Conference tecrus::mormonism

>I was thinking last night, Ken, that you and I have spent a lot of time and
>energy discussing the origins of homosexual feelings, and the interesting
>thing about it is that the origins don't really matter...
>
>The bottom line in life is not where the problems we have came from, but what
>we do about those problems. 

Truly. As I mentioned in play-the-bishop scenario, all it takes to 
change the context of this discussion into somnething that has a lot 
more relevance to our own needs to change is substituting our biggest 
weakness in place of the word "gay," and then we're on the hotspot.

My wife and I have had many interesting discussions about the role 
feelings play in our progression. Both of us are convinced that the 
person who has feelings of anger or fury, for instance, will have a more 
difficult time repenting in the hereafter than someone bound to a more 
outward habit, such as smoking.

But, in either case, we need to make the changes, and I am very, very
glad that there is a loving Saviour to point out the way for each and
every one of us. 

>Allen

Ken

|Many Gay people claim they were born that way, maybe they were and maybe not,
|and I think they may be trying to justify their conduct.  They may be thinking
|that if they were born that way then they are not responsible for their conduct
|as homosexuals, and since they were born that way it is "natural" (i.e. the
|way their body works) and hence ok.  To us as LDS, however, "natural" means
|the way God would have it be and not necessarily the way any particular physical
|body happens to work since particular bodies may have disorders.
|

 Then I assume we could extrapolate this to other areas.  We might well take
 another current discussion in this topic, mental illness, and say that
 it doesn't make a difference if we have a chemical imbalance in our brain
 that, under some circumstances, might make us see things that don't exist;
 it's how we respond that counts.  Or we might say the same thing about
 chemical causes of clinical depression, or even cyclical changes in hormonal
 imbalance in our bodies.  Perhaps we men should say to our wives at those
 times in their lives when the experience extreme hormonal changes, "Honey,
 you need to be responding to these changes in your body the way that God
 would have it.  Don't be justifying your conduct by the way your body happens
 to work."

 I'm not making any claims one way or the other as to whether homosexuality
 is an innate trait of some people.  I understand the scriptures condemn its
 practice, and have been involved in church courts where I have supported
 disciplinary action against those involved in homosexual acts.  Nevertheless,
 I think the Lord does have some tests for humanity built into our genes, and
 IMO I believe the judgement will have all of those factors weighed properly
 when we meet him.

 I also believe that very, very few people will ever be exalted compared to
 the number who claim an appreciation for exaltation, largely because we wrestle
 with the sins of others and fail to repent ourselves.  Sort of the situation
 that the Savior addresses in Matthew 7:1-5.  It's important for us to teach
 gospel truths to our children, and we hope that our families will remain
 faithful, but its hard for them to look at our preachings on one subject when
 we live hypocritically in other areas of our lives.  Our examples and the
 time that we spend in loving, working, playing, and praying with them will
 bring a far greater spiritual influence and keep them "safely in" and much as
 we can, as compared to any amount of eloquently spoken words will do.  At least
 we have some control over our own lives and attitudes, and the love that we can
 demonstrate even to the wayward.  Hopefully that love will be so evident that
 it will influence those beloved by us for good.

Hi Rick!

Long time no bother. How's everything?

1. "Honey,  you need to be responding to these changes in your body
the way that God  would have it."

I do think that we are required by the Lord to offer all the support we 
can to anyone going through a difficult time. And yes, we should remind 
each other to endure to the end. This is no idle counsel that the Lord 
has given us, and He gave knowing full well that we would have to go 
through pain and suffering.

Did He, or should we, act in a cavalier or offhand manner when dealing 
with such a situation? No. Should we keep mum, and not say anything? No. 

I've coached Debbie through 4 births, and you know what my biggest job 
was? Reminding her of her focus. In a natural childbirth class, you are 
taught how to "work past the pain." Regular breathing and relaxation are 
an imperative part of this, and one of the methods of relaxing is to 
use some sort of a focus. 

The usual suggestion is a pleasant scene, the mountains, a lake, or 
something else that conjures up pleasant and relaxing feelings. Deb's 
choice was not a still-life picture: she chose the Saviour as her focal 
point. But lying there in a bed, with contractions coming fast and 
furious, it's very difficult to do this. That's where I came in, and it 
may have been the only useful thing I did all 4 times I was there, but 
it was important that I do at least that.

And I did it out of love. I didn't stand there because I wanted to see 
Deb suffer. I wasn't interested in clinical observation. I was much too 
close to the situation for that. I was there, and I encouraged her, be- 
cause I loved her.

Since we, as members of the Lord's restored church, have the keys of 
knowledge, I see no reason why we shouldn't remind one another of our 
focus, when needed. No matter what the trial, the Saviour is there to 
help out. We need to reach out to him, and sometimes, when we're in 
the middle of our own growing pains, we forget. So it's good to have 
someone mortal close by to remind us. At least, I'm glad Deb's been 
there for me...

2.  "Don't be justifying your conduct by the way your body happens  to
work." 

If I am an abused child, don't I have some fairly strong conditioning 
to overcome? If I am a third-generation alcoholic on my father's side, 
don't I have some internal imbalances to deal with? Do either of these 
offer me an excuse to harm others (abuse) or myself (drinking)? No.

