I served as a Bishop for 5 years, during which time I had a very busy travel schedule with my work. Sometimes I would be out of town Monday-Friday, then home for YM/YW activities (yes, that is what we called in in the olden days!) on Saturday, and all day Sunday for my normal routine, then repeat it all again starting Monday.
I still had three kids at home to start, and one daughter when I was released. I was able to see the light at the end of the 5 years, and justified my time away from family as it was only for 4…3…2…1 more years. About a year after I was released, a member of the Stake Pres came by my house to call me to attend the Spanish ward and help them out. I told them it was my daughter’s last year in the family ward, I had missed the previous five years sitting with her and my wife, and I did not want to leave the ward. He tried to convince me but I held firm and said no. About 3 years later after all my kids were out of the house I did take a calling in the Spanish ward with my wife by my side.
A few years ago I was again called to meet with a member of the Stake Pres, who called me to the Stake YM Presidency. I that time we had a daughter going through some hard times with her husband’s job, and it was taking a lot of our time helping out, so again I turned it down, citing my family obligations that came first. Again they tried to talk me into taking the calling but I held firm.
Both of these times I needed to exert my right to be with my family. The family first motto is nice, but it does not seem to apply to leaders. I recently listened to an interview with a daughter of a 70 (Hartman Rector Jr). She was seven when her dad was called in 1969. She recounted how her dad, with her mom, would leave for 4-6 weeks at a time on church assignments around the world, and she and her siblings would be farmed out to families in the ward. She talked about how traumatic this was for her and her younger brother, being left at the homes of strangers for such long periods of time.
She also said her father was not there for her baptism, and a strange man she did not know baptized her. Her father was never there for any of the daddy-daughter activities they had in Young Women.
I had a friend who’s father was the Stake President for all his teenage years. He has few if any memories of him being home, or doing things with him.
How do we justify this as a church when we are so family oriented? What is the apologetic answer to this? Have any of you grown up with absentee fathers due to their church callings? How did it affect you?
Wheat & Tares 
Even if Elder Rector had to be gone 4-6 weeks at a time, why was his wife going with him leaving small children with strangers for that length of time? Was it to take advantage of church expense account vacations around the world? to get away from the kids?
Sometimes father being absent is an improvement, but both parents!?. I wonder.
BTW, I think practices among GAs varied and probably still do. Long ago (also in the 60s when GAs ordained bishops), a BYU faculty member called as a bishop of a BYU ward (then rather like having 200+ teenagers all at once) he let it be known that he had 11 children at home. The GA told him he could be a bishop on Sundays and one evening per week, that if he couldn’t get it done in that time he was not to do it because he belonged at home with his family. Anyway, that’s how I now remember the story he then told me.
I attended a fireside with Elder Rasband earlier this year. He didn’t have a prepared talk, so he just turned it in to an open Q&A session.
A young father posed this very same concern (church callings talking too much away from families, etc.).
Elder Rasband said (I paraphrase) that we ultimately have to be the guardians and set the boundaries. We can’t let anyone dictate that for us.
Now, as for the very time intensive callings, I’m hoping that the recent delegation changes will help with that.
In any case, just hearing him talk about that made me feel better about the times I turned down callings for a good reason. Even though church leaders often press to try and get you to accept, I just chalk it up to them trying to get things done and move on to all the other things they have to do.
I feel bad for people who feel coerced or pressured for stuff at Church.
