Support and Advice

[Vort]

Man, I don't know what's going on in the UK, but this is just sooo soap operatic.

I guess he's a Stake Leader who snuck you in the Temple without a recommend. That, alone... he needs to be removed from leadership. You need to tell your Bishop and he needs to be removed from leadership.

And, NJsmom, please don't sneak into temples anymore.

I didn't get that he had helped her sneak into a temple. It sounded like she went in with a youth group to do baptisms when she shouldn't have, and he helped her out (which I took to mean counseled her and showed her love and compassion rather than condemnation). Is there something here I'm missing? Another case of "everyone-infers-the-correct-context-and-meanings-except-Vort"?

[Windseeker]

I feel like I just came in at the end of a game of operator or whisper down the line.

[Vort]

I feel like I just came in at the end of a game of operator or whisper down the line.

I read through the entire thread multiple times and I still feel like that.

[NJsmom]

Hahaha sorry been allowing the thread to catch up. I've missed some people in my replies crossing.

Okay yes the accusations purely are that I tried to seduce him. The first time I went to the temple was just for baptisms and was on a correctly administered limited recommend, that was not issued by him in any event.

I can imagine a situation where his wife may have contorted an idea in her head that we had some sort of relationship but we did not. Categorically. There are no rumours on a ward or stake level. I am referring to information he may or may not have passed on to the leadership in my new ward, annotations to my record that sort of thing. Our mutual bishop has told me "I know what went on with x" which I had to respectfully disagree with, because he didn't get my side and had never asked. I do not know what he's said to the bishop.

This person is now sat at stake level. And my only recourse higher would be the general authorities.

He has made it painfully clear that I am not welcome.

I mentioned the fact I was pregnant and him disbelieving me as I think he thought I was saying it to try and get attention in some convoluted way. It's not really relevant to the story or situation. He was aware of pretty much every intimate detail of my life which is partly why this hurts so much on that level.

Xxx

[Leah]

Okay. Good thoughts. I am glad to hear of others with leadership issues who are still LDS (the blinker are off in that respect).

In terms of telling bishop I'm not certain this would help due to the position it then might put him in with the stake.

He accused me because of my subsequent email. It was just concern, yes I didn't use my details because he has his own domain and I didn't know what his wife could access. I figure that if he was tellin me how much pressure he felt in his calling (he is a convert too) that his wife wasn't really listening but rather bathing in the "glory" of his role (she's at least second generation).

Blech, the worst bit for me is I have lost a really good friend who has helped me out tremendously so many times, right to my very first experience in the temple when I snuck in with the youth about two months after baptised. It's because of who I know he can be that I'm not raising the issue further in fact I don't know who I would go to!!!

Xxx

This is one of the things I find confusing. Your having and using more than one email account, and using one that would conceal your identity. Why would you need to do that if you are in appropriate contact with someone in a leadership position, with whom you say you have a good relationship? It,s not like he didn't know your identity.

I feel like there are missing pieces to the story.

No one else is responsible for your church attendance. If you leave because of someone's perceived actions, the responsibility is on your shoulders. It's your choice, not theirs.

[Guest]

Oh man... Sorry... I inferred too much out of the word "snuck". Okay, I think I may have a case of Filipino-tries-to-understand-British-English-and-failing-miserably situation here.

Okay, so, this Stake Leader didn't really come out and tell you you're not welcome. It's just the feeling you get from him. A vibe. So, you can just let that go.

The problem is with the records with your current bishop. You haven't yet made an appointment with the bishop, right? So, don't worry about it. Make that appointment with the bishop to talk it over and in the meantime, continue going to Church, VT, HT, partaking of the sacrament, reading scriptures, praying, bearing your testimony, etc. etc.

You're all good.

[Vort]

Thanks for the clarifications, NJsmom. It appears that a couple of people were following your story correctly, but I certainly was not one of them.

