We all know the common trope of the temple ceremony being “Sacred not secret”. While we can debate that with the Internet and New Name Noah that ship has sailed, I was always bothered by the triteness of the saying. In my mind it should have been “It is secret because it is sacred”.
But the reason I write this is the “Secret not Sacred” problem we have in the current church. We love a good secret! Who will be the new bishop? It’s a secret that was so well kept that I didn’t know my replacement until his name was called from the pulpit seconds after I was released with a vote of thanks. He was called two weeks before he was sustained. If I had known a few weeks before, I could have met with him, and eased the transition. But even me as a sitting bishop couldn’t be trusted with the information. It was a “secret”
New Apostles? New policies? Secret until they are announced in general conference. Lower the missionary age? Keep it a secret from even BYU, who it will have a great impact upon their numbers, and leave them scrambling the next few months to fill empty slots. Why does the bishop want to visit with you, big secret! How much money does the church have; bigger secret than even the temple ceremonies! When people receive their Second Anointing, they are told they must keep it a secret. I once asked an old mission companion who had been a Stake President if he had received his Second Anointing. He deflected the question and said it was not a saving ordnance and that I should concentrate on the known temple ordinances.
Just this last week we learned that the church had been keeping a secret since 2014 about a mission president in Puerto Rico that was excommunicated for inappropriate relations with the Sister Missionaries. I would guess that probably 20-30 people in the mission knew this, and yet the church was able to put the lid on it for this long.
This is not unique to the church, and is common in many big organizations I can see reasons to keep some things secret. As a bishop, I kept lots of secrets that people shared with me. But these were personal things, and I had a mandate to kept them confidential.
When I was bishop, and I needed to meet with somebody, I instructed my Executive Secretary to tell the people why I wanted to meet with them in general terms, e.g. “Get to know them”, “new calling”, “talk about their child’s behavior” etc. This never caused any problem and I had several people thank me for this. This was better than having somebody lie for me. Usually when you ask what the bishop wants, the Executive Secretary will say “I don’t know”, when you know full well that he was sitting in bishopric meeting then your name was decided on to be the new nursery leader!
Is it just human nature to love a good secret, to know something that somebody else does not know? In what ways could the church be more transparent, less “secret” in its culture without harming the operation of the church, and make it more welcoming for its members? Or is it just fine as it is?
Wheat & Tares 
Though for many things, you do need an announcement date.
Maybe a “start the gossip date” and an “official announcement date” might be a good replacement?
😉
Though I do agree things can be taken too far.
Bishop Bill, you hit on some good points. I have always hated the secret manner bishops are called and yet the new bishopric tells all their family and they are attending the sacrament because they know. Very silly practice.
I like your approach. “New calling,” or “get to know them” is much better than “I don’t know.”
I do suspect most people, unless new in the ward, wouldn’t believe “get to know them” though. I got called in for a “get to know them” meeting with the bishop, and was surprised that was really the purpose of the meeting. I already had a calling, and still have the same calling.
I would commend, but my feelings are secret. 😉
It is a bit funny as the last 4 bishops I have had, everyone “knew” who it would be months ahead of time as it just seemed obvious who seemed to be acting the most bishop like, had great people skills, and really didn’t want to be the bishop.
I think if the church’s finances were transparent there would be FAR more good and charitable things done with them. And I think the administration of the church would be better off as well. I’m sure they have no enthusiasm for being second guessed but if they had to think twice about building a new mall or buying more real estate as opposed to more Second World improvements or hospitals committed to affordable care in the US we might get more of the latter.
I whole heartedly agree Alice.
Another needless reason for secrecy jumped out at me today in Elders. We were finally getting our new EQ presidency sustained, and when the counselors got up to give a short testimony, both said that when they were called this last week, they were NOT told who the new EQ President was (the very person who had asked for them) and that they found out with everybody else just moments before when that person was called. Perfect example of unneeded secrecy.
Bill – that would depend on who the EQ Pres is. Some folks may say, “I will serve as long as it ISN’T brother such-and-such”.
I don’t want to start a thread jack if nobody else is interested. But the story about Puerto Rico mission president taking liberties with the sister missionaries and getting excommunicated raises questions that deserve discussion.
The sisters are adults . If they consented then they should be held accountable.and sent home or disciplined. They don’t have much wiggle room as missionaries.. If they did not consent then that is rape or some variation and not reporting it to the police is aiding and abetting a criminal act. The grey area between the two should prompt action in both directions not neither.