I was a deacon when my father was called into the bishopric as a counselor and a year later as bishop when our ward was divided. He remained in that calling until I went on my mission. I remember vividly one of the few letters I received from him on my mission was the one he wrote after being released. He was a school administrator, farmed a few acres and raised cows as well. On top of all that, there were seven children at home (the eighth born towards the end of my dad’s time as bishop). During that time period, I don’t recall a single day when he was home all day. Even holidays required feeding cows or some interactions with members. My mother never complained about it to us (though I remember a time when she was so frazzled my dad insisted that I and my siblings help out more). And how did I feel about it? I remember being somewhat resentful but being an angsty teen I resented lots of things. In hindsight, I see that I was forced (as the oldest) to take on a number of responsibilities I don’t think I would have otherwise. As a result, I’m pretty good at cleaning, changing diapers and generally taking care of kids. It also gave me some perspective on parenting I wouldn’t have had otherwise. I decided early on to be more present in my children’s lives than my father had been. So, ultimately, I feel rather grateful than resentful.
That story about the Hartman Rector family is truly sad, and I think not typical. I think it is very typical for male church leaders to be mostly absent fathers but not typical for their wives to leave minor children like that. I don’t think it’s ok.
So what you’re saying, Bishop Bill, is the real policy is: Church first, but don’t ever say that, say “family first.”
My theory is that church leadership knows that busy callings damage family but that they think church business is more important. Family is perhaps a close second, but after all church business is God’s business even if it’s a bishopric meeting talking about who should set up chairs.
I was released as Bishop a few months ago and there were times I was on the verge of an anxiety attack. It took me a couple of years to realize this but finally I understood that stake (and higher) leadership can only talk not do. For example they made a silly rule that leaders can’t take their underage kids on campouts – for example a bishop can’t take his 11 and 13 year old sons on High Adventure. I told my ward leaders to ignore that – but many people don’t realize saying no or ignoring dumb rules is sometimes an option. And it’s hard in a culture of obedience and occasional manipulation.
Part of the problem is the average church member wants to work w the bishop instead of a delegate. It will take a long time for someone struggling with alcoholism for example to work with the EQ or RS pres instead of the bishop. I heard a Q12 say that SLC knows the burden that bishops carry but that stake presidents do a lousy job of encouraging members to work with ministering bros and sisters and EQ presidents and that there are few things – he even said chastity issues – that require the Bishops attention. But it will take generations to change that attitude.
Toad, I don’t think just generations of teaching adults to talk to EQP or RP is going to work when they raise the teens on “the Bishop is your best friend”. They need to change it right from the younger folks so that people don’t grow up with the idea that only talking to the Bishop works. And this new plan of putting the bishop more directly involved with the priests and YW is backwards. They really need to start out teaching the primary kids that they can talk to their primary teacher if they ever have something they can’t talk to their parents about. And then trust the primary teacher to know if the bishop needs to be involved and not just the police for child abuse. This would solve the problem with bishops calling a hot line that tells them they don’t have to report, not that the church wants that problem solved, but I sure do. Often kids are scared to tell parents things like being bullied at school, but the bishop doesn’t need to be involved in that. And YW advisors or teachers could handle the problems of most teenage angst. And those teachers/advisors would know if it is consensual sex and needs to go to the bishop. Teen girls especially would be MUCH better off if they could talk to a woman about sexual issues, such as date rape, before going to a male who usually assumes that date rape is actually consensual instead of asking the girl if she said no or resisted the YM’s advances.
But most of all they need to teach everyone to not be dependent on the bishop for all spiritual issues, and have someone available who can be. Let me give a personal example. I got into counseling for childhood sexual abuse. I hit several issues touching on religious subjects and my counselor referred me to my clergy. But my bishop felt that I didn’t need any help, but just to forgive and forget. But you don’t just forget terrible emotional injuries any more than you forget a compound broken leg. So, my bishop was just refusing to even talk to me because he was an a**hat and there was nobody to help with spiritual issues. My RSP thought I should talk to the bishop, who chewed me out for “burdening” others with my traumatic shameful childhood. Anyway, my professional counselor ASSUMED that Mormons had competent trained clergy like 90% of religions do and I had to inform him that Mormons only have incompetent, untrained, over worked, nincompoops as clergy.