When you say that this brother "is now sat as stake level", what exactly does that mean? Is he your stake president, or in your stake presidency? Is he on the high council? Is he a stake clerk or the stake executive secretary?

My immediate suggestion: Go to your bishop, describe to him exactly what is going on, and show him the texts if you still have them. Go to your stake president, if you feel you must, and do the same thing. That way everything is above-board and everyone knows what's going on.

Then, drop it. Quit obsessing about it, quit thinking about it, quit dealing with it. It's done. Period.

My long-term suggestion: Take LoudmouthMormon's advice to heart and decide you will go to Church because you're LDS and you love God. Then do so. Don't worry about what some vindictive person or other might do. If his gossip causes you injury, he might well lose his Church membership over such evil actions; others have. But assuming he's not gossiping about you but just being unpleasant toward you, try to ignore it and go on with your life.

[NJsmom]

Leah - I knew and know that I shouldn't have used a separate account but it was calculated to prevent anyone else knowing. I wanted to check he was okay, which he obviously wasn't. He'd talked about feeling overwhelmed with the needs of people in the ward etc etc. I never said it was entirely appropriate in that regard but how that then moved to me trying to seduce him is genuinely beyond me.

Anatess - that's quite funny in a way, no I wouldn't enter even the grounds to go to the distribution Center if I wasn't in the right place spiritually xxx

[NJsmom]

He's now (subsequent to the original problem) the stake president. I am glad for him in many many ways because I know how great he can be when he wants to be but it's while he has been in this calling he's made it clear i am not welcome.

X

[Leah]

Okay. Good thoughts. I am glad to hear of others with leadership issues who are still LDS (the blinker are off in that respect).

In terms of telling bishop I'm not certain this would help due to the position it then might put him in with the stake.

He accused me because of my subsequent email. It was just concern, yes I didn't use my details because he has his own domain and I didn't know what his wife could access. I figure that if he was tellin me how much pressure he felt in his calling (he is a convert too) that his wife wasn't really listening but rather bathing in the "glory" of his role (she's at least second generation).

Blech, the worst bit for me is I have lost a really good friend who has helped me out tremendously so many times, right to my very first experience in the temple when I snuck in with the youth about two months after baptised. It's because of who I know he can be that I'm not raising the issue further in fact I don't know who I would go to!!!

Xxx

He is a married man in a leadership position, he is not your personal friend. Perhaps your perception of the relationship has something to do with the issues you are encountering?

I am curious why you chose to characterize your trip to the temple as "sneaking in"? It is not unusual for a convert to get such a recommend, nor it is unheard of for an adult to join with the youth for baptisms. No sneaking necessary.

[Leah]

Leah - I knew and know that I shouldn't have used a separate account but it was calculated to prevent anyone else knowing. I wanted to check he was okay, which he obviously wasn't. He'd talked about feeling overwhelmed with the needs of people in the ward etc etc. I never said it was entirely appropriate in that regard but how that then moved to me trying to seduce him is genuinely beyond me.

Anatess - that's quite funny in a way, no I wouldn't enter even the grounds to go to the distribution Center if I wasn't in the right place spiritually xxx

If everything you were doing was above board, why the need for secrecy? Why the concern that someone would find out your identity if you were not doing anything inappropriate?

[NJsmom]

Leah - that is how it was presented to me at the time by my then bishop. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of it. And if it wasn't clear he was the one who contacted me to sound off in the first place, presumably not as a leader but as a friend. Or do people stop being friends when they attain positions of leadership? We were friends; we had a very similar conversion experience and similar negative experiences with friends and family as a result. I'm not sure why you seem to think a friendship in any way is inappropriate?

[NJsmom]

I didn't say it wasn't inappropriate. I said it was not about trying to seduce anyone.

[Guest]

He is a married man in a leadership position, he is not your personal friend. Perhaps your perception of the relationship has something to do with the issues you are encountering?