The church excommunicated this bastard making it more difficult for him to victimize naive LDS girls .But it does nothing to protect the other women outside the church. In my limited experience guys don’t go from total innocence to sexual activity serious enough to be excommunicated suddenly that late in life. That man has bee perv-ing for years and police should start with his family and the youth/former youth in his ward and neighborhood. If they shake that tree I would be surprised if some rotten fruit didn’t fall on their heads.
I think a reason they keep callings so secret until sustaining is to reduce the number of opposed votes. If people have time to think about and discuss potential leaders, they are more likely to oppose. Catching them off guard with someone they never thought could be in leadership often freezes them in the moment and they either sustain out of habit or don’t vote at all.
Mike, I would say that the issue of consent with an older authority figure whom you’ve been told to obey no matter what is a pretty tough issue. Morally, I’m not sure these missionaries were capable of consent, legally I’m not sure you could prove that. I also have no idea what rape laws are like in Puerto Rico where it occurred.
There was recently a major reshuffling of the boundaries in my stake that affected 4 wards. This was announced in February. YM and YW organizations had worked hard to schedule a full year’s worth of activities when you know full well that stake leaders knew this change was coming. Did those stake leaders say, “hey YM and YW presidencies, why don’t you hold off on calendaring the year. Some changes are coming which will make that planning null and void.” No. Of course not. It’s all a big secret and people wasted their time and effort planning activities that stake presidencies and bishoprics knew were never going to happen. All for the sake of secrecy. Why? For what purpose? The behavior of this church baffles me sometimes.
My disabled daughter, in her compassion, recently contributed to a fund set up on lds living, or associated with the site, to support a family in tragic circumstances which necessitated large amounts of funds. She has no income, but some savings. I do find myself questioning, in these circumstances, why this families expenses are not being addressed through tithing, for which I have paid dearly and impoverished my own family over the years.
On reflection, I suppose both health and insurance industries would be heavily impacted if the lds church stepped in to every circumstance, but I wonder how many times my daughter will have to contribute to the welfare of those living in a rich church in a rich country,when I choose to pay into a high taxation high support system because here we know this stuff happens to people every day as a matter of misfortune rather than misjudgement?
Right now, I want to know how this works, especially in these kinds of circumstances.
Handlewithcare, not knowing any of the circumstances of this family, it would appear that their needs are way over the capability of the local church to handle. When I was bishop, I was able to give Fast Offerings without Stake intervention up to the amount I took in as a ward. So if we as a ward took in say $12,000 for the year, then I could give out $12,000 without anybody looking over my shoulder. But once I went over that amount, the SP would question ever expense, wanting to know what the plan was to make the recipient self-sufficient.
The same held true for the Stake, if it expended as a Stake more than it took in, it needed permission from the Area Authority. In the case of this particular family, I would guess that their expenses are in the six figures, maybe even high six figures. This would put it beyond the capability of a ward or even a Stake to handle. I’m not aware of the church ever paying out that amount. It would seem that the government safety nets would come into play. I’m sure the church is helping as they can with food and other support, but not in the six figure range.
All this is not really secret, it’s just not known unless you were a bishop, or you had a bishops copy of the Church Handbook of Instruction, which is of course sacred/secret
That’s very helpful BB, and might help with misunderstanding were it more widely known, particularly amongst those questioning the church’s probity on these matters.
EBK: wrote “Morally, I’m not sure these missionaries were capable of consent, ..”
What would be the outcome if I picked out a few BYU girls that age and charmed them with money or my great personality. Then did them the same way President Smartt did them? Maybe it would not be legally winnable, if even a crime. But they are not teenagers they are adult women and in Nevada would be allowed to practice prostitution legally. At BYU they would be brought before the Honors Code Nazis and disciplined. Or do you think this was no more than a little smooching, boobie grabbing, dry humping- second or first base sort of activity that is acceptable at BYU?. Consent to romantically kissing the mission president would bring what consequences to the missionary? Or better, the mission president’s wife? Apparently nothing.
A man of that age goes to that much expense in time and money and goes that far over the expected boundaries and stops there? Multiple times? Not likely. We need to decide whether grown women are children or adults. If adults we need to stop treating them like children and acting like they are not capable of consent. If we train adults to act like children that is still on them. Frankly many youth in high school are just as capable of consent as adults.
