Blogger of Jared

32 Responses to “When I Am President”

Wow, these are some really good questions!

As for your comment about presidents having a “huge influence” on their missionaries, my life attests to that truth. I wouldn’t be in law school right now if I didn’t go on a mission and serve under two mission presidents who were both attorneys.

Comment # 1 left by Wade on April 18th, 2006

Great post C!

I wrote a post almost as good as this once that listed some leadership qualities the church looks for, I really agree with these so I will paste them here:

1. Do they have a testimony of Jesus Christ, and do they bear it?
2. Do they have good judgment, and give good counsel?
3. Are they a good teacher?
4. Have they had good experience in the church?
5. Are they kind?
6. Is their house in order?
7. Are they humble enough to take hard counsel?
8. Do they know which direction they face?

You asked a lot of questions, one was what kind of president would I be. Well, I have grown to hate gimmicks. I have become a believer in that if you want someone to improve in the gospel you must strengthen their testimony. I think I would center everything on that. I would be constantly trying to strengthen the missionaries testimonies and asking them to do the same with everyone they worked with.

I also think I would try as hard as I could to take numbers very seriously, and expect that if we did things in the right way and spirit that the numbers would take care of themselves. I would try not to congratulate or ‘punish’ anyone based on numbers alone. I am a sports lover, but I don’t want a mission newsletter that reminds anyone of a sports page boxscore.

But on bad behavior, I think I would be pretty tough.

Comment # 2 left by Eric on April 18th, 2006

CRAP! Of course I meant NOT take numbers very seriously. I’m an idiot sometimes. Some mission president I would be. ‘No Elders, I meant DON’T sleep all day!’

Comment # 3 left by Eric on April 18th, 2006

Eric:

No, you’re not an “idiot”, quite perceptive actually.

I have become a believer in that if you want someone to improve in the gospel you must strengthen their testimony. I think I would center everything on that. I would be constantly trying to strengthen the missionaries testimonies and asking them to do the same with everyone they worked with.

This is spot on! I was VERY fortunate to serve under two mission presidents who were spiritual giants. Our mission as a whole was very successful not because our president stressed numbers, but because they were chiefly concerned about every missionary’s testimony. They knew the gospel inside and out and taught by the Spirit in a way I’ve never experienced before nor since.

Comment # 4 left by Wade on April 18th, 2006

If I could offer some evidence in support of the numbers…

At one point during my time as a district leader of our Deaf District, I was lightly chastised by our mission president because our missionaries had not been “opening their mouths” on the streets of L.A.

I committed to him that we would improve and instead of getting 2-3 referrals/week between 6 elders, we would get a grand total of 100 referrals in the upcoming week.

Every elder in the district committed and we spoke to evvvvverybody we met. The deaf elders would write notes to hearing people on the buses and trains while the hearing elders would speak to evryone we saw on the street. We finished teh week with 150 people who were interested in having the missionaries stop by their house. We were exhausetd and felt like it was the only thing we had done all week. But we noticed something interesting… our other stats for the week had gone up. Our investigators had made more commitments than usual and we confirmed our first baptism date in quite a while.

I gained something of a testimony of “the nunbers” that week and never spoke disparagingly towards them for the rest of my mission..

Comment # 5 left by Ryan on April 18th, 2006

Ryan:

Good point. I think there is a difference between numbers that we can control, and numbers that we can’t. Setting goals that have to do with things we can control is fine. To often goals are set on numbers that we have (or should not have) control over.

Comment # 6 left by Eric on April 19th, 2006

C:

I was thinking more about this this morning. I have four sons who I hope will all go on missions. I am actually much more concerned with the companions they will have than with the mission president they will have.

My mission president was great, but my interaction with him consisted of attending some Zone conference for a couple of hours, and maybe a 5 minute interview each month. That’s it.

