Leaderboard

Faith crisis councilor. (yes, totally made up, but SO needed!) It would be great if there were a person specifically dedicated to offering help and support to those struggling. Someone who's "been there", and can offer more than the usual pat answers of "just pray" or "study your scriptures". I know Bishops can sort of offer this kind of assistance, but in areas where they're swamped, it'd be great to be able to delegate. It wouldn't require Priesthood authority (you wouldn't be sitting in any sort of Judgement position over the person, just offering support), so it could be done by anyone.

This thread now makes me want to read a book regarding him.

Because we can't laugh at it any more?

I think it makes sense and has been a long time coming. There are so many leaders now-a-days (and likely more and more all the time) who do not have English as a native language. Heretofore they could not speak in General Conference. And if a good portion of the world has to listen to Conference translated, why should not English speakers as well, when necessary?

I find it odd when the so many people speak English and they are already translated during the broadcast into about 95 languages. Though I could see how it would give those that don't speak English as well an opportunity to speak in General Conference.

Questioning...tsk tsk tsk

A mod banning another mod (saw JAG name on the "like" list).

What would it be? Can be a current calling or one you'd like to have. How about callings you dread? This is probably a repeat thread but let's have a go at it again.

I have it on good authority that non-native-English-speaking GAs who speak in the October conference have been authorized to deliver their sermons in their native languages.

One of my great loves is cycling. I have a daily route through the valley. Part of my riding takes me along a favorite path – on Strava I am ranked on this segment at 74th which is very good for an old man riding alone without a draft line (BTW I passed a Corvet the other day - my dream is to get a speeding ticket). On another segment I am ranked 1,871 on a hill listed in Strave as #&$*@ hill (also known as the Beast). Sometimes callings are like segments on my daily ride. There are a lot of people better than me at things that I seem to get callings for – and often with the one thing I really shine well at – I hardly ever get such a calling. I am convinced that callings are not about making me look good in service.

And this next time around, it will be 96 languages (assuming they translate non English speakers' talks to English)

I don't find the accents distracting. In fact I have to listen harder to understand them which is probably a good thing.

I think it will be a net positive--frankly, a lot of the 70s' accents are quite distracting. But I would be sad if Pres. Uchtdorf decided to never again deliver a Conference talk in English.

On a funny note, I read estradling's question and righttt after I looked at his grumpy bear avatar. lol

Well that will make it difficult to do my General Conference hi-lights. :)

Stake IT specialist, or ward/stake clerk. As I'm not musical, and very much dislike teaching and regular talking at the pulpit (despite having done it many times before), this pretty much rules out wanting 95% of other callings. I'd prefer IT specialist because I feel that's one area that I could make a real difference having seen the condition of some of the church IT setups, but I'd be happy performing the role of clerk too. I've never been called to either in my current ward/stake, maybe that will change once I move to the US next month.

What I don't get is...why are people "liking" this? I'm keeping a list of names.

Ward stunt driver....no wait.....stunt driver area authority. On a more serious note, all I want to do is serve where I'm supposed to.

SpamLDS: Oh wow, so women were more "spiritual" than men even in the pre-existence? I don't wanna die young so let me clarify and say I am being 100% sarcastic.

Well, and I think my earlier crack about Cliven Bundy may be at least a little bit apropos. Lots of us kind of sympathize with his grievances, even though we also roll our eyes at his antics and maybe even privately wonder how a clown like that maintains his Church membership. (And yes, I realize that the analogy breaks down because of the relative evil (or more properly, the lack thereof) of the US federal government versus the Nazi government; so don't read too much into the analogy!)

I believe it was Keele/Tobler who mentioned that based on interviews back in the 70's with the district president but I also recall one important discrepancy. I cannot recall the source right now but I remember that it stated that the Gestapo told the District President to excommunicate Helmuth but he refused saying there were no grounds for excommunication but Zander disagreed and decided to do it on his own. Even though the district president seemed to have empathized with Helmuth and it is alleged that he confided in one of Helmuth's friends saying that if he knew Helmuth was doing that he would have join him, one has to wonder what exactly took place because by the other hand, there are other sources that indicate that the district president did not see him as a hero because even though he believed Hitler was wrong and they shouldn't support him, he did not believe members should take matters into their own hands. He believed in respecting and obeying the law and keep quiet as they were counseled by Church leaders. *Also, Berndt (the district president) moved to Utah.

