Of Converts, Choirs and Misguided Bishops

[Sleeping in EQ]

This is one of the big challenges facing the church (and it faces the Church, not just the leaders. If we screw this up we can't blame them). And while music is one of the important areas of contention (and one very near to my heart), the broader problem is the fundamentalist, "you will be correlated" attitude of too many. This attitude has strong ethnic and nationalistic overtones on some levels.

I've noticed some leaders taking steps to moderate it a bit. Elder Ballard's talks of late seem aimed at this. Elder Oaks has warmly advocated "a gospel culture" that is not about ethnicity or nationalism. Their ideas, though, get little traction when the "unwritten order of things" crowd simply ignores them and keeps handing leadership callings to people of it's mindset. CES is, in large measure, a cult of personality and is Pharasaiac. The Honor Code, rules-obsessed, old testament attitude crowd are part of this in their own way.

A return of the doctrine of Common Consent and people standing up to fundamentalist, blind obedience nonsense needs to happen or we're in for real trouble. Start quoting Ballard and Oaks and others on these points in talks, when you speak up in classes, whenever you get the chance. If their ideas are going to have an impact, it will be because rank and file members carry the water for them.

Some wards and stakes are doing better than others on this. Music is alive and well in my own ward. People sing loudly and with enthusiam, the choir is great, and my bishop is convinced that music (and not just of the hymn book kind) is one of the most powerful of spiritual tools. He's right.

Some months back, Non-Seq listed some problems he saw with the Church:

Consumerism and an ultra-right fundamentalist mindset were on the top of his list.

I am in complete agreement.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Creekster, I thought Requiem already provided policy correction to the Bishop which was summarily rejected.

I think going to the Bishop is a good idea. But the problem is you get "thanks for bringing this up. I'll take care of it."

THen two weeks later, nothing has happened.

Then what?

SHe did offer the correction, but Bishops can reflect as well and he may not appreciate the effect the decision had on the members. I think it is always a good idea to give the bishop a chance to make it right, even a second or third time. I also have no problem saying you are very alarmed and need to hear back very soon, say by the end of the week (or whatever) and then move on if that doesn't happen.

There is no magic recipe, I just think you should give the bishop a chance to re-consider in a calmer moment. Telling him the policy error when he is acting is not a good time to get that sort of reflection.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yes I would. You have to step up on a matter such as this, in a culture endeavoring to diversify.

The bishop is wrong as to the policy. And if the Stake President can't recognize it, take it to his superior. Do it in a respectful way, but you seem to have a duty to speak up for those not represented. Plus, the bishop doesn't know the correct policy and somebody in the chain of command. I would not delay as other members may have already had their feelings hurt over a matter that should be uplifting, not denigrating because somebody has no sense of musical edification. Just don't demonize the bishop, but make certain the SP knows you're trying to do what's best for the congregation on a sticky issue.

Thanks for the encouragement - your comments have motivated me to schedule a meeting. The thought of a discussion with the SP is intimidating, but this issue is important.

Who would have thought - CG as a source of hope!

[Tex]

I'm with creekster here; it seems too easy to just pile on the bishop.

Obviously the man could've handled the situation better. Cancelling a musical number after weeks of practice on the morning it's supposed to be sung is just poor form. That's really an extreme measure that was overkill for the supposed offense.

That said, Bishops have the responsibility for maintaining a proper decorum for sacrament meeting, and believe me, if you lose control of the music you will, guaranteed, lose control of the Spirit in the meeting. It falls under his purview to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, and if he wants only hymns, I think that's his choice. It doesn't make him a white oppressor. His fault in this case is not making that clear to his counselors, and overreacting later.

I think there's a real risk in escalating this up to the Stake President and "raising hell." Is this really something that should be costing black members their testimonies? Is the church's truthfulness, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, the inspired origins of the Book of Mormon, contigent on one bishop's bad behavior? Are they hinged upon the choice of music used by a ward choir in an intermediate hymn?

I have seen people leave the church and lose their testimonies over trivialities because the minor offense grows and grows and grows. More people get involved, and more feelings get hurt.

My best suggestion to you and to your choir members, Requiem, is to let it go. It was unfortunate how it was handled, but escalating it will probably do more harm than good.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Thanks for the encouragement - your comments have motivated me to schedule a meeting. The thought of a discussion with the SP is intimidating, but this issue is important.

Who would have thought - CG as a source of hope!

Come now. For all of our scrutiny and hyper-evaluation, we all have the same goal.

This is a really disconcerting issue-- frankly, it turns my stomach somewhat. Best wishes for a quick and complete solution.