Companions on the other hand are 24/7. There is also a much greater risk and range with missionaries opposed to mission presidents. For me, other missionaries had a much greater affect day-to-day than the mission preseident.

Comment # 7 left by Eric on April 19th, 2006

Great comments!

Wade said:
They knew the gospel inside and out and taught by the Spirit in a way I’ve never experienced before nor since.

This sounds like the result of a lifetime of preparation and setting priorities. These men may have never expected to be called as a MP, but I have to think that they were choosing to live with faithful constancy and so got to the point of that kind of confidence in the gospel that is so powerful and effective.

Comment # 8 left by C Jones on April 19th, 2006

C:

I completely agree!

Comment # 9 left by Wade on April 19th, 2006

Eric- Your leadership post was much better! What a great list. Thanks for sharing it here.

I like how you get right to the heart of a mission- gimmicks, numbers, and companions!

So far:
gimmicks = yuck
Numbers = good when used to create a goal that is a)a challenge and b) still reachable
Companions = I’m thinking about this one…

Comment # 10 left by C Jones on April 19th, 2006

Oh, I’m sooooo subtle.

Comment # 11 left by Eric on April 19th, 2006

OK- Companions.

I’ve always thought it would be wonderful if no one ever got sent home from a mission. What they face when that happens is often appalling. I happen to think that mistakes made by immature kids should not follow them in public shame perpetually, as often seems to happen. I tend to want to think the best of people, and would probably be a total pushover for the more manipulative types.

If my own child were struggling on a mission, I would want the MP to be as patient and supportive as possible. But of course in real life, missionaries really do sometimes deserve to be sent home. And as a mom, I can be pretty protective- I want them to have the best experience, the best president, the best companions.

So in a way, this is at the heart of my questions in this post. How does a mission president find the balance between what is best for any individual missionary, and what is best for the mission- as in the other missionaries and the work itself?

Comment # 12 left by C Jones on April 19th, 2006

I think this is part of what is meant by characteristic 8 on the list I had. Knowing which direction you face. As with most any calling, the mission president is called to represent the Lord to the missionaries. As if ‘He’ were the mission president. Ultimately the loyalty needs to be to the Lord, the church, it’s leaders, etc. He should seek revelation on these important matters and go with it.

It is not just the missionary who is messing up that has a stake in all of this. What if a missionary who was breaking serious rules or even commandments was your childs companion? There are missionaries out there who no child of yours should have to endure 24/7 for a few months. And it is my understanding that very rarely are missionareis who are just lazy goofs or slackers get sent home. I hope that if there are missionaries that should be sent home, do get sent before my kids are their companion.

Comment # 13 left by Eric on April 19th, 2006

I agree with Eric’s assessment that lazy, do-nothing, missionaries are one of the worst things that happen to their companions.

I was unfortunate enough to have a companion who absolutely refused to get out of bed before noon and who would stay up extremely late playing video games and listening to his AC/DC CDs. It was my third companion and right at the beginning of my second area (I was obviously still junior companion). We never did any work and would only leave the apartment for dinner appointments. It was a LIVING HELL for me. I reported the issues to my mission president (whom I have already said I completely idolize) but he was a “softy” and took the testimony building approach with every missionary.

At an interview with my president during these episodes, he told me to to take the time during my days in the apartment to study the scriptures, discussions, and gospel scholarship. I did. As a result, I had all six discussions memorized and felt like a much more powerful missionary as a result of it.

However, it was by far the most trying experience of my mission. At one time I had the phone book out looking up cab services; I was considering a ride to the airport in Colorado Springs. I’m glad I didn’t follow through.

Overall, mission presidents have a very difficult go at it. Their decisions regarding motivation and obedience for the missionaries must be some of the toughest decisions they ever make in life. Because, as C has said, their decisions make or break missionaries. Looking back, I think my president was extremely wise in his approach with both my companion and me.