If the conduct is contrary to the commandments, then we better do the 
right thing, which is counsel with the Lord, and repent. If the conduct, 
so-called, is something like feeling despair or depression, then what 
better counsel can we give than to turn to the Lord, the Great Healer?

Heck, if we had but the smallest particle of faith, we could cast these
"demons" out. Or so it seems on paper. But mant times, blessings don't 
"take." Why? Did we, or they, do something wrong? Most times, I believe, 
the answer is no. I think that the illness, of whatever kind, continues 
so that somebody is learning something. Most often, compassion.

But the compassion is wasted if we don't learn to extend it to others...

Ken

    Whoa!  After reading all this discussion I think maybe 'truth' has been
    nailed down a little bit...
    
    Answer, there are two correct answers.
    
    	1) Some people are born with this cross to bear
    
    			and
    
    	2) Others choose it, some look for the easy way, look for 
    	   justification for their actions, mistakes are made....
    
    Was reading in the scriptures a couple nights ago and I read where the
    Lord said that we all have a cross to bear and he further stated that
    if we fail to carry our cross then we are not his servants {or
    something similar to this}.  Doesn't matter then, where the feeling
    comes from, gotta ignore it and overcome it.  I'm stubborn too (ain't
    no such thing as a g__ ward.  I'm done.
    
    David

  Ken, I agree with the other things that you said, excpet for what I quote
  below.  This is really irrelevant to the rest of the topic, but I've never
  been able to agree with any elder who comes in and makes this statement.

> Heck, if we had but the smallest particle of faith, we could cast these
> "demons" out. Or so it seems on paper. But mant times, blessings don't 
> "take." Why? Did we, or they, do something wrong? Most times, I believe, 
> the answer is no. I think that the illness, of whatever kind, continues 
> so that somebody is learning something. Most often, compassion.

  I tend to believe that when we give a blessing that doesn't come to pass,
  that generally we did do something wrong.  We made a promise in the name of
  the Lord, but it wasn't fulfilled because he never intended to be fulfilled.
  In plain words, I think most of the time when we make promises in a blessing
  that don't occur, I think the person acting as voice was speaking his own
  mind, and not as inspired by the Holy Ghost.  If we do this in the Lord's
  name, then we most definately are doing something wrong.  It ought to be
  a sign to us to tune ourselves more closely to those promptings.

  Of course, sometimes promises are given that may be fulfilled in the future.
  But I'm sure you have heard, as well as I have, pronouncements in blessings
  that were quite specific, and which did not come to pass.  Personally, I think
  members tend to try to find reasons why "the Lord's perspective is different
  than our own" rather than just say that perhaps the person just wasn't in
  tune.  Quite frankly, in more instances than not when I have seen this happen,
  I tend to believe that that was the true situation.  I think a lot of members
  just aren't as in tune with the Spirit as they would fool themselves into
  believing.  I'm not saying they were insincere, or deliberately deceiving
  anyone but themselves, but I can't say I think that generally they did nothing
  wrong.  People just are not as prepared to administer blessings as they should
  be, and thereby have only the form, and not the substance, to give.

Is there a separate note for this? I hate to eat up bandwidth here. But 
for the moment...

>Personally, I think  members tend to try to find reasons why "the
>Lord's perspective is different   than our own" rather than just say
>that perhaps the person just wasn't in   tune. 

The Lord's perspective is different than our own. He knows our hearts 
and minds, but can we really say that we know His? When a blessing is 
administered, we, as Priesthood holders, are attempting to be a conduit 
through which those in need can receive needed help and insight. So that 
they, and we, perhaps, can know the will of the Lord.

Sometimes, we're lousy conduits, for whatever reason. Thats's easy to 
see. But what's much more difficult to see is exactly how the Lord meant 
something, as opposed to the way we took it. So if I don't understand, 
does that mean I'm not in tune? Does my Patriarchal Blessing mean the 
same thing every time I read it? Has it ever meant what I thought it did 
when I read certain passages?

If I administer a blessing to a non-member, who has great faith, and is 
investigating the Church, and in that blessing, she is promised that she 
will be healed, and both she and I, and the fulltime missionaries, feel 
the Spirit so strongly that she says: "I feel like someone turned on a 
light for the first  time in my life," and then she dies, does that mean
someone did something wrong?

That's a hard question. I had this happen to me about 4 years ago, and I 
did a lot of soul-searching at that time. After I was done with that 
deep introspection, I felt that we had understood what the Lord meant by 
healing differently than He did. I think He meant she would be healed of 
the pain when she returned home to Him. 

Yes, there's such a thing as a "McBlessing." And there are times I felt 
like I was on the receiving end of such. But if I spend all my time 
trying to determine the state of the brethren who administered, am I 
going to become more in tune as a result? 

Ken

================================================================================
Note 395.45             Gay Wards: not your typical Ward                45 of 51
ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep"                          22 lines  27-FEB-1992 10:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking last night, Ken, that you and I have spent a lot of time and
energy discussing the origins of homosexual feelings, and the interesting
thing about it is that the origins don't really matter.  Whether a person is
born with some physical problem that causes those feelings, or whether he/she
has picked the feelings up due to social reasons or from influences from Satan,
its all the same: what really counts is what those persons do as a result of
those feelings.  They will be blessed or will lose blessings based on the
choices they make relative to those feelings, and the origins of the feelings
don't matter at all. 