I am curious why you chose to characterize your trip to the temple as "sneaking in"? It is not unusual for a convert to get such a recommend, nor it is unheard of for an adult to join with the youth for baptisms. No sneaking necessary.

Hi Leah. I've learned that NJsmom and I may have different use for different words by virtue of local expression (Filipino versus British). So, "snuck" in doesn't mean she went in undetected or thwarting authority. If I'm not mistaken "snuck" simply means that her joining the YM in the trip was an unplanned, last-minute thing that she was grateful to have been given the opportunity at the last minute.

And this now-stake-president was a close friend of hers, hence his going to her confidence. The Stake President was the one that acted like it was secret and she just followed suit, not really understanding why and so now she regrets having done the secret thing but the damage is already done because this same person is now telling her SHE was trying to seduce him.

I still go by my stance - this guy can't be in leadership position, especially this high up, and this should be addressed with the bishop and if he gets through to the next time a call to sustain this leadership is made, she needs to oppose.

[NJsmom]

Anatess I think I am going to pinch your summary of it, I couldn't make it that succinct. But yes precisely.

X

[Guest]

Anatess I think I am going to pinch your summary of it, I couldn't make it that succinct. But yes precisely.

X

I am just so happy I finally understood the problem.

[MarginOfError]

I eventually gave up on reading the details. It doesn't really matter.

1) The only reason I can think of to ask a person not to come to church is if they are deliberately interfering with other people's ability to worship. Otherwise, the more wicked they are, the more they need to be there.

2) the only way this kind of awkwardness goes away is by being present and letting people get to know you. It's hard, uncomfortable, and will suck for a while. But it gets better.

I know that's easier said than done, but take one step at a time. Going one week out of 4 is a good start if that's what it needs to be. But start going and let things start to heal.

[Martain]

First off let me check to see if I understand the timeline correctly.

A married male in a priesthood leadership calling was communicating with you via email venting the stresses of his calling and you responded to these communications.

You broke the law of chastity and the above individual learned of such through someone other than yourself, perhaps the person you broke the law with, and as such has not heard your side of the story.

In light of such knowledge he then grew convinced and has accused you that your email responses were not platonic and well meaning but rather an attempt on your part to seduce him to commit adultery.

You do not mention what his leadership role is but you mention that now he is in a leadership role on the stake level. You've tried to clear up the misunderstanding but he doesn't believe your intent was innocent of such motives.

Having such an intimate knowledge of your sins he has advised you that you are not welcome among the saints in essence advising you that you should not come to church. Your friendship with another women who I assume is his wife has now been shattered and this same woman has advised you in anger or in meanness that you shouldn't have interest in eternal life anymore but should seek for a lower kingdom instead.

Is this a decent summary? Would you be so kind as to indicate what calling he held in your ward and what calling he now holds on the stake level?

Am I correct in assuming that you've never married, never been endowed, that the person you had sex with was an unmarried member of the church?

Do I understand correctly that one of your primary concerns is whether or not the counsel you've received regarding not being welcome is inspired or not? If so may I share with you a few scriptures?

D&C 46

4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.

2 Nephi 26

25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye bends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.

26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.

Based on what you read above, if someone is telling you that you are unwelcome and are unworthy and should not come to church, is it of the Lord?

It is actually a commandment of God that you should come to church each week.

D&C 59

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

10 For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High;

11 Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times;

12 But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, cconfessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

It is a commandment and you are welcome to come so I really hope you do. If another member has a problem with you and doesn't want you there, that's not the will of the Lord.

Now sometimes when we sin, depending on the severity, we are put under the church punishment of disfellowhip. If so, while welcome and requested to continue coming to church, there are certain things you are not welcome to do while attending. Is this something you were or are placed under?

In regards to your sin...