I lived in a ward once where a retired psychologist did that kind of “helping out the bishop” with spiritual issues where they intersect with emotional and mental health issues. Why can’t we do more of that? Have a calling in each ward or stake with trained but retired or stopped working to raise kids kind of people. That would give someone who was trained, who was also LDS who could do this kind of short term counseling instead of bishops who are untrained and ten give rotten advice for women in battering relationships or adults who were molested as children as I was.
Oh, and to get back on topic, growing up in Provo, the constant joke was that the teens that got into trouble were the bishop’s kids because it was so fen true. Kids need a mother and a father, or at least two real parents, not church widows for mothers. I have also seen three bishops get divorced within a year of being released, because their wife got sick of playing second fiddle to the church.
Personally, I think the church needs to move to paid, full time, trained clergy, but they are so proud of their lay clergy as if know nothing nincompoops (see my above post) are somehow best.
This delegate to others trope rears its head every few years. Delegate to EQP and HPGL last time around. Now EQP & RSP. Didn’t work then, and won’t work now. Bishop will still be overburdened with adult stuff, as well as the youth stuff that Church HQ wants him to retain. Only the bishop can do the “Judge in Israel” gig. Only the bishop can obligate welfare funds. Etc. This is an attempt to delegate responsibility, but not delegating authority. Best of luck.
Family before Church has been emphasized in my upbringing almost as long as I can remember. Even work was emphasized before Church. I’d agree that the reality doesn’t always match it though. I think there is still some pervasive feeling among many members that if others don’t accomplish the thing they’ve delegated to them, it’s up to them to do it instead, even if that means family time. I’d like to think that’s changing more and more. Sometimes you just have trust someone will get it done or else be satisfied with the consequences of the failure when you had put your family first.
My brother-in-law’s dad was a great Stake President (at least from what I’ve heard from members of the stake) while he and his five siblings grew up. He still managed to create family time better than almost any parent I know, so I know it’s possible. I think part of it was using hobbies to wind down, and including his kids in those hobbies. Kind of a two birds and one stone thing.
I really do think shifting more to EQP and RSP may actually work. My wife is RSP, and just since conference the Bishop has been able to shift quite a bit to her. Not exactly what she expected, but I think she’s up for it. As an adult, I’ve been amazed just how many approach the Bishop for any advice on just about anything. I more or less promised myself I’d never meet with the Bishop of my own volition unless it was for worthiness issues (with a separate commitment not to have to do the latter either). I’ve had no regrets from this, and think that decision alone has gone a long way towards spiritual self-reliance. My parents were also great examples in these regards.
A few stake conferences ago we had an area authority speak to us. He mentioned he turned down a routine assignment for his calling in order to take his youngest son to a college basketball game. He said this almost off-hand in order to set up another story, but that one line impressed me as much or more as anything else he said that night. If an area authority has no qualms about saying no once in a while for the sake of his family, I see no problem doing likewise.
A few thoughts, not necessarily inspired, but which have helped me survive in this Church.
1. I was very sad when I read Anna’s awful experience with her Bishop. I, too, have had a few Bishops who seemed to be in some kind of a competition to see how awful they could be. I have also had a few Bishops who merely were so-so. But I have also been fortunate to have been blessed by more Bishops who were compassionate, caring men, who showed enough Christ-like love to overcome their lack of training. To assert that “Mormons only have incompetent, overworked, untrained, overworked nincompoops as clergy” is incorrect and unfair. The extreme terminology—“nincompoops” is the modern-day equivalent of saying “thou fool”— actually undermines the otherwise quite valid points that Anna has made.
2. As to the original thrust of the O.P, “Families First, Except….”
In my opinion, Elder Rasband’s excellent counsel to the young father in the fireside that Daveed attended earlier this year, gives us a lot more spiritual independence than local Church leaders would sometimes like to allow, when when we decide when enough is enough. There is a certain amount of Bishop or S.P. roulette in this.