Comment # 14 left by Wade on April 19th, 2006

An uncle of mine was a mission president in the Phillipines; he said it was like a three-year campout with two-hundred priests. We laughed. He didn’t.

Comment # 15 left by Edje on April 19th, 2006

I was 26 when I went into the MTC. I served in a third-world country. So YES, I heartily concur that it is both like camping out, and being with 16/17 year olds!

There were no priests in the ward I was in for the 2 years I was a member prior to my mission. If I had only known….

I mistakenly assumed that Mormon missionaries always behaved like they did when they were around investigators or at the chapel.

I still recommend that boys born in the church prepare themselves and go on a mission. Of course they should pray about it, and follow the Spirit. And in the absence of a definitive answer, the “default” should be to submit the application to go on a mission.

For those who join the church at age 16 or later, it should also be a matter of prayer, and they should follow the Spirit about whether to go or not. However, in the absence of a definitive spiritual confirmation either way, I think the “default” for a convert should be to not go.

I was amazed at how much the church’s missionary program and missionary leadership is geared to born-in-the-church missionaries, and not to converts at all.

There were no questions on the application to ask whether my parents were members or not, or whether they supported the idea of me going on a mission. I had to turn over my temporal affairs to a friend in my home ward, because if I had given my parents access to my finances, I worried that my father would have cut off my funds in an attempt to get me to come back.

And, any correspondence from the church to them, written as if they were members, would have really ticked them off.

Comment # 16 left by Bookslinger on April 20th, 2006

he said it was like a three-year campout with two-hundred priests.

Ha! What a great line!

Bookslinger:
I was amazed at how much the church’s missionary program and missionary leadership is geared to born-in-the-church missionaries, and not to converts at all.

I am a lifelong member but my husband is a convert. His dad’s family is Catholic and his mom’s family are Baptists. It has been an eye-opener to see things from his “outsider” point-of-view! We have a lot of room for improvement, for sure. My kids have told me they are thankful for the perspective they have gained by having family members of other religions.

What could/should longtime members be doing to be more aware of the needs of converts? You say:

For those who join the church at age 16 or later, it should also be a matter of prayer, and they should follow the Spirit about whether to go or not. However, in the absence of a definitive spiritual confirmation either way, I think the “default” for a convert should be to not go.

Is there anything that can be done (or that someone could have done for you) that would change this?

Comment # 17 left by C Jones on April 20th, 2006

Me: For those who join the church at age 16 or later, it should also be a matter of prayer, and they should follow the Spirit about whether to go or not. However, in the absence of a definitive spiritual confirmation either way, I think the “default” for a convert should be to not go.

CJ: Is there anything that can be done (…) that would change this?

I think that’s the way it should be, but it is entirely up to the individual, and of course the Bishop should provide counsel.

Whether the guideline should be 18 or 16 or younger to define “convert” I don’t know.

But if someone joins the church with a testimony, then they have the faith to find out Heavenly Father’s will about whether they should go on a mission. So I believe they will most often get an answer either way, to go, or not to go.

It’s likely that some born-in-church 19 year-olds who don’t have a testimony, and haven’t learned how to recognize answers to prayers, or haven’t learned how to hear the Holy Ghost, won’t get or won’t recognize an answer.

So the “default” will be needed more with those who grew up in the church than with converts.

I never received a confirmation when I prayed about going on a mission. However, I then made a big mistake. I should have prayed “Should I NOT go on a mission?” But I didn’t.

So that’s what I would suggest to someone who doesn’t get an answer. “Did you then pray about the opposite?” If you still get no answer, then you’re asking the wrong question, and need to ponder/study more.

Since the answers we seek are in the form of “Yes/No/no-response” (burning in the bosom, stupor of thought, or nothing) we have to ask the opposite (or a different question) if we don’t get any answer at all.

The purpose of the mission is still “mainly” for the missionary. The program and the leadership are still geared toward the least common denominator, they basically have to be. And the LCD is a 19 year old who was born in the church and doesn’t have a strong testimony when he starts his mission.

