So, I have had a few discussions with the RS Pres in "my ward." We have never met and it's weird that she has my phone number. Whatever.

So yesterday I got a text from the Bishopric:
Hi Ohdeargoodness, this is Bro Callad from your ward. I was calling because the bishop would like to meet with you, are you available tomorrow evening ?

To which I replied:
Hi, thanks for your message. Please feel free to have the Bishop contact me directly. As a rule, being female I don't meet strangers alone.

And he wrote:
Gotcha. I will ask him to call/text you.... I'm sure he could meet in a common area at the church. Tomorrow evening is mutual and there are lots of people at the church, and Sunday of course is an option too....

Guess who never called. Honestly, why would I go meet strangers in a secluded building? Only in TSCC.

"Please have the bishop meet me for Happy Hour at Joe's Bar & Grill tomorrow. Tell him that he's buying."

The arrogance never ceases to amaze. Thinking that having one stranger summon you to meet another stranger, at a church you don't attend, is seriously misguided.

*snicker*

;o)

StillAnon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Please have the bishop meet me for Happy Hour at
> Joe's Bar & Grill tomorrow. Tell him that he's
> buying."
>
> The arrogance never ceases to amaze. Thinking that
> having one stranger summon you to meet another
> stranger, at a church you don't attend, is
> seriously misguided.

That's amusing because I
On my way out I met my SP in a bar around the corner from the ward building. We had a meal and when the bill came he asked if we should split the bill I told him that I could have had a fantastic meal at home with my wife but instead I was sitting at a table with him and that he asked me for this meeting not the other way around. So I had paid enough. He was not amused but he did pay the bill.

Oh, you're in trouble now...you didn't blindly obey some random "brother" who was acting in the name of the lard (or on behalf of another random "brother" who as bishop was acting in the name of the SP, who was acting in the name of the area authority, who was acting in the name of some seventy, who was acting in the name of one of the Q12, who was acting in the name of the lard!).

Oh, and...good for you. :)

I got a call like that years ago when I was still barely active. It was the executive secretary. When he told me the bishop wanted to meet with me, I asked him "what for?" He said he didn't know, probably to give me a calling. I told him to find out what it was about and call me back. I never got a call back. haha

Yeah, when women get uppity, the men really don't know how to handle it.

Only in TSCC would it be considered "uppity" to refuse to be lured to a remote location by strange men. Oy vey.

Executive secretary won't tell you what it's about and they won't call you back if you question an invite even if you are male, in fact if you are male you get put on a list in priesthood executive council as a potential problem.

The bishop is an executive, so its understandable that he would have his clerk or some other functionary do the actual scheduling.

You articulated a reasonable complication. How many times have posters griped about LDS men invoking what I call "the Billy Graham rule," i.e. never meeting the opposite sex in private circumstances? The clerk quickly adjusted the bishop's agenda to meet your situation.

There's plenty to find fault with in tscc, but in this case, I think you're throwing mud unnecessarily and lends credence to the charge that ex-mos are unreasonably negative and hostile.

Now, what the bishop wants to talk to you about (a calling, I would presume) is another matter. Get back to us on that, would you?

"Throwing mud?" What exactly did the Ohdeargoodness say that in any way impugned the character of any person?

She asserted her principle of not meeting strange men alone. That is a principle that many of us in general society abide by, and it is one that every organization, including the church, should respect. Asserting that principle is not "throwing mud" at anyone.

I'm sure you are doing it unintentionally, but your post implies that the church's unique standards--standards that advantage it and put the individual at a disadvantage both in terms of safety and in terms of the balance of political power in any discussion--are in some way appropriate or defensible. You imply that Ohdeargoodness needs to apologize for refusing to accommodate the church's peculiar social norms.

That is not true. A single woman, or a single man, does not need any justification for refusing to meet a stranger alone, in a place of the stranger's choosing, or at any place at all. Pointing out that the church's practices diverge from society's norms is not offensive; it is healthy. It requires no explanation or apology.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bishop is an executive, so its understandable
> that he would have his clerk or some other
> functionary do the actual scheduling.

executive: noun

a person with senior managerial responsibility in a business organization.

