training for Bishops

[jewels8]

I am curious as to why there doesn't seem to be a standardized training for bishops and church leaders in general with how to communicate effectively with those who come to them for counsel.  It seems to me that too often priesthood leaders use tactics that are counterproductive and unChrist-like.  These are suppossedly the people we are told to trust, the people that are suppossed to represent Christ, and yet none of them, as far as I can see, are required to learn ways of effective communication.  For instance, it seems that there is a tendency to blame the person coming in to share a concern about someone else, then to openly have an atmosphere of acceptance for the person coming in. There is much taught about specific things to say and not to say that can be found concerning communication and psychology in how to treat people.  Why is this not required when it is so important and some of these men will "help"  the Savior with our final judgement for eternity?  

[Sunday21]

6 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I am curious as to why there doesn't seem to be a standardized training for bishops and church leaders in general with how to communicate effectively with those who come to them for counsel.  It seems to me that too often priesthood leaders use tactics that are counterproductive and unChrist-like.  These are suppossedly the people we are told to trust, the people that are suppossed to represent Christ, and yet none of them, as far as I can see, are required to learn ways of effective communication.  For instance, it seems that there is a tendency to blame the person coming in to share a concern about someone else, then to openly have an atmosphere of acceptance for the person coming in. There is much taught about specific things to say and not to say that can be found concerning communication and psychology in how to treat people.  Why is this not required when it is so important and some of these men will "help"  the Savior with our final judgement for eternity?  

Dear @jewels8. Hi there! Are you having a tough time? Do you want to share? Hugs! Thinking of you....

[jewels8]

Thank you.  I'm sure leaders aren't always this way and don't intend to come off this way, but it just seems it would be better if they had a standard guideline in talking to the members. Not favoring one above the other.  I'm sure it must be hard to be a leader, but it seems strange that as a whole, they don't have a program to avoid much of the unintended problems that can happen when a person is just wanting some help.  I'm really doing fine, just reflecting on a couple times in the past.  I apprecitate your concern and caring. 

 

[NightSG]

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I am curious as to why there doesn't seem to be a standardized training for bishops

Well, we tried swatting one on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, but eventually he hid all the newspapers and still wears jeans to Sacrament Meeting.  And since most of them have opposable thumbs, they just take the shock collars off.

 

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I am curious as to why there doesn't seem to be a standardized training for bishops and church leaders in general with how to communicate effectively with those who come to them for counsel.  It seems to me that too often priesthood leaders use tactics that are counterproductive and unChrist-like.  These are suppossedly the people we are told to trust, the people that are suppossed to represent Christ, and yet none of them, as far as I can see, are required to learn ways of effective communication.  For instance, it seems that there is a tendency to blame the person coming in to share a concern about someone else, then to openly have an atmosphere of acceptance for the person coming in. There is much taught about specific things to say and not to say that can be found concerning communication and psychology in how to treat people.  Why is this not required when it is so important and some of these men will "help"  the Savior with our final judgement for eternity?  

I hope you realize all your questions, at least most of them, can be turned toward the member and not the bishop as well?

1) Why isn't their a standardized training for members on how to approach leadership with difficult situations? (Because it seems to me that "too often" members use counterproductive and non-Christian methods to talk to the bishop)

2) As members, we all represent Christ (Baptismal covenant), and we should all be people who we can trust. The bishop should be able to trust you the same way you expect trust from him.

3) I don't know of any members in the congregation who are required to learn ways of effective communication with leaders.

4) For instance, there appears to be a tendency for members to blame the bishop's or stake presidents for lack of good communication, then to come in with acceptance and respect of the office they are visiting.

5) With how many different opinions there are as to what is right and wrong communication and how to treat people, the leaders aren't going to get it right every single time. How do you know the bishop hasn't been reading books on good communication, tries it, and the member is still upset?

6) Yes, why aren't members required to take a course on how to communicate with leaders, which will help them to communicate with people who are there to "help" with our final judgement?