I’m not saying converts shouldn’t go. I wish more converts would go on missions. But, in my opinion, they should only do so with a definite confirmation that it is the Lord’s will.

Comment # 18 left by Bookslinger on April 20th, 2006

I’m not sure what the official new post-”raise the bar” missionary qualifications are.

But from what I gathered by hearing/reading the announcement by Elder Ballard in the Oct 2002 conference, they are really the same qualifications as before, except now they are enforced. The only thing that changed was “now we mean it.”

CJ, as a mother of a future missionary, here’s what I’d recommend you and your husband teach your sons:

1. Teach how to get a testimony. I don’t believe one needs an “I know” kind of testimony to be a missionary, but he needs to be well into the “I firmly believe” territory, and completely out of the “I think” section of the testimony scale. “I _think_ the church is true” WILL NOT CUT IT.

“I think” is merely an intellectual opinion. “I believe” carries a committment with it. If one doesn’t believe strongly enough to be committed, it’s not enough to sustain one on a mission.

Also, a testimony (even the “I believe” level of testimony) for a prospective missionary needs to be based on some sort of spiritual confirmations or evidences, and not based just on the testimony of others.

If someone enters missionary service without spiritual experiences of his own, he won’t be able to have the credentials or believability as he teaches others to seek their own spiritual experiences and confirmations.

If I were a Bishop I would not sign the mission application papers of a young man who had not had spiritual experiences.

2. Teach responsiblity and self-reliance. He’s got to be able to get out of bed, and to do chores without being told/reminded by others.

3. Teach cleaning. Specifically how to clean a kitchen and bathroom and maintain good hygiene in those areas. This is a major problem, and it’s not entirely the fault of the locale. Missionaries have really made rough situations worse by poor cleaning and hygiene.

4. Teach how to do laundry. Teach machine and hand laundry techniques too. The latter gives your sons ability to be trailblazers in the field, going places in 3rd world countries where they won’t be able to get others to do their laundry for them. (There were no washing machines that I knew of in Ecuador, and fortunately, we always found locals to do our laundry by hand.)

5. Teach basic cooking. What has to be peeled, what can be washed and eaten raw, and what has to be cooked. How to tell when a meat dish, and vegetable dish is ‘done’, especially when it’s sufficiently cooked to kill bacteria.

Stews and soups are the easiest and most basic items able to be made almost everywhere in the world. Boiling a stew/soup until everything has desired tenderness, and for at least 30 minutes will kill almost all bacteria in the food.

I learned that any vegetable or pasta that is “boilable” can go into a soup/stew. Make a big pot on Sunday, and if you have a refrigerator, it can last 5 days.

6. Teach basic nutrition. The importance of vegetables, fruit, and fiber to maintain health. I see too many missionaries eating mainly meat, fat, too many starches, and sugar. Teach how to make complete proteins out of vegetables (ie beans and rice.) Teach that the vast majority of food intake needs to be vegetables/fruit.

7. If you want your sons to be “food gods” and have other missionaries worship at their feet, teach them to make pizza from scratch. There’s nothing like a good American pizza in the remote corners of the earth where the locals don’t know about it. The secret is in the crust and the sauce. The toppings can be made from local vegetables. I wish I had had good pizza crust and sauce recipes with me. I could have made pizza from scratch with ingredients available in rural Ecuador. But only the big cosmopolitan cities had pizza restaurants.

8. Teach how to make fry-breads (scone like) out of flour, powdered milk, and water, then deep fried in oil. Not something you want regulary, but a good comfort food at the end of a hard day.

9. Teach how to make quick-breads.

9.5. Teach how to make a simple dessert from oats, cocoa powder, powdered milk, sugar and water. I lost the recipe my first comp taught me. But we made it on the stove-top in a pan, no baking.