He probably considers himself an 'executive.' He's *supposed* to be a spiritual leader, though, not an 'executive.' According to the bible, the role of bishop is:

General superintendence over the spiritual well-being of the flock. ( 1 Peter 5:2 )
The work of teaching, both publicly and privately. ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12 ; Titus 1:9 ; 1 Timothy 5:17 )
The work of visiting the sick, ( James 5:14 )
Among other acts of charity, that of receiving strangers occupied a conspicuous place. ( 1 Timothy 3:2 ; Titus 1:8 ) Peter calls Christ "the shepherd and bishop of your souls." ( 1 Peter 2:25 )

I don't think it's 'throwing mud' to call a bishop on acting like an executive when he's supposed to be acting as the opposite.

For starters, the bishop never called back, so much of this follow-up is moot. Second, it is rare for me to defend tscc. We come from different starting points, Hie, but we arrive at close to the same position on the target.

Hoping not to offend, I think Lot's Wife and Hie are being a little overly sensitive. Maybe my phrase "throwing mud" was too strong, but I don't consider the actions of the bishop (whether he be an "executive," an "administrator," or whatever) --or his secretary--, oppressive or in any way intrusive.

1) "Bishop X would like to talk to you."
2) "I don't meet men in private. Have him call me."
3) "Saturday and Sunday are very public times. I'll ask him to get back to you."
4) Crickets...crickets...

What's the problem here?

Should the OP follow up and disclose offensive content, I'll change my mind. I'd like to emphasize my main point, above, that unnecessary faulting tscc and Mormons on small matters such as etiquette gives them a sense of justification for dismissing the more substantial criticism exo-Mormons have.

Yes, the term "throwing mud" was too strong. There was no mud thrown in the communications with the church, nor any when describing that interaction here.

I likewise may have replied too strongly to your post. That said, there are a couple of points that matter here. First, it is entirely appropriate to criticize an organization for lack of etiquette and discourtesy. I do that every day, and I stop using places whose practices are unmannerly. I also tell my friends. What Ohdeargoodness is doing here is precisely that; it is what Yelp is for, among other things.

Second, there is an added degree of inappropriateness when a powerful organization ASSUMES it has the right to violate our boundaries. When the power stems from God, yes there is something pernicious about it. Notice the way that the secretary replies to Ohdeargoodness's point. She says she is uncomfortable meeting a man alone anywhere. The secretary says something can be arranged at the church. The polite thing to do would have been to say, could the bishop meet with you at a place and time that are convenient for you? The mere assumption that the meeting will occur at church is troublesome because the church is the bishop's base of power. He is not treating her as an equal person and is ASSUMING again that she must consent to a meeting in circumstances that make it a bit harder for her to express herself without restraint.

Finally, I don't share your opinion about avoiding offense to Mormons. They treat us offensively all the time, in their speeches, in their reactivation efforts, in their attempts to pull our spouses and children out of our families, in the way they treat gays and Lesbians and others in society in general. Given what the church routinely does, I feel no compunction about offending them--particularly when we are merely pointing out that they are violating the social norms of polite society. I have no relationship with, and little respect for, the church, so I don't think I must treat them more kindly than I do the staff at McDonald's or Walmart. Surely the church can live up to the standards those places have embraced.

I realize, of course, that my feelings and yours are probably not that divergent. I do think it is worth saying, however, that in my view we owe the bishop no more deference than any other middle-aged man whom we have never met.

Lot's Wife expressed my feelings perfectly.

And in case you were wondering, yes -- I would indeed say the same things to this bishop's face, were I to meet him in person. :)

No hard feelings, I simply don't share your desire to give them a pass on what may or may not be "minor" issues. The criticism is merited, IMHO.

The last thing you'd want to foster was an impression on the part of the bishop that exmos respect his executive authority!

I am not familiar with any other organization where someone calls you in to meet with them without telling you why. It's incredibly presumptuous. If a pastor of any other church wanted to meet with you, he or she would call you directly and explain why, and the I can't see that happening to a perfect stranger.

This forum is exactly the place to voice irritations suffered at the presumptuous hands of the brethren. I don't give a rat fart about what any Mormons reading here might think. I left church because I was fed up with people telling me what to think and how to feel. If she says it was over the line, it was.

I stand by thought that the bishop's secretary was not out of order or intrusive. A request was made. The respondent specified a stipulation. There was no follow-up.

Both parties behaved as responsible adults without presumption or crossing boundaries. End of story (and my posting on this thread).

Sigh....

