cougarobgon...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've noticed it's a tradition for the new MP to totally trash the old one. I've seen this happen too often to be coincidence. And considering the kids are all pretty much brainwashed, it's easy to do.

my mission

MP A: mission in dumps, no success, lots of goofing off
MP B: institutes tight discipline, rules out the ying-yang, significant up-tick in success
MP C (my MP): rules by respect, trusts the missionaries, baptisms explode upward.
MP D: mission immediately tanks, baptisms down big-time.

Then a few years after that I return to my old stomping grounds, and the church house that I was present at during the dedication (culmination of years of work with the members) was weed-infested and abandoned. Not a single active member.

On the main island, everytime I check in on the elders, they are in their house.

Missions are funny creatures. My MP was top-notch impressive humble man. I think the missionaries realized the next guy was 1/4 the man, and the whole mission deflated.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by scottie

Thanks for the response cougarobgon. So at some point (maybe for your entire 6 years?) while you were a bishop you would have given Member A a temple recommend and denied Member B. Is that not a perfect example of LDS members thinking that WOW adherence is more important than Christian values?

Not attacking, simply discussing.

You didn't read his response very closely. He discussed several variations on your hypotheticals and also the likelihood of differeing repsonses based on his own attitudes.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

my mission

MP A: mission in dumps, no success, lots of goofing off
MP B: institutes tight discipline, rules out the ying-yang, significant up-tick in success
MP C (my MP): rules by respect, trusts the missionaries, baptisms explode upward.
MP D: mission immediately tanks, baptisms down big-time.

Then a few years after that I return to my old stomping grounds, and the church house that I was present at during the dedication (culmination of years of work with the members) was weed-infested and abandoned. Not a single active member.

On the main island, everytime I check in on the elders, they are in their house.

Missions are funny creatures. My MP was top-notch impressive humble man. I think the missionaries realized the next guy was 1/4 the man, and the whole mission deflated.

One the stories in my mission, is that when MP C (my MP) arrived in the mission. He got off the plane and the APs that were waiting for him said, "Sorry President, but it's against the rules to wear sunglasses." My MP replies, "It's not anymore."

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

Really? How often have you seen this? serously, how many times have you 'seen' this?

My MP spoke very highly of the MP before him. The prior MP had lots of success, baptisms were high, etc..

My MP was a simple high school teacher from AZ. He and his wife were not overly wealthy. He was not flashy. But this man loved the missionaries. Both he and his wife had a genuine interest in us, worried about us when we were sick, visited the zones often, etc..

He remains, to this day, one of the greatest people I have ever associated with. I really loved my MP and his wife. I NEVER heard him say a negative thing about much of anything, let alone the prior MP.

He did once say that a pair of sister missionaries were nitwits, but that is because they were. One of them had bought a monkey named "Martin" and was keeping it in their room. The other sister didnt like the monkey. I guess the monkey bit that sister and so the Elders made the first sister get rid of Martin. Poor Martin.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by creekster

You didn't read his response very closely. He discussed several variations on your hypotheticals and also the likelihood of differeing repsonses based on his own attitudes.

Are you saying that because I added, "... (maybe for your entire 6 years?) ..."? I actually read it very closely. I stated, "So at some point (maybe for your entire 6 years?) while you were a bishop you would have given Member A a temple recommend and denied Member B." b/c of what he said here:

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Now to answer your question, the young (32 y/o) cougarobgon bishop, without hesitation would have answered YES to Member A and NO to Member B. I did not ask for the calling, yet I accepted it along with all my shortcomings. I was very judgmental and could not understand how an endowed member could break the wow, not attend Church every Sunday, etc...and my intent was to preside with an "Iron Fist". ...

He continued by only focusing on the WOW issue, only mentioning the dishonesty by saying, "If were a bishop now, Would I say YES to Member A? I believe so.":

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

If were a bishop now, Would I say YES to Member A? I believe so. Would I say NO to Member B? Not without hesitating and seeking clarification about the underlying circumstances that lead the member to willfully break the wow. If the "occasionally" means that Member B drinks wine every couple of weeks, I would probably say NO at that interview and invite Member B to come back in a few weeks to see how he is doing. Would I say Yes? Probably, it just depends on the Member B's attitude and the circumstances that lead him to break the wow.

What did I miss creekster?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by scottie

What did I miss creekster?

How abotu this:

But, then something happened, as I began to get to know each member of my ward, I began to see beyond those outwardly measurements and began to address each issue on its own merits...

Or this:

To me a major component of the decisions I made was the attitude of the member.

Or this:

The attitude of Member A and Member B would definitively influence my decision.

All of which undercut your premise. You are trying too hard ot fit his answer into your notion. That's not to say you are necessarily always wrong, but his response shows, IMO, that the answer is much more complicated than your approach.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by creekster

How abotu this:



Or this:



Or this:



All of which undercut your premise. You are trying too hard ot fit his answer into your notion. That's not to say you are necessarily always wrong, but his response shows, IMO, that the answer is much more complicated than your approach.

Just face it -- an LDS member can be admittedly dishonest and still get a TR, but admittedly breaking the WOW disqualifies him/her. That says something about the priority IMO.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by scottie

Just face it -- an LDS member can be admittedly dishonest and still get a TR, but admittedly breaking the WOW disqualifies him/her. That says something about the priority IMO.

Or the opposite could be true (if the WOW violation was isolated and regretted while the dishonesty was signfiicant or criminal, for example). This is my point: You want to prove that the membership values WOW more than hoinesty and that this value is implemented by leadership and it just is nto so, at least not always and, in my mind, not even that often. (This was discussed at great length in your other thread, so I won't go into all the reasons why here.)

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by scottie

Just face it -- an LDS member can be admittedly dishonest and still get a TR, but admittedly breaking the WOW disqualifies him/her. That says something about the priority IMO.

My Bishop recently told the Priests that if they had experimented here and there with alcohol, drugs, or masturbation, he didnt need to see them.

He wasn't concerned that they had slipped up and experimented. he was concerned about whether they were going to repent and stop. If they could not stop on their own, he wanted to see them. Otherwise, he said to repent and abandon.

I have no way of knowing, but I find it hard to believe that the same Bishop would withold a TR from an adult who had some wine with dinner, but then stopped doing it.

cougarobgon's post reflects a sentiment that i hope is common amongst our leaders.....dont get hung up on the letter of the law....worry more about the spirit of the law and the repentant attitude of the sinner. Based on the fact that we are not excommunicating our members in droves and droves, I would venture to say that most Bishops are more concerned with the Spirit of the law. Rightfully so.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by scottie

Just face it -- an LDS member can be admittedly dishonest and still get a TR, but admittedly breaking the WOW disqualifies him/her. That says something about the priority IMO.

Holy hell, just how superficial with this topic can you be?