There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation. This life is the time and the day of our probation. After this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

For those who do not have an opportunity to believe and obey the holy word in this life, the first chance to gain salvation will come in the spirit world. If those who hear the word for the first time in the realms ahead are the kind of people who would have accepted the gospel here, had the opportunity been afforded them, they will accept it there. Salvation for the dead is for those whose first chance to gain salvation is in the spirit world.

In the revelation recently added to our canon of holy writ, these words are found:

Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. [D&C 137:7–9]

There is no other promise of salvation than the one recited in that revelation. Those who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom. (Bruce R. McConkie, The Seven Deadly Heresies)

There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God.

Salvation for the dead is the system by means of which those who "die without a knowledge of the gospel" (D. & C. 128:5) may gain such knowledge in the spirit world and then, following the vicarious performance of the necessary ordinances, become heirs of salvation on the same basis as though the gospel truths had been obeyed in mortality. Salvation for the dead is limited expressly to those who do not have opportunity in this life to accept the gospel but who would have taken the opportunity had it come to them.

"All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel," the Lord said to the Prophet, "who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." (Teachings, p. 107.)

This is the only revealed principle by means of which the laws pertaining to salvation for the dead can be made effective in the lives of any persons. There is no promise in any revelation that those who have a fair and just opportunity in this life to accept the gospel, and who do not do it, will have another chance in the spirit world to gain salvation. On the contrary, there is the express stipulation that men cannot be saved without accepting the gospel in this life, if they are given opportunity to accept it. "Now is the time and the day of your salvation," Amulek said. "For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors .... For after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." (Alma 34:31-35; 2 Ne. 9:27; 3 Ne. 28:34; Luke 9:62.)

An application of this law is seen in the words of the resurrected Christ to the Nephites. "Therefore come unto me and be ye saved," he said in repeating with some variations the Sermon on the Mount he had previously given the Jews, "for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my commandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (3 Ne. 12:20.) Thus salvation was forever denied those Nephites unless they gained it by virtue of their obedience during mortality. On the same basis, there is no such thing as salvation for the dead for the Latter-day Saints who have been taught the truths of salvation and had a fair and just opportunity to live them.

Those who have a fair and just opportunity to accept the gospel in this life and who do not do it, but who then do accept it when they hear it in the spirit world will go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom. This includes those to whom Noah preached. "These are they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it." (D. & C. 76:72-74.)

Thus the false and heretical doctrine that people who fail to live the law in this life (having had an opportunity so to do) will have a further chance of salvation in the life to come is a soul-destroying doctrine, a doctrine that lulls its adherents into carnal security and thereby denies them a hope of eternal salvation. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 181-196.) (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 482, 483)

Whether or not you have had or before your death will have had a "fair and just" opportunity to accept and live the gospel is fortunately judged by the Lord.

In light of the knowledge I have and the covenants I have made, were I to commit fornication or adultery and then having sufficient time to repent instead procrastinate my repentance unto death, the most I could inherit would be a telestial glory.

[Martain]

Apparently I should have refreshed the topic before posting as quite a bit of content was added after doing so.

As your Stake President, he does have a stewardship over you and I can understand your question regarding what he is saying is the man or the Stake President. To my knowledge, as far as the Church is concerned, the issues you have shared with us regarding your sin and the disciplining of them are the jurisdiction of your Bishop. The Stake President would be involved if you were seeking a temple recommend or at the request of the Bishop but otherwise, to my knowledge, would not.

I'll give you some wise counsel that if you act upon it will be of use. Ask your Stake President directly.

"You've told me ______________. Are you telling me this as my Stake President via priesthood authority in the name of the Lord or is this your personal feelings?"

Remember that even though he has such a calling that he's human too. If he says it is his personal feelings then forgive him and again apologize and in sincerity advise him that you weren't trying to seduce him and that you didn't have ulterior motives. If however he says the other, ask to get it in writing and talk with your Bishop regarding it.

Sincerely,

Brother M.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Martain

[mnn727]

I'll give you some wise counsel that if you act upon it will be of use. Ask your Stake President directly.