And if he won't give it to you . . . give 'em hell.

[creekster]

To be clear, I do not think you should just let it go. At the very least, a private meeting will set it up for the next time. The goal here is to enlarge the tent a little. You just need to do it in a reasonable way, IMO.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

To be clear, I do not think you should just let it go. At the very least, a private meeting will set it up for the next time. The goal here is to enlarge the tent a little. You just need to do it in a reasonable way, IMO.

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that this was your position, creekster.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm with creekster here; it seems too easy to just pile on the bishop.

Obviously the man could've handled the situation better. Cancelling a musical number after weeks of practice on the morning it's supposed to be sung is just poor form. That's really an extreme measure that was overkill for the supposed offense.

That said, Bishops have the responsibility for maintaining a proper decorum for sacrament meeting, and believe me, if you lose control of the music you will, guaranteed, lose control of the Spirit in the meeting. It falls under his purview to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, and if he wants only hymns, I think that's his choice. It doesn't make him a white oppressor. His fault in this case is not making that clear to his counselors, and overreacting later.

I think there's a real risk in escalating this up to the Stake President and "raising hell." Is this really something that should be costing black members their testimonies? Is the church's truthfulness, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, the inspired origins of the Book of Mormon, contigent on one bishop's bad behavior? Are they hinged upon the choice of music used by a ward choir in an intermediate hymn?

I have seen people leave the church and lose their testimonies over trivialities because the minor offense grows and grows and grows. More people get involved, and more feelings get hurt.

My best suggestion to you and to your choir members, Requiem, is to let it go. It was unfortunate how it was handled, but escalating it will probably do more harm than good.

Don't listen to him.

Most of us believe in a church where disagreements can be talked about. It IS appropriate to talk about this to your ecclesiastical leaders.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm with creekster here; it seems too easy to just pile on the bishop.

Obviously the man could've handled the situation better. Cancelling a musical number after weeks of practice on the morning it's supposed to be sung is just poor form. That's really an extreme measure that was overkill for the supposed offense.

That said, Bishops have the responsibility for maintaining a proper decorum for sacrament meeting, and believe me, if you lose control of the music you will, guaranteed, lose control of the Spirit in the meeting. It falls under his purview to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, and if he wants only hymns, I think that's his choice. It doesn't make him a white oppressor. His fault in this case is not making that clear to his counselors, and overreacting later.

I think there's a real risk in escalating this up to the Stake President and "raising hell." Is this really something that should be costing black members their testimonies? Is the church's truthfulness, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, the inspired origins of the Book of Mormon, contigent on one bishop's bad behavior? Are they hinged upon the choice of music used by a ward choir in an intermediate hymn?

I have seen people leave the church and lose their testimonies over trivialities because the minor offense grows and grows and grows. More people get involved, and more feelings get hurt.

My best suggestion to you and to your choir members, Requiem, is to let it go. It was unfortunate how it was handled, but escalating it will probably do more harm than good.

I would agree, if only all involved and/or offended could likewise do it. If people have been so deeply hurt that they bring their own membership into question, repairs need to be made irrespective of who was right.

Maybe they shouldn't be offended that the bishop won't let them sing a song. Maybe. But Paul taught that we shouldn't even eat meat if it offends our brother.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm with creekster here; it seems too easy to just pile on the bishop.

Obviously the man could've handled the situation better. Cancelling a musical number after weeks of practice on the morning it's supposed to be sung is just poor form. That's really an extreme measure that was overkill for the supposed offense.

That said, Bishops have the responsibility for maintaining a proper decorum for sacrament meeting, and believe me, if you lose control of the music you will, guaranteed, lose control of the Spirit in the meeting. It falls under his purview to decide what's appropriate and what isn't, and if he wants only hymns, I think that's his choice. It doesn't make him a white oppressor. His fault in this case is not making that clear to his counselors, and overreacting later.

I think there's a real risk in escalating this up to the Stake President and "raising hell." Is this really something that should be costing black members their testimonies? Is the church's truthfulness, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, the inspired origins of the Book of Mormon, contigent on one bishop's bad behavior? Are they hinged upon the choice of music used by a ward choir in an intermediate hymn?

I have seen people leave the church and lose their testimonies over trivialities because the minor offense grows and grows and grows. More people get involved, and more feelings get hurt.

My best suggestion to you and to your choir members, Requiem, is to let it go. It was unfortunate how it was handled, but escalating it will probably do more harm than good.

As usual, our board moderate sides with official power and suggests anyone who disagrees should take a flying leap.