Recently I opened the blog up to your questions (here), and instead of just trying to answer them directly, I ended up with posts about receiving personal revelation, and venting. I wasn’t trying to avoid the questions, but felt that several of the questions all fit within the same principle/doctrine that was addressed. This post is another one of those composite answers to multiple questions.
Here are some snippets from the Q&A that got me thinking about this:
• What’s the best way to deal with a youth sunday school teacher who says he doesn’t like the new curriculum, and is going to just keep teaching from the gospel doctrine manual instead?
• My seminary class has a couple of kids who won’t participate in any lesson or activity on any level.
• How on earth can we, as their spiritual leaders, handle a situation like this? (Yes, this is really generic.)
• What would you have done last week in Primary when not one, but two adults agreed and taught that at judgement day we would be judged by Satan?
• Wow! That is actually something that I would bring up with your bishop.
• Yes, I agree! A definite discussion with the bishop.
• And yet I hear from many other accounts that the new curriculum is a significant change and really awesome. This is only the latest example of many instances of way-less-than-ideal teaching going on in our ward.
• I was told that the high council had an issue with her choice of dress and that her being the laurel president is posing a problem.
These are snippets of questions, answers and real problems that seem unrelated, but I do see a “theme” emerging in many of them. Here is my best attempt at a group answer:
I believe and sustain the principles of “Stewardship,” and “Line of Authority.”
We have stewardship, and the accompanying accountability, over many things: Ourselves, our bodies, our minds,our families, the needy, the afflicted, etc. For the sake of this discussion, I want to focus on the stewardships we are given in the form of church callings.
One of the miracles of the church is the concept of the lay ministry. And I use the word “miracle” intentionally. Every ward, branch, stake or district that we live in are run by people like you and me. For free. No degrees in theology, no careerists. No corporate intrigue.
Then, to make it even crazier, every once in a while, we all play musical chairs and change jobs. And we do this our entire lives. Voluntarily. One day you might be in charge, the next day I might be in charge. We see these stewardships as a sacred trust, and spend huge amounts of our lives and focus on doing them well.
And it works. That is the miracle. The reason it works is because we respect the doctrine of stewardship. We are taught to “stand in the office in which we are appointed.” We serve, we do the best we can, and eventually we will be released and be given a different opportunity to serve.
The reason that these many stewardships can exist and function with remarkable success, is that they are girded by the structure of the Line of Authority. Every calling is extended by a line leader in the priesthood. And that line leader was called by someone else. All of our callings are tied together in this line. Without this structure, or when this structure is ignored, things get messy.
Two great talks about these concepts are from Boyd K. Packer and Quentin L. Cook.
Finally, the grand prize of this entire structure is that we are entitled to receive revelation fro the Holy Ghost as it corresponds to our stewardship, or anyone else that we are responsible for along the line of authority. But it only works one way.
For example: A Primary President can receive revelation regarding any of the Primary Instructors or students that are in her stewardship. BUT, a Primary Instructor is NOT entitled to receive revelation on behalf of the Primary President, and that same instructor is only privileged to receive revelation for their own students, not for anyone else’s.
A simple test: If someone is claiming inspiration that goes UP the line of authority, they are being misled by some other voices. (If you ever hear me claim to have received revelation on behalf of the entire Church, close this window, delete my bookmark, and never come back.)
So, how does working with the principles of stewardship and the line of authority answer any of these questions? It puts you in the right place to receive revelation for the problem. Example:
• What’s the best way to deal with a youth sunday school teacher who says he doesn’t like the new curriculum, and is going to just keep teaching from the gospel doctrine manual instead?
If you are a parent, the first thought might be to do as counseled in D&C 42, and go to the person alone, and talk about it. Don’t vent to your friends and family. Next, you discuss the situation with the Sunday School President. If you go any higher, you are leap-frogging. If you are the Sunday School President, you take it to the Lord in prayer, and discuss it within your own presidency. Then if still necessary, bring it up in Ward Council. (That’s what it is for.)
• What would you have done last week in Primary when not one, but two adults agreed and taught that at judgement day we would be judged by Satan?