10. Teach how to make tortillas. Ingredients available almost world-wide.

10.5. Teach how to cook rice. Both “boil down to dry” method, and “use excess water then drain” method. Rice is available almost world-wide.

11. Teach how to do “dutch-oven” cooking, campout-like, turning that cast-iron pot into a little bakery.

12. Teach how to resolve conflicts, get along with others, be uplifting when others are down/reluctant.

13. Teach when/how to be quiet and let his comp get things out of his system.

There are others of course, but that’s what comes to mind now.

Comment # 19 left by Bookslinger on April 20th, 2006

“If I were a Bishop I would not sign the mission application papers of a young man who had not had spiritual experiences.”

I can think of a couple young men who would have missed out on missions that radically changed their perspective on the gospel around had their bishop felt the same way.

I understand where you are coming from on this point but I entirely disagree.

Comment # 20 left by Ryan on April 20th, 2006

Bookslinger, I think I have been a bit dense here. What you say here:

The purpose of the mission is still “mainly” for the missionary. The program and the leadership are still geared toward the least common denominator, they basically have to be. And the LCD is a 19 year old who was born in the church and doesn’t have a strong testimony when he starts his mission.

sheds some light for me on what you said in your previous comment:

I was amazed at how much the church’s missionary program and missionary leadership is geared to born-in-the-church missionaries, and not to converts at all.

I agree with your excellent recommendations about testimonies and spiritual experiences. Ideally, this kind of instruction should be taking place at home and in Priest quorum classes and activities. Although I do think Ryan has a point. I have seriously mixed feelings about this.

Your other suggestions for mission prep are great, also. Especially conflict resolution, etc. I think I might have to pass them along to a certain YM counselor I know quite well.

Comment # 21 left by C Jones on April 20th, 2006

I can think of a couple young men who would have missed out on missions that radically changed their perspective on the gospel around had their bishop felt the same way.

Thanks for sticking up for me here Ryan — even if you didn’t mean to. It’s not that I didn’t have “spiritual experiences” before my mission, but I definitely wasn’t as prepared as I should have been. However, but for my mission, I can honestly say I wouldn’t be an active temple-recommend-holder today. My mission changed me in a lot of ways.

And as for having “spiritual” experiences before hand: David O. McKay would have never served in Scotland if his Bishop held this view because President McKay had his first spiritual experience while serving at a time in his life in which he was very depressed.

I may be an exception, but I also feel I wasn’t a burden on the mission either. I worked really hard and never had personal problems that affected investigators, members, or my companions.

Moreover, I can honestly say the very best missionaries whom I was privileged to work with and close to were invariably people who had some really interesting backgrounds: i.e. some hefty experience with the atonement (and all but one of them were born into the church. I would hate to see where these men would be today if their Bishops denied them the opportunity to serve because they had made some mis-steps as teen-agers.

But, this is also a fine line too. A bishop has to be in-tune enough to discern whether a person will be able to honorably serve (an ability I don’t think a ton of people have).

Comment # 22 left by Wade on April 20th, 2006

Rick,
I’m not sure what is being privately taught to Bishops/SP’s at leadership training meetings. But what Ballard said at Gen conf in Oct 2002 was that the church can no longer afford to send out missionaries who don’t have testimonies. Pres Hinckley and others have repeated that in subsequent talks, that 19 year olds are not to be sent out on missions in order to get a testimony.

So if we are to take them at their word, then no testimony = no mission.

That doesn’t mean they are totally denied the mission experience, just delayed. They still have through age 25 to apply.

Nor is the testimony level required to be at the “I KNOW” level. “I BELIEVE” (with conviction and committment) also qualifies as a testimony.

Now I learned long ago, that what the GA’s say “should be” is not always exactly what happens in actuality. GA’s teach the Lord’s rules, and the exceptions are left up to the individuals, and the Bishops/SP’s in this case.

So until I get invited to those leadership meetings, and hear what the real skinny is, I’ll just have to take the GA’s at their word.

