Spiritual trauma: did you have any?

[_Sethbag]

So you guys are calling him a liar? He said he was the 1st Councilor, his bishop was incapacitated due to a serious accident, and he performed ward leadership duties for some period of time while the bishop was incapacitated. But you guys don't think this is justified by your past experience within the church and understanding of how things work?

Oh really? Charity, is the Church President secretly marrying an apostle's wife while he's out serving a mission on the list of things you'd expect to see from Church leadership? Is lying to the public about practices occuring in secret, such as marrying dozens of women, something you'd expect to see from church leadership?

It boggles my mind you can be so open to things Joseph Smith did that were totally outrageous and then call BS when a guy says that as 1st Councilor he had to preside over his ward for a while after his bishop was taken out by a serious accident. WTF? Don't you guys think the SP would have been involved in asking the 1st Councilor to take over some Bishop's duties while the actual Bishop recuperated from the accident? Do you guys not believe that this is in the SP's power to do?

[_Sethbag]

Yeah, the First Counselor presides. They do not, as a rule, participate in counseling Church members.

OK, as a general rule, you may be right. The bishop being seriously injured in an accident is not, however, the general circumstance. Do you believe the SP would be within his right to ask the 1st Councilor to assume many if not all of the Bishop's duties while the Bishop is incapacitated?

Do you guys not recall when President Benson and his first two councilors were incapacitated and Hinckley basically ran the church as 3rd Councilor?

When the Bishop is away the First Counselor deals as best he can but he does not start counseling ward members in private meetings and deal with welfare recipients without consulting with the Bishop.

And what happens when the bishop is not able to be consulted with? And what happens if the SP asks the Councilor to step up and do these things? Is that not possible?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

BishopRic, were you called and sustained as a bishop, or were you actiing in your capacity as First Counselor? I have never known as a situation where a First Counselor stepped out of his ordained and set apart position, even when the bishop was gone for a month. As ours just was. So, were you actually called by the stake president? Sustained by your ward as the bishop?

Please let us know.

Lucretia, little locks in the dressing room destroyed your testimony? And please, PADLOCKS is quite an overstatement. The keys to the lockers in the Portland temple are so small, I sometimes have a hard time finding mine if I have a couple of cough drops in my pocket.

If it's so important to you to minimize the simple fact that temple worthy Mormons feel the need to lock up their possessions in a temple full of other temple worthy Mormons, how about leaving your purse lying on the bench in the dressing room next time you go? Do you trust your fellow temple worthy Mormon and do they trust you? Those teeny weeny locks with the teeny weeny keys say you don't. Do you believe that the temple is the house of the Lord and no unclean thing can enter? Those teeny weeny locks with the teeny weeny keys say you don't. Do you believe that those leaders granting recommends or those temple workers have gifts of spiritual discernment? Those teeny weeny locks with the teeny weeny keys say you don't.

[_truth dancer]

Not wanting to threadjack, just one little point...

Knowing many many women who are in abusive relationships, I am well aware that women do not go seek help from their bishop if: they feel their bishop is unsympathetic to their situation, they do not feel their bishop can be trusted, they feel they will be blamed for any abuse, their bishop is good friends with their husbands, they feel their bishop believes the women should not complain about her husband, etc. etc. etc.

It is completely understandable that if a new "acting" bishop was temporarily at the helm, women may feel they have an opportunity to come forth and seek help or support.

While I do believe (am quite aware actually), the LDS church is trying to address the problem of abuse, the reality is I have yet to hear personally of even one case where a woman went to her bishop for help and actually received any.

~dancer~

[_BishopRic]

The responses by the active members here are typical of my experience. To protect many people involved in this story, I don't often give details...and I still won't. Just to appease some curiosity, I will say that I was set apart by the SP as an acting bishop. I served in the position for a few months...the bishop had an injury while serving in the military reserves during a weekend training -- broke about 28 bones when his parachute wouldn't open doing a low-flying exercise...he was lucky to land in a tree...

