So I was "assigned" to teach the lesson in EQ on December 6, 2015. (You know, because my TBM EQ Pres. thinks that Secretary is part of the presidency if it means he only has to teach 2-3 1st Sunday lessons per year instead of 3-4 if the presidency is only him and his 2 counselors)
Wait . . . It's almost Easter, and you're talking about last December?
Yup.
Because apparently the way I taught this lesson is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Actually, I was never really given the formal assignment to teach. I was sent an email from the 1st Counselor with the October 2015 General Conference talks that the EQ Pres had decided were going to be the 1st Sunday topics through March 2016, and asked to put them on the lds.org calendar/lesson schedule. I just happened to notice that my name was by the December topic.
I'd been out of town hunting during October Conference, and apart from the "any opposed" stuff that went on there, was perfectly happy not to have had to sit through another semi-annual SnoozAPoloza, so I hadn't yet heard or read the talk I was apparently assigned. It was Neil L. Andersen: "Faith Is Not by Chance, but by Choice."
So I start to read it, and all I keep thinking is: they called THIS guy to be an apostle?
I know I’ve heard this “Not by Chance, but by Choice” BS before, so I google it, and lo and behold, every self-help guru since the at least the 80's has claimed that some concept or laudable characteristic is yours “Not by Chance, but by Choice.” And then I search the scriptures . . .and you guessed it . . . .bupkis. In fact, from what I gather from the scriptures, faith is a Gift of the Spirit, not something you just have to choose. (Well at least “faith in Christ” is, which is the only faith that really matters.)
I find it interesting that citation to the scriptures is almost wholly absent from Neil Anderson’s remarks, and the few scriptures he cites to just talk about faith in abstract terms. I am also astounded that for a talk on faith (in Christ?) He only puts the words “faith in Christ” together in 2 paragraphs in the entirety of his remarks.
Then he starts with the OPS’s (other people’s stories). Apparently Neil Anderson has no personal stories to tell about choosing to have faith (in Christ?), so he tells other peoples stories. I note that these stories are footnoted as having been authenticated by someone in the COB; cause heaven forbid we have another Paul Dunn on our hands. He tells the first story, about a Brazilian kid who is orphaned and must provide for his many younger siblings. He works in a bank, and does not have enough money to go on a mission and provide for his family but decides to go anyway, and then once he’s on his mission he gets an unexpected check that helps support the family in his absence. Elder Anderson’s conclusion that this man’s “faith did not come by chance, but by choice” is a non sequitur conclusion, that appears to just be tacked on to the end of the story.
Then he goes for the Jr. Apostle brownie points by trying to “help out the brethren” by raising the issues of the then recently released lds.org “essays” on the “Seer stone” and “Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives” that were in the news at the time, but without actually referring to them. With the absurd solution of “For now, give Brother Joseph a break!”
Finally he concludes with his second OPS. This one about a family who all die in a plane crash, except the 2 sons that are studying abroad and on a mission. The one on the mission decides NOT to return for the funeral for his parents and younger siblings. This because of the missionary son’s faith that he would see his family again, and his belief that they would want him to finish his mission. Elder Anderson doesn’t even attempt a second non sequitur conclusion after this story. He just launches into his own rambling, nonsensical conclusion that “your faith did not begin at birth, and it will not end at death. Faith is a choice.”
Really, my faith did not begin at birth? I thought that veil of forgetfulness thing was why faith was required in mortality. Because we lived with God and knew him (didn’t need faith) before we were born. And after this life, once we are brought to stand before the judgment bar, we’ll know him again (so won’t need faith then either). So it would seem, that faith is actually a gift of God specific to mortality, and not something we eternally need.
Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the FIRST principle of the gospel. The Lectures on Faith (you know, the Doctrine part of the D&C, until “The Church™” decided to take the doctrine out) are a basic primer on Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even Dallin Oaks first conference talk, “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” is far superior to this false doctrine riddled garbage. So when I finished reading the talk my first thought was THIS is everything that is wrong with “The Church™.” (OK, not everything, but a lot.)
So I set about preparing a lesson that was honest, and accurate.
I prayed, I fasted, and I received revelation that I should present the lesson I’d prepared.
When it came time to deliver the message, I knew it would go over like a ton of bricks, and boy did it. Still I felt that I was led by the spirit, and even felt impressed to leave out a couple parts, but for the most part I just exhorted and expounded the scriptures and gave this lesson:
[I'd intended to insert the outline I taught from, but have been unable to locate it. Based on the length of this post, I think I'll just publish without including it.]