Many Gay people claim they were born that way, maybe they were and maybe not,
and I think they may be trying to justify their conduct.  They may be thinking
that if they were born that way then they are not responsible for their conduct
as homosexuals, and since they were born that way it is "natural" (i.e. the
way their body works) and hence ok.  To us as LDS, however, "natural" means
the way God would have it be and not necessarily the way any particular physical
body happens to work since particular bodies may have disorders.

The bottom line in life is not where the problems we have came from, but what
we do about those problems. 

Allen

  I've been away, so I haven't beena able to share my feelings in response.

> If I administer a blessing to a non-member, who has great faith, and is 
> investigating the Church, and in that blessing, she is promised that she 
> will be healed, and both she and I, and the fulltime missionaries, feel 
> the Spirit so strongly that she says: "I feel like someone turned on a 
> light for the first  time in my life," and then she dies, does that mean
> someone did something wrong?
> 
> That's a hard question. I had this happen to me about 4 years ago, and I 
> did a lot of soul-searching at that time. After I was done with that 
> deep introspection, I felt that we had understood what the Lord meant by 
> healing differently than He did. I think He meant she would be healed of 
> the pain when she returned home to Him. 

  Of course, there are times when elders give blessings that don't appear
  to be immediately fulfilled.  There was a faithful home teacher here in
  Cherokee County who administered to a pregnant woman who was having problems
  carrying her child.  He said he felt strongly inspired to promise her that
  the baby would live and she would raise it to maturity.  Shortly thereafter
  she lost the baby.  After counseling with him, I also felt the Lord would
  uphold that promise, and that it was His promise.  In such cases where we
  act as a conduit for the Lord, I have full faith the Lord will bring it about
  in a means we don't currently understand.

  However, I happen to believe that the "McBlessings" prevail at about the
  same level, perhaps even more, than those the Lord grants which will need to
  be fulfilled in the future.  I don't expect every blessing to be inspired;
  we are human.  When I ask someone to bless me when I am sick, I do so to
  fulfill the Lord's injuction to call upon the elders of the church; it is
  my way to demonstrate to Him that I have faith, not to call upon the faith
  of others to heal me (although any added help is appreciated).

  What I object to is the tendancy of people to overlook the possibility of
  a blessing being uninspired, and trying to force an alternative explanation
  when such is not warranted.  An example may clarify my position.  A few years
  ago, a family had a child which suffered through a high fever, and became
  mentally incapacitated.  They went to the bishop for a blessing for their
  child.  The bishop blessed the child that the fever would subside, and that
  it would find its mental capacities fully restored, and would grow up in
  perfect health.  The child is severely is growing up, but severly mentally
  handicapped.  The family has become antagonistic from the church, but home
  teachers familiar with the family have insisted that the family didn't
  understand the spirit of the blessing.  In this case, when counseling with
  the home teachers, it seemed apparent to me through the SPirit that the former
  bishop pronounced an uninspired blessing, not a blessing that the Lord would
  fulfill at a future time.  Even as their quorum president, it still took me
  much time and energy to get the home teachers to admit this as a possibility.

  Of course we may find out through much soul searching that a blessing may
  be fulfilled in some way other than promised.  We may also learn that the
  blessing may not have been inspired.  I just have a problem with people
  taking these matters so lightly and then expecting the Lord will always
  fulfill the blessings that someone happens to pronounce.  In my experience,
  too many elders mistake the authority of the priesthood for its power.  That
  power ONLY comes with soul searching, introspection, and sincere repentance, 
  and isn't obtained by as many people who claim it.

>  What I object to is the tendency of people to overlook the possibility of
>  a blessing being uninspired, and trying to force an alternative explanation
>  when such is not warranted.

I agree.  I think that many (most?) LDS tend to think in terms of all or
nothing, i.e. our Priesthood leaders are always inspired or they are never
inspired.  It's difficult for one to look at a middle area, especially if 
we're talking about General Authorities.  This has been discussed in note 211
in the context of statements by our leaders, but the reluctance of people
in this regard applies to actions of our leaders as well.

All LDS agree that only Jesus Christ lived a perfect life.  We all agree that
our leaders aren't infallible.  But, we have problems accepting the obvious
fact that people who aren't perfect and infallible will make mistakes in their
lives, and, as a general statement, those persons will make mistakes as they
fulfill their Church callings.  Recognizing this seems to shake the faith of
many people.

I think that part of the problem may be that many LDS haven't really accepted
responsibility for their own lives.  In a way, they seem to be hanging on to
the faith and testimonies of others, and they expect those others to never
make mistakes in their Church callings (after all, who would want to hang on
to someone who is wrong at times...).  I realize that we all hang on to others
at times, and this is both necessary and wise, because we all experience times
of weakness.  But, the time comes for everyone when we have to let go of others
and go it alone, so to speak--not really alone, because Jesus Christ is
always there with is perfect love for us, the Holy Ghost is always there to
strengthen us, and our Heavenly Father is always there waiting for us to come
to him in prayer.

Allen

>I think that part of the problem may be that many LDS haven't really accepted
>responsibility for their own lives.  

	Boy, Allen, did you ever hit it right on.  Change the "LDS" to 
	"people" and there is the problem in a much broader area than just
	the church.  Instead of being accountable for ones own thoughts, 
	actions, etc., people try to either rationalize it away or put the 
	blame on some one or some thing else.

