Yesterday I was released as one of instructors for my men’s group (called the Elders’ Quorum, despite its twenty to thirty something demographic). Despite the mental gymnastics I sometimes had to pull to adhere to the lesson plan and still conform to my own personal values (the missionary lessons were the hardest, since my own humanist universalism is antithetical to Mormon spiritual monopoly and salvific exclusiveness), I really enjoyed teaching. I’d like to think that I did a good job of uplifting and encouraging my peers while challenging some of their basic assumptions.
One of the EQ presidency members tried to schedule a meeting with me several times but I put him off repeatedly because of finals. “By the way,” I asked, “why do you want to meet?” He replied (with nervous laughter), “Oh, I just want to talk to you about your calling.” But given my recent low church attendance, I wasn’t surprised that I was let go (in fact, I think it entirely appropriate).
What’s odd to me is the method by which Mormon leaders conduct this sort of business. You can be “called in” by Church leaders and have no clue about why they want to talk to you. Yesterday, our Bishop’s executive secretary called and asked if Jana and I could meet with the bishop. I asked what the meeting was for. “I don’t know,” he said. “You have to ask him.”
So Jana and I are left in the position of wondering why the Bishop has called us in. Does he want to just have a friendly chat? Does he want to discuss our publications on the web and in the intellectual LDS magazine, Sunstone? Did someone at Church complain about the pro-gay-marriage-right bumper sticker on the back of our car? (The LDS Church recently joined forces with the Catholic Church to promote a constitutional marriage amendment that will outlaw same-sex marriages.) Does he want to inquire into my recent absences? Does he just want to talk to us about our son and his entrance into the priesthood?
I know that the Church doesn’t have a monopoly on this sort of practice (it happens in the business world quite frequently), but I object to this abuse of power. The bishop knows full well why he wants to talk to us, and has plenty of time to plan and ponder. Jana and I will be clue-free until the meeting. I’ve read about people who go into such meetings and are unexpectedly confronted with issues of their worthiness. Caught off guard, they often react defensively, exacerbating a situation that might have been handled more compassionately and judiciously if some chance to prepare had been offered. I am trying hard to handle my relations with the Church (as strained as they are) with as much patience and caution as I can muster, but being left purposely in the dark does nothing to calm any anxieties I might feel.
Anyhow, we’re probably needlessly worried. Hopefully our meeting with the Bishop tomorrow will be a peaceful encounter.
Quick update: there was some confusion about the date–we’re meeting with the bishop next Tuesday.
16 responses so far ↓
1 pilgrimgirl // May 22, 2006 at 1:35 pm
When I was younger I used to feel a little thrill when I would be called in. It was sort of like the anticipation one feels when waiting for their birthday–knowing that you would be getting a special surprise but not really knowing what would be in the package and would you really like it?
But, I think, ever since I was released from a calling in YW that I really didn’t want to be released from (tho because I was returning to school it was a very logical choice to release me), I’ve felt a bit more sad at such interviews. It’s difficult to not know what the meetings are about and it’s hard to prepare for them emotionally and spiritually.
My interactions with our current Bishop have been quite positive–we’ve known him for many years. I don’t really feel that I have anything to be afraid of. But I don’t like the limbo feeling, either.
FWIW, I’m having a hard week anyways. Saturday was the anniversary of my cancer diagnosis (this, on the year that our oldest child is the same age as when I was diagnosed) and there’ve been lots of other things going on that have stressed me out. I’m hoping that whatever the interview is about on Tues won’t add to my emotional fragility.
2 Miko // May 22, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I agree: a personage of such authority ought to give some reasoning for the “calling in”. The big fish in my office occassionally will send someone out to get someone else, often for an innocuous reason. But just as likely it could be to get called on the carpet. Knowing a little of why you’re going to the big office is helpful. If for no other reason than to give accurate answers to the questions.
Good luck to the both of you on the morrow.