Mike, I think you misunderstand me. Young adult women are definitely capable of consent. I just question whether sister missionaries are capable of consenting WITH their mission president. If a man holds a gun to a woman’s head and says, “have sex with me or I’ll shoot you” she is not consenting by saying ok. If a man threatens a woman’s salvation and claims an angel with a flaming sword will kill him if she doesn’t marry him, she is not consenting when she says yes. What if a woman has been told time after time that to disobey her mission president is to disobey God and may result in loss of her salvation and others’ whom she would have found had she been righteous? If he asks for sex and she agrees, is that consent.? I would say no. If it was an Elder in that position instead of a sister, I would still say he probably isn’t capable of consent.
Also, I found your comment pretty crass and full of disrespect for women. I almost didn’t respond because I assumed you were a troll, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you respond, I’d prefer if you didn’t talk about women with such disrespect.
Mike is a troll and has a lot of goofy and offensive theories. He often rambles longer than the OP. Believe it or not, this is actually better behavior than normal for him.
Youth? Consent? Really? Spent a lot of time with youth recently have you?
Never was thinking about sexual activity so garbled, and they are scarcely more than children when you get to listen to them, let lose in a world of exploitative adults. It’s our job as adults to be keeping them as safe as we possibly can from themselves and others.
Mission president in ‘ loco parentis?’
Every speaker what talks to missionaries: Exact Obedience
Sister missionaries: *obey their MP when he asks them to be his plural wives*
Speakers: No not like that
EBK wrote: ” What if a woman has been told time after time that to disobey her mission president is to disobey God and may result in loss of her salvation and others’ whom she would have found had she been righteous? If he asks for sex and she agrees, is that consent.? I would say no.”
I think this is the crux of the issue. I would say, hell yes,it is still consent. Maybe it is not in the first example where a yes is uttered verbally but a no shouted silently, in order to survive. And then it is switched the moment liberty is obtained. I consider the second example like unto the third, except with further historical complications because of who (Joseph Smith if anyone doesn’t recognize it) perpetrated this immoral behavior.( A sword? Really Josie, my boy? An obvious literary and theatrical phallic symbol? When said angel would be expected to have access to weapons more powerful than modern nuclear ICBMs?)
I submit this is the source of further disagreement. Illuminating questions, EBK. Very brightly illuminating.
Sexual expression outside of marriage is so taboo, so hammered into the youth, so repressive; and yet obedience to authority so easily and outrageously outweighs it? How repressed, one might ask? My cousin on the USU football team never even kissed his girlfriend until they knelt at the altar in the temple and were married. I suppose if the officiator doing the ceremony wanted to “break her in first” and ravish her right there, we should not blame the newly wed couple for allowing it to happen.
What is the first principle of Orthodox Mormonism? Always obey church leaders.
This illustrates the difference between an internal moral compass based on a direct connection to God coupled with moral reasoning and an external moral compass based on obedience to men (usually) who we place between us and God. You can see the results. Naive young women called to share the gospel and tell people how to live their lives who are so twisted that a dirty old man can easily seduce them and we defend it. Disgusting.
A young woman who actually believes in chastity as a principle, core to her internal moral compass, is not going to submit to an old man in a position of power exercising unrighteous dominion and weaseling sexual favors from her, regardless of how trivial or severe..Apparently one of them did blow the whistle on him. Good for her. She should be invited to give an accounting of it in General Conference and heralded as a hero. She should be offered a job at the MTC training sister missionaries and given free tuition at BYU if she wanted to go there. Not so shamed that we scarcely can discuss it.
Mormon Heretic:
You insult me. Not by calling me a troll, that is a complement to me. Better behavior than usual? That really cuts me to the core.I better step up my game.
I might point out your brief comment has no less than 3 logical flaws, all ad hominem attacks. Interestingly, one of my theories is that ad hominem attacks are the other side of the coin of another common logical flaw called appeal to authority. In the first, we say: don’t believe him because of who he is. In the second we say: do believe him because of who he is. Both without regard to listening to the message or thinking about it. They often occur together. Which ironically the second (appeal to authority) is exactly the basis that EKB uses in dismissing this “consent.”. Echo chamber MH and EKB.
I guess I could be nice and rosy about it and conclude that if my behavior is better than usual then Mormon Heretic must agree with me, at least partially? Maybe not exactly what was meant. So much for Rosie, she had syphilis anyway, my old heart throb called by that name.
For a closing hymn let us all sing together that old sailors ditty:
If you knew Rosie, like I knew Rosie
You’d take your penicillin shots too!
Another verse about sister missionaries in Puerto Rico deleted.