The Hartman Rector Story as narrated by his daughter was saddening, but I agree with E that that is not typical of most GAs. I think that as a culture, the Mormon Church is gradually “evolving” on this issue, however infuriatingly slow that might be to people presently experiencing pressure. I have felt that pressure, in the past, myself. I often took the calling, but as I get older, and my wife’s health is not great, I have checked out of the “calling treadmill.” Fortunately, my ward and stake leadership are understanding.
7 years ago, when I was the 1st Counselor in our Ward Bishopric, my best friend in the Ward was dying of cancer at the age of 53. I also happened to be his family’s H. T. I informed Ward leadership I was off-line for any other duties, except him, until after he died (the final illness lasted 4 months). I went down to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore several times a week to spend as much time with him, as J could, a round trip of 50 miles. I also spent a lot of time trying to help his family. This while working and trying to be a husband and father. The funny thing is, I got absolutely no pushback, whether from the Bishop or anyone else. They knew me, and that any pushback would just be pushed right back on to them, and, what was worse, that I would quote them chapter and verse from Church leaders’ talks about this being a family-centered Church!
Church leaders have a right to ask us to help, particularly if we have gone to the temple. But any effort we are involved in, whether at work, in the community (for me, it was Boy Scouts), or Church, will suck us dry if we let it.
I am saying, “Set your own limits.” Don’t let others do it for you, and, if they try to give you a hard time, be prepared to cite chapter and verse of recent GC talks to support your position. In my experience, That has been enough to get just about anyone to back off; local leaders are scared to do anything “not in harmony”!with Church leaders.
I strongly believe in placing family first (including self-care), livelihood/professional obligations second, and Church a distant third. In recent years, I’ve seen lessons and counsel from Church leaders to this effect. When I was growing up in the 1990s, I was taught the opposite; always put God (read: the Church) first, and everything else will fall into place while less important things fall by the wayside. I remember an object lesson where the teacher demonstrated that large stones would not fit in a bucket already filled with sand, but by placing the stones in an empty bucket then pouring in the sand, everything will fit. So its been a mixed message.
My grandfather was a bishop in the 1960s when my mom was a teen. By her recollection, she never once felt neglected or any loss in their father-daughter relationship. He was home for dinner every night, Sunday included. He kept church and home separate. He had good boundaries, long before that was a thing.
My current bishop is a dentist with 4 kids under 12. He’s pretty much a stranger to his kids. My previous bishop had a similar “work ethic”, spending endless hours on Sunday afternoons at Church long after meetings were over. Another prior bishop got divorced shortly after his term was up.
I wonder if its a generational thing, or perhaps the type of men being called as bishops are the ones who just can’t say no, even when they need to. Saying yes to the calling is the first mistake.
Work less, have fewer kids (life is less expensive that way), don’t get involved in so many extracurricular activities (church callings might fall under this category), and that way you free yourself up of a good amount of time. All the things the church discourages. It is the formula my wife and I have pursued for the last five years. We’ve built our lives around her career (also historically discouraged in three church) which pays enough, gives us a pension, doesn’t require her to work long or odd hours, and gives her the summer off and all holidays and weekends. I abandoned a career in academia (with the exception of a few lucky ones, an extremely family-unfriendly career these days), and do real estate investment from home while I take care of our two kids (we’re not having anymore). My wife and I have routinely turned down time-demanding callings at the church. We have no shortage of family time.
Every bishop, Stake President, GA is different. People live during different times, membership numbers (i.e. it wouldn’t be harder and a lot more time to have a ward of 200 active members vs. being a branch president of 13).Some people’s kids will go inactive no matter how good of a parent they had or will stay active regardless of what kind of a parent they had. Some years ago we had a man attend our ward and it was found out he was the son of a former President of the Church and in a combined EQ/HP he was asked to share some thoughts and something he said stuck with me he said when his Dad was in the Q12 he skipped out on a General Conference Session to watch this son play a football game, he just walked out and made to the game on time and was there for his son. I thought, WOW
Interesting thoughts. I am in a Bishopric right now and struggling to find that right balance and give the right guidance to the people who I am over. We all look for those pockets of competence and exploit the heck out of them. One calling we are trying to fill our Bishop wants a “rock star” that will spend a lot of time visiting and planning. I’m not sure that person exists right now in our ward that can dedicate that much time.
