learned the leadership (SP & bishop) kept nothing confidential.
Quote:I’m Ok with the idea that the definition doesn’t work for you. But I would like some clarification — in raising your hand, are you saying that you believe the person is called of God?
I’ve come here with an open mind to try to redefine what I believe about sustaining (and I still have to work out the whole “called of God” thing), but yes, as now constituted my idea of sustaining includes that the person is called of God. That definition is evolving, but that’s still where I am right now.
QuestionAbound wrote:You know…in my ward we didn’t even acknowledge Pioneer Day…at all.
No activity…no song in any auxiliary (well, I don’t know about primary), but at least for the adults, we just sort of pretended that it wasn’t even on the calendar.
What’s really great is that when a ward member mentioned it on a social media site, several ward council members scrambled to explain it away.
So very sad.
I don’t know where you live, but here in upstate NY our ward does always manage some acknowledgement – despite the fact that some, including some former bishops, don’t see the relevance. In a way, I’ve always felt sorry for those that fail to see the relevance – it really doesn’t take a whole lot of thinking about it to realize none of this would be here if they hadn’t done what they did. And I have often wondered if I would have done it.
Ann wrote:I liked the focus on their
wholerelationship. (I did think having the dad “lying on the couch” at church time was a little bit of a swipe, but maybe that’s exactly what happened.)
I sometimes lay on the on the couch as the family leaves for church. Just saying.
Apparently our WC is pretty bland. In all of the meetings I ever attended (as counselor in the bishopric & YMP), we never discussed members of the ward at all. We did, of course, in the old ward welfare meetings, but never in the way you seem to indicate – we really discussed welfare needs and how to meet them. I would have issues, as you do, if I thought people were secretly talking about me and/or my family in WC. How comfortable are you with talking openly to your bishop? I might consider that. I know the hand books says “Plan ways to strengthen individuals and families,” but it sounds like what’s happening there might be a bit outside that. Welcome, Tobin. We all have unique experiences and are all on a journey of discovery. My wife and I don’t see eye-to-eye when it comes to the church (she’s a TBM), but we do share an interest in near death experiences, or more correctly, those who have “been to the other side” and returned. I’d really love to hear more about your experience and hope you share more if and when you are comfortable doing so. I am in full agreement abut your assessment of the universe (which fits Mormon belief, of course) that there is lots more intelligent life out there. I liked it, despite the fact that it brings out memories for me, too. The Ensign should take it on. I thikn there needs to be an understanding by the mainstream membership that some members do question, and that questioning isn’t a time to shun them but to support them. All I really needed was someone to listen (not agree), and has taken me 10 years to find you folks here. I think was misinterpreting what you said, SD. I think I understand that you’re saying it doesn’t really matter what happens or what anything else is about, your vote doesn’t mean you necessarily sustain that person as called of God or whatever because it’s just a vote that you agree that the person should be in that position for whatever reason. I’m still not there. Again, while I don’t give a hoot if the librarian is called of God, I do care if the bishop is and I do care that a bishop can reign as a tyrant or be uninspired. Your definition works well for you, apparently, and I have pondered on it. It won’t work for me. I also struggle with the whole loving God idea (which does connect a bit to God being involved in our lives), because I believe a loving God wouldn’t call a tyrannical or uninspired bishop because of the pain it would inflict upon his other children. It’s one thing to search for the lost sheep, it’s quite another to allow them to be eaten by wolves while you save that sheep. I don’t want to argue your point, it just doesn’t work for me. Old-Timer wrote:I think whether or not a particular leader is “called of God” depends largely on whether the person doing the calling is “inspired of God” – and, frankly, whether there’s a burning need for God to be involved to some degree, for some reason, in the calling. Those are two very subjective, difficult to determine criteria – so I don’t spend a lot of emotional capital on trying to figure it out in most cases. I also think it doesn’t matter much if someone is called of God if they wind up not “leading of God”.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there, Ray. I think it can be spiritually confirmed to individuals that someone, like the prophet, a stake president, or bishop is called of God, and people can receive confirmation that their own calling is inspired. I have, in fact, received such confirmations (or at least what I thought were such confirmations), but I think most of the time we don’t get those confirmations and sometimes only get them if we seek them. Short of that confirmation, we all make judgements of others and I agree, part of that judgement is whether or not one thinks his leader is inspired based on his actions. That is the crux of my situation – based on my bishop’s actions, at least those I can observe, I think he’s wholly uninspired. I don’t think God needs to direct everything he does, but there are certainly things a loving God would prompt him to do that would make a huge difference in my (and other’s) view of him. Maybe God, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to do that, but there’s no way for me to determine if that’s the case. Coupled with that, if the SP isn’t called of God and isn’t inspired, how can he call a bishop and be inspired about it? There’s a whole domino effect there, and of course we end up on the slippery slope again. I also agree that someone called of God needs to “lead of God.”
Unfortunately, this has been such an emotionally charged issue in my life that I do put lots of emotional capital into it – it’s a biggie to me and as I have said, I’m pretty sure it’s doctrine. So here I sit – not believing a local leader that matters is inspired or called of God yet I’m expected to accept a calling from him (which would indicate sustaining of him)?
Please don’t take this to indicate the conversation we’ve been having here hasn’t been helpful, it has. I clearly have personal and doctrinal issues to work on.
I had to read this book for a class I was taking several years ago. She does make a valid point in that history is often glossed over and romanticized (maybe she should take a look at LDS history!). I do, however, have some issues with some of her data which is suspect at least. Again, she makes a good point, but some of the data she uses simply isn’t there or doesn’t really support what she says. On edit, I thought a bit more about this after I first posted the above paragraph. I should point out that the class I was taking was in part about using data to determine policy – hence we examined the data pretty closely.
SilentDawning wrote:What I like about this definition is that many of my own concerns are less important — in the past, my faith crisis was promoted by the high expectations church leaders create when they claim leaders are called of God etcetera. With this minimalist definition I propose, I can select those initiatives my inner clock feels are valuable and ignore the ones that are not of value — and still sustain my leaders.
I’m not there yet, SD. While I don’t think the SS secretary or ward librarian (or whatever it’s called now) necessarily has to be called of God, I really do believe that the bishop and stake president, for example, should be. I’m not sure if that’s doctrine or not (I lean toward the idea that it is), and as you know I’m still sorting out what’s doctrine and what isn’t. Your definition would work for me if I could get past that.
Welcome Haven. I’m rather new here myself, but I think you’ll find many sympathetic and empathetic people here as I believe I have. Please understand you’re feelings are not unique, you are not alone. Before coming here I felt very alone. One thing that really stands out to me in what you said is the “everyone has their own experiences and feelings.” So many people in the church do not seem to understand that. I suppose it might have something to do with a belief that “everyone else here believes the same as I do, so they must feel the same.” Nothing could be farther from the truth, even down to whatever spiritual witnesses we have each had (or not had) – we each experience them differently. I have often related how I have felt a withdrawal of the Spirit, which, other than here, has always been met with disbelief. No one else knows how I feel, no one else has experienced what I have experienced, and the same is true for you and everyone else.
I hope you find the support you need here as I have.