	The faith and testimonies of others are supposed to *help* reaffirm
	our own faith and testimony.  To build us up.  Make us stronger.
	Too many people don't realize that they will be judged only on what
	they do, not what other people do or don't do.

	The old testament covenant people had this problem all the time.
	With Moses and Josua.  Then they asked for a king to take away their 
	responsibilities.  How many people think that the bishop or elder's
	quorum president should do everything?  Amazing, isn't it?

Rick, I'm confused. In .8, you:

1. Criticize those LDS who implicitly trust in those holding the Priesthood
to "do the right thing," so to speak. 

2. Criticize the home teachers for only grudgingly accepting the possibility
that a blessing may not have been inspired, and this even though you were an
Elder's Quorum President. 

Which of the two should I choose as your stand on the subject?

    I have a question about how to deal with life...
    
    We have an individual who is a member of our quorum who works for the
    government.  His responsibilities as a government employee allow him to
    know things about individuals that are not public record.  Because he
    has access to this information, the law says he cannot share his knowledge
    that he gained as a government employee.
    
    The problem is what does he do if a member of the ward is called to a
    position and a sustaining vote is requested.  The person being called
    to the position has done some things that are wrong or illegal, but
    unknown to everyone but the individual who is a government employee. 
    
    The law forbids him from sharing his privileged info with others, yet
    he has a tough time sustaining the individual since he knows they did
    something wrong.
    
    What does he do?  How does he remain honest and fulfill his obligation
    as a church member and yet, uphold the law of the land which says he
    has to keep this privileged information to himself?
    
    scott

	RE: <<< Note 399.12 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON >>>

>    What does he do?  How does he remain honest and fulfill his obligation
>    as a church member and yet, uphold the law of the land which says he
>    has to keep this privileged information to himself?
    
	Scott,
		Abortion is a *law* of the land, but LDS members are not 
	expected to obey it.  This brother has an obligation to inform the 
	bishop of the information with the understanding of where it came
	from.  The Lord does not expect his laws to be superceeded by man.

	Charles

Wow, Scott, that is an interesting situation!

I guess part of the answer lies in the specific restrictions that are placed
on that information.  Since talking to the Bishop about the matter would be
a confidential thing, the law might allow that.  I'm assuming that the
restrictions are intended to prevent others from taking advantage of the
people, and I don't think that talking with the Bishop would be a form of
taking advantage of the person.

I think that as a minimum, the brother with the information would refrain from
sustaining the individual--not necessarily voting against him but at least not
voting for him.

>	This brother has an obligation to inform the 
>	bishop of the information with the understanding of where it came
>	from.

Charles,

I'm not disagreeing with you because I don't know what the specific church 
policies are, but I'm wondering if you could elaborate on this.  Your
comment that the brother has an obligation to inform the Bishop implies that
the handbook says something specific about this situation.

Allen

    Charles,
    
    For the record, I am not talking about abortion, although that is a
    good example of the predicament this individual is in.
    
    What about the 12th Article of Faith?  It states: "We believe in being
    subject to kings, presidents, rulers and majistrates, in obeying,
    honoring and sustaining the law."  Does the law mentioned here only
    apply to laws that are in conformance to the doctrines and teachings of
    the church?
    
    Allen,
    
    That is an interesting point about talking with bishop and the
    confidential nature of what is discussed.
    
    Perhaps, having to take a child out into the foyer at the time the ward
    business is conducted is an alternative.
    
    scott

    When you raise your hand for a name submitted, you do and only
    "sustain" (read support here) the decision and agree to support that
    person in their calling.  It is not a voting process and it need not
    be unanimous.  I have raised my hand as a gesture of non-sustaining and
    non-support for the individual called to a certain position.  It was
    based not upon his/her worthiness, but rather that the person "called"
    would not fulfill and was not capable of fulfilling an important and
    sensitive calling (based upon a close working relationship with that
    person and knowing his/her limitations).  Again, we do not vote in
    this church on callings; we display our support/non-support for the
    decision.  
    
    I remember once in our ward where the Stake President made a decision
    about meeting schedules and there was almost unanimous non-support
    for that decision. A special meeting was held, where the members held
    him accountable for a "bad decision" and probed his reasoning. I was
    somewhat surprised at the member's boldness in asking for an accounting
    of his stewardship, but then again leaders are accountable to those
    they lead.  Several relocated Westerners were almost shocked to see
    this meeting going on.  As for me, having been in the High Council I
    know how seriously our Stake Presidency hold the sacred trust they have
    from the Lord and the people to lead them, and how sensitively they
    mull over every decision that impacts members' lives.
    
    My 2 cents
    
    Paul

>    The problem is what does he do if a member of the ward is called to a
>    position and a sustaining vote is requested.  The person being called
>    to the position has done some things that are wrong or illegal, but
>    unknown to everyone but the individual who is a government employee.     

I agree with Paul Rondina. We are not voting for a person when we sustain 
them. And, as he aptly points out, we can abstain from sustaining the person 
if circumstances warrant it.

But there's an interesting twist to this. This man has access to information 
not of public record, and the information indicts a member of the church for 
"wrong or illegal" acts. If these acts truly are such, is not the individual 
given the right to defend themselves in a court of law against these, as the 
media so frequently words it, "allegations?"

