Announcement that stake temple chapel meetings are now cancelled

29 January 2017

Bishops,

During a training meeting yesterday morning with the temple president we were instructed that the Brethren do not favor chapel meetings in the temple. In fact, the Portland Temple is one of the few temples in the church where chapel meetings are still held. 

There are several reasons why chapel meetings are discouraged, principally that “the temple is for ordinances, not meetings.” The Brethren would prefer members come and use even that half hour of time to perform initiatory or sealing ordinances if they only have a short time.

With a desire to follow this counsel, we have cancelled our Stake Temple Chapel meetings scheduled for February 28 and October 3, 2017.

Rather than have a stake chapel meeting associated with stake conference, we ask members, who hold temple recommends, to use the week leading up to stake conference—Feb 21-25 and Oct 10-14—to attend the temple at a time of their choosing as a way of preparing to be taught by the Lord at our stake conferences scheduled for Feb 25-26 and Oct 14-15.

We are confident the Lord will honor our temple service during the week before stake conference with an added measure of His spirit at our conference.

Will you please share this with your ward leadership and help publicize to all ward members that the stake chapel meetings scheduled in 2017 have been cancelled and replaced by a concerted effort for all members to attend the temple during the week leading up to stake conference?

Gratefully,

The Stake Presidency

Discussion about marijuana and temple recommends

26 January 2017

Bishops,

My apologies, I forgot to bring up a subject that was discussed in the meeting with our Area 70 last Sunday.

While marijuana use, both for medicine and recreation, is widely and legally available in Oregon, because marijuana use is still a violation of federal law we have been counseled that you NOT issue a temple recommend without first consulting with the stake president if the member is using marijuana for any purpose.

I have been given a list of questions, shared by a local stake president who is also an oncologist, that we may use in determining together whether or not a temple recommend should be issued. If the member is using marijuana for any reason, typically a recommend is NOT issued; but there may be cause to consider otherwise.

No direction was given as to whether a member can receive a temple recommend if he or she is involved in the marijuana industry, either growing or leasing property for marijuana production. Typically we do not deny temple recommends for a person’s involvement in the alcohol or tobacco industry. But I am concerned that members looking for a “quick buck” in what is an exploding industry will think the church says it’s OK. I think we want to discourage members from touching “...the unclean thing.” (Moroni 10:30)

Again, my apologies for forgetting to bring this up in our meeting last night. If you have a question or concern, feel free to respond and we may consider holding a conference call to address all concerns.

Thank you,

President Lewis

From Elder Larry Blunck's, of the Seventy, executive secretary following a discussion in a Coordinating Council Meeting with stake presidents from Portland and Vancouver on Sunday, January 22:

After our discussion last Sunday on responses to member use of marijuana, Elder Blunck asked President Rushing to develop some questions that could be used by stake presidents during discussions with members.  As a reminder,  this list should be kept very confidential and used as directed by the Spirit.  Here are the questions with President Rushing's introduction.

Each Stake President will need to consider the individual circumstances when discerning the worthiness of a member to hold a temple recommend who is using marijuana for medicinal purposes. I am providing some questions that could be used to assist you during your recommend interview in determining the nature of their use of marijuana.

Let me start by saying that in my practice of oncology- there are some circumstances where marijuana or some of its derivatives can be helpful in chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. It is certainly not what should be used first (especially in the LDS member), but there are some rare cases where it helps when other anti-nausea medication does not. There has also been some impressive responses to diseases such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and seizure disorders. In my opinion, there is less science behind its use in such conditions of chronic pain, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, etc.

Questions:

1) How often are you using the marijuana?  (For example- if they are taking this for chemotherapy associated nausea/vomiting- this usually is only taken in the days after treatment, not every day).

2) Have you tried other medications for your symptoms prior to using marijuana? 

3)If taking this for chronic pain- have you gone to a pain specialist or pain clinic prior to starting marijuana?

4) Have you considered other forms of marijuana that do not cause the euphoria and mental changes associated with the most common form of marijuana which is THC? Cannibidiol (CBD) can have the same medical effects but without the mental side effects. 

5) What form of marijuana product are you using? In my opinion the order of preferability is pill form, oils, edibles, vaporizing and lastly smoking. (Marinol is an oral pill that doesn't have as much of the mental side effects. CBD much preferred over the THC products).

6)  Does you doctor know you are using marijuana and does he/she agree that it is helpful? 

7) Is your doctor prescribing marijuana in your situation? If not, is he/she recommending it?

8) Have you used marijuana recreationally before using it for medicinal purposes?

An apology to Jeremy Kato following a discussion in Bishopric Training that week

26 January 2017

Brother Jeremy,

I think I owe you an apology.

During Bishopric Training I asked who were those “children” spoken of in Mosiah 26:1. That I recall, you mentioned Alma the Younger. And I responded “not yet.”

First, we preach of the importance that teachers not ask questions that can have incorrect answers, i.e. knowledge questions, but questions that will help us share from our heart and encourage more response and discussion later. I obviously didn’t practice what I preach!

Second, your answer was partially right and I didn’t acknowledge that.

As clarification, you were right in that Alma the Younger was of the same age as those children spoken of in Mosiah 26:1 and, of course, had a similar result of being a disbeliever. However, I don’t know that we know why Alma strayed from his father’s teachings; possibly due to his friendship with and the influence from his peers, the four sons of Mosiah.

What we do know was that when the four sons of Mosiah were children at the time their grandfather, King Benjamin, gave his mighty address, Alma was likely a child living in the Land of Nephi where his father, Alma “Senior,” was a member of wicked King Noah’s court. As you know, his father (Alma Senior) converted after hearing Abinadi’s magnificent teachings and created a following that eventually had to flee the Land of Nephi (aka land of Lehi-Nephi) to settle a city they called Helam, which was still in Lamanite “country." Ultimately, Alma and his followers had to flee again, this time from the city of Helam and miraculously found their way to Zarahemla, a land they had never seen before because they were the third generation of the Nephites that had left Zarahemla around the time of Mosiah (father of King Benjamin). When Alma (Senior) arrives in Zarahemla with his followers, Mosiah (son of King Benjamin) had already been king for a period—he and Alma Senior were peers—and King Benjamin had died meaning Alma the Younger could not have attended—as a child—King Benjamin’s address. But the scriptures tell us that Mosiah (the son of Benjamin) was about 30 years of age at the time he became king (that was the purpose of King Benjamin’s address, to announce his son Mosiah is their new king) so it’s likely that Mosiah would have had a family including  several, if not all four, of his sons at that time, but they would have been little children at the time of their grandfather’s “towering” address :)

Hope that’s not too confusing, but know that your answer wasn’t totally wrong and I should have acknowledged that. More importantly, I should not have asked a question that caused me to “correct” you. I hope I didn’t offend. If so, please forgive me.

I appreciate your patience with me and the wonderful supporting leader you are. You and your family are a treasure to our stake!

Gratefully,

Crismon

In response to parents pleading for their returned missionary son not to have to face a Stake Disciplinary Council

6 January 2017

Dear (parents),

Thank you for writing. If it were my son, I would be writing the same email to the stake president. So please know that I don’t fault you for writing from your heart on behalf of your son.

I’m so grateful that you’re beginning to see your son emerge again. He is a great young man and has a bright future no matter how this is resolved. As you mentioned to me, James, thankfully we’re addressing this now and not 10 or 20 years later.

I, too, wish this had been handled in the mission field and that all of us would have been made known to us prior to his return. I was so taken back by the word I received from the mission president just hours before (your son's) arrival that I was reluctant to even mention it to you until I heard it from (him) personally. Then with (his younger brother) in the room and not knowing how open (he) would be with you, I did not say anything until he had a chance to to visit with you both in confidence. 

To your family’s credit, you have responded in a most amazing way. I can’t thank you enough for the admirable example you’ve shown through all of this.

While any missionary coming home with an unresolved serious transgression is a “gut punch” to all of us, especially the parents, the repetitive nature of (his) actions and his resolve to keep it from his mission president for all those months until the last minute is what takes this to a new level. I believe that is one of the reasons the Missionary Department directed me to handle this with a stake council. 

In response to your question, can we hold a modified version of a stake council? I wish there was a way, too, but I’ve never seen it happen nor do I see any latitude in the Handbook.

Having said that, I remind you of a recent Disciplinary Council that you served on. I have tried to stay close to that brother, as a dear friend. In fact, I just met last Sunday with him and his wife. Among other things, he expressed gratitude as to how confidential his disciplinary action has remained even though he had served in some very prominent leadership positions, as you know. In other words, there is no hint that the word has leaked out. The brethren on the council have been true to their calling.

As I look around the table in my mind’s eye, I believe every man on the council is a father of a son. Their hearts will bleed for you both, as mine does. They know how painful this must be for you. I believe they will treat this as they would want to be treated if they were in your position—with total confidentiality. I don’t believe your son will come from this with a scarlet letter unless he chooses to divulge it to friends. I truly hope he won’t. I hope you’ll help (him) understand the importance of confidentiality. Where he has been so open with his siblings it raises the risk of others learning. There will also be the temptation for (him) to seek pity or sympathy from friends by sharing what has happened, which is always a risk when someone so young is involved. That is one of the many reasons I’m so grateful that he has you as his parents. I don’t know how long the repentance process will take, but (your son) will need the loving, guiding hands of faithful, compassionate parents like you. He is truly blessed to have you both there for him in this difficult hour and the months ahead. 

I hope I have responded to your valid and impassioned plea. I love you both and shudder to think if the Stake Presidency and High Council were placed in this position by a returning missionary without a faithful family's love and compassion as (your son) has. I have faith the Lord’s will will be made known to us so (your son), you and his priesthood leaders will know definitely how to help (him) on this path to becoming whole and clean again. I’m confident (your son) will weather this and, not unlike Peter who denied the Savior three times and wept bitterly for it, (he) will rise to be a greater man and an instrument in the Lord’s hands down the road, if he will cling to you and follow your guidance.

With love and admiration for you both,

Crismon

In response to Marlo and Marcee Dean's desire to remain in the Powell Valley Ward after having their records moved five years ago

Dear Marlo and Marcee,

I realize this is a tough decision and there’s a lot of history that caused your records to be moved into the Powell Valley Ward in the first place more than five years ago.

However, the bottom line is that Handbook 1 (13.6) is very specific about membership records, stating that for us to keep your records in the Powell Valley Ward requires bishop, stake president and First Presidency approval. I don’t know if the original record move was ever made with First Presidency approval, I only know that both the bishops and myself no longer feel there is adequate cause or reason that justifies us to seek First Presidency approval. 

The reasons that caused the move in the first place have been eliminated (collapse of the City of Damascus), as you indicated, and there has been no negative reaction or feedback (only positive!) to your calling to the High Council, which suggests to us that any objections or hard feelings that apparently arose within the stake five years ago also no longer exist.

Even more importantly, we want you to both be able to progress spiritually. As you well know Marlo, having served faithfully for many years as a bishop, that whenever members go against the counsel of priesthood leaders they find themselves in that awkward position or spiritual dilemma described in Paul’s experience (Acts 9) and in D&C 121:38: “…he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks…”

You have both created many deep and lasting relationships in the Powell Valley Ward. So we know asking you to return to the Damascus Ward will not be easy. That’s why I’ve tried to give you as much time and latitude as possible. Speaking of latitude, the Handbook does allow members in temporary residence and seeking full-time residence up to three months to remain in their home ward (or the ward they’re leaving) until they find permanent residence, at which time we must transfer their membership records. If they don’t find permanent residence within three months, then we must send the records to the ward where their temporary residence is located.

If remaining in the Powell Valley Ward means that much to you, would you be willing to seek permanent residence within the Powell Valley Ward boundaries? If so, we can extend your stay in that ward for another three months while you seek a permanent residence within the Powell Valley Ward boundaries.

Otherwise, I have no choice but to return your membership records to the Damascus Ward.

Please know of our love and admiration for you both. You have been through a great deal and we have tried to be sensitive to all the suffering you’ve had to endure. We are so grateful that the threats and offenses appear to be well behind us. We have faith that the Lord will soften hearts, if needed, to make your return to the Damascus Ward a wonderful, welcoming experience. You are missed and needed in that ward, where you are dearly loved and where you served faithfully for so many years.

Thank you for your willingness to follow priesthood counsel and trust in the Lord that He will bring healing in your home and in the hearts of others, if needed, as you return to the Damascus Ward.

With love and gratitude for your many contributions to our stake,

President Lewis

Update on how to respond to severe weather

Memo to Bishops

Bishops,

As we had yesterday, we occasionally have extreme weather that can affect meetings. More often than not, the decision is yours as a bishopric / branch presidency as to whether you feel to modify your meeting schedule inasmuch as the weather conditions can sometimes be different even within our stake. Yesterday, for instance, Sandy had a measurable snow fall and Boring had mostly rain. A few feet in elevation made a significant difference!

We appreciate you letting the stake presidency and other wards in your building know when you decide to make changes to your meetings so we can help communicate your decision.

There are occasions, when there’s widespread ice as we had in mid-December, when the stake presidency will intervene and attempt to coordinate everyone’s meeting schedules so we can alert members as early as possible.

As a reminder, below is a statement we issued to all stake members one year ago on what to expect and how to respond when there is a question about whether services are being held, postponed or cancelled. Feel free to use or draw from this document if you think it might be helpful for your ward members.

Thank you for not being too quick to cancel all meetings without consulting with the stake presidency.

Gratefully,

President Lewis