In all my experiences in speaking with leaders (bishops and stake presidents) I only had one unfortunate encounter. My percentage of bad encounters would be below 5%. Since that bad encounter, I have never experienced another.

I have also experienced the same people having issues constantly with leaders. The bishop's monthly, will typically meet with the stake president for training. What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Anddenex

[jewels8]

Yes, of course, but there are also many cases of members being kind, meek, going in, and being taken by surprise right at the beginning by being mistreated when they haven't done anything to warrant that.  I think many members go in being respectful and carefully share things, inserting things to show that they are being charitable and open minded and are still being blamed, unfortunately.  And the monthly training, we really don't know what they are trained to do.  Of course we should have charity for our leaders, as I mentioned above, but it really is a problem  The Church sometimes makes changes, and I see this as an opportunity for them to learn training (of course its good for members to know this too, sometimes members do blame the bishop, and that is not right,and I am not advocating that), beyond just  a general, "be kind in your interviews" or whatever it is they teach.  I'm sure there are many topics they learn, and as far as I know, there's no agenda that is the same world -wide for stake presidents to train their bishops.  It may be that they prayerfully pick topics that seem to reflect what is needed in their particular stake, and that is good, to  a point.  But there definitely is a need for this, where they get into basics that generally work for all people.  And, I can also see the wisdom in having an ongoing class for the other members, as well.  Thank you for bringing that up.  It does go both ways.

[zil]

Unless you're thousands of flies on the walls of thousands of bishops all over the world, I suspect you are projecting and assuming things which aren't warranted.  If we were to look at the numbers (which no one is collecting, and therefore no one knows), we'd probably find that for every person who has a complaint about their bishop, there are 500+ people who don't have a complaint about their bishop.  But if one were to go listening to / reading various complaints about bishops, or if one had their own complaint about a bishop, one would probably come away with a skewed idea of those numbers because people who don't complain about their bishop don't generally share their non-complaints, and people with complaints tend to think their experience is the normal one (and that they're in the right and the other party is to blame).

Therefore, I would like to share my non-complaint - my bishop is fabulous; a better person than I am, by far.  And like normal humans, I'm going to assume that all my fellow ward members except one or two, also think our bishop is fabulous!

Edited October 30, 2017 by zil

[estradling75]

My bishop is awesome...  In fact in all my 40+ years (and possibly a hundred bishops [No I do not know the number other then alot]) I have no recollection of a "bad" bishop.

[jewels8]

I have had wonderful bishops, mission president, state presidents and other leaders too.  I don't think if a  bishop or a member makes a "mistake" that that makes them a "bad" bishop or a "bad" member.  I just want to clarify here.  It seems that if a person says something on one side of a spectrum (ex.  a bad experience with a bishop) than it is assumed , perhaps, that they would label their bishop as "bad".  I don't think that is a good thing to do.  And that's not what I meant.  But I do think we should have sympathy for anyone, be he or she a bishop, a RS Pres, a regular member who has had an unpleasant encounter that he or she didn't see coming.  I think a counseling session can often have some good moments of respect both ways, even if there is a "glitch" in part of it.  We are all human.  It s just that leaders have a sacred obligation, even more noticeable to others, than others do.  (even though members also have an obligation too)  I just think it is good when the church upholds that standard for leaders to assist them in leading in righteousness.  I am not trying to take away or lessen any responsibility a member has.  Its just that a member may be feeling vulnerable and is going in for help, whereas hopefully, the leader is feeling ready to help at that moment.  I do appreciate my bishop and current and past leaders.  They have helped me & my family in many ways.  Sometimes we just have to forgive, forget, pray, and move on.