If you are serving in the Primary, you would go to your file leader – the Primary President. If you go any higher, you are leap-frogging. If you are the Primary President, you would pray about it, and discus it in your own presidency. If still unresolved, you would then bring it to Ward Council. (Seeing a trend here?) The Bishop does have an added responsibility to protect the integrity of the doctrine being taught in the ward, so he should be informed of what was going on, and if it was resolved, but he is not the first line response.
The response “Ask the Bishop,” or “Talk to the Bishop about it” is rarely the correct answer to a problem, and is usually an example of leap-frogging.
• I was told that the high council had an issue with her choice of dress and that her being the laurel president is posing a problem. What role does the high council have in matters like this? I am a little surprised that someone at that level would feel the need to address it.
This is an example of someone operating outside of their stewardship, unless the High Councilor has been specifically assigned by the Stake President to serve as “Modesty Police.” The Keys of the Aaronic Preisthood (which encompassed YW), are held by the Bishop. He calls who he feels God wants called. The High Council is not normally in that line of authority. Neither are stake auxiliary leaders.
If we work within our stewardships, and lines of authority, we are entitled to help from the Spirit. If we are leap-frogging, or outside of our stewardship, we are not. And we need that help.
Here is a tougher one: (One that I am going to take on with more detail later)
• My EC was recently called as YM second counselor and is responsible for the deacons in our ward. Prior to our moving to this ward, there were multiple problems with this group of boys, not the least of which is bullying/hazing lack of respect for leaders, lack of respect for fellow deacons, etc. Having an activity/lesson is nigh unto impossible!
Rough situation. Do you go to the Bishop first? No. First you go to God to seek inspiration. If that does not help, yo ask yourself, “Who has the immediate stewardship over the Deacons Quorum?” The Deacon’s Quorum President. He holds the keys. Not the YM 2nd Counselor, not the Scoutmaster. That President is entitled to take the matter to the Lord, then to his presidency. If no solutions present themselves, the next step is to take it to the Bishop via a PPI, or Bishop’s Youth Council. The YM 2nd Counselor can take it to his presidency meeting, and the YM President can take it to Ward Council. All of these are within the proper line of authority, and all of these participants are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in finding a solution. Is leap-frogging right to the Bishop necessary? No. That’s where two separate lines of authority already lead.
The Church doesn’t function like a phone call to a customer service line. If we don’t like the answer we get at one level, we don’t escalate the call to a supervisor to try and get the answer we want.
I had the privilege while serving as bishop to have people leapfrog me and go straight to the Stake President because they were unhappy with me. In every instance, the Stake President gently told them that he sustained me, and they needed to come deal with me instead of him. A leader who understands does not encourage or support leap-frogging.
From a personal perspective, I can only think of four issues that would cause me to personally reach out to the bishop. 1) If I needed to repent for something big. 2) If I needed emergency welfare assistance. 3) If I needed guidance in how to go about getting counseling, or 4) A referral to LDS Social Services. Anything and everything else would go through my Home Teachers, HP Group leader, or line leaders for my calling. (And #2 is even a bit “iffy”.)
For many of the issues that we wrestle with, we can find solutions if we have the aid of the Holy Ghost, and people serving in the proper stewardships. When we attempt to bypass this line of authority, the Spirit departs, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot by forfeiting our very best source of guidance.
When we have questions, or problems within our stewardship, first, we go to God, Then we go to our file leader. Leap-frog is for kids.
Sorry, late to the party. I must have missed this post somehow. Great thoughts, MMM. I completely agree. I’ve always been of the school that the Bishop or Stake President are last resorts. They’re busy men, and I try to only bug them when necessary. We need to all have more faith in our immediate leaders. When we leap frog them, we don’t give them the opportunity to use their inspiration and/or keys to help us, which is good for all of us.
I learned this valuable lesson a few years ago when I called the RS Compassionate Service Leader to let her know about a need one of the sisters in my ward had. The Compassionate Service Leader kindly told me that any nearby family was expected to help first, then if she had additional needs, her Visiting Teachers/Home Teachers would be expected to help, and then if that wasn’t enough help, the Compassionate Service Leader would gather the needed help, and then if more help was needed, the request for help would go to the RS Pres. That helped me understand the “chain of command”, and reinforced the idea of letting stewards take on their stewardship.
Wise counsel, MMM.