Not only that, but what kinds of wrongs or illegal acts are they? As was 
pointed out earlier, things that may be illegal according to the laws of man 
may not be so in the case of God. Remember Daniel and prayer?

And further, are these acts recent, or from some period of time in the past?
Has the statute of limitations expired, or is this the kind of "information"
that would be really useful if someone decided to, say, run for public office,
where all of a sudden some skeleton in the closet could be brought out into
broad daylight because someone decided it was time to make the "private"
data "public?"

Finally, since these are not matters of public record, and neither are the
proceedings of many an interview of repentant souls with a Bishop, how can
this brother be sure that the issue has not already been dealt with
according to the laws of God? 

Ken

	RE: Note 399.14

>I'm not disagreeing with you because I don't know what the specific church 
>policies are, but I'm wondering if you could elaborate on this.  Your
>comment that the brother has an obligation to inform the Bishop implies that
>the handbook says something specific about this situation.

	Allen,
		Way back around 1974 or so, I remember a priesthood lesson
	which basically said that as an Elder in the church, if you witness
	a sin and do nothing about it, then that sin is upon you as well as
	the person who committed the sin.  I am sorry, but I have been unable
	to find the scriptural reference, and I have been looking for many 
	years.  I joined the church 23-March-1974, and did not take very good
	notes back then.

	I believe that if we have any known information as to why a person 
	is not worthy to hold a particular calling, then we are obligated to
	share that information with the presiding authority.  Just because we
	don't *think* a person is capabile to fulfil a calling is no reason to
	vote against that person.  Who are we to deny that person the Lord's 
	blessings?  People are called to positions in the church by God, and
	only if we have solid information concerning worthiness should we have
	anything to say against that person (IMHO).

	Charles


	RE: <<< Note 399.15 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON "Norwegian Origami Pro" >>>

>    For the record, I am not talking about abortion, although that is a
>    good example of the predicament this individual is in.

	An example is all it was meant to be.  The time will come when a 
	member of the church will have to decide to follow man or God.
    
>    What about the 12th Article of Faith?  It states: "We believe in being
>    subject to kings, presidents, rulers and majistrates, in obeying,
>    honoring and sustaining the law."  

	ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said,  We
		  ought to obey God rather than men.

>    Does the law mentioned here only apply to laws that are in conformance 
>    to the doctrines and teachings of the church?

	It will probably raise a lot of flack, but -- YES!

    	If a law of the land is against God's laws, then I will not follow 
	that law.  Remember that the Book of Mormon shows the example where 
	the voice of the people (who really make the laws of the land) will 
	be against God's laws as they ripen in inequity.

Ken,

> Rick, I'm confused. In .8, you:
> 
> 1. Criticize those LDS who implicitly trust in those holding the Priesthood
> to "do the right thing," so to speak. 
> 
> 2. Criticize the home teachers for only grudgingly accepting the possibility
> that a blessing may not have been inspired, and this even though you were an
> Elder's Quorum President. 
>
> Which of the two should I choose as your stand on the subject?

  It depends on what you mean by "do[ing] the right thing," I suppose.

  I certainly think that for most blessings I have ever received, the person 
  made his best attempt at trying to discern whatever promptings he was 
  receiving.  If that is what doing the right thing is, I also have implicit
  trust in such men doing what is right.

  To me, that does not preclude the possibility that good men may, at times,
  be unable to discern the difference.  It seems reasonable to me that members
  at least be able to recognize that as a possibility without thinking they
  are forsaking the gospel.  In this case, since they were trying to convince
  someone else that the blessing was inspired and trying to contrive an
  explanation (they admitted they didn't know what the real explanation was),
  when the family obviously and repeatedly refused to believe it, it appeared
  to me to be foolish, and just detracted from their opportunity to be of actual
  help to the family.  

  By the way, I rarely take a position that I know that a particular blessing
  is uninspired, basically because I recognize my own inability at times to
  recognize what is truth, but to acknowledge that some of the time it can
  happen, and we shouldn't just blindly dismiss it as a possibility.  I'm not
  asking people to lose their faith, but to recognize that anyone can fail
  without having the gospel be proven false, and without a person's testimony
  being shaken.

Thanks, Charles, for clarifying your comment on that point.

Allen

    I agree a sustaining is not a vote, but an indication that we will
    support the individual being called.  Does it not also indicate we
    agree with the "will of the Lord"?  Someone related to me how a
    sustaining is a covenant with the Lord and has something to do with the
    horizon and the sky representing where the Lord is.  
    
    Charles, are you talking about a type of sin of omissions.  These are
    discussed in _The_Miracle_of_Forgiveness_.  I wonder if there is anything
    in there that refers to what you are looking for.
    
    FWIW, the information on the individual regards taxes and the person
    with the dilema performs audits for the IRS.  What now? 
    
    Thanks.
    
    scott

Now that I know the type of situation, I think that I would not say anything
to the Bishop.  I would pray about this, of course, and if I felt inspired to
talk to the Bishop I would do so; my comments here are "intellectual" thinking
and are not in response to any spiritual guidance.  I'm also assuming that
the matter is a "gray" area of the tax laws, since I'm assuming that the person
is basically a decent and honest person.  If the problem were one of out and out
fraud, then that is a different matter, and even in that case I don't think I
would say anything because the IRS would probably say it for me.