Would love to be called as the Gospel Doctrine Teacher

Pam has you on ignore, but she asked me to be sure to let you know that you will indeed be banned for one week. In Kolob time. B)

To clarify: I don't know whether Zander was the right man for the job or an example of abuse of authority (is it possible to be both at once?); but playing devil's advocate for a moment: There were, I think, fewer than a thousand Mormons in Hamburg in 1941; a city containing nearly two million people people at the time. I would conclude that the Nazis didn't let the Mormons alone because they were too busy killing Jews and fighting a world war; they let the Mormons alone because the Mormons were small fish and--Hubener's activities aside--largely (if grudgingly) conformist, per President Grant's instructions. That's quite a bold statement to make and well, I personally don't share those thoughts. But wouldn't you agree with the preposition that the calling of Brigham Young was necessary, even though Young happened to be a racist? Couldn't an argument be made that Young's refusal to come out as either an ardent abolitionist or an ardent slaver, played a crucial role in keeping Utah out of the Civil War? Wouldn't you agree that, weaknesses aside (including predilections to some very troubling ideologies), Young had other qualities that made him, perhaps irreplaceably, the right man at the right time for the job that needed to be done in his corner of the world? *Shrug* (and playing devil's advocate): Seems to have helped in getting him and the district president released, though. That didn't have to happen. You basically have three members of an openly Zionist church, one of whom is a the "communications officer" of the local congregation, engaging in "sedition" with use of church property in a time of war. Regardless of Zander's sympathies: for any Mormon in Hamburg (or indeed, in Germany), things looked Very, Very Bad. Incidentally: What source do you have re the district president refusing to sign the excommunication papers? All I can find online is this site. I also just came across this site, dealing with the branch (the other site deals with the district).

My experience was very, very similar. It was when I was several years younger, but the response I got was very similar. "What are you thinking? You already know this. Come on man!" :) I didn't feel like it was a bereavement though, whereas I was doing it because my primary teachers had told me to, rather than to have a cool experience or something. But still, very similar.

Written on stone... by the finger of God. I'll just ban myself for the rest of the week.

Interesting. History is about collecting facts. Then we interpret those facts to tell what we think is the likely story. Suzie has presented facts and an interpretation. But it seems that the facts might support an alternative interpretation. It seems pretty clear that the Nazi's could have carried out the threat "Mormons are next" So why didn't they after finding out about Helmuth? Its seen and noble and idealistic to die for what you believe. It is considerably less so to get others killed for what you believe, and that is the knife edge Helmuth danced on with his actions. As distasteful as we find the actions of the Branch President (including his excommunication of Helmuth) its very possible that it was what deflected the Nazi's. If this is true then the Branch President saved the lives that got put in danger because of Helmuth's actions. As for standing up for what it right, it is a good generalized principle. But the Book of Mormon shows that there can be exceptions. God commanded Mormon (a good and righteous man) to keep his mouth shut and just witness the horrors going on around him for most of his adult life. Mormon did. Did God such a command to the German Saints? Well that depends on if your think the Leaders of the Church were inspired with what they told them to do or not. I think the facts (as presented) can support either way. In fact history is usably quite muddy with multiple possible explanations. The one we choose is probably more a reflection on us then on the historical figures involved.

I use it for everything. The scriptures, LDS videos, youth stuff... The word is the word. I do find it distracting in sacrament if someone is using their device. They could be searching the scriptures, but from what I have seen from multiple people, they are not. Kids and adults play games, update their statuses...etc.

I use the Gospel Library app "in church", but prefer hard-bound scriptures for personal study. I just don't like a third party--even the Church--having custody of my notes and risking losing everything if/when the Church moves on to a new platform. I also find that my Primary class of eleven-year-old boys focuses a little better when we all use print scriptures; though smart phones/tablets don't generally seem to be as much of a distraction to them as I would ordinarily expect.

I would suggest that you're both partially right. One does not need to experience hate to know love, but one may not fully understand the fullness and beauty of love without also experiencing hate. Sort of along the lines of "Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy." (Alma 36:21)

I don't think you need one to know about the other. A baby is loved when it is born and it learns to smile and coo and laugh. Should I be angry to the baby and abuse it so that it can really know and appreciate love? Of course not! All my children know what love is b/c my husband and I, and our extended families, friends and neighbors, give it to them, I have never hated them! Why should anyone experience hate in order to know love and joy? Do you hate your children first? Did your parents at some time hate and abuse you so that you could know love? Most likely not. From what I understand, the majority of those children who grow up in abusive homes, pick up on that behavior and do the same to their own children. They aren't more loving towards themselves and others, they're more hateful and distrustful. Adam and Eve were with God, He loved them, He created them and gave them a beautiful garden brimming with good food, and animals to know, and, I'm sure, just a plain gorgeous creation surrounding them! Clean air, soft grass, great views of the mountains, clean streams, you name it, they had it all in its original perfection and beauty! How could they not understand what love was when God so abundantly bestowed it on them?

Sometimes our Brethren (Bishop, Stake President, whomever) need to be told something. We tend to watch but keep quiet and that's a huge mistake. One of my Bishops would go online and make jokes about sisters being "fat" , he thought he was being funny and he would treat his wife poorly in front of others making horrible sarcastic remarks about her, etc and laugh. One day, when he did it in front of me and a few other members, I told him off. I said very calmly but seriously that if he thought he was being "entertaining or funny", he wasn't. I told him he was being disrespectful, insensitive and cruel and he needed to stop because he was hurting people.

Good Morning Margin of Error. I hope you've been well! :) I read your blog post about the letter. One criticism you made was: "But we talked about how so many positions in the Church require strong leadership skills, and the Church does next to nothing to teach those skills. I mean that quite seriously: the Church does next to nothing to teach its members leadership skills." I disagree with your criticism. The General Authorities are just that, general. They teach general principles. It is up to each stake, ward, and/or branch to take the general counsel and implement it based on their specific circumstances. Also, the Church provides many, many resources for members to learn leadership skills. There are many manuals, books, and training videos that are available to ALL members. Members have been repeatedly and continuously encouraged, commanded, and taught to make use of the manuals and the resources available. Many of these teach specific skills and techniques for effective leadership. They provide examples and they also provide the scriptural backing for these skills. One of the most useful resource is the "Preach My Gospel" manual. It was made for the full-time missionaries but everything in this manual can be adapted to every aspect of Church life and to one's calling. The principles taught are universal. The apostles have encouraged all members to utilize this great resource. If you follow the curriculum in "Preach My Gospel", do all of the activities, answer all of the questions, study the related scriptures, and use the principles as a regular part of your life, you cannot help but to become a more effective leader and teacher in the Church and in your life in general. To address one point you made, the "Teaching the Gospel" section of the LDS.org website provides training on how to effectively teach, including how to ask questions "that get members to evaluate and express their own beliefs". Have you studied the manual, "Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching"? If you haven't looked at it lately, you really ought to invest time in reading and using it. Further, on LDS.org you can also find the Leadership Training library. There you will find specific training for various callings in the Church, including videos where General Authorities demonstrate how certain leadership roles ought to play out in each stake/ward/branch. You will find many specific trainings on how to be an effective leader; not to mention that there are all sorts of talks, training, and ideas from the thousands of talks and sermons given by general authorities and other Church leaders/members in past conference talks, Ensign articles, and other magazines and books on being an effective leader and teacher. Finally, the pattern of the Church has always been that General Authorities usually train stake presidents. Stake presidents are then tasked with training stake leaders, bishops, and other ward and branch leaders. Stake leaders, bishops, and other ward/branch leaders are tasked with training those within their jurisdiction and stewardship. For instance, the Sunday School president of each ward is responsible for training the Sunday School teachers. The ward mission leader is responsible for training the ward missionaries. The Elder's Quorum presidency is responsible for teaching the Elders...and so on. General principles get taught by the apostles and each leader is then tasked to implement those principles based on the specific needs of their stewardship and to teach these principles to those who fall under their jurisdiction. This is a known and long standing pattern of training within the Church. Those who have served full-time missions will be very familiar with this pattern and those who haven't served full-time missions have probably experienced this pattern at some point in their church life. It is one of the ways that the General Authorities depend on so that stakes, wards, and branches will have effective leaders and teachers. The Church spends a tremendous amount of resources to provide training, training material, and train members specific skills, techniques, and principles about being a good leader and a master teacher. The claim that the Church "spends next to nothing to teach its members leadership skills" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is simply a false statement. I encourage you to become familiar with the vast resources and training the Church provides to teach members leadership skills, life skills, teaching skills, job skills, interview skills, etc. Below are some links for you and for anyone else interested in getting started. If anybody wants to make a powerful difference in their stake/ward/branch, then start using the resources provided by the Church, share this information with your stake/ward/branch members, start implementing the principles in your life, and teach them to those within your circle of influence and/or stewardship. Links: Preach My Gospel https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service?lang=eng Leadership and Teaching https://www.lds.org/callings/leadership-and-teaching?lang=eng Teaching, No Greater Call https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching?lang=eng Fathers Interviews https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/12/really-getting-somewhere-with-fathers-interviews?lang=eng -Finrock

It may not be against the law, but I agree, opposite gender shouldn't be dishing out compliments pertaining to physical appearance in the workplace. Keep it professional. Keep the compliments professional. I would never in my lifetime ever say to a male colleague or employee (if I was his boss): "Hey, nice pants". To me, that's an inappropriate and unnecessary comment to make, regardless, if I was just being friendly.

While I share your concerns to the extent that they apply to "blind obedience", I'm not sure that's really what MWS is advocating here. If someone has a testimony of something, why should they only "hesitatingly" bear that testimony? Does "unequivocally sustaining/supporting" a person mean you agree with them 100% of the time? Does--or should--a person "unequivocally support" his or her spouse? I'm not inclined to jump all over the author of the LDS Women of God post you indirectly cite, without knowing more about the conversation. Was she referring to all types of Mormon feminists, or just the same brand to which her interlocutor was referring? And is the source of that statement (LDS Women of God) an effective corporate alter ego of MWS the same way that--for example--OW was basically an alter ego of All Enlisted? As I indicate above, I think your view of MWS is a bit of a caricature. But even if it isn't--and I can't speak for you personally, but as a general proposition--it strikes me that progressives and self-proclaimed centrists can't spend sixty percent of their online existence either alluding to or outright complaining about the dominance of "TBM"s within the Church, and then parse Otterson's statement and argue that those same scorned TBMs are also (from, as TFP points out, a social standpoint) merely a tail trying ineffectually to wag the dog of Mormon culture. It seems to me that the Church has been making some changes--sister missionary ages and leadership positions, breaking down the cultural taboos about women praying in conference/giving opening prayers or closing talks in Sacrament meeting, reinforcing the role of women in the ward council, and the like. Otterson's statement is also very clear that dialogue/focus grouping continues with LDS women across an ideological spectrum. That said, most of the anecdotal stuff you hear from OW--other than lack of actual priesthood ordination--does boil down to local issues. That certainly seems to be the crux of the complaints brought up in this thread, at any rate.

The bloggernacle, with few exceptions, isn't much more welcoming to conservative/orthodox Mormons than MWS has been to OW. Millennial Star has had some thought-provoking posts recently on the "you attack, we defend--for a while" paradigm that seems to permeate the 'nacle and tends to lead to conservative burn-out.And it's worth noting that MWS doesn't exist merely to provide another forum for kvetching-- er, open discussion; and as far as I know, never claimed such a purpose. OW started a Facebook group for that--and after two years, it has garnered a little over one tenth of the "likes" that MWS got in two months. I can certainly understand why OW so desperately wants to turn the MWS Facebook page into its own mouthpiece to parrot its tales of woe and historical half-truths to a captive audience of actual believing, practicing Mormons that is tenfold as wide as anything it has managed to reach to date--but MWS' organizers are by no means "extreme" for their refusal to allow their resources to be thus hijacked. I'll take a look, thanks. You may be right, but my initial observation would be "if you don't want people to develop a bunker mentality against your ideas, don't try to assault/publicly humiliate them and don't pal around with people who do." It strikes me that the root of the problems bijulie cites are (unrighteousness use of) hierarchy, not patriarchy. I believe she even mentions an unpleasant run-in with an RS president. Ordaining women won't end that--unless you buy into the "females-are-inherently-more-righteous" argument that OW supporters are only to happy to mock when it is made by defenders of the status quo. The subtext I see in Otterson's letter is "this abuse-of-authority issue may well be a discussion worth having; but we won't be having it with them" (which should come as no surprise to OW, one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).

bjjulie: I understand that my experiences are many and extreme. Yes, I have looked at myself over and over to see if I am the problem. I've gone to a counselor to see if I am the problem. I've spent many years blaming myself and asking what can I do differently and what do I need to repent of so that I can have a different experience with some leaders. I've even sought out a General Authority friend and asked his opinion. All I am told is to be patient, that the Lord loves me, that I've not done anything wrong, and that I need to continue to forgiving and faithful. And I have followed that counsel. Still, the experiences sting! Have I had good priesthood leadership? Absolutely! I've had the privilege of working with men who are true SERVANT LEADERS. I love and respect these men. They quickly earn my trust and loyalty and under their direction I have always had leaps of personal growth as they set the standards high and loving expect us to live them. All I can figure is that: 1. Because of excessive moving I've had more contact with different kinds of leaders than most. 2. Always being 'new' and everyone knowing we are only there 2 years - sometimes we get 'set aside' to focus on the 'long- term' ward members- and have actually been told that. 3. I am kind, but I do speak my mind with as much tact and thoughtfulness as possible, but I do speak up, and that can be an irritant to some men. 4. Times are changing as we near the second coming and these experiences will become more and more frequent as the Lord 'sifts' the church. Which is why I think there are so many women out there starting to speak up - enough of us have had bad experiences that it's time someone listen to our hurts, our calls for some compassion, kindness, and love. Yes, I agree local leaders need more training. But honestly, you either have the spirit or you don't. You are either loving & compassionate or your not. You either internalize the gospel and act like a disciple, or you don't. Those already with loving attributes will work harder to develop them more, those without them will think the brethren are talking about someone other than themselves and make no changes. The 'sifting' My responsibility when being treated poorly by the priesthood is for me to do my best to look past the offense, pray for the person, do my best to make sure I am supporting them the best I can, and then look to fill my own needs elsewhere. Sometimes, I've found it best to just fade as much into the background as possible and separate myself from them to protect my own heart. I fully support the Prophet and the 12 Apostles. I keep my eye on them, and NOT on my local leaders.

Lol at the last part. Regarding the workplace, because it's simply inappropriate. I suppose I probably should have specificied "a male boss/supervisor." If your boss is a female and you've developed a good relationship with her, and you even occasionally get together or "hang out" outside of work, and she comments on you losing weight, or a flattering blouse, etc., I think that would be a different circumstance, because there's an extended relationship there. But an opposite-gender boss should not be making remarks about your physical appearance, pretty much ever. A simple observation, "nice haircut," for example, might be alright. Maybe it's overly PC on my part, but it's also against the law.

Oh boy, I've got a TON of experience with this topic. I am NOT a feminist. I do NOT wish to receive the priesthood, but I DO wish to be treated with respect and dignity as a women in the church. As a stake primary president my stake president told the women attending the stake council that we were not allowed to speak, not allowed to address issues in the meeting (unlike the men) and when I opened the handbook to read that we were to bring our concerns to discussion to this meeting, I was told, "I don't know what more women in the church can do than shake hands, pat backs, and be cheerleaders." At the next stake meeting, the women were no longer allowed to sit around the high council table - we were asked to sit in chairs at the back of the room. One bad experience? Oh no..... How about a man who during church had me backed against a wall in the hallway, in public, while he berated me - in my face, pointing a finger, threatening me - and then calling other men over to 'join' him in a gang-like verbal attack, because this man felt I had 'offended' his wife. No action was taken against the man or men. In fact, I was the one who was told I was in the wrong- even though I said and did nothing during the incident. The men, including the Bishop, surrounded these men as part of their 'club' protecting one another and blaming me. NEVER is it appropriate for a priesthood holder to act in this manner. Or a Bishop who threatened to not give me a temple recommend because I suffer from depression (therefore something is wrong with me). When I asked him if there was no room in the Kingdom of God for those who struggle with mental issues his reply was, 'there's not room for all of them.' Or the Bishop who I went to to share the sorrow and fear of my husband being deployed into Iraq. I begged him for help and support. I asked him to please 'keep track of me.' I never heard from him again. Or the time as a RS president I sat in ward council and brought up some serious issues our sisters in the ward were struggling with. The counselor in the bishopric said, "the women are taking too much time in the meeting, can their have their own welfare meeting without us so we can leave?" Or the member of the bishopric who use to come up and stroke and touch my hair and arm and make comments that made me, and other women uncomfortable. We went to the Bishop to tell him our experiences. Two weeks later this man was called to be a High Counselor - his actions only increased. Or how about the home teachers that NEVER show up -- I mean, does the HT program still even exist? Or the Bishop who saw me putting in sprinklers (by myself because my husband was deployed). I'm reading online instructions, having a few problem with it, and he said, "wow, looks like a lot of work, have fun!" and then he drove off. Or how about the time a bishop called my husband in and asked him how it felt to be the head of a less-active family? Confused, my husband said, "what?" I had had a surgery that didn't go well, was down for over 2 months, and then went in for another surgery - which didn't go well, then another surgery and finally I had spent 18 days in the hospital with infection and complications. When my husband replied that I had been in the hospital the Bishop replied, "it doesn't take that long for a women to get over a hysterectomy, it's not that complicated!" His RS president was well aware of my complications. Or how about the time I hear from several other ward member what I had shared in confidence with the Bishop about a problem one of our children was having. When I went to the Bishop.... he said, 'HE gets to determine what is confidential and what is not.' Not me, it is HIS priesthood responsibility to discern that... not mine. I could go on and on and on and on...... Being military we've moved every 2 years on average. We've attended 15 different wards in our married life. I've seen it over and over and over..... the brethren mistreat women, they 'hang' together in a male 'club' protecting each other, they ignore, demean, degrade, and punish women. This is only a SMALL sampling of what we have experienced. Do I think they have all done it on purpose? No. Some of them are just ignorant. Others don't understand the gospel. Still others have allowed their priesthood power and position to go to their heart and create pride. Have I gone inactive? No. Why?? Because I have a testimony of he restored gospel. Attending church for me.... has not one thing to do with being 'social' it is all about obedience to my God and worshiping Him. I might add, the way the brethren act is despicable, it is evil when they are in positions over us and use that position to put women 'in their place' or to 'punish or ignore' our tender hearts. BUT..... I can't say that the women treat each other much different. They gossip, backbite, they are threatened by other sisters.... they do anything but ban together to add support and uplift. Yes, there are exceptions, but I find them to be increasingly more rare. Always being the "NEW" woman (or family) in the ward gives us a different perspective as everyone quickly lets you know what 'kingdom' is THEIRS in the ward. THEIR kingdom of friends, THEIR kingdom of reputation for being the 'crafty' one, THEIR kingdom of their calling. etc. Continually being the 'new' one, in some wards... we don't even stand a chance. I have great concern about how we as saints are to endure what prophecies are coming about our times being more and more chaotic. We are told to find refuge in our wards and stakes. More than not, we have found that our wards and stakes ARE the chaos in our lives. The drama, the personal kingdom building. The unrighteous dominion. We've come to realize that we need to look outside the church for more like minded people for support and fellowship and friendship. We've come to understand that we must rely more on ourselves and our relationship with our Heavenly Father to fill our needs, guidance, direction and revelation. I will NEVER go to my priesthood leader again for help of any sort. They've proven fairly consistently that they are NOT trust worthy individuals. It's not the gospel that is the problem. The Savior has taught us... I'm just not sure the majority of the members are listening anymore.