They use these same men to summon inactive girls in for worthiness interviews--one on one, behind closed doors. My daughters were 12 and 14 and I had to repeat my refusal for three separate phone calls. The last one, the creepy executive secretary was angry. He demanded I put my daughters on the phone se he could ask (badger) them himself. Why would I let an angry 40 year old man talk to my young daughters? Seems they don't want to take no for an answer--at least from me--a lowly female.

Remember, you owe them nothing.

You don't owe this guy the slightest nod or consideration. How dare he ask someone to try to twist your arm so he can ambush you about what *he* wants from you.

I have received that call before. I always ask him if the bishop has my number. Then I tell him that the bishop can call me and make an appointment to come over to my home whenever he wants.

I have a TBM wife, so I try to play nice. But I have no intentions of ever going to his office for a meeting.

I did the same thing as Gemini. When the ex. secretary called I asked why the bishop wanted to see me and he got all flustered and said it probably "wasn't about anything". So I replied that if it wasn't about anything why should I go? That dumbfounded him so I continued the conversation with, "Have the bishop call me and let me know what he wants." Never heard back from anyone.

It stops them in their tracks when you reject their authority over you.

I also do not have text messaging on my phone plan. Boy, does that ever weed out the junk messages. All the near and dear ones in my life call and leave voice messages. The rest think they left a text but they didn't. This makes my life so much more pleasant.

I would have left out the "as a female" part because it plays into the Mormon notion that women are somehow hothouse flowers. Gender is irrelevant here, what is relevant is that nobody needs to blindly do the bishop's bidding without a knowing what the agenda is.

I also don't buy the "he's an executive" excuse for having a flunky call. He's not an executive. He's an unpaid volunteer for a MLM organization. Even in corporate America, these days most executives, unless they are at the absolute top of the food chain, make their own phone calls.

If he needs to speak to you, he can call. He won't.

The whole thing is just weird.

Somebody in a religious organization (or ANY organization for that matter) wants to meet with you. You haven't expressed ANY interest in their product or participated in their organization. And you've never provided your contact information to them. But out of the blue, they get an assistant to call and schedule and appointment to talk to you, without even telling you what it's about. It's just freaking weird.

A few assumptions we can make:

They've made the effort to get your contact information. That's just odd and a bit creepy.

The guy who wants to meet with you isn't willing to call you himself. This implies he doesn't consider you his equal, or he's uncomfortable making the call. He's going to have an underling do it. Just the fact that somebody else makes the call is a bit of a power play, if you ask me.

The guy who wants to talk to you has some expectation that he has a right to meddle in your life, and the options of what the meeting can only include one or more of the following: ask you to serve in his organization (without pay), request information about your beliefs or personal life (even though you don't know him and it's none of his business), or try to gain your participation in his organization (even though he knows you are aware of his organization and you have chosen NOT to participate thus far).

LDS people just don't realize how weird it is to be summoned to a meeting when you have no idea what it's about. Again, I think it's a bit of a power play that the church makes. How many people get nervous, not knowing if the bishop is going to spring a calling on them or if there is some kind of issue that the bishop wants to discuss?

Just don't play their little game. Future responses:

"Take me off your calling list."
"No thanks. If I want to talk to him, I'll call him."

Or if you are really feeling snarky, you could even say "Sorry, he can't summon me to meetings, I don't even attend that church."

I'm good. My navel is super healthy already. I've got killer fucking abs. The doctor says that my bone marrow is really top notch. My loins and sinews get worked out daily so they are pretty strong. And to top it all off I got one of them fancy online ordinations so I got that priesthood power.

Now leave me the fuck alone.

"So yesterday I got a text from the Bishopric:
Hi Ohdeargoodness, this is Bro Callad from your ward. I was calling because the bishop would like to meet with you, are you available tomorrow evening ?"

So my reply to this would be....
Uh exactly WHY does the Bishop of a church I do not attend, nor a religion I believe in nor practice, nor a man I have NEVER met, want to meet w/me.

Pls cease and desist contacting me or I will call the police and file a report.......

Reminds me of this experience that I had a few months ago...

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1822196,1822196#msg-1822196

Hey, Alison! Some of us bet that you had not heard the last from bishop Loves Cats...

What, if anything, did your bishop do after texting your husband? Inquiring minds want to know!

