Surprise meeting with Bishop

Public forum for those seeking support for their experience in the LDS Church.
amateurparent
Posts: 953
Joined: 19 Jan 2014, 20:43

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by amateurparent » 26 Jul 2015, 18:09

Roy wrote:

"In conclusion the bishop's wife mentioned that she has her own trial that has been ongoing for the last 10 years and shows no sign of resolution. How she would love to be released from that emotional burden and have that child "return." I knew from my talk with the bishop that she was referencing her son that has embarked on a path of addiction and crime for the last decade."
Wait ... She LITERALLY said she would rather have her child DIE rather than have HER AS A PARENT have to deal with the burden of her child's addiction.

How come in LDS society, this is an acceptable comment? We don't talk this way about caring for ventilator-dependent quadriplegic children. We don't talk this way about other burdens that life hands us.

If life is about trials, making mistakes, and learning through experiences, shouldn't we claim our children .. No matter what their struggles?

Recently, our RS president was talking about her oldest son and his wife who have left the church. I asked if they had children. She said, "Thankfully no. It would be terrible if they decided to have children." I had to blink for a minute, and process the statement.

So:


1 -- If your child leaves the church, they should never reproduce.

2 -- If your child have a drug or legal/criminal problem, it would be better for them to just die.

Wow. Hardliners ..

I like to think that as long as there is life there is hope. Once life is gone, change in this life is not possible. But until life is gone, the potential for change remains. Keep praying for change .. NOT for death.
I have no advance degrees in parenting. No national credentials. I am an amateur parent. I read, study, and learn all I can to be the best parent possible. Every time I think I have reached expert status with one child for one stage in their life, something changes and I am back to amateur status again. Now when I really mess up, I just apologize to my child, and explain that I am indeed an amateur .. I'm still learning how to do this right.

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7334
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by SilentDawning » 26 Jul 2015, 19:49

amateurparent wrote:
Roy wrote:

"In conclusion the bishop's wife mentioned that she has her own trial that has been ongoing for the last 10 years and shows no sign of resolution. How she would love to be released from that emotional burden and have that child "return." I knew from my talk with the bishop that she was referencing her son that has embarked on a path of addiction and crime for the last decade."
Wait ... She LITERALLY said she would rather have her child DIE rather than have HER AS A PARENT have to deal with the burden of her child's addiction.

How come in LDS society, this is an acceptable comment? We don't talk this way about caring for ventilator-dependent quadriplegic children. We don't talk this way about other burdens that life hands us.

If life is about trials, making mistakes, and learning through experiences, shouldn't we claim our children .. No matter what their struggles?

Recently, our RS president was talking about her oldest son and his wife who have left the church. I asked if they had children. She said, "Thankfully no. It would be terrible if they decided to have children." I had to blink for a minute, and process the statement.

So:


1 -- If your child leaves the church, they should never reproduce.

2 -- If your child have a drug or legal/criminal problem, it would be better for them to just die.

Wow. Hardliners ..

I like to think that as long as there is life there is hope. Once life is gone, change in this life is not possible. But until life is gone, the potential for change remains. Keep praying for change .. NOT for death.
And let's not forget the GA that said something like "there is no latter-day saint parent that wouldn't rather see their child buried alive than subjected so sexual abuse" or something like that. I was a product of those days when people could say such things over the pulpit without any ripples of disagreement from the crowd.

I wonder what the equivalent statements are in our day -- that are horrendous, but against which we feel no disagreement -- that future generations will point at and consider people like us, today, barbarians...
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7334
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by SilentDawning » 26 Jul 2015, 19:54

Roy -- wondering if you can expand on this one:
5) because trying to pay tithing just prior to a child's wedding is discouraged and may backfire.
Can you expand on the backfiring part?
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

Roy
Posts: 6112
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by Roy » 27 Jul 2015, 10:08

amateurparent wrote:2 -- If your child have a drug or legal/criminal problem, it would be better for them to just die.
Just to clarify - I do not think that the bishop's wife meant that she would want him to die but rather that she would want him to return to the church and the family the way he was before all the drug stuff. But you are correct that this sentiment still exists among us. Mormon Doctrine actually repeated the whole "It would be better for a missionary to come home in a pine box than without his virtue intact." I believe that it was BY that said that women should fight to the death before acquiescing to be raped. I specifically had to refute that quote in a SS class. Talk about blaming the victim.