3 Rich // May 22, 2006 at 9:40 pm
John,
I’m willing to bet that you are/were a fabulous EQ instructor. Wish I could have sat in on a few…!
Yeah, it just happened to me last week; I’m now the assistant Priest Quorum advisor, which really means I’m teaching the 16-18 y.o. boys in the last hour of the meeting block in the Bishop’s office with the Bishop usually present. No pressure or anything! But week one was pretty good, a great group of guys, I think it will go well.
Some calling-in’s are not so great, I’ve had a few myself over the years, but generally things turn out good for the most part. Hope your situation was good/positive yesterday.
Our family is also speaking next Sunday in Sacrament meeting; topic is “service”. Any thoughts/suggestions/stories you would care to share on the subject? (pleez email them if anything comes to mind).
4 Chris Bigelow // May 24, 2006 at 6:52 am
Yeah, this practice of a bishop’s secretary calling you in for an appointment without advance explanation drives me bonkers. I guess it shows that I don’t have a totally clear conscience when it comes to some of the Mormon satire and other things I’ve written, but I do think it’s very inconsiderate not to tell the person what the appointment is about. I usually ask the secretary why I’m being called in, and sometimes they even tell me. But other times I have been left to wonder and dread.
5 pilgrimgirl // May 24, 2006 at 1:20 pm
ACK–the interview will be next week instead of this one…another week of wondering why (because the secretary couldn’t or wouldn’t tell us why Bish was scheduling the appt)….
6 Josh // Jun 1, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“I object to this abuse of power”
Wow, I have never felt like that at all. I can understand being uncomfortable no knowing why you are being called in , but I guess I see it this way generally:
Since the Bishop meets with a ton of people and doesn’t do the scheduling himself a secretary does it. I would argue the power is in fact NOT being abused because the Bishop is generally not telling the secretary the potentially sensitive reasons he wants to talk to someone. “Brother Smith, could you get me an appointment with the Jensen’s” vs “Brother Smith, I have heard some disturbing allegations about Brother Jensen and the Relief Society President. Yeah, I know, I was horrified too. Can you get me an appointment with him? Thanks.”
I would think it would be good practice on particularly sensitive issues for the Bishop to call the person himself and give them a heads up about what he wants to talk about. I know that happens, but who knows what percentage of the time. My 2cents…
7 pilgrimgirl // Jun 3, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Josh–while I agree with you that being called in w/o telling the sec’y why can protect the privacy of the interviewee, most of the time it’s not viewed/used this way at all. Generally the ‘calling in’ is about receiving a new calling or getting released from current responsbilities.
In any case, getting a surprise in a Bish interview–for whatever reason–is about power. He knows why he has called you in and has had time to think/pray/ponder about it. You are on the spot to react spontaneously. Though most Bishops are okay with letting the interviewee sleep on a decision about a new calling, it still can be a difficult position for the interviewee, IMO.
8 Josh // Jun 4, 2006 at 10:13 pm
I didn’t type the code in for the comment and lost my comment on submit, and can’t bear to type it all over again.
Yep, the vast majority of times someone is “called in” are just about callings and releases and though I have been called and released many times, sometimes when I didn’t want it to be, it has never been a big deal that left me feeling like there was a horrible power imbalance.
Oh well, I can’t stand to type it all again. So I will leave it at that
9 John // Jun 4, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Rich, you’re very kind. *blush* I’m sorry for not getting back to you with service ideas, but I’m glad that things went well. Any insights to share? And congrats on your calling! I had the asst. post before and had a blast with the priests [for non-LDS, ‘priests’ are essentially the 16-18 year old boys]. Much of our connection centered on shared music interests. I think you’ll have much fun.
I think that part of my angst is that I don’t want a calling right now, where in the past I would have welcomed one. It would complicate my relationship with the Church right now.