[jewels8]

Also, I think some people may have legitimate concerns about the last day of their judgement and having these former earthly leaders helping in their final judgement.  Definitely a major and solemn responsibility for them and the person being judged.  But there may be some concern about will that person really feel like they can speak up for themself and will they really be treated fairly.  I know Christ will be our final judge, but to me it seems it would be easier to get a more fair judgement if it was just Christ and the person, without these intermediate people who are human too.  True they can be inspired, but I have seen some instances where it leaves legitimate concern.  I know you can say, "Oh, but everything will be made right and Christ has the final say", and there is some truth to that, that is true, we are taught to say, but no one really knows how it is going to be and once your there, it will be what they say  that goes.  They seem to  have more power, more authority, and maybe are favored because they are a servant.  And we are just lowly people who get misunderstood.  Or if something happens between you and one of their counselors, how do we know they won't pick the counselor over you?   

[Guest MormonGator]

You are raising some interesting points @jewels8. I enjoy reading your posts. 

[jewels8]

Even if you are honest and it seems the counselor is sometimes not seeming to be.  I think it would be harder to judge appropriately with all the information going against each other.  I guess it will all work out, and of course prayer, scripture study, etc help people to have a more hopeful reason for a fair outcome.  I guess I've seen or heard and experienced too many earthly judges, in and out of the church (not that I have ever needed court for anything, but others have)  to wonder how its going to be so different.   And how everyone communicates is so vital.  I think everyone involved to judge especially, needs to have skills that don't cause an unnecessary  problem for the  person being judged, where they may have to end up in a  lower kingdom because they feel they can't speak up for themselve, that it won't do any good, and that they are being mistreated and or misunderstood.  Of course our memory will be better there, and we will be able to remember all things that we may forget at times now.  I guess it will be fair in the Lord's eyes.  

[jewels8]

Thank you, especially, Mormon Gator and Sunday 21.

[Anddenex]

28 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Yes, of course, but there are also many cases of members being kind, meek, going in, and being taken by surprise right at the beginning by being mistreated when they haven't done anything to warrant that.  I think many members go in being respectful and carefully share things, inserting things to show that they are being charitable and open minded and are still being blamed, unfortunately.  And the monthly training, we really don't know what they are trained to do.  Of course we should have charity for our leaders, as I mentioned above, but it really is a problem  The Church sometimes makes changes, and I see this as an opportunity for them to learn training (of course its good for members to know this too, sometimes members do blame the bishop, and that is not right,and I am not advocating that), beyond just  a general, "be kind in your interviews" or whatever it is they teach.  I'm sure there are many topics they learn, and as far as I know, there's no agenda that is the same world -wide for stake presidents to train their bishops.  It may be that they prayerfully pick topics that seem to reflect what is needed in their particular stake, and that is good, to  a point.  But there definitely is a need for this, where they get into basics that generally work for all people.  And, I can also see the wisdom in having an ongoing class for the other members, as well.  Thank you for bringing that up.  It does go both ways.

I assume my state of opposition is the generalization of "many" and "too often" toward bishops.  Yes, there are cases where members are kind, seeking to be meek and humble, trying to be understood and their bishop/stake president doesn't respond very kindly. There are just as many cases, if not more, where the bishop is being kind, meek, honoring the Lord and his prophets through Handbook guidance, and the members take them wrong. I would venture to say, less than 5% of ALL the one-on-one meetings bishops have with members do not end well.  Out of the 50 or more interviews in a month, only 1-3 didn't go as well as both thought it would.

So, we would have disagreement regarding this being a problem; however, would additional training and insight on communication skills be beneficial. Sure, we all could use better social and communication skills. In some cases, I can also see members being more judgemental toward a bishop knowing what training he has received. I can hear the gossip wheel now, "Oh my, you know bishop said this! Yes, he did! AND he even had training on how to be a good communicator."

This is why I shared as my last statement, "What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve."

 

 

 

[jewels8]

I would just like to clarify, in case the court thing gets misconstrued, that I have always been a member in good standing, no problems and a member of society in good standing, always too.

[Anddenex]

14 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

True they can be inspired, but I have seen some instances where it leaves legitimate concern.  I know you can say, "Oh, but everything will be made right and Christ has the final say", and there is some truth to that, that is true, we are taught to say, but no one really knows how it is going to be and once your there, it will be what they say  that goes.  They seem to  have more power, more authority, and maybe are favored because they are a servant.  And we are just lowly people who get misunderstood.  Or if something happens between you and one of their counselors, how do we know they won't pick the counselor over you?   