To a certain extent we may need to evaluate what “success” looks like. Lots of baptisms and thousands of names for temple work may not be achievable. We also might have some failures at a ward party like a missing food dish. Easy to blame the bishops but this isn’t just a bishop trying to do too much, when any failure like that happens we hear about it from the members and feel obligated to put in place several checklists that nobody will look at again.
Delegation sounds great and relieves some burdens but the time required to follow up is substantial and the number of people where that follow up happens like the EQP or RSP is getting smaller like when the HP GL was eliminated. I’m always looking at better ways to do business. I think most people are getting the message about not doing too much. It can take several invitations to multiple people to get a calling filled. I hate finding speakers in church. I don’t care if you are the most boring speaker in the world. If you are willing I would love to suffer through 30 minutes of droning on. Other than telling our leaders we can’t do it, what have people seen that works from a practical stand point to share the burdens a little more equitably?
In the late ’90s my husband and I had our recommends suspended because he failed to immediately accept a stake calling which would have meant him being out of the ward taking our only car on a Sunday at a minimum. All we asked for was time to think.
At the time we had a nightmare teenager who frequently went missing from church on a Sunday, an 18 month old who needed to be settled in nursery, and a very sick child who was unable to attend church and was underage to be left alone at home. I was also very sick with migraine and back problems. Our Bishop was supported in his decision by the stake president. There was a general conference talk from which I quoted clearly articulating the necessity of families deciding for themselves how they managed their church service. The only thing we could do for our very sick daughter was to pray for her at the temple, although getting there at all was a task of some enormity.
TBH I’ve never felt the same about our church service – it broke me. Eventually we put a friend on the stake presidency in a very difficult position by pleading our cause with him and asking him to represent us. Perhaps we should have comfortably let go, but we were very compliant and faithful people then, who very much wanted to be in accord with church authority.
Our kids have been apparently irreparably harmed by our church service. I realise this is down to their own choices, but we fuelled that fire even though we did make choices to keep our heads as low as we could. Our kids don’t understand that or buy into it. We saw many marriages and families split during that time, it was heartrending.
I have now decided to choose my children over church service in the faith that God will forgive my mistakes more readily than my children.
We are now in a ward where the service that can be offered is acceptable and many corners are cut and not swept,. I find it hard, but it’s also great to see. So much has changed for the better, but parents of young people continue to be under crushing pressure.
I really worry about people’s sex lives, because it is really impactful getting up at 5am on a regular basis and is destructive to fulfilling relationships.
Forgive my rant, but you did ask.
Handle With Care’s experience reinforces the unfortunate reality of “Bishop and Stake President Roulette.” As I mentioned earlier in this comment thread, a few of our local leaders seem to be in a competition as to just how awful they can be. Fortunately, my wife and I have been blessed with many more good leaders than bad. Not everyone is so blessed, and the bad memories stay with us more vividly than the good ones.
I realize that central-level Church leaders are aware of many of these horror stories, but are reluctant to intervene. They make comments about how disappointed in Mormon culture they are, but refuse to rein in the maniacs. So change happens only slowly, and in my opinion happens largely as a result of declining attendance numbers, caused by large numbers of people bailing out of Church, because it has become so distressing —THAT gets the attention of Stake Presidents, and of their own Church supervisors. I have personally seen this happen, where a difficult Bishop resulted in Ward Sacrament Service declining by 1/3, only to gradually resume normal levels, once the difficult man was released.
