Redemption

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm quite surprised their not gods or demigods in Tex's eyes, incapable of error or mistake. We never should approach leaders with any concerns especially not in a tactful way, but we should brood upon their mistakes until it becomes so caustic that it burns holes in our faith which are inrreparable.

*Tex rolls his eyes.*

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

*Tex rolls his eyes.*

And he probably farts, burps, masturbates, and yells at his kids too. What's new.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think the Brethren want to create the impression that the first thing we should do is go to the Stake President when we have a disagreement with the Bishop.

A stake president is a local leader and it is always appropriate to contact your local leaders about issues having to do with your church calling. Yes, even to talk about a concern you have with your bishop. That is way, way, more appropriate than discussing it with random church members.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

A stake president is a local leader and it is always appropriate to contact your local leaders about issues having to do with your church calling. Yes, even to talk about a concern you have with your bishop. That is way, way, more appropriate than discussing it with random church members.

Requiem's approach was THE classic example of how to achieve a proper response. The Tex ostrich approach creates animosity resulting in no positive changes.

[MikeWaters]

Let's not make this thread about Tex. That's what he wants.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Requiem's approach was THE classic example of how to achieve a proper response. The Tex ostrich approach creates animosity resulting in no positive changes.

we're all human, even bishops and stake presidents. I'm sure even Indy and Tex have disagreed with some decision made by a bishop at some point. But it requires a little spiritual maturity to understand when is the right time to discuss something about your bishop's decision with your stake president. Unfortunately what often happens in these kinds of situations is that the person who feels wronged makes a few comments to other people and then the word leaks out through the grapevine and it causes gossip throughout the ward. What Requiem did was the perfect response to the situation, IMO.

[Requiem]

Pardon my idealism, but what more important role can a local leader have than meeting with and addressing the needs of his flock? I would prefer to believe my experience does not represent an aberration. In fact, during the opening of our meeting the SP made an interesting comment to the effect that his most important responsibility was "bringing souls to Christ". This comment was made in reference to his concern about the departing choir members. How does one do this in a vacuum? Why would anyone be hesitant or afraid to engage in dialogue with their local leaders?

I find myself still very touched and grateful for the help of CG. Thank you again for your genuine interest and wise advice.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is example 564641346451 of Tex refusing to answer a direct question and instead asking a personal question.

No offense to SIEQ, but it was an inane question.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Requiem's approach was THE classic example of how to achieve a proper response. The Tex ostrich approach creates animosity resulting in no positive changes.

It's not an ostrich approach. I agree with BlueK:

Originally Posted by BlueK

we're all human, even bishops and stake presidents. I'm sure even Indy and Tex have disagreed with some decision made by a bishop at some point. But it requires a little spiritual maturity to understand when is the right time to discuss something about your bishop's decision with your stake president. Unfortunately what often happens in these kinds of situations is that the person who feels wronged makes a few comments to other people and then the word leaks out through the grapevine and it causes gossip throughout the ward. What Requiem did was the perfect response to the situation, IMO.

Although I recommended against going to the SP, I didn't say it was impossible to have a good outcome. Both these men were equal to their call and handled the fallout with grace. I'm happy it turned out well.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

No offense to SIEQ, but it was an inane question.

Huh?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

No offense to SIEQ, but it was an inane question.

Inane? It's right on point, and if you candidly and directly addressed it this discussion might actually progress.