A word about counseling with the bishop: Because the bishop is the judge in Israel, he does have certain keys which may be helpful in counseling with individual members, particularly about sensitive matters that may result in a discussion of worthiness. Since some members may be uncertain, it is not unusual for them to start with their bishop when seeking counsel.
Wise bishops will provide the triage you mention and send many on their way to other resources so that he can focus on helping those whom only he can help to apply the blessings of the atonement to their lives.
When I was an EQP, I went the rounds with my bishop at the time on this issue. If a quorum member came to me for counsel, I offered it. I informed the bishop. When the bishop told me, “He needs to see me, not you,” I told the bishop he could invite the brother in for an interview. I was wrong to be a pig-headed as I was, but I still believe (after having served as bishop twice) that as an EQP I was in the right to listen to and counsel with my quorum member when he sought my counsel.
All that said, the most valuable bit of counsel is in two separate lines in your OP:
1. “Don’t vent to your friends and family.”
2. “First you go to God to seek inspiration.”
Gossip is a terrible thing and will do nothing to resolve conflict. Prayer, on the other hand, is a humbling activity and will help us to focus ourselves on the Lord’s will for us. Always a good choice.
I’m sorry this isn’t totally relevant to this post, but it’s a question I thought of after question hour.
My in-laws divorced a few years ago, and my Father-IL remarried shortly thereafter (one of the causes of the divorce). He and my MIL did not cancel their sealing b/c she did not want to lose their sealing and cause herself to be set adrift.
My Mom knows about this, and we were talking about it. She was told that a woman whose husband has not held up to his sealing covenant would be “sealed to Christ” and could cancel her sealing to the man.
I have personally never read anything doctrinally about being “sealed to Christ.” My understanding is what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, and we need to be sealed in order to reach the celestial kingdom. The millenium will be the time to figure out that the bad things that have happened in this life.
So I’m wondering is, did I miss something? I don’t know if I fully understand how sealing work in cases where the covenant has failed. What can/should a person do in this situation (like my dear MIL)?
In my families experience they would not cancel my moms sealing without her being ready to be sealed to another person. The Stake President explained that just because she was still sealed to my dad that didnt mean she had to spend eternity with him because he violated the covenants, not her. Its one of those situations the Lord works out and it will always benefit those that kept their covenants.
My understanding is that if the sealing wasn’t cancelled, and the wife has kept her covenants, she will get the full blessings of the sealing. But her husband won’t because he broke his covenants.
I’m not entirely sure but I think if they cancel the sealing, neither of them gets the full blessings from it. (Much like asking for your name to be removed completely from the records of the church.)
That was my understanding, too, and why my MIL didn’t cancel her sealing when her husband wanted to.
OK….I am one of those who suggested talking with the Bishop about the primary thingy…but that is probably because my EC is the bishop. I tell him those things not in a ‘fix it’ kind of way, but just so he is aware. Then I drop it and let it go where ever it needs to go. Sometimes he asks if I have discussed it with my file leader. Other times, he just listens. Information goes in but doesn’t come out. If I actually had to make an appointment to talk to the bishop about such things, I probably would not do it. It would just seem a little petty to me. However, especially where teaching the youth (and by that I am including Primary, though maybe I shouldn’t) is involved, I just think he should be aware of some of the interesting ‘ideas/supposed doctrines’ the kids are exposed to, especially at church. But you are right, the presidents of those organizations should know first, as well. Thanks for the reminder 🙂
You are completely right in that the bishop does need to know what is going on. But he fact that you are his wife throws of the entire dynamic. “Information goes in but doesn’t come out.” is truly funny, and I’m going to show my wife that it wasn’t just me.
Thanks!
Oh my when we are called a ward family, sometimes that is literally seen as Papa Bishop and Mama R.S. President. Having served as a Stake R.S. Pres and ward R.S Pres. twice and Y.W. Pres. there was a lot of leap frogging in different wards. Respect for the lines of authorities have to be continually taught and still keep the sense of ‘family’ intact.
What am I missing here? If one of my children are disrespectful / creating havoc, I would expect someone bring it to my attention BEFORE getting the BYC/WC/Bishop involved.
You missed this line, earlier in the post:
“If you are a parent, the first thought might be to do as counseled in D&C 42, and go to the person alone, and talk about it.”