Afterward, I had a couple guys come up and thank me for the lesson, and tell me they appreciated it. Just to give me the false impression that all was well I suppose. ;)
The very next week (12/13/15), TBM EQ Pres. calls me in to have a “PPI” during the Sunday School hour. He tells me how he’s been so upset about the lesson all week, and that he thinks I’m having a “faith crisis.” (He says it in a pejorative way that makes me cringe just recalling it.) When I asked him what, if anything I’d said was inaccurate, he had nothing specific to point to. Instead, he wanted to know what I actually have a testimony of. He couldn’t seem to wrap his head around the fact that I can believe the Book of Mormon to be “the word of God” that plainly teaches important things (that the vast majority of those who read it are oblivious to) but feel no compulsion to believe that it literally happened (if it did, I could believe it, but I think the overwhelming evidence is that it is NOT a legitimate historical account.) Or that I can believe that Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon by the power of God, but likewise feel no compulsion to believe that every hair brained thing that ever came out of his mouth is of the same quality or value, and that he did a lot of what can charitably be seen as “shady” things that I definitely do NOT believe were even inspired of God. Sure, he was probably a prophet when he was acting like one, but it's up to us to figure out exactly when that was. And to just say it was always is foolish. But that I don’t need to have a testimony of Joseph Smith, just of Christ. He then did something that made me lose all respect for him as a person. He tried to “counsel” me by referring to people who he claimed left the church over the Salamander Letter, and then it was later shown to be a fraud.
Wait . . What? Do you mean the Mark Hoffman thing? Was my response.
Uhummm. Yeah, I think so. I don't really know. was his response.
All I could do is shake my head in disgust.
I was in high school in small town central Utah when the whole Salamander Letter/Mark Hoffman thing when down, and it was on the local news every day.
My take on the whole thing is that Gordon Hinkley and Dallin Oaks were duped by these forgeries (despite their purported gifts of discernment) and were buying them up with tithing funds to hide in some Indiana Jones type warehouse under BYU, so they’d never see the light of day and thereby spare the brethren the embarrassment of having to explain yet another inconsistent version of the “first vision.” When the jig was up Mark Hoffman constructed bombs to murder two people in northern Utah to draw focus from him, and then accidentally bombed himself giving law enforcement evidence of his involvement.
Thereafter “The Church™” stonewalled law enforcement’s attempts to investigate the motive (the counterfeit documents). If people left “The Church™” over this incident it was more likely over the actions of Gordon Hinkley and Dallin Oaks, than over the content of the counterfeit documents they purchased from Mark Hoffman. But I saved my breath, and just knew that I’d never respect this man who was too lazy to even look into the accuracy of what he presumably thought was counsel with eternal consequences.
And I thought that was it.
Then in Mid-February I get a call from some stake secretary or clerk that I don’t know, and that doesn’t know me. He asks if I can meet with the 2nd counselor in the Stake Presidency after church on February 21, 2016.
Now this is a full 12 weeks after I’d taught the above lesson, and I’m thinking that well maybe I’m being released. I have been in this calling about 2 ½ years, and I was originally called by the prior EQ pres (who then moved to get out of our abominable ward - OK, maybe that wasn’t THE reason, but it was certainly among the factors he considered.) So maybe I can do something else, and hopefully not have to come to EQ any more.
Now the 2nd counselor in the Stake Presidency has seen me around. He knows my face. He’d JUST seen me a couple weeks before when I came to the Stake Center for my wife to be set-apart as a counselor in the Stake RS. But he doesn’t know anything about me. And he says that to start with, and asks me to tell him about myself. I have no idea what’s going on and tell him some general stuff about my job and education and family, and he literally won’t look at me, but stares over my right shoulder the whole time we are talking. After about a half hour of this idle chit chat, he finally gets to the point.
He says, I heard you taught a lesson in EQ and the stake president is concerned about you.
What have you heard, or what is the concern? I ask.
I don’t really know. No one gave me any details. Is his response.
Wait, the man that was released as my bishop to become my current stake president, is concerned about me, but he sends the one person in his presidency that doesn’t know me to address that concern? And more importantly, he doesn’t even bother to tell him specifically what his concern is? But it involves this lesson I taught 12 weeks ago?
I’m totally taken off guard and tell him I recall the lesson, I recall it was by one of the 3 new apostles, and it was about faith, but I don’t recall the title, or the specifics. As evidence of the impression (or lack thereof) that Elder Anderson’s talk made, he didn’t remember the talk either. I tell him that I thought it was false doctrine, and that I taught from the scriptures and what I felt was true doctrine, and that I also handed out copies of Dallin Oaks’ talk, “Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” and told the class to read that instead.
He said he thought maybe my “tone” could have been better, and that I didn’t have to disagree with the apostle, maybe I could have just taken the topic of faith and taught without really referencing the talk. (I’ve since concluded, that while it’s not necessarily my place in general to publicly disagree with a GA’s talk, apart from to teach my immediate family that it is false doctrine, it becomes my place to point out false doctrine when I’m given the assignment to teach it.) He basically said that publicly disagreeing with GA’s is failing to sustain them. I said I disagree, but that I’ll try to be more tactful in the future.