President Eyring provided a wonderful talk in this past General Conference regarding inspiration and weakness of leaders. He even provided a personal experience from when he serviced as a bishop. This talk was so spot on, I don't think I can SPOT ON any clearer.

Yes, that is the most wonderful thing, "The Lord will have the final say," in the end. And in the end we will see our own faults in connection to certain circumstances we may have though we were right, but we were actually wrong. That will be humbling to any follower of Jesus Christ. There isn't some truth, that is truth! Yes, it will be what they say (they being God the Father and his Christ) that goes. That is wonderful! A perfect judge. A perfect advocate. And even better, we won't be able to hide our own pride. We will see where we went wrong, and were we went right! In some cases, we will be justified, and in others (where we thought we were 100% right) we will find ourselves thanking God for his Son!

They have stewardship and keys, which give rights to revelation that no other member of the ward has. In this case, this gives them more authority, but not power. Power is given through individual righteousness. This is why the Lord provided Doctrine and Covenants 121: 39-46 to all saints -- to leaders and to members. We are all "servants" and no shepherd is more favored than the sheep; however, at times, if a bishop does exert more authority than the Lord has given, the church has already built in recompense. We follow the line of authority.

Was it hard for me during the one time I experienced a negative response when I thought I would receive love instead? Yes! Was there any training that would have changed the circumstance? I don't know, but this one thing I do know. We were both "prideful" and because of our "pride" and "passion" it interfered with true love for our fellowmen, and what love was shared was hollow.

With counselors, there should be open communication with the bishop. There should be honest acceptance of where we might be wrong. If we (us and the counselor) are more concerned with the bishop siding with one of us, and not the "right" thing, then it will always end badly no matter how good the bishop communicates. We ALL should be concerned with what is "right" not whether or not someone will side with us.

Better communication is something we should be looking from both ends, bishop and us.

[jewels8]

Interesting.  Thank you for sharing.  I think Pres. Eyring is such a humble man.

[my two cents]

22 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I am curious as to why there doesn't seem to be a standardized training for bishops and church leaders in general with how to communicate effectively with those who come to them for counsel.  It seems to me that too often priesthood leaders use tactics that are counterproductive and unChrist-like.  These are suppossedly the people we are told to trust, the people that are suppossed to represent Christ, and yet none of them, as far as I can see, are required to learn ways of effective communication.  For instance, it seems that there is a tendency to blame the person coming in to share a concern about someone else, then to openly have an atmosphere of acceptance for the person coming in. There is much taught about specific things to say and not to say that can be found concerning communication and psychology in how to treat people.  Why is this not required when it is so important and some of these men will "help"  the Savior with our final judgement for eternity?  

My thought has been that hopefully their spouse/kids are helping them learn how to communicate long before they're ever put in a leadership position.

[prisonchaplain]

Aren't bishops understood to offer spiritual counsel, as led by the Holy Spirit? In other words, members generally know that bishops are not trained in counseling, psychology, or even speech. Leadership are said to feel led by the Holy Spirit to make the spiritual selection of bishops, and these bishops are expected to by likewise led, as they offer spiritual direction.

FYI: Even clergy these days are reticent to offer pastoral or spiritual "counseling." Instead, it gets called "soulcare," or some other purely spiritual word, since some states have allowed for aggressive litigation against churches who offer counseling deemed negligent. I heard of one church that had to spend $30K in legal fees to defend against a lawsuit brought by the family of one who died by suicide. The deceased had gone to the church for counseling one time, and had seen professional counseling, at government expense, for years. Yet, the church was the easy target.  The church won, but it sure didn't feel very victorious.

Edited October 30, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[jewels8]

That is terrible, prisonchaplain.  Its too bad that that kind of thing happens.