In addition to not talking to the Bishop, I would make my own decision whether
or not I would publicly sustain that person in the meeting.  If I decided to
not sustain him/her, I would not raise my hand against the person but would
refrain from raising it at all.  Once the meeting was over, I would try very
hard to not be judgmental towards the person, and I would try very hard to
support the person through my own actions.

I realize that other noters have different views, and that is fine!

Many years ago, when I was 16, I had a friend who was not active in our
Ward.  He was asked to play on the Ward basketball team.  I felt he
shouldn't do that because he smoked, so I reported that fact to the coach.
My friend, of course, got very mad at me, and I realized later that the 
coach know that about my friend anyway.  I decided that it was better to
let those who administer the Church programs be the judges and that I 
should worry about my own life instead of "riding herd" on others.

Allen

	RE: <<< Note 399.21 by CSC32::S_JOHNSON "Norwegian Origami Pro" >>>

>    FWIW, the information on the individual regards taxes and the person
>    with the dilema performs audits for the IRS.  What now? 
    
	Scott,
		The first thing that comes to mind is why does not the IRS
	auditor talk to the person with the tax problems?  Now, if there is
	a *definite* case of fraud, there is something to be concerned about
	because the person is not honest in his dealings.  But that is also
	a case only the bishop should be concerned about.  And since there 
	is only one witness, there is nothing the bishop can do until the
	person himself brings it up.

	Otherwise, like the case with Allen, the bishop may already know 
	about the problem and is dealing with it.  Leave it alone.  I would
	look very carefully at D&C 64:9-11, and then apply that to this case.

	Charles

    I am not so sure that ALL  the callings extended are "inspired".  I
    remember a ward we lived in. My wife used to say "I think they use
    the ward list and throw darts to determine who gets what calling."  I
    was called as a boy scout leader.  I hate to camp, think the only
    reason for mountains is skiing, and love to sail, sail, sail. We lived
    in Salt Lake.  Naturally I declined the calling, for the boy's sake.
    But this ward was a bit the exception.
    
    Now don't take the above as an "apostate" position, just a curiosity
    that happened to me along the way. Sometimes people are called to
    postions they are to measure up to, others to ones they are quite
    competent at already, and sometimes the calling misses the mark.
    To err is human...
    
    Paul
    
    
    
    

	RE: <<< Note 399.24 by CAPNET::RONDINA >>>

>    I am not so sure that ALL  the callings extended are "inspired".  

	Not ALL callings may not be *inspired*, but they are called of God.

	I think we covered this discussion somewhere else, but basically
	it boils down to bishops, stake presidents, etc. are indeed called
	of God and being servants of God--whomever they call are called of 
	God.  Whether or not they are indeed *inspired* of God is up to
	us to determine.  

	I would definitely NOT want any calling in any shape, manner, or form
	that is associated with the young men, but before I turned it down I 
	would investigate with the Lord to see if was him, or just a position 
	being filled with whomever was available, that was causing the call.
	Even the latter call is still from God, but not inspired.  Even so,
	I would still get blessings from accepting the call.

>    FWIW, the information on the individual regards taxes and the person
>    with the dilema performs audits for the IRS.  What now? 

Being audited by the IRS is not an indication of the person's (lack of) 
worth, or even of committing a wrong. As was pointed out, deliberate 
attempts by a person to defraud the government of "its?" money are illegal, 
but errors in judgement, incorrectly filling out paperwork, missing a year, 
failing to file on time, etc. -- are these really illegal or immoral? I 
doubt it.

Ken

>  It depends on what you mean by "do[ing] the right thing," I suppose.
>
>  I certainly think that for most blessings I have ever received, the person 
>  made his best attempt at trying to discern whatever promptings he was 
>  receiving.  If that is what doing the right thing is, I also have implicit
>  trust in such men doing what is right.

Ditto. And I think that we're on the same wavelength here. I should point 
out myself that I don't think that blessings are an all or nothing affair, 
either. There may be segments of a particular blessing where we feel as 
though we are groping our way along a very dark corridor, and other moments 
when we are in the Light, and know it.

I like a blessing, whether I'm administering or on the receiving end, that
smacks more of the latter tone. 

Ken

    I agree that sustaining a person is not voting. It is more nearly a
    personal pledge something that commits us.  I consider that one should
    raise his/her hand to not sustain if there is some reason that they
    personally can not support/sustain/cooperate with... that person in
    that position. By raining one's hand then one should expect to talk to
    a person in authority about the issue, BUT should recognize that the
    topic of such discussion is why they can't sustain. In other words, the
    gist of the discussion is very likely to be about the person who feels
    they can't sustain. Further this discussion might provide a new insight 
    for this individual and allow them to now truly sustain and support
    this person and the decision that was made.  Such a result is very
    healthy for the individuals and for the organization as a whole.  To
    simply not raise one's hand either way, does not really address the
    problem so the problem persists. If I were in such a situation, I would
    hope that I would then afterward go to the bishop or stake president
    etc. to have the same discussion that I would have had if I raised my
    hand against this decision. I would want to do this so i could clear up
    or purge out some hard feelings (my own) that don't need to be there
    and that if left might grow worse.
    