Then I went home and started to think about it.
And the more I thought, the more distasteful I found the whole thing.
So I drafted the following email that I sent to the Stake President, and CCed to my bishop (who to my knowledge knew nothing of this whole affair to this point).
“I write to express my concern over last Sunday's "meeting" with Pres. __. After taking some time to reflect on the situation I believe that you need to personally be aware of my displeasure with how this matter is being handled.
I was called on the prior Tuesday and asked if I could meet with Pres. __ after the block on Sunday. No indication of why we were meeting was given. Nor was it even hinted at that it would take close to an hour (I had 2 children who were waiting for me, thinking it would be 10-15 min. Had I known, they could have driven a separate vehicle so they wouldn't have to wait.)
As I'm about 2½ years into being EQ secretary for the second EQ presidency (I was originally called to serve with Pres. A) I expected perhaps I was being released.
Instead Pres. __ sat across from me, stared over my right shoulder, and asked me about my life story, under the auspices that he didn't know me. When he finally got to the point after about a half hour, he occasionally would look at me, as he claimed that YOU were concerned about me and/or my testimony because of reports from Pres. TBM. I found the whole affair to be very disheartening. I mean, you actually know me. You were my bishop. I know you are not just entitled to receive inspiration, but that you actually have done so. I also realize that you have a difficult calling, and not a lot of time. But I'd hope . . . no I'd EXPECT, that if YOU were actually concerned about me, that YOU'D talk to me.
I was even more perplexed that Pres. __ claimed that he didn't even know any specifics about why you were concerned. Just that it had to do with a lesson I'd taught in EQ. I last taught EQ the first Sunday in [December]. It was now the 3rd Sunday in February, a full [12] weeks later.
The second Sunday of [December] (The very next week after the lesson) Pres. TBM dragged me off to a vacant primary room during Sunday School, and berated me for the better part of an hour about things he didn't appreciate about the lesson I'd taught the previous week. I think I understand Pres. TBM’s personality, and understood that he was doing what he thought he was supposed to do (though I disagree in large part that it was either necessary or appropriate), so I had no real problem with his action. However I was deeply saddened by his inability to actually listen to me and really hear any issues I'd raised, or to comprehend how I could be aware of the issues (which he apparently is more comfortable denying or just ignoring) and still have a testimony of the same things he does, but from a different basis and perspective.
I was also appalled at his attempt to "counsel" me by invoking the Salamander Letter, when he had no idea of what had even happened factually. I know what happened as I was a teenager living in Utah when it happened, and it was on the local news nightly for over a month. When I ask him if he was talking about Mark Hoffman, he wasn't sure and it was clear he was well out of his depth. I didn't even attempt to explain my view to him that people did NOT leave the church over another, not fully consistent, version of Br. Joseph's 1st vision (there are what, 10-12 already - I literally just saw a half dozen of them on temple square on 2/13/16 when we had traveled to Utah for ___ missionary farewell); but many HAVE left over the fact that the forgery appears to have duped Elder Hinkley and Elder Oaks as Apostles, and that apparently acting in that capacity they sought to hide the potentially troubling documents when they were believed to be real, and then hindered law enforcement's investigation after the documents were discovered to be fraudulent.
To be clear, I don't really have a problem with my view of the facts of what happened. But only because I refuse to believe the dogmatic and scripturally false claim that leaders are always inspired, and are to be followed blindly. If we disagree on this point, then you will need to meet with me personally to learn of the multitude of reasons I hold this belief, and to explain to me why it is incorrect. Otherwise you will necessarily have to determine whether "the tent is big enough" for me and my belief. If not I know full well what to expect. For your sake, and the sake of my family, I trust that it will not come to that.
Despite being disgusted that Pres. TBM is so clearly uninformed as to many facts about the church and it's history, and by his seeming inability to see beyond his own narrow point of view, I left that first "meeting" under the impression that the matter had been discussed, and was resolved. I suppose knowing Pres. TBM, I should have known better.
As to my meeting with Pres. __, I told him I was aware of the lesson. I explained that I'd already talked to Pres. TBM about it for almost an hour. He asked what the lesson was and having not been prepared I couldn't recall the exact title, just that it was one of the newly called Apostles, and that it was Faith by choice or something. Pres. __ said he wasn't familiar with the talk, and didn't remember it. I explained how the concept of "by choice not by chance" was both a well known "self help" concept for at least the last decade or two, and not at all scriptural (as evidenced by Elder Andersen's failure to cite a single scripture to support this assertion, and my citing several that plainly teach that faith is a gift of the spirit). I also explained that it is my belief that the purpose of this life is to exercise our agency (a concept we apparently fought a war in heaven about) and that to abdicate our agency to another, rather than to seek our own revelation from the Lord, is an extremely dangerous position to place ones self in. So when a man, whether just sustained by those in attendance as an Apostle, or anyone else, preaches for doctrine the philosophies of men, and doesn't attempt to even mingle them with scripture, he should be called out, and we ought to discuss it, rather than ignoring it, or worse just blindly accepting it.