This was all back in '92 in the Cottonwood Heights area.

There has been some "action" taken in the Stake. (by the way, the "ward boss" label was sarcastic, in case you thought I was serious...). I've recently heard that two of the women have sought some professional help, although I don't know the outcome. We moved away from the area soon after the bishop came back (for this and other reasons). Since my shock of the situation, and because of some other personal issues, I learned of other similar actions in other wards. There was even some of this type of cover-up in my own wife's family when she was younger.

Point is, it happened...much more often than it should have. Like TD, I see an improvement in how this is handled today. For a few years, I worked in a professional capacity with LDS Social Services as they made efforts to improve the various challenges in the mental health arena.

But I would like to invite Charity and others to consider why their Mormon minds immediately go to the suspicion of my story. Why do the FARMS folks focus on whether my friend Grant Palmer is an "insider," rather on addressing his actual work. Why is the common approach to critics to find some deep dark problem in their past, so they are discredited -- and subsequently transfer that to their work, that may otherwise be so right on?

Charity, with her psychology background, at least should be familiar with this process. We react to attacks. There have been many "attacks" on the LDS claims recently. Most of them have legitimacy, and may imply that the church is less than the stellar organization it claims to be. Since we personalize our faith as being "us," it is natural to "fight or flee" from the attacks. I think it is obvious this is what is happeneing here. Daily. And sometimes the fighting becomes humorous and sooooo illogical.

But I understand why it is done. It is easier to fight to stay in one's comfort zone than challenge that paradigm to possibly require the discomfort of complete spiritual alteration. I went through the latter. It wasn't easy. But for me, it was very worth it.

[_Tori]

BishopRic, were you called and sustained as a bishop, or were you actiing in your capacity as First Counselor? I have never known as a situation where a First Counselor stepped out of his ordained and set apart position, even when the bishop was gone for a month. As ours just was. So, were you actually called by the stake president? Sustained by your ward as the bishop?

Please let us know.

Lucretia, little locks in the dressing room destroyed your testimony? And please, PADLOCKS is quite an overstatement. The keys to the lockers in the Portland temple are so small, I sometimes have a hard time finding mine if I have a couple of cough drops in my pocket.

I always laugh when the interrogations start about my story. The Mormon mind works wonders...when challenged, it goes straight to questioning the source, rather than the actual event. I guess it keeps the Mormon safe if they can somehow discredit the challenger...don't have to consider the possibility that the church is less than perfect!

Just so you can remain in your perfect bubble Charity, I won't answer your questions. There, now you're okay...you can imagine anything you want -- and I'm sure you will!

And I always enjoy it when those who insist on "truth in advertising" get coy with pertinent facts. Of course, it makes a difference if you were an ordained bishop, or a first counselor in a bishopric when you relate a direct experience. It wouldn't make a hill of beans difference if you were opining about the Book of Abraham, or the narrow neck of land. Here it does. You made representations that are beginning to sound little fishy. Like the guy who insisted he was almsot a Seventy. He had gotten all the way to the Sixty's. Nobody "steps into" being the "boss" of the ward.[/quote]

LOL! "NOBODY"? Oh, Charity. You haven't a clue. Why is this so hard for you to believe? Just because you have never seen it happen in your ward? Or is it that you question Rick's story just because he is an Exmo?

I can vouch for the story that Rick relayed here. This indeed, did happen. The Stake President set him apart as the Bishop of that ward while the Bishop recovered from a serious accident because they knew it would be longer than a "month". I don't imagine this type of thing happens very often...neither does an accident happen that often that the Bishop had, that would make him incapacitated for several months.

I also can understand these women, seeing their opportunity to talk with someone that just maybe would listen and is approachable. If you ever have the chance to meet Rick, you will see that he is very approachable, understanding, and empathetic.

So, yes, he did "step into being the boss of the ward" and from what I have heard, did a great job at being that boss.