Comment # 23 left by Bookslinger on April 20th, 2006

Bookslinger:

I like how you’ve made the distinction between “knowing” and “believing”. I agree: belief is sufficient because it denotes a commitment. Commitment is really all that is necessary. Indeed, you could argue some missionaries who’ve had great “spiritual” experiences aren’t committed like they should be.

I guess this is what I was trying to say earlier, i.e. the word testimony is extremely subjective and open to interpretation (e.g. President McKay’s experience–and one could even argue President Hinckley’s experience).

Comment # 24 left by Wade on April 20th, 2006

Wade,
I think I got a different take on Elder Ballard’s Oct 2002 talk than you did.

He didn’t say that 19 year olds who made missteps would be denied missions. He said that they would be delayed until they had sufficiently repented.

The problem with “repent-and-go” was that the repent part was being reduced to mere confession, or that it was a formality, and not heartfelt.

The problem which the ‘raise the bar’ thing is to correct, was the mistaken understanding by many Mormon teenagers that mere confession equates to full heartfelt repentance.

There is no problem with someone who has truely repented of serious sins (and has demonstrated a continued ability to live all the major commandments over a period of time).

The problem was that Bishops and SP’s were “rubber stamping” a lot of 19 year olds who committed serious transgression and who had not repented other than the mere lip service of confession.

Even those who “got in line” and stopped transgressing on their 18th birthday in order to have “one clean year” by their 19th birthday, were causing problems because they had not truely repented. Their attitude had not changed. Many thought they had gotten away with something, or that they had some kind of “license to sin” as long as they were under 18.

I remember many elders on my mission actually bragging about what they got away with, and who had absolutely no remorse. Traditions got passed down by older brothers, friends, and even fathers and uncles. “Here’s what you can get away with, and as long as you ‘confess’ and stop by the time you’re 18, you’re still good to go at 19.”

Even office elders were telling me that fully clothed “grinding” was acceptable.

One elder was even confused at the light response by his Bishop: “All he told me was ‘Well, don’t do it anymore.’”

Believe me, the Brethren, all the other GA’s, Bishops and SP’s all still want to see young men who’ve transgressed to fully repent and then to go on missions.

But the rule, that’s always been there, about those who’ve sinned and procrastinated their repentence, having to demonstrate contrition, an attitude change, and obedience, is going to be enforced more.

And hopefully, in those cases, it will only mean a delay while the young man prepares, and not a denial.

Yes, some young men may be lost, because they relied on the older traditions told them by their brothers, friends, and fathers, and they didn’t prepare. But unless the rules are better enforced, then the problems and false tradition of “free sin ’till you’re 18″ would keep getting passed onto subsequent generations.

Comment # 25 left by Bookslinger on April 20th, 2006

Bookslinger,

You’ve got my vote on the transgression point. It makes for a heavy burden on the entire mission when there are both missionaries who care and missionaries who don’t care that they have not fully repenred.

I still am not sure I agree with your point about being a believing missionary. In support of my opinion, consider Alma 32:27

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

That desire he speaks of is all a missionary needs to eventually gain a full blown testimony.

Now, find me a potential missionary who doesn’t at least have the desire to gain a testimony… I think the pickins are slim in that category

Comment # 26 left by Ryan on April 21st, 2006

CJ:
I remembered another important thing to teach youth prior to their mission. It’s been brought up on the “why my mission was hard” thread on Times and Seasons.

A common thing that almost all missionaries face at some point is injustice at the hands of leadership, to be treated unfairly, or misjudged. Even at the hands of mission presidents. Very few things rise to the level where you need to report to higher-ups. (Except whatever is done by DLs, ZLs and APs should always be reported to the MP.) But a lot of times, even after giving his side of things, a missionary just has to swallow his pride and accept the injustice.