In my opinion, there is something in Mormon culture that seems to grow a large number of iron-fisted zealots. But I am cautiously optimistic, and think that the rigid certainties of leaders called by God are gradually being replaced with Christian humility and compassion.
Taiwan, This paragraph is difficult for me:
“7 years ago, when I was the 1st Counselor in our Ward Bishopric, my best friend in the Ward was dying of cancer at the age of 53. I also happened to be his family’s H. T. I informed Ward leadership I was off-line for any other duties, except him, until after he died (the final illness lasted 4 months). I went down to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore several times a week to spend as much time with him, as J could, a round trip of 50 miles. I also spent a lot of time trying to help his family. This while working and trying to be a husband and father. The funny thing is, I got absolutely no pushback, whether from the Bishop or anyone else. They knew me, and that any pushback would just be pushed right back on to them, and, what was worse, that I would quote them chapter and verse from Church leaders’ talks about this being a family-centered Church!”
I admire your commitment to your friend. It is very admirable and an excellent example of Christian devotion. My question is why would you expect to get push-back from your bishop for being “off-line”? Rather than getting push-back, I wonder why the Ward leadership didn’t ask you how they could help with your friend? You also imply that you sort of intimidated the local leadership into not giving you push-back. Where was the Ward support? Isn’t that part of the Christian message, to assist the sick and infirmed.
I’ve never commented before, but this is a sensitive subject to me.
Beginning with our recommend interviews for marriage where our SP called my future husband to be in the bishopric effective after the honeymoon, my husband has always had a time-consuming calling except for an occasional year or two when he was called as primary teacher. YM Pres, High Counselor, Bishopric (more than once), Stake Mission Pres,, etc., you name it, if it takes time, he’s been called to it.
I doubt anyone at church would guess that I have struggled throughout our marriage with resentment and the guilt of resenting his service. We had four children in the first six years of our marriage, and I’ve always been a stay-at-home mom while my husband has been the sole earner for our family, His career is not 9-5 . I wanted, and still want, to be obedient, but I wasn’t prepared for what a lonely life it would be.
Almost every time he’s been called, the issuer has told him that “family comes first”, and that if he needs to miss something for family, he should. But in actuality, every meeting or obligation he has is not the one they were referencing–that one he absolutely needs to be at. Regardless of the caveats given, it’s always implied that being a faithful member means accepting whatever calling is given.
If he had a job that was less demanding, maybe it wouldn’t seem like such an imposition. I know that we’ve been blessed to be able to support a family on one income, but I’ve spent most of our marriage without him. It’s not something you can really talk about to other people at church because, either, 1-they say how much they would love to have such an active husband and you feel extremely ungrateful, or 2-they imply that’s the sacrifice I signed up for in the temple and it’s a small price to pay. Maybe it is.
(BTW, he’s currently EQP, and more duties are going to be delegated his way. )
I know a lot of people have harder struggles, but you did ask.
Even thorough I “stepped away” from the Church about 2 1/2 years ago, I really have very few regrets about growing up in the Church (outside of Utah) or the many decades of being devout.
One deep regret centers around this topic. We had two sons battle cancer and die within a year of each other. This was devastating for the family, especially for my wife.
Our bishops in the following months and years felt that the best thing for me would be to “lose myself” in service. Since I had always been taught that, I numbly fell into accepting callings like primary, youth Sunday school teacher, Scouting, ward missionary, Elder’s quorum presidency, etc.
I look back now at the awful price my family paid for not having me at home ministering to them – and the toll taken by me not being there to receive their ministrations.
The horrible loneliness my wife felt while I was on the “Lord’s errand” now leaves me with regret and even shame. My marriage may never be what it was or could have been if I had focused on family first.
Now I try to take individual responsibility for where my time and efforts are spent. Leaders spouting shoulds and shouldn’ts as a conditioned reflex, and members responding to such from conditioned reflex can lead to irreparable harm.
Family first and always.
Rogerdhansen:
Fair questions that you pose to me.