[_MishMagnet]

I did have an event which caused me to reconsider everything. Later in my college classes I learned this was the 'dark night of the soul' which causes one to depart from their childhood understandings of God and religion. The steps following the dark night of the soul are to challenge your previous beliefs and tear them down. This can take months or years. Afterwards one moves into a 'second naitivity' when one can have beliefs again.

I was a BYU student who was engaged. I'd had the strongest spiritual confirmation of my life when I had prayed about marrying this person. I felt as though I'd been lifted up off the ground, wrapped in a warm, soft blanket. This confirmation was far beyond anything I'd felt when praying about the truthfulness of the church. I went along my way trying to prepare for the temple. On many occasions I walked up to the Provo Temple in the evening and sat on the bench dreaming of being inside.

We were to be married in February. At the end of November he told me he was in love with someone else. At the end of December, heartbroken and in very bad shape I left BYU for a semester (that was my plan) to get my head together. (we were in the same apt building, had mutual friends, had been in classes together, etc.) In August he married her in the temple. They had their reception the same place we had planned to have ours. They were married in the SLC Temple as we had planned to be.

This experience caused me to question everything I had believed in. I believed that if I lived a worthy life and was faithful to the church and prayerfully laid my life decisions before the Lord that I would be guided correctly and that God would keep his promises to me in return. That formula led me to the absolute lowest point of my life. I had nothing but the love of my family left. The person I was had been destroyed. I hate going to Utah so much. I can't even bear to go to BYU because I still feel myself there, full of hope and love and naïvété. It overwhelms me, my grief for the younger version of myself.

[Guest]

Yeah, the First Counselor presides. They do not, as a rule, participate in counseling Church members.

OK, as a general rule, you may be right. The bishop being seriously injured in an accident is not, however, the general circumstance. Do you believe the SP would be within his right to ask the 1st Councilor to assume many if not all of the Bishop's duties while the Bishop is incapacitated?

Do you guys not recall when President Benson and his first two councilors were incapacitated and Hinckley basically ran the church as 3rd Councilor?

When the Bishop is away the First Counselor deals as best he can but he does not start counseling ward members in private meetings and deal with welfare recipients without consulting with the Bishop.

And what happens when the bishop is not able to be consulted with? And what happens if the SP asks the Councilor to step up and do these things? Is that not possible?

This could happen though from what I remember from the CHI is not the ideal way of dealing with it. Still, the good Bishop could have just said that the SP asked him to do this. Instead he gave a coy answer. That he said he was set apart as acting Bishop makes his story more believable as that is the normal procedure.

Sorry man, sounds like it was a tough ward and a tough job.

[_The Nehor]

BishopRic, were you called and sustained as a bishop, or were you actiing in your capacity as First Counselor? I have never known as a situation where a First Counselor stepped out of his ordained and set apart position, even when the bishop was gone for a month. As ours just was. So, were you actually called by the stake president? Sustained by your ward as the bishop?

Please let us know.

Lucretia, little locks in the dressing room destroyed your testimony? And please, PADLOCKS is quite an overstatement. The keys to the lockers in the Portland temple are so small, I sometimes have a hard time finding mine if I have a couple of cough drops in my pocket.

If it's so important to you to minimize the simple fact that temple worthy Mormons feel the need to lock up their possessions in a temple full of other temple worthy Mormons, how about leaving your purse lying on the bench in the dressing room next time you go? Do you trust your fellow temple worthy Mormon and do they trust you? Those teeny weeny locks with the teeny weeny keys say you don't. Do you believe that the temple is the house of the Lord and no unclean thing can enter? Those teeny weeny locks with the teeny weeny keys say you don't. Do you believe that those leaders granting recommends or those temple workers have gifts of spiritual discernment? Those teeny weeny locks with the teeny weeny keys say you don't.

I leave the key in the lock.