Chris, I’m both glad and sorry you can empathize with me. *grin*
Josh, you have a valid point. I agree that there are privacy issues, but there are ways of working around them (which require just a bit of extra effort). Maybe “abuse” is a bit harsh, but the “power” is still there. I think pilgrimgirl explained well part of the power dynamics in her comment.
There is also a lot of information withholding in church disciplinary settings that has less to about privacy and more to do with power. This I think is often counter to compassion and understanding.
I should mention that the meeting turned out to be a “check up with the Remy’s,” and we were questioned a bit and challenged to go to the temple. Bishop was congenial, but did brush off my concerns about the Church. I felt like I had to make excuses for myself, and I resent that.
My main issue is the dissonance between my belief and my action. I don’t feel that the bishop mediates between me and God. I know I’m far from perfect, but I trust in my own conscience and my direct access to the divine. But by accepting the appointment the way that I did, I physically acknowledged the bishop’s spiritual authority over me.
In the future I plan to not schedule or accept any more appointments. I’m not accountable to the bishop, so I won’t put myself in a position that implies this.
By saying this, I’m not implying that Mormons are wrong to invest and recognize authority in their bishops. But for my own personal spiritual climb towards God, it seems that the Church institution and its leaders have become more hindrance than help.
10 John // Jun 4, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Josh, it looks like we cross-posted. I’m sorry that you lost your comment!
When my values and the Church’s were much more in sync, I had pretty positive experiences. They were still laced with power, but I felt comfortable with our respective positions in the hierarchy.
I think I was more Confucian and less Jeffersonian then.
11 old prof // Jun 7, 2006 at 6:50 pm
With apologies for the confrontational tone. Everything I say seems to come out that way, even with editing. I suspect that I have become a confrontational old man. But that said here is my take on your post. Oh and there is no need to post this.
Power? I am a little surprised at the idea.
He can ask but he can’t compel. That isn’t much “Power”. He must come to you in almost all circumstances as a supplicant.
If he says something to you with which you don’t agree why not say, “I don’t agree with you on that”.
If he says he wants you to do something and you don’t want to do it say, “I don’t want to do that.” Example: the bishop asked me to straighten the youth out because some of them believed in evolution. I said, “Sorry, you have the wrong man. I believe in it too.” Oh the horror! The Bishop slapped me on the shoulder and laughed all the way down the hall. If he had given me a call, stipulating why he wanted to see me, saying what he wanted and let me get ready for his “Order” I could have come up with a much better (well, the same) reply that would have left me exactly where I am now. I’m not worried about coming up with some quick on my feet answer to some esoteric charge that I am totally unprepared for and hence will look bad about or which will cause me to fail some odd test. What could he possible ask that would require hours of preparation to answer? Yes or no pretty well covers anything I have been asked or called in for.
In fact I’m pretty sure I hold the balance of power. If he needs something done and wants me to do it I will or I won’t perform. It’s all up to me.
If the bishop in his position of power suspects that I believe in something antithetical to church doctrine and calls me in all I have to do is say yes, you are right or no that’s not what I believe. He has little or no option at that point. A smile on your part at that moment is all that is necessary. If I havent voiced my opinions on such subjects he is in no position to “make windows into the souls of men”. And if I have taken a strong vocal or written position against basic doctrine his reaction can’t be anything I shouldn’t have thought of, expected or earned. I suppose we all must be ready to stand for that for which we stand.
Power? I suspect it’s only in the perception. The man is just you in another position. What kind of power could you wield if you were Bishop?
No one is kneeling before him holding his hand, tears running down their cheeks, with a chunk of sod on their heads and swearing undying obedience. He can’t even get people to give talks if they don’t want to, and a lot don’t.
I’ve got to say you seem unduly influenced by the title. I’ve always felt sorry for “the man”.
12 pilgrimgirl // Jun 7, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Prof:
In many ways I agree with you–the Bishop only has the power and authority that we give him….