I think what anon. means is that he or she wants a chance to work with her own child to improve behavior before it becomes a presidency issue. This is a whole new can of worms. I feel the same way about my own children but I dread with all my heart trying to approach another parent about their child. I am not sure I can ever think of a time that it ended okay, because even if they accept the news with humility, our relationship is strained for a long time. bleychh, this is a subject for a post of it’s own. 🙁
On a completely unrelated note… Where on earth do you find these pictures?!? Or are you just THAT talented at photoshop?
This reminds me of an experience I recently had at girls’ camp where I was the leader there, and one of my girls went to her mom who was there, and instead of coming to me with the problem, she called the YW president who didn’t even come to camp, who then had to call me to tell me what I had done wrong. I feel like a lot of hurt feelings (and anger on my part… it was before I read your anger posts… ha!) could’ve been avoided if she had just come to me… or if the girl had come to me. I was the leader there, ya know?
Anyway, as always, I love your post. You always get me to thinking.
The gist of my comment was that this is an unknown/misunderstood/rarely discussed principle in the gospel/church–this line of authority idea. I didn’t learn about it until I was an adult, even though I’d been an active member all my life. And even then, I didn’t think of it as such until you blogged about it. (Then again, I’ve never been one to complain to the bishop for anything, just to my husband who, thankfully, is NOT a bishop. See “venting.” Yes, I have many things to work on in this life)
As a seminary teacher, I’ve never heard much about where we’d go for line of authority instruction. I guess to my stake seminary supervisor, since it’s a stake calling. But it seems strange to talk to someone who knows very little about our youth and leave the Bishop, who has stewardship over the youth and knows them quite well, out of the loop. Especially when he’s the husband of my co-teacher and she probably tells him lots already. I’ll probably bring this up next seminary inservice meeting.
Interesting.
My comment got deleted, but it basically was that when my EC was EQ pres. (love all the initials in our church), the Stake President told him he was the ‘first line’ for counseling for those in his quorum, not the bishop. He tried, but most people didn’t want to talk to him, just the bishop. The RS Pres, the HPGL, etc are the first line for those, and not the bishop. The bishop’s primary responsibility is the YOUTH, not as a marriage counselor. Thoughts?
I found my deleted response: It is a well-ingrained tradition.
I had a hard time shifting it to the EQP, HPGL, and RSP as well. But part of the problem is the nature of marriage problems. They are founded in sin, sometimes very serious sin – and that’s what a bishop is built for – helping people resolve sin.
Sometimes I would have a “triage” interview, and then send them to another church leader, or professional counseling.
There is a talk by Richard G. Scott that suggests leap frogging is okay, at times anyway. This comes from his April 2008 Conference talk. ‘Healing may begin with a thoughtful bishop or stake president or a wise professional counselor. If you are currently being abused or have been in the past, find the courage to seek help. You may have been severely threatened or caused to fear so that you would not reveal the abuse. Have the courage to act now. Seek the support of someone you can trust. Your bishop or stake president can give you valuable counsel and help you with the civil authorities…..’
I don’t see that as leapfrogging. As I mentioned in a now deleted comment, I think the bishop needs to do a “triage” evaluation before it is determined if the bishop, a professional, or other church member needs to help with the counseling.
In my experience abuse of any kind is a totally different matter. There are usually several elements involved and like MMM has said one of the bishops responsibilities is in helping members of his ward find healing through the Atonement. Whether you are the abuser or the abused you need help in applying the healing properties of the atonement.
Oops; L3 beat me to the punch for first.
Guess I get to be the first to comment since everyone else’s (likely inspirational) comments have been deleted. I love this post; thanks for the reminder! I recently spoke to another teacher who was very frustrated when a student’s parents took issue with something she was doing in class but leap-frogged the teacher and went right to the principal. It would have been so much easier and less frustrating if the parent had just spoken to the teacher directly. I think we do have a tendency to think we need to go over their heads to someone with higher authority, so thanks for the reminder that that is not the inspired way of doing things.
I teach the “new” Sunday School curriculum and I know why some don’t like it: You have to PREPARE early, pray, and really WORK for a lesson. No more reading the manual in Sac. Mtg and winging it. It requires so much more from the teacher, but I know I am getting more out of it than my class.
I don’t know what happened to all the comments – they just vanished. Sorry! I would appreciate it if you would try and recreate them!