"You've told me ______________. Are you telling me this as my Stake President via priesthood authority in the name of the Lord or is this your personal feelings?"

Remember that even though he has such a calling that he's human too. If he says it is his personal feelings then forgive him and again apologize and in sincerity advise him that you weren't trying to seduce him and that you didn't have ulterior motives. If however he says the other, ask to get it in writing and talk with your Bishop regarding it.

.

I agree with the above.

[Leah]

Hi Leah. I've learned that NJsmom and I may have different use for different words by virtue of local expression (Filipino versus British). So, "snuck" in doesn't mean she went in undetected or thwarting authority. If I'm not mistaken "snuck" simply means that her joining the YM in the trip was an unplanned, last-minute thing that she was grateful to have been given the opportunity at the last minute.

And this now-stake-president was a close friend of hers, hence his going to her confidence. The Stake President was the one that acted like it was secret and she just followed suit, not really understanding why and so now she regrets having done the secret thing but the damage is already done because this same person is now telling her SHE was trying to seduce him.

I still go by my stance - this guy can't be in leadership position, especially this high up, and this should be addressed with the bishop and if he gets through to the next time a call to sustain this leadership is made, she needs to oppose.

If I have a question for you. I will ask you. I was addressing the OP's words. Didn't have any questions about yours.

[Leah]

Leah - that is how it was presented to me at the time by my then bishop. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of it. And if it wasn't clear he was the one who contacted me to sound off in the first place, presumably not as a leader but as a friend. Or do people stop being friends when they attain positions of leadership? We were friends; we had a very similar conversion experience and similar negative experiences with friends and family as a result. I'm not sure why you seem to think a friendship in any way is inappropriate?

Trying to hide your identity and communication with a married man from the married man's wife is completely inappropriate. Also, the church has clear teachings about boundaries between married members and single members of the opposite sex. If you are trying to hide your identity and your personal communications with a married man, your behavior is inappropriate.

[pam]

So I just read through this entire thread for the first time. I will admit, I was sooooo confused. Actually I'm still confused. But there was one thing that stood out to me and the one thing that I really find a problem with.

So he mentioned his wife doesn't really listen and she is basking in the glory of his calling. It's beside the point. Imagine if she saw that email come in basically being masked to hide your identity. She is reading information in it and comes to realize that he may be talking to a female. So now he has to explain what is going on. Even if it was something that was intended to be innocent. If I were the wife I'd be wondering why he didn't come and talk to me. I'm seeing this situation from her perspective. Now I don't know if she saw it or not...but I'm playing out what could be a hypothetical situation.

Bottom line is...I don't think it was ever appropriate to send out an email to him making it appear anonymous. That just throws fuel into the fire.

[Guest]

If I have a question for you. I will ask you. I was addressing the OP's words. Didn't have any questions about yours.

And I will continue to correct things you misunderstood. Just like this one.

I offered a clarification of the OPs words to you in the way I was able to understand her - so you can be enlightened. You can untwist your bloomers now.

Edited May 17, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

So I just read through this entire thread for the first time. I will admit, I was sooooo confused. Actually I'm still confused. But there was one thing that stood out to me and the one thing that I really find a problem with.

So he mentioned his wife doesn't really listen and she is basking in the glory of his calling. It's beside the point. Imagine if she saw that email come in basically being masked to hide your identity. She is reading information in it and comes to realize that he may be talking to a female. So now he has to explain what is going on. Even if it was something that was intended to be innocent. If I were the wife I'd be wondering why he didn't come and talk to me. I'm seeing this situation from her perspective. Now I don't know if she saw it or not...but I'm playing out what could be a hypothetical situation.

Bottom line is...I don't think it was ever appropriate to send out an email to him making it appear anonymous. That just throws fuel into the fire.

She already knows that, Pam. Hence her feeling guilty about it and considering leaving the Church because the SP and her friend just might be right about the consequences of her badly thought out email.