Page 2 of 3

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 31 May 2018, 11:40
by Curt Sunshine
Yes. It just is a streamlined organization due to available people.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 15:47
by Heber13
Roy wrote:
30 May 2018, 16:47
I do not interrupt. I do not argue. I do not suggest a peer to peer relationship. He is my Bishop
I like Roy's take on this. And I would prepare your mind ahead of meetings to be ready to inwardly be telling yourself these things as you hear the others in the room talk...remind yourself you don't have to agree with their ideas or convince them to agree with there and allow ideas to flow.
Curt Sunshine wrote:
30 May 2018, 14:59
Then shut up and let him talk.
...and this. Be prepared to do this, whether you agree or not.

Don't allow emotions to bring things out you would rather not say aloud. Once words are can't take them back. You can always add more words to clarify or update ideas...but you can't unsay things to your bishop and husband.

"I'll study and pray about that, thanks." Can be an honest response to anything said.

In all are still you've you said. open to anything others have to say, as you search for your truth.

In meekness, there is strength and respect...and will do much to built trust from others.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 01 Jun 2018, 16:11
by SilentDawning
AmyJ wrote:
30 May 2018, 11:12
hful Believer Doing Their Best" is going to be my attitude.

Can you guys help me tell him what he needs to know to be of most help for me please? I don't want to give the guy a lecture on my life, but I do want to include what he needs to know.
Amy, you're right in your belief that the Branch President is limited as a source of help. And he's downright dangerous to your positivity about the church if you share everything with him that you mentioned. For me, the really important conversation and action needs to happen at home with your husband. It's your hubby who is driving this because he's in conflict with your beliefs, and if there has been talk of the d-word, then I think you need to treat this as a marital crisis. And it's time to figure out how to best meet your husband's needs, while maintaining your inner peace. You may reconcile, but if this is a lingering problem then it may well blow up eventually.

This might mean sacrifice, but we believe in sacrificing things for the things we love. I suggest figuring out how to shelter your husband from non-TBM attitudes and ideals. That is what i do. We never talk about my problems with the church -- I tried a few times and I could see that going down that path was going to do nothing but hurt our relationship. So I mediate between my unorthodoxy and the need to be as TBM as she needs me to be.

If I were you, I'd meet with the BP but keep it really vague. Hope he just sluffs you off to a marriage counselor. Be positive about the church, and start with all the things you like about the church. If there isn't anything that comes to mind immediately, then brainstorm until you have a few things-- even if they are practical in nature. Try to get through the meeting without exposing anything that will make him take your TR away, and doubt, or contrarion attitudes might cause that, I don't know. For some leaders it's a given, other leaders understand completely.

At the same time, figure out his most important, non-religious emotional needs and do your absolute best to meet those needs even better than you do now. has an Emotional Needs Questionnaire you might consider doing to unearth these needs -- you might think you know them, but you'd be surprised.

And of course, your needs are important too. I've had to sacrifice most of mine in our marriage, sadly, but when it comes to the church, my needs have to go unexpressed unfortunately, so long as I meet minimum standards of going to church, holding a calling and being generally supportive of my wife and family. But have the conversation in the context of mutual needs. I'm not blaming the victim here, but the reality is that your husband is bothered by your church orientation, and sadly, if he won't accept the unorthodox path, then divorce could be on the have to do what is necessary to keep the spouse happy without making yourself miserable...

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 02 Jun 2018, 04:44
by Heber13
Good advice, SD.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 04 Jun 2018, 06:59
by AmyJ
Thanks all.

Our marriage is paradoxically stronger and more fragile than it has ever been before. I trust in the process of working together and loving each other in the best way possible. I have already been looking over the marriage builder stuff, and have been implementing some of the general concepts. We are going to sit down in the next month (or less) and use the quizzes to guide us in helping each other more effectively. We rely on the "5 Love Languages" as part of our marriage communication protocols. I provide some of the concepts from "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families" into our collective family narrative.

It's funny. I talk to my husband about things I have re-thought while in transition, and he finds himself agreeing with me until I share something he is not expecting. Case in point: I told him that I am focused and interested in making our marriage in this lifetime as celestial as possible, and that is where I believe the "sealing" comes in - and that I don't know, or need to know whether there is a celestial kingdom. I could sort of read his body language... "focusing on our marriage is a good thing"... "making the sealing a reality in this life is a good thing"... "not living for a future life - say what?"...

I am going to put in stronger boundaries on my unorthodoxy (because I have this site) for his peace of mind.

My husband is indirectly thinking about his faith narrative and stretching himself to figure out what he believes and what he does about it. He reports instances of answered prayers, and I believe he is stretching himself in a good way to grow with me. A part of me wishes it did not hurt him to do so, but a part of me honors that growing pains are real and should be respected for what they are.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 11 Jun 2018, 20:03
by Bremguy
SamBee wrote:
31 May 2018, 08:39
I've never been a member of a branch as such because I never joined the LDS while I lived out in the country. I've lived in the city for years now. Do they differ from wards much? Is a BP much the same as a bishop?
They are pretty much the same, they do the same things, call people, accept tithing, set apart people in callings, they do Temple Recommends.

It is like having two guys , one is a Janitor and the other a custodian. Same job, different title.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 01:11
by SamBee
I have heard it is supposed to take a minimum of 12 MP holders to set up a ward. The church really shoots itself in the foot over things like this.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 05:06
by nibbler
There are a few obscure rules surrounding branch presidents and bishops.

Functionally they are the same but (and it's been a while, I could be wrong):

Branch presidents do not have to be MP holders. I believe this rule can only go into effect when there are no 'worthy' MP holders to fill the role, making this an extremely unlikely occurrence.

You have to be married to be a bishop but a single person can be a branch president. Again, I think there might be qualifiers that make this a rare occurrence, (shooting from the hip) like this is only a rule in a district (org when there aren't enough people to form a stake) and it may also follow the policy of when there are no 'worthy' married men to fill the role. This is how FT missionaries (the young ones) can be tasked with being a branch president in places where the church doesn't have a strong foothold.
SamBee wrote:
12 Jun 2018, 01:11
I have heard it is supposed to take a minimum of 12 MP holders to set up a ward. The church really shoots itself in the foot over things like this.
The latest rules are:

Wards (US & Canada): 300 members; 15 active, full tithe paying MP holders
Wards (Other): 150; 15 active, full tithe paying MP holders

Rule of thumb: One active, full tithe paying MP holder per 20 members, so if a ward has 500 members the expectation is that it have 25 MP holders.

Branch (part of a stake): 20 members; 4-6 active, full tithe paying MP holders
Branch (part of a district): no minimum number of members needed but should have at least 4-6 active priesthood holders, one of which should be a full tithe paying MP holder.

I view it as a pure logistics thing. Policy/doctrine dictates that certain callings require certain offices in the PH. You'd have to have some minimal number of MP holders just to staff all the requisite callings. Also there's the question of having enough MP holders to administer PH blessings (as home teachers/ministers).

I wonder if that number would revise downward now that the high priests group is no longer required (freeing up 3-4 people that otherwise would have had a calling in that group). Probably not, as smaller units have been combining PH quorums all along.

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 10:30
by SamBee
:thumbup: That's actually really interesting. We definitely have 15+ tithe payers here, but one per twenty members? We've over a thousand on the books, mostly inactive.

We also have several able members who are divorced or are single mothers.

I think we do make it hard for branches to grow into wards. For example, they often expect the members to go to the building, rather than build where the members are concentrated. Our ward boundaries are clearly drawn by outsiders. In one area, they haven't taken into account petty rivalries between towns, and/or public transport routes

Re: Meeting with the Branch President

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 11:11
by nibbler
For one, I think we scale the people to the expected programs as opposed to scaling the programs to the people. The solution is often people in smaller units ending up with multiple callings.