    Second part.... There has been a tone in some of the replys that
    suggests that we all have an obligation to let the bishop etc. know if
    we know something about a person that is being called, especially if it
    might affect their ability to do that calling. I Disagree! I believe
    that a calling is normally and should be something inspired, and should
    be something that the persons directly involved (the person being
    called and the persons that they will work most directly with) can
    support. By support I mean that they at least have a belief that the
    Lord will help them to grow into being able to do this responsibility.
    
    What I do not believe is that a person needs to be capable to do a
    calling to be given that calling. In fact I believe that very often in
    this church people are givne and accept callings and responsibilities
    that they are in fact not capable of doing. This is done with the full
    knowledge and awareness of the bishop/stake president and also the
    leaders that will work most directly with that person and it is done so
    that the power of the Lord can truly work in the lives of all involved
    and a miracle can be performed and this person can grow. If I were
    responsible for such a decision and some person raised thier hand to
    oppose the action, I would not feel bad, but in talking with that
    person afterwards, I would try to help them to open thier heart to make
    room for the miracle to happen. In other words they might sustain this
    individual in their great new challenge, and accept less performance
    in this new role while the growth happens.  Such is the miracle of
    growth that we are expected to do here on this earth. This is also a
    way in which this church differs from most organizations, namely the
    main objective is growth and development of individuals rather than
    focusing on the quality of the funcitons or services performed. If I
    were in a ward that had their main objective the other way, I would be
    afraid to try much of what might have been asked of me because I know I
    would be judged and found lacking and I am a weak person that feels bad
    when I feel such judgements.
    
    Third  Inpired callings... I can speak from experience that sometimes
    callings issued are not as inspired as we hope, but I also want to say,
    that the Lord seemed to keep working with us to help us learn to get
    more inspiration in our callings.  The specific one that I wish to
    mention is while I was relatively young, and acting as a Mutual
    Superintendent (Young Men's President in today's terms) I asked for a
    particular recently returned missionary to be the Explorer adviser, In
    retrospect I think I asked for him from far too many "reasons" and not
    nearly enough "guidance" The bishopric approved, the young man was
    called and accepted, but unfortunately it did not work out well for him
    or for the Explorers that he was leading. I tried to work with him and
    help thing get better but it was just not right. Then I got to struggle
    with the potential worsening of the situation by releasing him when he
    just got started and hence destroying his self image even more than it
    was already getting destroyed. I really agonized, then he announced
    that he would be getting married soon and would be moving out of the
    ward. I believe that the Lord knew from the beginning how the whole
    thing would work out, so He let me go ahead with my "uninspired"
    decision because he knew that inthe process I would learn a lot of
    important things and in the end it wouldn't hurt this good brother
    either. The rest of the story is that in choosing the next Explorer
    adviser, there was a very much more humble person making the decision,
    In the end we issued the call to a man that had just moved into the
    ward, who had been inactive for years and who was very "scared" to take
    the responsibility, who in turn became one of the two or three best
    Explorer advisors that I have ever known and served well and faithfully
    in that calling for many years to the great benefit of himself, his
    family and the many boys he worked with. (Yet I bet there were more
    than a few folks in the congregation that would have been afraid to
    sustain him if they only knew his background as well as the bishopric
    and I did).
    
    In summary, I think sustaining is a wonderful concept with wonderful
    ramifications but let's remember it is not so much about us approving
    someone else as it is about us pledging our support, may we be "big
    enough" to do it whole heartedly.
    
    Your brother
    
    Len
    

    I really would like more discussion on the title of this note, eg.
    "How do we handle problems in life?"
    
    Who out there has some suggestions for me on this one:
    
    When sometimes you know in your head, that if you just study the
    scriptures daily, have honest sincere prayers, be a "good spouse" and
    "good father", do your home teaching promptly and with genuine concern
    for the individuals, and do your church calling ...... Then you will be
    happy and fullfilled, you will feel the Spirit of the Lord in you life
    and you will be successful.  YET in your heart you feel inadequate,
    afraid to try, and ....  SO you find that you just can't make yourself
    do all those things that are supposed to make it all right, therefore
    you blame yourself (in your heart) even more and the cycle continues.
    
    
    Can anyone relate to this? (I imagine there are more than a few), How
    have you been able to make progress? how have you been able to feel
    better about yourself even in a small way? How have you been able to
    feel a closer link to the Lord? How have you been able to more nearly
    see yourself as God sees you?
    
    Looking forward to experiences from my fellow noters and brothers and
    sisters.
    
    your brother 
    
    Len
    

>    When sometimes you know in your head, that if you just study the
>    scriptures daily, have honest sincere prayers, be a "good spouse" and
>    "good father", do your home teaching promptly and with genuine concern
>    for the individuals, and do your church calling ...... Then you will be
>    happy and fullfilled, you will feel the Spirit of the Lord in you life
>    and you will be successful.  YET in your heart you feel inadequate,
>    afraid to try, and ....  SO you find that you just can't make yourself
>    do all those things that are supposed to make it all right, therefore
>    you blame yourself (in your heart) even more and the cycle continues.
    
Hi Len,

I would suggest that you have it backwards.  If we really listen to our
heart, which means feelings from the Holy Ghost, we will be strengthened
and will have a desire to try.  I would suggest that it is your head that
is telling you you are inadequate and afraid.