[laronius]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Aren't bishops understood to offer spiritual counsel, as led by the Holy Spirit? In other words, members generally know that bishops are not trained in counseling, psychology, or even speech. Leadership are said to feel led by the Holy Spirit to make the spiritual selection of bishops, and these bishops are expected to by likewise led, as they offer spiritual direction.

 

Amen @prisonchaplain. That's the nail on the head. We need to remember that bishops (and all of us really) are called in their weakness. They often have a day job, family concerns and other issues to deal with like the rest of us, except they are also called to help shoulder the burdens of everyone else in the ward. If anyone deserves our patience and prayers it's our bishops. In those rare instances where great concern is raised by the conduct of a bishop there is a chain of authority that we can follow up to have our concerns addressed. And I will state emphatically that the Lord will NOT allow any unjust judgements to take place at the last day. In fact a "fair judgment" should scare us to death. Mercy is what we want and the Lord has basically said he will grant the same mercy to us as we do to our fellow man (and that includes our bishops).

[priesthoodpower]

I like to use a lot of sports analogies. Its easy for a team to win any 1st place Championship title with players that work their butts off in the off-season on their own time to get physically bigger/faster/stronger, continue working hard in the regular season as well as listen and execute the coaches game plan exactly. A lot of players on a championship level team will look at themselves and say "What can I do to help this team out? What do I need to improve on to make my teammates better?"

Jesus Christ gave us the game plan, Bishop is like a captain of the team that just repeats the game plan already recorded in scripture from Jesus and his Prophets. If you are a team player you could easily find the same answers the Bishop has  by searching the scriptures and receiving inspiration from the Holy Ghost, make yourself bigger/faster/stronger spiritually. The benefit in having a Bishop is that he holds the keys of the priesthood to lead us, he is a symbol of our connection to Jesus and God.

In the end I feel God will judge you according to your trials, he understands that you may have possibly been abused by terrible parents, bullied at school, have a learning disorder, physical handicap, have had bad friends, bad teachers and yes even a bad bishop.

[Bad Karma]

Oh, I don't know. I'm not a big fan of my Bishop. I'm not going to drag him down, I just don't like him. But if it means not getting saddled up with his job, he's a great guy! Love him! GO BISH! 

[Vort]

On 10/28/2017 at 6:55 PM, jewels8 said:

I am curious as to why there doesn't seem to be a standardized training for bishops and church leaders in general with how to communicate effectively with those who come to them for counsel.  It seems to me that too often priesthood leaders use tactics that are counterproductive and unChrist-like.  These are suppossedly the people we are told to trust, the people that are suppossed to represent Christ, and yet none of them, as far as I can see, are required to learn ways of effective communication.  For instance, it seems that there is a tendency to blame the person coming in to share a concern about someone else, then to openly have an atmosphere of acceptance for the person coming in. There is much taught about specific things to say and not to say that can be found concerning communication and psychology in how to treat people.  Why is this not required when it is so important and some of these men will "help"  the Savior with our final judgement for eternity?  

Bishops with high complaint rates have their bishop salary cut by 50%. Continued complaints make the salary cut percentage even deeper.

[anatess2]

@jewels8, here's the answer to your question Why is there no training for bishops (there actually is)?

Why is there no training for Fathers?  You would think with the Eternal Family being the Central Foundational Unit of the Kingdom of God and societies as a whole there would be a standardized training for Fathers and how they should approach raising children, right?  So, why is there not one?

Well, there is one.  It is called the Gospel.  We are taught to learn these principles and then go and govern ourselves - in our families, in our wards, in our communities.

Bishops even get more training than Fathers.  They do have a Bishop's training, ya know.  And they even get a Handbook of Instructions.  Fathers, on the other hand... you just have to hope that their own Fathers were good examples.  You would think Fathers should be required to graduate from Fatherhood College before they are allowed to have children.  And that's really how Bishops (and Prophets and Apostles and Nursery teachers, etc. etc.) learn the ropes of the calling - they learn it by being a faithful member of the Church fulfilling their covenants with Christ and sustaining their own Bishop in the same manner that Fathers learn to be Fathers.

Edited October 30, 2017 by anatess2