Except in cases where the Bishop can make requests of members, or pass judgements on members, that will result in a change in their ability to attend the temple or can result in a change in their membership status.
I have close friends who have experienced such an abuse of power–they were charged with
“crimes” they didn’t commit and bore the brunt of the Bishop’s (and Stake Pres’) prejudice and authority.
Of course, those are exceptions.
But, as a woman, I find it difficult to discuss very personal (even intimate) aspects of my life with a Bishop who often does not know me at all. Even in a basic temple recommend interview there are questions about very private parts of our lives. It is difficult to be female and alone with an unfamiliar man who has the power to judge my responses. I can hope that he will be sensitive to the Spirit as he does so. But in almost every interview I’ve been in–even when I know the Bishop or SP well–I’ve felt nervous and afraid. Not because of sin, but because of very intimacy of the interview procedure. I know I’m not alone in this feeling. I’ve discussed it with other LDS women and almost all have expressed similar difficulties. More than anything, I dislike that I have to answer to someone else about such personal parts of my life. IMO, that should be between me and my God. Not between me and a man that I barely know.
13 old prof // Jun 8, 2006 at 1:08 am
Of course you are right.
But the implication of unfair power sounds like some reworked marxian dogma. The man has no training. You are not dealing with a professional. He is just doing the best he can. cut him a little slack.
I dont like being asked sensative questions. He doesnt like asking them. I see your point exactly. It is perhaps a situation that should be reworked in some way to ease the discomfort
I suspect the questions are devised to seperate out those who should from those who should not and woud not be advantaged by attending the Temple.
I fail to see how a change to ones membership status or the gaining of a temple recommend coud be of much interest to those who truely “shouldn’t” have either membership or temple recommends. You must admit that unbelievers or non-believers are the only ones likely to rationally be affected by a true answer.
And sure Bishops make mistakes. People probably are from time to time unfairly treated.
Thats the human condition. People make mistakes. Sometimes big ones. when they do let them know they have so done. I have never personally seen this but Iknow it must happen.
The church is afflicted by the unfortunate necessity of staffing itself with human beings. Be humane.
14 John // Jun 9, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Old Prof, I have nothing personal against our bishop. Like most bishops, he’s a conscientious and congenial man. But I see the Church as more than staffed by humans–the institution itself is a human creation, and exhibits many faults and strengths common to other conservative religious organizations. It distributes both benefits and problems very unevenly. It takes care of its own very well (esp. the men), and is less stellar in its care of people on the margins. I think part of the problem is that we don’t clearly fit into standard definitions of “active” or “less active” Mormons, and probably are perceived in ways that might make leaders suspect that we are “troublemakers.”
I fail to see how a change to ones membership status or the gaining of a temple recommend coud be of much interest to those who truely “shouldn’t” have either membership or temple recommends.
If nothing else, it’s very painful to be put into a situation where you have to choose between your own personal integrity and membership in a community you value. I’ve waffled for years between my personal conscience v. my desire to overcome my ‘unworthiness’ in the eyes of my adopted people. But maybe you’re right. Maybe I shouldn’t be so troubled by the power I feel the Church has over me. I should just get over it and move on.
15 pilgrimgirl // Jun 10, 2006 at 7:19 am
Old Prof, you wrote:
“Power? I suspect it‚Äôs only in the perception. The man is just you in another position. What kind of power could you wield if you were Bishop?”
My response:
But the Bishop isn’t just me in another position. I will never be a Mormon Bishop. Even entertaining the questions of what power I could/would wield if I were Bishop is a laughable enterprise. That’s really my point. As long as I am Mormon I will always have a male figure in authority over me. It’s not so easy for me to dismiss this role as someone just like me. He’s not just like me. He has the priesthood, the “authority to act in the name of God.” What am I? A Mormon woman.
16 old prof // Jun 11, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I understand your point Pilgrim but it wasnt so laughable when I was replying to John. He isn’t a Mormon woman.
Leave a Comment