Pres. __’s ultimate conclusion seemed to be that it was "disrespectful" of me to publicly disagree with those he views as being in a position of authority over me, regardless of whether the criticism is warranted, or true. He then attempted to equate this perceived being disrespectful by disagreeing with failing to "sustain" such leaders. However we then agreed that former church leaders (even former presidents of the church) are acknowledged to have been wrong about many thing. I stated my position that it is more important to follow the Lord than men, regardless of their position. Then I explained that those of Pres. TBM’s ilk will never see ANY disagreement with "the brethren" to not be "disrespectful." Pres. __ agreed, but just came back to his same conclusion that disagreeing is disrespectful and ought not be done other than in ones own mind.
I found this concept reprehensible when Elder Oaks smirkingly announced it on Frontline years ago, and as my testimony and gospel knowledge have grown since, I only find it to be more so today. I can find no scriptural support for such a claim. More importantly, if we truly understand the plan of salvation, I find it incomprehensible that we could legitimately hold such a belief.
I will tell you, just as I did Pres. TBM, and Pres. __, that I was inspired to give the lesson I gave. I knew it would be uncomfortable for some. But there was nothing in what I said that was not factually true, nor that wasn't scriptural. The spirit told me how it would be received, but to do it anyway. It should also be noted that I was also thanked by more than one elder for the lesson afterward.
Having met both with my EQ pres, and your 2nd counselor, I still do not know the specifics of what (if anything) I've done that warrants this kind of reaction. If I am being accused of teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine, I expect that Bishop X, or another stake leader will clearly explain what I've taught that is in error, and why my understanding of the gospel is in fact wrong. Of course, if anyone has any real concern that this will continue to be a problem, it would seem that the obvious solution is to simply have Pres. TBM stop giving me a quarterly assignment to teach EQ. Such an assignment is clearly not part of what the handbook lists as a secretary's duties.
Yet I am still left wondering what, if anything, is going on. I know how many folks recently have been being excommunicated for allegations of apostasy. Though I do NOT hold the same beliefs (or lack thereof) of most of those cases, they looked alarmingly like this when they began. So am I being labeled as an apostate, and groomed for excommunication? And if not, why does it feel that I am being treated as such?
Perhaps I am blowing this out of proportion, and the matter has actually been put to rest. If so, a simple acknowledgment that you have received my email and I need not worry about it further will be appreciated. However if there is more, I expect that I'll need to meet with someone to find out exactly what the concern is. In that regard I will be unable to do so until at least Thursday 3/3, as [my wife] and I will be traveling with [my daughter] to visit college campuses so that she can decide which offer of admission to accept.
By copy of this email to Bishop X I am advising him of the above, and requesting that he NOT discuss it with ANY other members of the ward, unless expressly directed to do so by you or by the spirit.
Thank you for taking the time to read this tome, and for your anticipated considered response.”
Of course, the next week as I'm traveling around visiting colleges with my daughter I’m listening to a “Mormon Stories” podcast, and the guy John Dehlin is interviewing says something to the effect of: “if you ever get called in by the stake and they just shoot the breeze with you for the first :20, you know you’re in trouble.” I just died laughing.
I never got a reply to my email.
My bishop finally did stop me in the hall between classes on 3/13, to thank me for CCing him on the email, and he asked if I’d heard anything. I said no, and he said, “well, I guess what happens happens,” and walked off.
Then last Sunday (3/20) the Stake President was on the stand during our sacrament meeting. I got a text from a client right after sacrament meeting ended, and used it as an excuse to leave for my office (it’s a few blocks away) to reply so I wouldn’t have to endure our atrocious Sunday School, or sit in the hall and listen to the lunatic fringe of the ward rail to each other about politics while I try to quietly study my scriptures. Just as I was about to head back to pass the roll in EQ, I get a call on my cell phone from the Stake President. He says I must have “snuck out” and that he wanted to talk to me. I told him that I had no idea he intended to talk to me, and that I’m just taking care of a work matter and will be back in about 5 minutes. He says he has Stake stuff he has to do and has to leave, but he’d like to talk to me, so can he have his executive secretary call me to set up a time. I tell him sure.
I have been waiting for the call ever since.
But then again, I'm Dence.
No comments:
Post a Comment