Brian Johnson talked about his MIL or grandmother in law lamenting every time she saw them that they were not strong in the church. It was like, "Hellooooo! We are right here and can hear you. We are living and rather happy and wish you could be happy for us."
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

Roy
Posts: 6112
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by Roy » 27 Jul 2015, 10:30

SilentDawning wrote:Roy -- wondering if you can expand on this one:
5) because trying to pay tithing just prior to a child's wedding is discouraged and may backfire.
Can you expand on the backfiring part?
He said this part both this last visit and two years ago prior to my daughter's baptism.

He said that the Stake President is wary of people that will start paying tithing just prior to the temple wedding of a close relative (like a child). The tithing will need to be paid for a sufficient amount of time to indicate that this is a lifetime change and not just a momentary tit for tat / quid pro quo payment. The bishop will need to have met with the individual and receive assurances that the tithing will continue after the event. Only if the bishop is confident that this is to be the case will he and the SP support a recommend. If the individual begins tithing payment too late to properly establish a track record they may find their recommend request denied and they may miss out on the event.

For me personally I want to baptize my children and ordain DS to the priesthood (thus continuing on my priesthood line of authority). I am ok with the prospect of waiting outside for any future temple sealings. However, I will not tell my bishop this. He believes that the temple weddings of my kids are leverage that can be used to get me into tithing compliance at some point. It is to my benefit to not disabuse him of this notion.

In writing the proceeding I feel it makes me sound manipulative and calculating. I do not feel that way, although I can understand why it may appear that way to others. I am trying to give the bishop only the amount of information necessary to allow me to perform the baptism. My immediate goal is only a few months in front of me. What point would there be in arguing with my bishop about a hypothetical temple sealing nearly a decade away?
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2947
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by LookingHard » 27 Jul 2015, 10:50

I have really been scratching my head on why the church does not allow sealings within days of a civil marriage. I have heard it before, but reading Roy it made me do a head-slap and say, "because some people would give up on paying tithing just to get into the temple". Not that I had not thought about that before, but it just hit me how I think this really must be a big part of it.

User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 7159
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by DarkJedi » 27 Jul 2015, 14:17

There is Leadership roulette in play here as well. There are bishops and SPs who would indeed issue a TR without any commitment to pay tithing long term or pay for a certain amount of time beforehand. The question is "Are you a full tithe payer?" It can honestly be answered yes if you have paid a full tithe one time from your last paycheck. I do realize, of course, that you have no defense if the bishop or SP won't issue a recommend based on one week's tithe.

LH, while I see how that conclusion is reached I don't believe that is the reason why the US marriage policy is the way it is. On the other hand, I don't know why it is the way it is and if that explanation works for you, so be it. :D I am one of many who would really like to see that policy changed, I believe it serves no useful purpose.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16808
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by Curt Sunshine » 27 Jul 2015, 15:58

The policy was put in place in a time when very few people were marrying people whose family weren't church members, so there weren't the widespread issues of exclusion that occur so often now. The waiting period was for repentance and understanding, since the large percentage of non-temple marriages were due to issues of chastity and conversion.

The policy also reflects the reality in America that religious ceremonies carry civil benefits - since people married in the temple, for example, don't have to have a separate civil ceremony to receive those benefits. It creates a situation in which being married civilly can look to many like devaluing temple marriage for those who could marry in the temple if they chose to do so.

We live in a radically different world now, so I would love it if the policy changed to match what has to happen in so many other countries. It made sense in the past; it no longer does.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by Shawn » 27 Jul 2015, 16:13

amateurparent wrote: Wait ... She LITERALLY said she would rather have her child DIE rather than have HER AS A PARENT have to deal with the burden of her child's addiction.

How come in LDS society, this is an acceptable comment? We don't talk this way about caring for ventilator-dependent quadriplegic children. We don't talk this way about other burdens that life hands us.

If life is about trials, making mistakes, and learning through experiences, shouldn't we claim our children .. No matter what their struggles?
I will reply to this as if Roy hasn't clarified what this woman meant. I wouldn't be so hard on her. Addiction can cause life shattering misery. We don't know what her son has been through. I am one who sees death as a release from pain.

Minyan Man
Posts: 1947
Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 13:40

Re: Surprise meeting with Bishop

Post by Minyan Man » 27 Jul 2015, 18:09

Shawn, you said:
I am one who sees death as a release from pain.
My response is, who's suffering the pain? The person with the addiction? or the family that is enduring the humiliation of their
family member? Death is the easy way out.

Speaking as one who has gone through addiction & recovery, it is a painful process. It's suppose to be painful.
You come through the process & never want to forget. I firmly believe that I'm a better person for it.
I would never want to repeat the process. Pain can be a big motivator for change.

Post Reply