Yes, I guess I did “intimidate” ward leadership into not giving me pushback. Not my most admirable character trait, but I have learned in life to set my markers and boundaries clearly, to survive in a Church that often seems to value programs over people, and gets uncomfortable with people who want to think outside the General Handbook of Instructions box. I am a believing member of the Church, but after being a federal employee for about 40 years, I have about zero respect for bureaucracy. Bureaucracies need to exist, to get things done in an orderly manner, but the problem is that they wind up becoming an end IN THEMSELVES, and get in the way of their stated mission. THIS IS EVEN MORE SO WITH THE CHURCH, in my opinion.
In my particular case, we had a very “programmed” Bishop, who was far more at ease dealing with flow charts and rules, than with people. We had had several deaths in the Ward, and he simply refused to deal with them, so, rather than fight a useless battle with him, I became the person in the Bishopric who dealt with illness and death. Why he ever asked for me to be his 1st Counselor is a mystery. I think he knew that he lacked the personal touch, and hoped I would help out. He knew I was a cranky individualist, orthodox in belief but not in “Mormon style,” but that I connected with people. But when I tried to tell him that there were certain people he needed to visit in the Ward because they were dying, he strongly resisted. So I just said what I was going to do, and did it.
It was a difficult 4 years being his counselor. It was genuinely very hard for him to deal with people, and that made him so uncomfortable, that it became obvious to the Ward. But he was of the “never turn down a calling” school, the original theme of this OP. I started out being sympathetic, but got to the point where I just lost patience, and tried to do things that I thought were important in the Ward. It was not that he was deliberately being un-Christian; he simply could not conceive of Christian service outside the GHI flowchart.
See Been There’s comment about well-meaning people in the Church who only think in programmed ways—I.e. his Bishops felt that the best way to deal with his grief was to lose himself in service. Those Bishops would be very hurt to hear it put this way, but I believe that they were trying to ease their own minds about the difficulty that a grieving Been There posed to them, so they found a “solution” that allowed them to put Been There up on a shelf neatly labeled “Problems Solved,” and went on to the next of many issues they had to deal with.
In a previous comment, I criticized loaded terminology about Bishops. I have said that most of my Bishops were compassionate and caring men. They were, and I will always be grateful. But there are also certain personalities, and I dealt with one for 4 years, that in my opinion hurt the Church, more than they help.
Sorry if this is a rant, but I have survived in this Church that I love, with all its faults, by becoming a bit cranky. The Church can be a wonderful place, but we have to deal with people as they are, and not have a Tooth Fairy testimony.
>>Kids need a mother and a father, or at least two real parents<<
Not to diminish anything from your personal story, but this is not true. I was raised by a single mother and it's the best thing that could have been for both of us. I was, and still am, beyond sick of hearing, "Every child needs a father."
Really?
My father was a drunk who beat her. When she found out she was pregnant, she left him so that I wouldn't be raised in a home with addiction and abuse. I'm glad my arrival helped her to get out of that situation, and I'm grateful that she got me out and protected me from that situation. I had an idyllic childhood with a loving mother.
It's not about the number of parents, or the gender of the parents. Kids just need a loving home where they feel safe and their needs are met.
The most painful thing for me was hearing it repeated that, "Every child needs a father." It made me feel inferior, which I didn't understand, because I was happy at home. Adults would say I had a "broken home," and my poor mom had to explain what that meant, because nothing seemed broken to me, so I thought they were saying that I was broken.
And back then, no allowances were made for alternative families, even outside of religious circles. Daddy-Daughter Dance? I wasn't allowed to go, even though my parish priest offered to take me.
In third grade, I got into a battle of wills with my teacher, because we were writing notes home and I started mine, "Dear Mom." The teacher insisted I start it, "Dear Mom and Dad." I refused. She said I wasn't to leave my desk until I did as I was told. So I sat there all day, through lunch, through recess, not even understanding why I was so angry. I won, too. Eventually the school day ended, and she didn't exactly want to tell my mom why she'd kept me at my desk all day.