Comment # 27 left by Bookslinger on April 21st, 2006

But a lot of times, even after giving his side of things, a missionary just has to swallow his pride and accept the injustice.

Ah yes, I’m in full agreement here!

Also, I generally agree concerning anyone who hasn’t gone through the repentance process. However, I am of the firm oppinion that a blanket rule can never be established around this issue; it’s very very shakey ground. Elder Ballard’s talk was a “shake-up” that was needed. And I understand everything you’ve said; I didn’t get anything substantively different from the talk.

Comment # 28 left by Wade on April 21st, 2006

He didn’t say that 19 year olds who made missteps would be denied missions. He said that they would be delayed until they had sufficiently repented. (bold mine)

Herein lies the problem: It’s really easy to say a person will be delayed until “sufficient” repentence, but sufficiency is an extremely ambiguous and subjective standard!

Case in point: Alma the Younger. I mean, come on, the guy went through a three-day repentance process. It took three days for him to fully repent of what he calls “murdering” Gods children. Granted, murder in his context meant leading them astray. But still, I could use your definition of “repent-and-go” missionary and apply it to Alma here. This would be dubious at best.

Now, some would say Alma the Younger is a rare exception. To this I must simply disagree. True, there are probably not a lot of angelic visitations spurring the process, but I can testify the process occurs nonetheless.

That’s my stance. And I don’t think it conflicts at all with Elder Ballard’s stance either.

Comment # 29 left by Wade on April 21st, 2006

Wade,
Ok, I think we’re on the same page.

I realize it’s the Bishop’s and SP’s job to judge whether someone has sufficiently repented. They are the judges, and they have the gifts and powers needed to make those judgement calls.

Re: Alma’s three days. Maybe it was like that Star Trek episode where Chief O’brien experienced a “life sentence” compressed into a matter of hours.
But seriously we don’t know that Alma Jr was given responsibilities or went on his mission immediately after that event. Maybe Mosiah and Alma Sr did tell him “Let’s wait a year” before giving him any major responsibilities in the church.

What I learned in my mission is that there are a lot of false traditions to be found in pockets of the church. They’re not held by everyone, but they are held by enough active members that they get passed along by example.

One false tradition is where parents use a hands-off approach and let kids do whatever they want until they’re 18 or 19, and hope a mission will “straighten them out.” Another false tradition is to not teach the gospel in the home, “because that’s what church is for.” I already mentioned false traditions among teens themselves (”you can get away with anything until you’re 18″) that get passed down from older to younger.

I think part of the “raise the bar” program is to make sure that the peers and younger teens see that there are consequences to serious transgression. In the past, Bishops and SPs have been partly responsible for those false traditions being passed on, because the peers and younger teens have repeatedly seen that there are no consequences for serious transgression. “So-and-so did it and still went on a mission at 19″ is a terrible example that causes other pre-mission youth to not value keeping the commandments, and causes a misunderstanding that confession alone constitutes repentance.

Comment # 30 left by Bookslinger on April 21st, 2006

Bookslinger:

Yes, we’re definitely on the same page I think.

Regarding “false traditions”: I agree totally. In fact, I think there is a lot about what I call Church “culture” that needs to be rooted out. But it’s hard. It really is a culture.

I think one of the hardest things for leaders of the Church to deal with is how their dealings with some can be conveyed as a standard for all. I think the culture of complacency is partly a result of this difficulty.

In fact, on his site, Eric links to a really good article by Elder Packer. The talk Packer gave was given to the All-Church Coordinating Council. A big part of his message is the difficulty of dealing with people because everyone has different needs and many people seek excuses for their behavior.

You can find the talk here. It’s really good.

Comment # 31 left by Wade on April 21st, 2006

Wade, I read Elder Packer’s talk to the Coordinating Council. Wow. What a smack-down. GA’s certainly have a way of putting people in their place. It makes me feel guilty for some of my carping.

Comment # 32 left by Bookslinger on April 22nd, 2006

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail