Leadership Meetings

[Anddenex]

That statement was not made humorously at all. I believe that well-meaning mission presidents and/or local leadership might tell us that we'll have all the time in the world to spend with our families during the Millennium, and as such, we don't need to worry about spending more nights out ministering now. I do not believe the Lord would tell us to neglect our families while in this life.

I definitely understand why you may feel the statement was not made humorously, however I wasn't there to make the judgement call.

From what I gather from Dr.P is that the statement would have been made in a humorous tone -- an unpleasant humorous tone.

As pertaining to the Lord's direction in not neglecting our families, I would agree, however what we may assume to be "neglect" the Lord may not.

Remember, Brigham Young and others were called to serve missions while leaving there wives alone to take care of their children.

I don't believe this was neglectful, however I do believe others my say it was. I read half of President Monson's biography, and I find his service to the Lord very interesting. As a young father, and an Apostle, he was called many times away from his family -- some people would consider this neglectful. He mentioned the only time he saw his family was on the weekends, and that was if he wasn't in some distant country which required him to stay a few weeks.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Anddenex
removed "am" before "definitely"

[Wingnut]

I definitely understand why you may feel the statement was not made humorously, however I wasn't there to make the judgement call.

From what I gather from Dr.P is that the statement would have been made in a humorous tone -- an unpleasant humorous tone.

Ah, I get it now. I thought you meant that you assumed that my comment was made in jest, not the mission president's comment. I misunderstood you. I, too, hope it was only a tongue-in-cheek remark, but it's hard to know that in print, and, obviously, not having been there.

[Anddenex]

Ah, I get it now. I thought you meant that you assumed that my comment was made in jest, not the mission president's comment. I misunderstood you. I, too, hope it was only a tongue-in-cheek remark, but it's hard to know that in print, and, obviously, not having been there.

Well, now your response makes more sense also. I am sorry it appeared I was referring to your comment as humorous.

I recognized your comment wasn't humorous, but sincere.

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems to me that for those of us who have been blessed to have our marriages sealed in the temple: We covenanted to consecrate all of our time, talents, property, and blessings to the Church before we received our spouses in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. The way I read that is, that my family is a blessing I get because of my underlying dedication to the Lord and His Kingdom. I don't get the blessings of Abraham if I'm not at least willing to do the works of Abraham.

I quibble with whether Hinckley's sequence was supposed to be read in order of priority--I think MoE and I have hashed that out before--but even taking it face value arguendo, it's important (IMHO) to remember that what Hinckley gave, Monson or any of his successors retain the authority to take away at a future date.

For the present, I'm grateful that more isn't required of us; and I suppose the key is to look for opportunities to build the kingdom whenever I honestly can, and not make "family" an excuse for sitting home and watching Law and Order reruns instead of doing my home teaching.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[applepansy]

I read through the first page of posts.

All I have to add is:

The church is here for the family, not the other way around. --Grandfather

[Saguaro]

As a bishop's counselor I understand there are certain meetings we have every week that I am to participate in, and I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is how ineffective and time wasting those meetings are. Between Bishopric, PEC, and Ward Council it seems we we talk about the same things, and the same people, every week, and nothing ever changes. We spend an hour and a half doing what should ony take 15 minutes. Part of the problem is that the Bishop does not "lead" the meeting, he barely follows the agenda and lets everyone go off on tangents that can lead to discussions about things that are not important or relevant. Sometimes I want to pull my hair out. Our sunday school president never comes to ward council because it drives him bonkers to sit there and watch his time be wasted while nothing gets accomplished.

Regarding the first post and the comment being out 3 nights a week and seeing your family in the millennium, I would have raised my hand and called him on it. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and contrary to anything I've ever heard in leadership meetings.

[The Folk Prophet]

I tend to think that most of us who struggle to get out and serve more are at conflict with time spent watching TV rather than actually having a problem being away from our families. My experience tells me that most brethren's priorities are something akin to:

1. Sports

2. Work

3. Family

4. Calling

This is not literal, of course, replace "sports" with a variety of other time-wasters and you get my point though. And it may not actually be #1. But I think it's generally much higher on the list than it probably should be, whatever it is.

No argument here on behalf of the accuracy of the mission presidents directives. But it amazes me how many brethren in our ward can make it out to play basketball early morning Saturday, but cannot find time to get out when there's a service project instead.

I also understand that my response doesn't necessarily fit appropriately to the original post, but I do think it expresses a point that does fit. We can all find more time in our lives if we look for it. Other responses are, I think, generally excuses and nothing more.

That being said, I generally agree that leaders can sometimes misunderstand how to balance time properly and that a lot of time can end up being wasted, etc., etc... Just thought I'd throw another thought into the mix.

But... I also feel pretty strongly that you follow your leaders even when they're wrong. If 3 times a week is the directive, you get out 3 times a week. And it will be accounted to you for good. There are, of course, extreme exceptions wherein it is proper to say no. But generally, find a way to make it work even if your local leaders are making bad calls on policy.

[skippy740]

If 3 times a week is the directive, you get out 3 times a week. And it will be accounted to you for good. There are, of course, extreme exceptions wherein it is proper to say no. But generally, find a way to make it work even if your local leaders are making bad calls on policy.

I tend to think about managing the result versus the process.

If there needs to be activity/meeting/visits 3x per week, then I would manage to that result and delegate what can be delegated to see the result happen.

Sometimes, you do need to 'grin and bear it'. But with a little creative thinking, I'm sure you can get the results you want and have the time needed for family as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

I tend to think about managing the result versus the process.

If there needs to be activity/meeting/visits 3x per week, then I would manage to that result and delegate what can be delegated to see the result happen.

Sometimes, you do need to 'grin and bear it'. But with a little creative thinking, I'm sure you can get the results you want and have the time needed for family as well.

Agreed. But sometimes the directive is more direct. "You must get out personally and..."

I've had situations like that where I've struggled. Ultimately, I've concluded to do what I'm asked. Sometimes what I've been asked has been downright stupid. With the right leader you can discuss, work it out, etc... With some leaders, not so much. So you obey.

It's a tough thing, for sure. And like I said, there's a time and a place to say no. But this is my general philosophy. And it applies all the way up the chain and to every level of church bureaucracy. Sometimes things get lost in the huge engine. And people are dumb. ALL people. So bad calls are made all the time. But you move forward, obey, do your best, serve, etc... Start with a premise of obedience. Then, attend to all of this, of course, with sincere and earnest prayer and attention to the guidance of the spirit.

edit: this post was responding specifically to the ability to delegate. I did note the "sometimes" part of it and do not mean to be arguing something where we obviously agree. Thought I'd better make that clear.

Edited March 22, 2013 by church

[Danite]

The last time I checked the family was the smallest unit in the CHURCH and the most important. The church is here to support the family. How you you served will be more important, then what position you held. HEAVENLY FATHER LOVES PEOPLE NOT POSITION HOLDERS.