To his credit (as much as I hate to give him any credit) he did not contact me any further. He did talk with my husband, who said it was short and so uninteresting as to be not worth discussing, but I'm sure he said that to keep me from getting upset. That is why I finally resigned shortly this incident. Up until that point I hadnt felt it necessary, but after what happened I didnt want him thinking he had any authority or "stewardship" over me. My husband did tell me that the bishop came asked him if he was aware that I had resigned. Husband told me he said, "Yes, I know she did, and it was in reaction to you!" So I appreciated that :-)

For whatever reason the bishop wants to see you, you know it can't be good, right?

Why are we so shocked when a church leader acts inappropriately?

The whole cult is inappropriate!

The Mormons are groomed from birth to be aggressive, intrusive, stalking, and manipulative. Normal rules and boundaries don't apply to them. They are following the admonitions of their Great Prophet, even Joseph Smith the adulterer-polygamist-pedophile-con-man.

I'm sorry, but I can't excuse the Mormons anymore. I learned
that their cult is a hoax, but I also learned, from experience, that most of the members are corrupt, also. Yes, there are some "nice" Mormons here and there, but they are usually nice only to their family and ward-members. Any Mormon stranger should be treated the same as any other stranger. Mormons think if they award themselves titles such as Bishop or Executive Secretary, that you should allow them into your house and your private life.

The same goes for missionaries. "Aw shucks, they're just kids."
NOT! We need to be aware of exactly what Mormons represent, and what they want from us. This is bad for us, and for our children.

These are con-men, pretending to have authority over you! It is a scam! There is no "authority"! Only YOU have a right to your privacy, and you can call the police on trespassers.

Anyone who behaves like a sleaze, deserves to be treated like a sleaze. I hope Alisonwonderland showed that letter to her husband.

ditto. why play with goo and then wonder why you got slimed?

Phone: *Ring*

You: "Hello?"

Them: "Hi, you don't know me but I'm calling to make an
appointment for you to meet with someone else you don't know at
their place. I can't tell you what it's about, but they will
tell you all about it when you meet with them. Is Wednesday at
7:30 OK for you?"

What's wrong with this picture?

Except it's not "Wednesday at 7:30, okay?" It's "he's available tomorrow evening, okay?"

So whoever this stranger is, you're made to understand that's he's really busy and important, but he's worked you in tomorrow evening. You're supposed get it that this is somehow a compliment, and you're supposed to rush out and meet this guy on virtually no notice whatsoever.

My husband works with all TBMs and he says they're always springing meetings. He says since they're all RMs, they're so used to people not showing up if they're given any notice or opportunity to skip out, it's like they're gun-shy. They assume they've got to manipulate because no one will participate with them of their own free will.

I would love to get that invite.

I would be happy to discuss Mormonism with them-and I say "them" because I would want several of "them" in the meeting.

I would then go all Hitchens on their asses.

I never did like those nebulous "the bishop wants to talk to you" calls. When a bishop threw a fit and pounded his desk because he lost his temper when I asked him a question, after I got up and walked out, I decided I would never, ever, under any circumstances meet with another member in their office or anywhere else, but my own home, and probably not even that unless my husband was home.

You are perfectly within your rights to ask for more information!

The LDS Church has a long list of unwritten traditions that are accepted and never questioned by the believing members. That is how you give your power to someone else -- by acquiescing.
I finally learned there was no obligation on my part to go along with this kind of behavior that under any other circumstances would be totally unacceptable!

I come from a long line of Christian ministers. I was very active in my growing up years in a local Christian Church. There was a church secretary that had several responsibilities. Generally, the the Reverend would "minister" to his flock himself. If you called, he would be willing to come by your home and talk to you. He might call and ask if he could visit with you in your home. To my knowledge, he was welcomed as he was considered a respected leader of your congregation.

Mormons have a long established familial tradition that is outside the usual religious norm, in my experience.

I would say you don't know of anything he could not say over the phone or text. Warn them you don't take sales calls.

Or, if you can think of any reason you should ever want talk to him, let them know you are quite aware of their location. (Don't call me, I'll call you!)

:-)

"I'm telling the bishop," said the home teacher when my cousin wouldn't let him in.

When I was in the bishopric as a counselor, I would always tell the member that I or the bishop wanted to talk with them about a calling. If they asked "what" it was, I actually told them. That goes against what we are told/suggested to do but I felt like it was their right!

I also didn't agree to cold-call people at their homes. I always wanted an appointment or refused to go and knock on their door.

That's probably why TXRancher didn't belong in the Mormon church.

Too honest, and with too good of boundaries to serve correctly in the church.