Recommending a missionary re-assignment for a single sister in our stake

Email to the president of the Utah Salt Lake City Church Headquarters Mission

28 November 2017

Dear President Fenn,

You will recall that Sister (name), a single, senior sister (age 54) from our stake, is assigned to your mission with a scheduled report date of January 1, 2018. 

You and I had a conversation several weeks ago when her son, (name), called to request that she be re-assigned to somewhere besides Utah. He and his family live in the Salt Lake City area and he claimed to have fears that she might try to contact his family while on her mission at Church headquarters.

I was surprised by this unusual request, backed by such strong feelings, and have done some investigation into the family. In the 16 months she has resided in our stake, she has given no cause for alarm or concern. She has been a model ward member, serving when and where needed and always in possession of a current temple recommend. She has served in the Portland Oregon Temple nursery for more than 10 years, I believe.

First, I believe Sister (name) is worthy and well-suited for a mission, especially a Family History mission. She had an impression several years ago that she would some day serve a Family History mission in Church headquarters. From that day forward, she claims to have studied how to conduct Family History research in anticipation of this mission call. Curiously, she never shared that information with priesthood leaders when we completed her missionary recommendation. So we were surprised by the call, but she wasn’t.

So, needless to say, she very much desires to fulfill this mission call.

However, after visiting with her son, two of his five siblings and even the family’s past bishop, who coincidentally knew Sister (name) from her childhood and was the Lowe family’s bishop when the parents divorced in January 2016 (two years after her husband left the family and moved to Arizona, where he resides today), it is apparent that raising a family was a real challenge for her.

(Name) was raised in an LDS home with an abusive, alcoholic father. I doubt she ever saw a normal family with love and kindness; she was abused many times and in many ways as a child. She apparently carried the scars into adulthood and into her parenting as the children claim that their mother was unkind, demanding, demeaning, unyielding and erupted often with a temper—likely the result of a personal inner-drive to produce the picture-perfect Mormon family, not knowing how to respond when her children failed to measure up. Amazingly, four of the children are active in the Church today (two served full-time missions) and two are very less-active, deep into addiction, she says.

In time, all of the children—now married or on their own--have distanced themselves from her, most refusing to have any contact with her and denying her access to her grandchildren. Some say they don’t feel safe because she’s so unpredictable. But frankly, we have not seen any such tendencies nor is there any evidence she is a threat to any of her family’s safety. In fact, one son, who is completely less-active and lives in our stake, allows Keli to care for his 7-year-old son (her grandson) sometimes for a week at a time. This has been happening for at least a year without any concerns expressed or reported. 

In short, I feel Sister (name) is not a threat, that her children have overreacted to their concerns (possibly to punish their mother), but the perceived concerns are very real, deep-seated and pervasive in the family.

As a consequence, I feel it appropriate to request that she be re-assigned to a place where none of her children reside (she has children in Oregon, Utah, Idaho and Illinois). I feel she is worthy and capable of serving a mission and will not have any relationship issues with those outside her family, but I recommend the Church re-assign her to avoid getting in the middle of a family drama.

I explained to (name) that there is a possibility she could be re-assigned to another location. While broken-hearted at the prospect, she replied, “It’s OK. I just want to serve a mission.” She has already arranged for someone to rent her home on Jan. 1 and requests, if re-assigned, to keep the same report date, if possible.

I’ve never requested a mission re-assignment before. Do you, as the mission president, make that request to the Missionary Department or should I? If me, I would welcome your counsel on how to proceed.

Thank you for your patience and help in what has become a sad, but serous-enough matter to request a re-assignment.

Gratefully,

Crismon Lewis

President, Mount Hood Oregon Stake

Follow Up: This sister was re-assigned to the Family History Center connected to the Los Angeles Temple and had a marvelous experience.

Should or shouldn't we share the Appendix with families?

27 November 2017

Bishops and Branch Presidents…

You’ll recall that we visited with you in our most recent training meeting about the new, required questions to be used when interviewing full-time missionary candidates. We gave you a two-sided, single-sheet listing the required questions to give to families (parents, specifically) in your ward or branch so they would know and understand the expectations as they prepare their children for full-time missionary service.

You’ll also remember there was an Appendix with some excellent doctrinal and/or policy statements regarding Worthiness, Extended Pattern of Serious Transgressions, Repentance, the Law of Chastity, the Law of Tithing, Sabbath-Day Observance and Honesty and Integrity.

One bishop noted my reluctance in recommending that the Appendix be shared with families. In hopes it might be of help to all of you, here is my response:

Bishop,

As for reluctance about sharing the Appendix…

Thank you for asking. I leave it to your discretion. Most of the Appendix is appropriate to share. My concern is the first page where they quote extensively from Handbook 1. There’s a reason that Handbook is not available to the public. One of the concerns would be when the Brethren spell out specific “boundaries” as to what can keep a young person from a mission or requiring a special appeal to the First Presidency, it can lead to a young man or woman wanting to hedge in his or her forthrightness (or attempt to be vague) with the bishop during preliminary interviews. 

So my recommendation is to drop the first page and share only pages 2-6.

Hope that helps,

PrL

In response to a request from a Bishop to remain in the ward if he is moves outside the ward boundaries

21 November 2017

Bishop (Name),

Thank you for your inquiry regarding your call as bishop if you were to move outside the ward.

The First Presidency office said they would allow us some wiggle room so that you could continue to serve for a time at the stake presidency’s discretion.

We counseled together as a stake presidency and while we have no interest in releasing you, we feel strongly the precedent of allowing you to serve for an extended time has the potential of causing pain, even offense, to many members, who have wanted to remain in their ward but were only allowed to continue attending up to three months. 

The stake presidency feels that if favorable treatment were given to a bishop, even though he’s a strong bishop and would be living a very short distance outside his ward boundaries, it’s a precedent that would open the door to many tough, even hurtful, discussions affecting many members for years to come. Where members are given three months after leaving their ward to find permanent residence, we feel they would be understanding if a bishop were allowed six months to remain in the ward after he moves. 

By the way, you’re not the first in our stake to face this. (Name), the YM president in the (Name) Ward, moved into that ward—unbeknownst to us—around six months before he was finally released as first counselor in the Milwaukie Stake Presidency (he is a contractor and they were living in a temporary residence on the property, I believe, and finally notified us of their location when the home was completed). Greg Brown was bishop of the Sandy River Ward and moved into Keith Hansen’s home in the Walters Hill Ward. He was allowed to serve a few months (I believe three months) after their move, but was replaced soon thereafter.

We are so happy that you and (wife) have found a home so favorable, one that could be a true blessing to you and your family in the years to come. While we’re not happy about the prospect of you being released from your calling because of the move, we recognize these long-term decisions, such as a home purchase, are important and should receive serious, prayerful consideration. You are a very talented, gifted man and will be used by the Lord wherever you live. We would not fault you for a minute, if you choose the home over your calling. Nor do we believe the Lord would fault you. He knows your heart, your talents and your faithfulness and will always be mindful of you. 

If you haven’t viewed the Face-to-Face event with Elders Oaks and Ballard on Sunday night, you may find very interesting Elder Oaks’ comments during the last 10 minutes, I believe, where he quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie about agency and inspiration…where Elder McConkie suggests that we don’t need inspiration to determine if someone is the “right person" to marry; that the Lord trusts us to make wise decisions, which he then validates and helps us make the best of whatever we decide.

I know this isn’t the answer you desired. The first time I served as a bishop, I was released after 16 months due to a move (granted, it was a move out of state, not a 1-minute drive away). It was a painful decision and I acknowledge that I had those feelings that I was abandoning the Lord. But we survive and come to realize those choices are not as monumental to Him as they are to us. And, as life goes forward in faithfulness, we are remembered still.

I hope this is helpful. Thank you for being a stalwart bishop. We will respect and honor whatever decision you make.

President Lewis

In response to bishops' questions about registering Boy Scouts and end of year financing

16 November 2017

Bishop (Name),

Thank you again for the notes on the Bishop’s Welfare Council meeting on Tuesday night.

I’ll see if I can answer questions that apparently didn’t get answered during the meeting. Feel free to forward to the bishops and branch presidents, if you think it would help.

SCOUTING

We’re asking wards to recharter ALL boys 12 - 18 years of age. It won’t affect anything, but the Church has asked us to do it as a gesture of goodwill inasmuch as the Church plans to pay for all YM in the Church to be registered in 2018, even though there will be no Scouting program for 14-18 year olds this coming year. We won’t get after anyone if they choose not to register all boys, It’s just a favor asked of us at Philmont from the General YM Presidency, that I recall.

I’ll copy this to President Christiansen so he can clarify or correct anything I say here.

FINANCES

As for the budget, from the beginning, when we announced wards could roll-over surplus funds and immediately saw wards rolling over significant surpluses the first year and each subsequent year, we announced that we would allow wards to only roll over a surplus of 50% of their annual allocation. For instance, if a ward is earmarked to receive $5,000 for their annual allocation based on sacrament meeting attendance, then we would only allow them to roll over a surplus of up to $2,500 going into the next year.

We are not trying to punish any unit with this policy, but only help encourage them to find ways to spend their funds. The Church wants us to spend these budget allocations to bless each unit’s members. That’s why we created the attached document a couple of years ago (updated in May of this year) in hopes of helping bishops find ways to spend their surplus funds wisely and not frivolously with an end-of-year, use-it-or-lose-it attitude—but spend the funds!

We didn’t want the 50% roll-over cap to create that use-it-or-lose-it attitude, so we waived it last year. Every unit got to roll over 100% of their surplus. But that just compounded the problem for some wards, as you can see below, which now have HUGE surpluses that they continue to roll over year after year.

The last report I got from Brother Lowder through October 2017, with 2 months remaining, here’s how the financials looks for each ward:

Ward / Est. Annual Allocation / Current Available Funds

D / $3,800 / $5,263 (based on this, 50% of the annual allocation $3,800 would be $1,900; they need to spend $3,363 ($5,263 minus $1,900) before year end to get within the 50% roll-over cap)

E / $4,400 / $3,219 (50% of $4,400 would be $2,200)

Pio / $2,400 / $1,242 (50% of $2,400 would be $1,200)

PV / $5,300 / $3,606 (50% of $5,300 would be $2,650)

SR / $5,600 / $2,514  (50% of $5,600 would be $2,800)

TC / $4,500 / $4,242 (50% of $4,500 would $2,250; they need to spend $1,992 ($4,242 minus $2,250) before year end to get within the 50% roll-over cap)

WH / $5,400 / $6,065 (50% of $5,400 would be $2,700; they need to spend $3,365 ($6,065 minus $2,700) before year end to get within the 50% roll-over cap)

YSA / $1,200 / $525 (50% of $1,200 would be $600)

As you can see most wards are right on target. But a few like Damascus, Tickle Creek and Walters Hill have continued to build up sizable surpluses. We want everyone to spend their funds wisely, but we also want them to know that if they don’t spend all of their surplus we hope to use those funds to continue to drive down the cost of summer camps and thus reduce the burden on families. So it will benefit them.

Because of the positive impact youth summer camps can have on the lives of the youth in our stake, we feel the summer camp subsidy is one of the best uses of budget funds we have and want to continue to apply surpluses in that direction…and not spend those funds frivolously. So we hope wards with large (over 50%) surpluses will spend wisely before the end of the year and gladly roll over their extra-surplus to the stake for summer camp subsidies and so there is NO cost to families for the trek in 2019.

Finally, in response to your comment about an expectation, we really want to give every ward total latitude in spending thru the rest of the year and then rolling over whatever budget surplus they want to roll over, up to 50% of their annual allocation. I believe the estimated annual allocations above are what Bro Lowder is projecting for 2018. Bishops can send him an email and he can give them the precise allocation that they received in 2017, on which the 50% roll-over cap will actually be based.

I’ll let you use your discretion as to whether you want to forward this email to the bishops. We’ve been reluctant to send out such a report to all units so we didn’t create any hard feelings that one ward has more $$ than another. But, as before, every unit appears to be headed for a year-end surplus. 

Or, if it’s just too complicated, we could have a conference call, if that would help.

Sorry for any confusion this has created. I assume the topic came up because we waived the 50% roll-over cap last year, but announced that we would not waive it at the end of 2017. That is still our plan.

Hope this helps,

President Lewis

Response to a sister, who felt she had received revelation that involved her stake president

14 November 2017

An e-conversation with (name) in our stake, who felt strongly she was sent to Estacada by the Lord to purchase land that would be used as a refugee for people during the tumultuous last days:

Sister (Name),

Thank you for visiting with me briefly on Sunday following sacrament meeting. Hopefully you can tell that I love you and your family greatly and want to avoid, if at all possible, any harsh or estranged feelings between us.

You shared that you wish I would humble myself enough to seek the Lord in prayer. So there’s no misunderstanding on my part, what question would you have me ask in prayer?

President Lewis

Pres. Lewis,

We know of your love and concern for us, and we don't have any hard feelings. We know that you don't want us to be deceived and follow after false beliefs. 

The feelings that I do have are great sadness. This is because I was instructed by the Lord to go to you nearly 3 years ago and tell you that we had been told to move here and buy a piece of property for which the Lord had a purpose. I was also told to tell you to pray about it for your own confirmation. The reason was so that you, as the stake president, would already be aware when information came from Church leaders. I have asked several times and you refused me. This is my great sadness. I have dedicated my life to following the Lord and His instructions. It has been a difficult path, but has brought great growth. I'm sure that it would have been less painful if I weren't so prideful. This request, to buy this property, hasn't been an easy road for us. But we have also seen many miracles in doing it.

Now that you have agreed to pray about it, I am very happy. I think that you should pray to see if I was given true revelation about buying the property. After you get your answer, one way or another, then we can go from there.

Thank you for doing this.

(Name)

    

Sister (Name),

Thank you for your kind response. And for your patience with your stake president.

Forgive me for not doing what you feel that the Lord requested you to ask me to do. 

May I suggest that you have completed your “assignment” from the Lord? As you said, “I was also told to tell you to pray about it for your own confirmation.” You have delivered the message to your stake president, as instructed by the Lord. You’ve done your part. Please don’t take on the responsibility as to whether or not I choose to pray for a confirmation. You have done exactly what you were told to do. It’s now my choice to use my agency as to whether I will follow that instruction or not. And I will be held accountable, not you.

You have the assurance that if one of the General Authorities calls me and asks, “Is there a member of your stake with a large parcel of land that can be used as a refuge for Church members and others?” I will promptly respond, “Yes, I know just the person you’re looking for” and will promptly refer them to you and your family.

Will this suffice so you know that I know you have sought the Lord’s guidance and have delivered the message He asked you to give to your stake president?

Please don’t be offended when I explain that I, too, feel strongly that it is not appropriate for me to pray about this. For two reasons:

1. In my understanding of how the Lord “operates” He does not go through members to instruct priesthood leaders or ask them to confirm revelation members receive. He works through priesthood keys, meaning He speaks to those with keys to instruct or guide members. It’s not to say members can’t receive revelation, but it is inappropriate for any of us, as members, to receive revelation on behalf of others, i.e. instructing them—other members or priesthood leaders—that they are to do something. He just doesn’t do that.

2. What if I were to pray and were to receive a different answer than the one you feel so strongly you received? It puts you and me in the awkward position of questioning each other’s worthiness, closeness to the Lord, or even motives. You don’t want to put yourself in the position of thinking…and maybe even sharing in a moment of frustration…that your stake president is either out of touch with the Spirit or unworthy to receive revelation. You don’t want to put yourself in a position of having to judge a priesthood leader, do you? 

I hope this helps in some way. Please know and have the confidence you have fulfilled your assignment from the Lord: You have purchased the land He guided you to and you have shared wth your stake president the purpose of the purchase so if or when the Church contacts me (or a future priesthood leader) about using your land we’ll know exactly where to send them.

Does that help?

Thanks for listening,

President Lewis