Fear comes from not giving love to yourself and others, and it is your head
that causes that.  Your heart is full of love, just waiting for you to
release it.  If you follow your heart as you come unto Christ, (as the
members did who listened to King Benjamin) you operate on love rather
than on head-trips that are negative and bring fear.  Love and your
heart are positive.

Your heart tells you that you love Christ and that you really do want to
serve others.  Your head tells you, "Nah, I can't do that...I'm too shy"
(or whatever you *think* [thinking is a head-trip] the problem is).

My .02

Allen

	Paul,
		The first thing I would ask myself is does this really
	bother me.  Then I would try to be specific as to exactly "what"
	was offensive (otherwise it should be no big deal).  Once that
	is established, then you must decide for yourself if it is worth
	pursuing.  

		Would you feel a lot better if you were able to confront
	this person and air your concerns?  

		What exactly do you want from the confrontation?  

		Do you really think some non-member jock cares about what
	impression he gives?  From the way you described his dress, I don't 
	think so.  Why beat your head up against a wall?  

	The most lasting result from this experience will be how you handle
	it on a personal basis, and how you can grow from the effects of the
	experience.  Why cause yourself more pain than is necessary?  You
	should also remember that the people that know *you* are a Mormon 
	will watch to see how you handle the situation.  I think that is more
	important than some dumb jock trying to make an impression.

	Charles

Hi Paul,

My experience has been that unless people ask for feedback, they resent
receiving it.  I think that if I were in your situation, I would give him the
feedback, but I would try to do it in a non-threatening way.

I would send him a letter in which I would introduce myself and say that I
enjoyed his talk (I'm assuming, Paul, that you did enjoy it even though you
have concerns about some of his conduct).  Then I would say that I thought he
might be interested in the reaction of the audience to his talk, and I would
pass on my observations as to how others reacted.  I would include both
positive and negative reactions.  I would be careful to be nonjudgmental about
his conduct, because he is a smart guy and should be able to figure out that
the embarrassment of his audience was his problem not theirs.

Allen

    Paul Rondina asked me to post this for him.

                                   * * *

    I have a question to ask and need help from fellow LDS in this
    conference.  I am putting my question here because I have a small
    problem and would like feedback.  Here is the situation:
    
    I went to a Rotary club dinner last night at which the guest speaker
    was a person who is an official at one of the local hospitals.  The
    man has a Ph.D from BYU.  He took the podium and proceeded to tell
    how he was a C- student in high school, went to Atlantic Union
    College by the skin of his teeth, decided that he had to do something
    with his life, so he chose his profession and then went on to BYU.
    At BYU he had a 3.9, graduated with honors, was class valedictorian.
    Conclusion- a real achiever.
    
    He stood in front of this group of Rotarians which consisted of the
    "rich and famous" of our town (i.e. selectmen, doctors, lawyers,
    prominent business people, etc.)  His shirt was unbuttoned, with tie
    hanging 2 inches below an open collar.
    
    His presentation was the usual diatribe about setting goals, putting
    your whole self in the achievement of your career goals, blah, blah,
    blah. His whole presentation was full of platitudes, moralizing (you
    should, you gotta, etc.) and disconnected thoughts.
    
    The absolute worst part was when he scratched his crotch, 3 times!  Not
    discreetly did he do this, but blatant scratching, at which people at my
    table looked at each other and rolled their eyes.
    
    I was ashamed and embarrassed for him, but more importantly for BYU
    since he made such a point to establish his credibility with a
    reference to BYU.  I met the superintendent of schools on the way out
    and mentioned that she should not judge all BYU graduates by this guy.
    
    My problem:  Should I call him and  give him feedback on 1) his
    presentation messages, 2)his presentation style (especially the crotch
    stuff, 3)and his representing BYU by presenting a positive image?
    
    By the way this guy was a real "jock" in the worst sense of the word,
    meaning all of life's problems can be solved by engaging in sports.
    
    Your comments welcomed, please.
    
    Thanks, Paul

               <<< Note 399.31 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>
                            -< Comments requested >-

    Paul Rondina asked me to post this for him.

                                   * * *

    My problem:  Should I call him and  give him feedback on 1) his
    presentation messages, 2)his presentation style (especially the crotch
    stuff, 3)and his representing BYU by presenting a positive image?
    
    By the way this guy was a real "jock" in the worst sense of the word,
    meaning all of life's problems can be solved by engaging in sports.
    
    Your comments welcomed, please.
    
    Thanks, Paul

Hiya Paul,
    With regard to previous replies on this, my concern would be primarily
    towards the "damage" (if any) that was caused by the unstated BYU 
    (read: Mormon school) don't really care about the image they present
    in a public forum; secondly towards the individual who for whatever
    reason presented his talk in this particular fashion.  
    With regard to writing him a letter, if it will any good then it might
    be wise, otherwise if his action was intentional, then it might be
    worse next time.

-- John.

    Well, I just got back from a "vacation" in Missouri ...
    
    Seems to me that a guy that gets up in front of a dignified crowd,
    boasts about how smart he is and then intentionally does crotch
    scratchin' has pretty much discredited himself.  I don't think I'd do a
    thing about it.  These folks have probably already heard about BYU and
    about the Church ...  enough to know that public crotch-scratchin' is 
    likely not a part of the culture.  I'd let it go and avoid drawing
    further attention.
    
    Steve