[_charity]

The responses by the active members here are typical of my experience. To protect many people involved in this story, I don't often give details...and I still won't. Just to appease some curiosity, I will say that I was set apart by the SP as an acting bishop. I served in the position for a few months...the bishop had an injury while serving in the military reserves during a weekend training -- broke about 28 bones when his parachute wouldn't open doing a low-flying exercise...he was lucky to land in a tree...

Thanks BR. You could have cleared that up right away, instead of playing coy for a while.

There has been some "action" taken in the Stake. (by the way, the "ward boss" label was sarcastic, in case you thought I was serious...). I've recently heard that two of the women have sought some professional help, although I don't know the outcome. We moved away from the area soon after the bishop came back (for this and other reasons). Since my shock of the situation, and because of some other personal issues, I learned of other similar actions in other wards. There was even some of this type of cover-up in my own wife's family when she was younger.

Point is, it happened...much more often than it should have. Like TD, I see an improvement in how this is handled today. For a few years, I worked in a professional capacity with LDS Social Services as they made efforts to improve the various challenges in the mental health arena.

And just how does the fact that there are mistakes made sometimes by fallible men shake your faith? I guess by this experience, you should have forsaken Christianity altogether. Judas really messed up and he was an apostle.

But I would like to invite Charity and others to consider why their Mormon minds immediately go to the suspicion of my story. Why do the FARMS folks focus on whether my friend Grant Palmer is an "insider," rather on addressing his actual work. Why is the common approach to critics to find some deep dark problem in their past, so they are discredited -- and subsequently transfer that to their work, that may otherwise be so right on?

Because credibility is everything. As I posted before, the man who says "I was almsot a 70, because I got all the way to the 60's" you know he hasn't a clue.

And order in the Church is a given. A person does not act outside their authority. There is only a bishop, a specific calling with set apart and ordained responsibilities and stewardship. No one else in the ward has that authority as long as there is a bishop in place, incapacitated or not. A first counselor with additional responsbilities is still not a bishop. Bishops have a special place in the Church, to the extent that even after being released as bishop, the title Bishop is still appropriate. For someone to claim that, when it isn't true is a big mistake.

Why do the FARMS folk focus on Grant Palmer's claim to be an insider? Because he did it to lay greater claim to credibility than he deserved. He wants non-members to think of him as more knowledgeable and more believable because he was an insider. Else why trumpet the idea in the title of a book? He wanted to get something out of his status in the Church. But to those who know the organization, a CES employee is not an "insider." Can't you see that "insider" claim as an attempt to deceive? He sure isn't going to be given the red carpet among members of the Church because he was a CES employee!

Charity, with her psychology background, at least should be familiar with this process. We react to attacks. There have been many "attacks" on the LDS claims recently. Most of them have legitimacy, and may imply that the church is less than the stellar organization it claims to be. Since we personalize our faith as being "us," it is natural to "fight or flee" from the attacks. I think it is obvious this is what is happeneing here. Daily. And sometimes the fighting becomes humorous and sooooo illogical.

Yes, there are attacks. I haven't seen any that have legitimacy. Nothing has been claimed about the Church--the restored Gospel-- that has any value. Of course, we know that men are imperfect, and sometimes mistakes are made. The Church--ecclesiastical organization--is going to make mistakes from time to time. In my "insider" status, I saw a stake president put his head in his hands in frustration and say, "Why on earth did Bishop **** do something like that!"

I think it is obvious what is happening here. The disaffected, exed, resigned, and never-mo's are threatened with the idea that there is a truth that they are going to be held accountable for living. They don't want that responsibility, and that threatens them. So they name call, they insult, they mock and ridicule.

But I understand why it is done. It is easier to fight to stay in one's comfort zone than challenge that paradigm to possibly require the discomfort of complete spiritual alteration. I went through the latter. It wasn't easy. But for me, it was very worth it.

I don't know why you say that active membership in the Church is a "comfort zone." For the truly faithful it is a daily challenge, of self-evaluation, of self-denial, of work, of seeking not just the good or the better way, but the best. It would be a lot easier to not be LDS.