Comments on: Something Different in the First Presidency Letter? http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:00:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: cthomasgirl http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-54184 cthomasgirl Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:13:16 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-54184 First off, please forgive the lengthy post! Jo, whatever you do, please DON'T take a sabbatical! I did that after the death of my son and it was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made (see below). You say that the stake you were in when you husband converted was "an exception." Isn't it possible that the stake you are in now is the exception? ladyship (28) There is a book called "Answers to Gospel Questions" by Joseph Fielding Smith. Yes, it's a little outdated (as it was published as early as 1953), but it does have some useful information regarding doctrine. What saddens me the most is how easily people (not just memebers of the church) can become offended. Myself among them. I know that my grandmother was treated (at least in her opinion) unfairly by her bishop while she went through a bitter divorce with my grandfather. That experience caused her to leave the church for decades. I spoke with her often as a teenager to try to understand why this woman, who had so much influence on my life, and who had such a peaceful spirit, could choose to not be a member of the church. After many years, she finally had a visit from the missionaries and began going to church again. When I learned of this, I immediately went to her to find out what had changed. She told me that the much over-used saying "the church is true, but the people aren't" was very true. She had always known the gospel to be true and had known for years that something was missing. She was able to put aside her pride and her hurt from an incident 30 years ago, and have a chance to be whole again. A few years later, I lost my third child to a stillbirth. I felt that the best place I could possibly be in my time of trial was at church. I battled through Sacrament the first week and went home afterward. I went the following week and made myself stay for the entire block. I was upset by my perceived notion of the insensitivity of the members. One woman announced in church that day that she had the same due date as I did. Another man, who knew of my situation, sat next to me in Sunday School with his week old new grandbaby. I decided that I was not ready to face "reality" and stopped going to church for a while, with the intention of returning when I was ready. Unfortunately, that was all the ammo the adversary needed. He was able to twist my thoughts until I was no longer desiring to return to church. After many more trials and some serious prayer, I was able to get past that and realize a few things. The woman who gave the talk had no idea what was going on with me. The man who sat next to me did so as there was no other available seat in class and moved as soon as class was over (I had stepped out in the hall). The vast majority of the members and leaders were, in fact, incredibly supportive and I blew them off in response to my bitterness towards people who didn't know. I truly believe that as long as you can find it within yourself to go to you Father in prayer and continue to read your scriptures, you will find solace and comfort in your afflictions, no matter what they be. I know this as I have been through many more tribulations, just as heart-breaking as the death of my child, and been all the stronger for it. First off, please forgive the lengthy post!

Jo, whatever you do, please DON’T take a sabbatical! I did that after the death of my son and it was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made (see below). You say that the stake you were in when you husband converted was “an exception.” Isn’t it possible that the stake you are in now is the exception?

ladyship (28) There is a book called “Answers to Gospel Questions” by Joseph Fielding Smith. Yes, it’s a little outdated (as it was published as early as 1953), but it does have some useful information regarding doctrine.

What saddens me the most is how easily people (not just memebers of the church) can become offended. Myself among them. I know that my grandmother was treated (at least in her opinion) unfairly by her bishop while she went through a bitter divorce with my grandfather. That experience caused her to leave the church for decades. I spoke with her often as a teenager to try to understand why this woman, who had so much influence on my life, and who had such a peaceful spirit, could choose to not be a member of the church.

After many years, she finally had a visit from the missionaries and began going to church again. When I learned of this, I immediately went to her to find out what had changed. She told me that the much over-used saying “the church is true, but the people aren’t” was very true. She had always known the gospel to be true and had known for years that something was missing. She was able to put aside her pride and her hurt from an incident 30 years ago, and have a chance to be whole again.

A few years later, I lost my third child to a stillbirth. I felt that the best place I could possibly be in my time of trial was at church. I battled through Sacrament the first week and went home afterward. I went the following week and made myself stay for the entire block. I was upset by my perceived notion of the insensitivity of the members. One woman announced in church that day that she had the same due date as I did. Another man, who knew of my situation, sat next to me in Sunday School with his week old new grandbaby. I decided that I was not ready to face “reality” and stopped going to church for a while, with the intention of returning when I was ready. Unfortunately, that was all the ammo the adversary needed. He was able to twist my thoughts until I was no longer desiring to return to church.

After many more trials and some serious prayer, I was able to get past that and realize a few things. The woman who gave the talk had no idea what was going on with me. The man who sat next to me did so as there was no other available seat in class and moved as soon as class was over (I had stepped out in the hall). The vast majority of the members and leaders were, in fact, incredibly supportive and I blew them off in response to my bitterness towards people who didn’t know.

I truly believe that as long as you can find it within yourself to go to you Father in prayer and continue to read your scriptures, you will find solace and comfort in your afflictions, no matter what they be. I know this as I have been through many more tribulations, just as heart-breaking as the death of my child, and been all the stronger for it.

]]> By: Kiskilili http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-51017 Kiskilili Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:18:27 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-51017 Jo, I'm sorry you've had so many problematic experiences with your local community; that sounds very frustrating. Is it wrong to continue supporting an institution that treats you like a second-class citizen? I wish I knew the answer. It definitely seems like there are trade-offs--sometimes for the sake of your self-respect I think it can be helpful to take at least a sabbatical from church. At the same time, I recognize there's good in the Church. Unfortunately a negative experience in the community can definitely influence one's relationship with God. Jo, I’m sorry you’ve had so many problematic experiences with your local community; that sounds very frustrating. Is it wrong to continue supporting an institution that treats you like a second-class citizen? I wish I knew the answer. It definitely seems like there are trade-offs–sometimes for the sake of your self-respect I think it can be helpful to take at least a sabbatical from church. At the same time, I recognize there’s good in the Church. Unfortunately a negative experience in the community can definitely influence one’s relationship with God.

]]> By: Jo http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-50947 Jo Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:01:21 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-50947 oops! I hit send before proof reading, as the e-mail at my work will automatically proof read before sending. I apologize for the unedited reply. oops! I hit send before proof reading, as the e-mail at my work will automatically proof read before sending.
I apologize for the unedited reply.

]]> By: Jo http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-50946 Jo Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:54:15 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-50946 Glen gave us good advice when we are clearly wronged by church leaders. Turn to the lord in sincere prayer. I received an answer and a little miracle (finding my lost diamond in a large mica gravel beach area). I followed the prayer's answer, rose above the situation, and reached out in love to offer to help, or pay for others to help, if those leaders needed to be taught by men. They have companies that do this type of training for school districts, when needed. We continued to attend church for months afterwards. For me, it was to prove to my husband, a newer member, that my church was good and just and could work through and resolve any problem situation. What I was told was "pretend it never happened" by a well meaning RS member. Later, I was told by my home teacher, "That never happened." He wasn't a witness or involved in any meeting, so for him to come to my home and make that statement was interesting. Educators are taught to say "I wasn't at that meeting and cannot speak to that.", rather than bear false witness to events that they did not witness. Denial of events is coping strategy. We see it in schools, usually by bullies when caught after an aggressive act. We even see other students, who will approach the victims, while they wait by the principal's office, and tell the victims that "It never happened." This is particularly telling, when we know that the students who approach the victims and make these statements, were in another part of the school when the incident occurred. I was dissapointed that our leaders lack basic skills in conflict resolution/mediation and think this is a good approach to addressing a concern at a stake level. I was even more dissapointed that my husband had to watch me try to work with these people over the last year. We finally requested that this stake not send people to our home as I do not wish to be a party to their bearing false witness against us. Sometimes we are tested, and sometimes we are the test. How long are we supposed to try to resolve a problem when faced with this kind of response. It does make not participating easier for me and that is a blessing from God. My husband, who is just relieved that I stopped trying, believes that the last stake we attended, where he became a convert, was the exception to the chruch norm. He did ask me an interesting question, at the meeting that he was required to schedule and required to attend, as the elder who scheduled the meeting told me, by telephone, that I could not schedule the meeting or attend the meeting with the stake president. My husband had to do that. Then I was told that I am to wait to renew my temple recommend until my husband wants to get his endowments, then I can go with him. This requirement for scheduling a meeting with the stake president was new to me and is now, one of the events that other members are stating, "never happened". My husband asked me this question, "Why would you want to attend a church that treats you like a second class citizen?" I spent over a year, trying to prove him wrong, apologizing for their actions and saying they were not typical. Was I wrong? Glen gave us good advice when we are clearly wronged by church leaders. Turn to the lord in sincere prayer. I received an answer and a little miracle (finding my lost diamond in a large mica gravel beach area).
I followed the prayer’s answer, rose above the situation, and reached out in love to offer to help, or pay for others to help, if those leaders needed to be taught by men. They have companies that do this type of training for school districts, when needed.
We continued to attend church for months afterwards.
For me, it was to prove to my husband, a newer member, that my church was good and just and could work through and resolve any problem situation.
What I was told was “pretend it never happened” by a well meaning RS member. Later, I was told by my home teacher, “That never happened.” He wasn’t a witness or involved in any meeting, so for him to come to my home and make that statement was interesting. Educators are taught to say “I wasn’t at that meeting and cannot speak to that.”, rather than bear false witness to events that they did not witness.
Denial of events is coping strategy. We see it in schools, usually by bullies when caught after an aggressive act. We even see other students, who will approach the victims, while they wait by the principal’s office, and tell the victims that “It never happened.” This is particularly telling, when we know that the students who approach the victims and make these statements, were in another part of the school when the incident occurred.
I was dissapointed that our leaders lack basic skills in conflict resolution/mediation and think this is a good approach to addressing a concern at a stake level. I was even more dissapointed that my husband had to watch me try to work with these people over the last year. We finally requested that this stake not send people to our home as I do not wish to be a party to their bearing false witness against us.
Sometimes we are tested, and sometimes we are the test. How long are we supposed to try to resolve a problem when faced with this kind of response.
It does make not participating easier for me and that is a blessing from God.
My husband, who is just relieved that I stopped trying, believes that the last stake we attended, where he became a convert, was the exception to the chruch norm.
He did ask me an interesting question, at the meeting that he was required to schedule and required to attend, as the elder who scheduled the meeting told me, by telephone, that I could not schedule the meeting or attend the meeting with the stake president. My husband had to do that. Then I was told that I am to wait to renew my temple recommend until my husband wants to get his endowments, then I can go with him. This requirement for scheduling a meeting with the stake president was new to me and is now, one of the events that other members are stating, “never happened”.
My husband asked me this question, “Why would you want to attend a church that treats you like a second class citizen?” I spent over a year, trying to prove him wrong, apologizing for their actions and saying they were not typical. Was I wrong?

]]> By: Jo http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-50934 Jo Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:50:00 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-50934 The request to not write or call the general authorities of the church gives them 'plausible deniability:. Higher general authorities can state that "they hear no complaints" from women who have faced unrighteous dominion in the wards and stakes. It allows the stake president to filter knowledge of his actions from those at higher levels. It makes it difficult for members to ask for clarification on a theological point. For example: I was told by a bishop that confidentiality was "whoever the Bishop thought needed to know." I had thought confidentiality was between the Bishop and the member. This was not a criminal issue, just the discussion in an interview of whether church attendance was measured by the required sacrament service or if a member was also required to attend Sunday School, when participating male members were interjecting derogatory sexual remarks about women (e.g. calling their not yet temple married daughter in law a hoochie ma ma) or making derogatory gender jokes (e.g. What are the 3 fastest forms of modern communication? Telephone, telegraph and tell a woman.) I received, by mail, a two page letter of reprimand from a woman in our congregation, who had been apprised of my situation from this Bishop. Is there a definition of confidentiality in our church, or is it left to the subjective discretion of each Bishop to decide what confidentiality means? Does this "don't bother us" approach by the general authorities allow Stake Presidents and Bishops to run their stakes and wards without oversight by the larger church? If so, would that explain the variation between stake requirements to renew temple recommends. (e.g. in one city, women can receive their endowments, in another, they must wait until their less active husband requests and receives his endowment before they can attend the temple). I do want to know how this works as schools have learned to use a due rights process and oversight committees to review procedural problems that come up from time to time. Of course, schools also give individuals rights and follow state and federal codes of law. The request to not write or call the general authorities of the church gives them ‘plausible deniability:.
Higher general authorities can state that “they hear no complaints” from women who have faced unrighteous dominion in the wards and stakes. It allows the stake president to filter knowledge of his actions from those at higher levels. It makes it difficult for members to ask for clarification on a theological point.
For example: I was told by a bishop that confidentiality was “whoever the Bishop thought needed to know.”
I had thought confidentiality was between the Bishop and the member. This was not a criminal issue, just the discussion in an interview of whether church attendance was measured by the required sacrament service or if a member was also required to attend Sunday School, when participating male members were interjecting derogatory sexual remarks about women (e.g. calling their not yet temple married daughter in law a hoochie ma ma) or making derogatory gender jokes (e.g. What are the 3 fastest forms of modern communication? Telephone, telegraph and tell a woman.)
I received, by mail, a two page letter of reprimand from a woman in our congregation, who had been apprised of my situation from this Bishop.
Is there a definition of confidentiality in our church, or is it left to the subjective discretion of each Bishop to decide what confidentiality means?
Does this “don’t bother us” approach by the general authorities allow Stake Presidents and Bishops to run their stakes and wards without oversight by the larger church? If so, would that explain the variation between stake requirements to renew temple recommends. (e.g. in one city, women can receive their endowments, in another, they must wait until their less active husband requests and receives his endowment before they can attend the temple).
I do want to know how this works as schools have learned to use a due rights process and oversight committees to review procedural problems that come up from time to time. Of course, schools also give individuals rights and follow state and federal codes of law.

]]> By: Ziff http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-46553 Ziff Mon, 05 May 2008 19:17:46 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-46553 Thanks for your testimony, Guill. I'm not so concerned about being able to write letters about esoteric points of doctrine. I just think it would be useful if the General Authorities made it easier for themselves to receive feedback about things that they could change or do and that they might not object to changing or doing, but they just haven't thought of. Consider all the tweaking the endowment ceremony has undergone, for example. I expect there's some core to it that they're not going to change, but they're clearly willing to change parts that they consider peripheral. Ladyship, I agree that the truth should be able to withstand scrutiny, and I would rather know the bad than have it hidden. That being said, I can see how Church leaders would rather not open what they see as cans of worms by addressing topics that will only make the Church look bad. I suspect they're more than happy to leave discussion of those points to apologetics groups, although I agree with you that it would be kind of fun to see a big FAQ like you describe on lds.org. Thanks for the clarification queuno. That's a good point. I'll be sure to share a tearful testimony in my next letter to President Monson so he doesn't send it back down the line marked "could be resolved at a lower level." :) Anonymous, you noted that "the church is not run by its membership." But, I would argue, neither are its leaders necessarily inspired to know everything that needs to happen. Can't this life be a test for them just as it is for us? I think it would definitely be worthwhile for members in general to make suggestions to the general leadership and be heard. Consider <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/num/27/1-11" rel="nofollow">the story of Zelophehad's daughters</a> from which this blog gets its name, for example. Tanya Sue and Dora, I'm sorry that this "please don't bug us so much" policy makes it so you have no recourse when you have trouble with your immediate leaders. Thanks for your testimony, Guill. I’m not so concerned about being able to write letters about esoteric points of doctrine. I just think it would be useful if the General Authorities made it easier for themselves to receive feedback about things that they could change or do and that they might not object to changing or doing, but they just haven’t thought of. Consider all the tweaking the endowment ceremony has undergone, for example. I expect there’s some core to it that they’re not going to change, but they’re clearly willing to change parts that they consider peripheral.

Ladyship, I agree that the truth should be able to withstand scrutiny, and I would rather know the bad than have it hidden. That being said, I can see how Church leaders would rather not open what they see as cans of worms by addressing topics that will only make the Church look bad. I suspect they’re more than happy to leave discussion of those points to apologetics groups, although I agree with you that it would be kind of fun to see a big FAQ like you describe on lds.org.

Thanks for the clarification queuno. That’s a good point. I’ll be sure to share a tearful testimony in my next letter to President Monson so he doesn’t send it back down the line marked “could be resolved at a lower level.” :)

Anonymous, you noted that “the church is not run by its membership.” But, I would argue, neither are its leaders necessarily inspired to know everything that needs to happen. Can’t this life be a test for them just as it is for us? I think it would definitely be worthwhile for members in general to make suggestions to the general leadership and be heard. Consider the story of Zelophehad’s daughters from which this blog gets its name, for example.

Tanya Sue and Dora, I’m sorry that this “please don’t bug us so much” policy makes it so you have no recourse when you have trouble with your immediate leaders.

]]> By: Guill http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-46540 Guill Mon, 05 May 2008 17:35:30 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-46540 I know the church is true. I know our leaders have been appointed by the Spirit of revelation. No, they might not be perfect yet. But I sure trust them no matter what. In my opinion, what's the point of knowing everything about those doctrinal questions ? Yes, it's interesting. But will it help increase my faith ?The Lord has decided not to tell us certain things for the moment. Will we send a chain letter to Him, requesting answers right away ? Won't we learn from Joseph Smith's experience with the book of Lehi ? Won't we refrain from asking what we are not ready to know ? I testify this is the church of God, I know it and that's what really matters to me. I know the church is true. I know our leaders have been appointed by the Spirit of revelation. No, they might not be perfect yet. But I sure trust them no matter what. In my opinion, what’s the point of knowing everything about those doctrinal questions ? Yes, it’s interesting. But will it help increase my faith ?The Lord has decided not to tell us certain things for the moment. Will we send a chain letter to Him, requesting answers right away ? Won’t we learn from Joseph Smith’s experience with the book of Lehi ? Won’t we refrain from asking what we are not ready to know ? I testify this is the church of God, I know it and that’s what really matters to me.

]]> By: Ladyship http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-46073 Ladyship Fri, 02 May 2008 17:12:45 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-46073 When I heard that letter read, I interpreted it as a way for President Monson to insulate himself from having to answer difficult doctrinal questions to which there are uncomfortable answers. It made me feel like the church leadership isolated themselves from very real concerns from sincere members who really want to know the truth about certain (potentially ugly) topics where contradictory information exists. The issues I am thinking of include polygamy, book of Abraham, historicity of the Book of Mormon, DNA of the american indians showing migration from Asia, not Israel. I guess I want the church to have the courage to open the can of worms and examine what the evidence would show, drawing an honest conclusion based upon logic. I think the church should produce a "frequently asked questions" page and address all of the topics the anti's and exmo's bring up. Those issues exist because the church hasn't sufficiently addressed these topics, to date. I want to know the honest truth, even if it makes the church look bad. I believe the truth should be able to withstand scrutiny. Your thoughts? When I heard that letter read, I interpreted it as a way for President Monson to insulate himself from having to answer difficult doctrinal questions to which there are uncomfortable answers.

It made me feel like the church leadership isolated themselves from very real concerns from sincere members who really want to know the truth about certain (potentially ugly) topics where contradictory information exists.

The issues I am thinking of include polygamy, book of Abraham, historicity of the Book of Mormon, DNA of the american indians showing migration from Asia, not Israel. I guess I want the church to have the courage to open the can of worms and examine what the evidence would show, drawing an honest conclusion based upon logic.

I think the church should produce a “frequently asked questions” page and address all of the topics the anti’s and exmo’s bring up. Those issues exist because the church hasn’t sufficiently addressed these topics, to date. I want to know the honest truth, even if it makes the church look bad. I believe the truth should be able to withstand scrutiny.

Your thoughts?

]]> By: Ardis Parshall http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-45541 Ardis Parshall Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:07:11 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-45541 I agree with queuno (23). There's a big difference between writing to a GA to say "your talk in the last conference helped me resolve my problem with XYZ" and writing to say "I'm having a problem with XYZ -- what should I do?" or worse yet, "I have a problem with the way my bishop does XYZ ." I agree with queuno (23). There’s a big difference between writing to a GA to say “your talk in the last conference helped me resolve my problem with XYZ” and writing to say “I’m having a problem with XYZ — what should I do?” or worse yet, “I have a problem with the way my bishop does XYZ .”

]]> By: Marjorie Conder http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-45538 Marjorie Conder Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:52:59 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2008/04/21/something-different-in-the-first-presidency-letter/#comment-45538 Dora, and others-- I have had the experience of being ignored/ridiculed / oppressed on a ward/stake level. I have taken these issues ALL THE WAY to the top (and I don't mean the Pres. of the Church) and received remarkable answers, counsel and consolation. Such help is there for all of us when leaders are unjust or maybe just distracted or clueless. Dora, and others–
I have had the experience of being ignored/ridiculed / oppressed on a ward/stake level. I have taken these issues ALL THE WAY to the top (and I don’t mean the Pres. of the Church) and received remarkable answers, counsel and consolation. Such help is there for all of us when leaders are unjust or maybe just distracted or clueless.

]]>