My family was, of course, different from a divorce where the child knows both parents. I didn't even witness the divorce, since it happened before I was born. And my situation is different from children whose fathers are away for work or—in the case of this post—for church obligations.
So I'm not at all saying that those things wouldn't be painful. I'm just saying please don't assume what is painful and what isn't, or what makes for a good family and what doesn't. Those kinds of sweeping generalizations can cause a lot more damage than whatever it is we're assuming must be damaging.
Been There, I’m so sorry this has been so brutal. So much of what I’ve learnt over time at church is counter intuitive, not least of all to be less giving rather than more so. Who knew.
I’m hoping that someone, somewhere has benefited deeply from your service in ways that you cannot currently know. Forgive me this wish for a pleasing fiction.
I hope also that both your wife and yourself will be able to mourn together for that which was lost, and, I comfort myself in choosing to believe, will be returned.
My family joined the church in 1958. We were the first members on the Gold Coast, QLD Australia. My father had a successful building business. I was the oldest of 4 sons and 10.
By 1960 we were on a building mission in the UK. My father had been called as a building supervisor, to build chapels with volunteer labour. Usually building supervisors were retired Americans who went for 2 years, and there was a small allowance to suit.
The first chapel we built in Scotland the branch consisted of one couple and half a dozen teenage girls, for volunteer labour. My father became the Branch President. He worked from 7.00am to 6.00pm except 3 evenings including Saturday stopped at 9.00pm.
When I went on my mission in 1968 my father was still on a building mission, but he was made a supervisor in the UK , and paid, while I was away. Because he was on a mission he believed his time was the Lords.
We had no holidays, very little family time. If you wanted to see dad you went and worked.
He was eventually transferred to be in charge of the building programme in Australia, and also be the church offices(tithing for Aus was sent to him etc). Australia is as big as the continental US, and he visited each building once a month. He was also bishop. He did this for 10 years, then a bod came from SLC found out they had a builder in charge, asked him for recomendation for an office manager, which he gave, and within 5 years they had 100 people doing the job he and a secretary had done. He was put back on the tools doing extensions to individual chapels.
My father died earlier this year. His sons could not remember any play times, or affection from my dad, we never went on school trips because we couldn’t afford it, and we moved every 2 years. And he died virtually broke. I was quite hurt to read a post about a prophet from this period who spent a lot of time at the family cabin fly fishing.
Geoff it was lives lived as your father’s that were held up to us as exemplarary in the UK. We now live in a world that expects input from fathers in their children’s lives. I reflect on the mental health of many of the adults in my childhood, and my contemporaries, and it was not good, much of it would nowadays be diagnosable.
It is good that times have changed for some, but not all, hard for those of us who suffered those times, but it’s important to keep saying how damaging it was. Life can hold so many joys that remained unavailable to a generation with no discretionary time and little if any disposable income.
People will no longer tolerate lives of misery and I’m unconvinced it was ever necessary or God’s will. Every bit as much can be learnt from a life of joy and good relationships as from a life of forced misery.
Many of us have had many experiences here. I have seen the concrete blessings that have come from being a Bishop and other time consuming callings. But I have also asked to be released from callings that became too burdensome. I acknowledge there are guilt feelings from that – but I would much much rather feel the guilt of that, then the guilt of having ignored my family for a calling that someone else will be called to do someday. My experiences have lead me to hope that someday we will recognize that so much of what we do in the church is absolutely unnecessary. It yields no benefit to anyone other than the pat on the back we give ourselves for “serving the Lord”. We are all grown up enough to know that what so much of what we do in the Church only serves to continue the institution, and that if we were truly to serve the Lord, we would spend our time spreading compassion and love and mercy and kindness to all in the world, not just those we go to church with.