Announcing the closure of stake summer camps because of the pandemic in 2020

28 April 2020

Bishoprics and Branch Presidencies,

It has become apparent that our plans for a Stake Young Women's and Stake Aaronic Priesthood Camps will not be possible this summer due to size of gathering restrictions and camp availability.

Sadly, both camps have been cancelled, as has the Stake Primary Activity scheduled for June 16-19.

Will you please notify the youth, their parents and youth leaders when you feel appropriate? (BTW...the young women, their parents and YW leaders were already notified the Stake YW Camp, but we appreciate you passing this along anyway.)

We wanted to alert you to this development as quickly as possible so you and your ward youth leaders can begin to focus on planning some type of camp or outing at the ward level—or maybe even at the class and quorum level, depending on the numbers allowed to gather this summer.

The Stake YMYW presidencies can help you with this new direction in a number of ways, including:

• Provide ideas for activities (they will send you soon a list of appropriate youth outings and activities that may not require extraordinary planning or funding);

• Offer suggestions on how to use these activities to build and strengthen testimonies (they will share ideas they were planning for the stake YW and AP camps);

• Share counsel on how to engage the youth in the planning ("let them lead");

• Provide additional financing from stake funds, where needed.

In all of this, we remind you of these key principles when planning your own camps:

• Bigger is not always better;

• Be extra-sensitive to the burden extended camps and major activities can place on adult leaders, who may not have the time or resources due to the time off work during the pandemic;

• Let the youth lead out—do not try to dazzle them, but allow them to grow from the opportunity to plan and organize the activity;

• Be flexible: gathering restrictions may require activities to be held at a class or quorum level instead of even the ward level.

Financing summer activities

Fortunately, almost of the ward and branch budgets are flush with funds due to the lack of activities during the pandemic. With supplemental funds available from the stake (upon request), we hope you will not have to ask for any funding from families (i.e. no fundraising in the home or otherwise).

The Stake Primary presidency will visit soon with your ward Primary leaders to discuss alternatives to the Stake Primary activity.

We hope this is helpful as you move in this new direction. We join our faith with yours that the Lord will inspire us on how to make this not just a memorable, but uplifting and testimony-building summer for the youth of our stake.

Gratefully,

Stake Presidency

In response to Jennifer Miller's latest complaints about the Church

27 April 2020

Hi President Lewis,

I've been thinking a lot about the changes the LDS Church has made in the last few years. I remember meeting with you to discuss policies, programs and doctrine that bothered me, and have been very pleased to see the Church making improvements in those areas. There is one thing that I haven't been able to wrap my mind around, though, and I wondered if you'd be willing to share your thoughts with me.

I never agreed with the covenant I made in the temple to obey my husband (which was later changed to "hearken"). I felt like it created a hierarchy with wife at the bottom, then husband, then God at the top. You explained this to me as patriarchy and told me that it was God's plan for governance. This plan was eternal and how God would govern in heaven. My take away from that conversation was that if it was God's plan, then I was going to need to change and be willing to be a part of it. This was the main reason I ultimately became inactive. After my daughter was sealed in the temple 5 years ago, I turned in my temple recommend to the bishop. I told him I just couldn't spend my life making sacrifices to get in to 'Mormon heaven'. The idea of living with the hierarchal nature of patriarchy took away all my joy and hope.

Imagine my surprise when I heard that the temple ceremony has eliminated that covenant of obedience to husband. I've heard that women now make their covenant to obey God just like men do. If that is correct, I was wondering how you explain it? How can that covenant have been a requirement for me but it is no longer a requirement for women now? 

When I've asked other people about it, I often get a general answer of "Isn't it great we have continuing revelation?" I agree that it is. But I just don't understand how I'm supposed to believe that God is leading this Church if a covenant that was so fundamental is just gone now. Why in the world did I ever have to agree to something that seemed so wrong if it can be changed when a more progressive President is in charge? Was it ever right in the first place? I never thought it was, but you and other leaders told me it was. Were all the other Presidents just making stuff up because it matched their world view? The idea of wives being obedient to husbands has been around a long, long time around the world.

The Church obviously still believes in patriarchy since women are not allowed to serve in most leadership positions. Do you believe that patriarchy is still how we will be governed in heaven?

Well, that's a lot of questions, I know. If you feel like answering any of them I'd be very grateful.

Thanks,

Jennifer Miller

Hi, Jennifer…

Thank you for reaching out. I don’t think I’ll be able to respond to your satisfaction, but I’ll be happy to share a few opinions. Thanks for understanding that they’re opinions, not doctrines or policies.

Why the change in the temple?

I don’t think anything has changed as to the doctrine, but I believe the Brethren (President Nelson specifically) was disturbed by the offense that the temple wording cause. I don’t think you’re old enough to remember the wording of the earlier temple ordinance when I was first endowed in 1968, but there was some pretty harsh language that surely offended converts from other faiths and was disturbing because it harkened back to pioneer and even ancient times.

I’m grateful that language was changed. But the promises are still the same.

Reverence for the temple ordinance is such that changes take time—sometimes a LONG time. But the ordinances don’t change. Obviously, wording in the covenants can change, as you mentioned. I personally don’t think the ordinance changed because of the change in wording. The outcome is still the same—binding us to a loving Heavenly Father and out-of-this-word promises.

At the heart of your concern, I believe, is that there was not a proper understanding (especially by men) as to what it means when the scriptures describe the marriage relationship using words like “rule” (Gen 3:16), “head” (1 Cor 11:3), “obedient” (Titus 2:5), “subjection” (1 Peter 3:1), and “submit” (Eph 5:22). I believe that when the Brethren realized that people, even covenant people, (especially men) were misunderstanding scriptural terms like these and using the misunderstanding to justify abuse, over bearance, etc. You can see why they would try to alter the temple presentation to remove any support or endorsement of mis-understood or mis-used terminology. I think it’s a blessing that enough women, like yourself, spoke up and it got the Brethren’s attention…and, to their credit, they responded where possible.

BTW…you’ll love the terminology changes made to the sealing ordinance, which still contains the same promises.

And I suspect we’ll yet see more changes to terminology, wording and phrasing as we all become more sensitive to words that can hurt. What they couldn’t do was change the scriptures or the doctrine or the promises.

So, I personally, don’t think this was a doctrinal or ordinance change, as much as it was a terminology clarification to help all of us appreciate the true balance that should exist in an eternal marriage—and that did not exist in many marriages because men apparently used the wording to justify inappropriate behavior.

And I don’t believe that because you and I earlier in life made covenants with different wording means we are under a different standard or obligation. The Lord’s covenant of marriage is still in tact. 

So why didn’t the Lord make the change long ago through His prophets? That’s a fair question if you believe the Lord dictates every policy and gives daily direction to the prophet. I personally don’t think he does. My own experience tells me that the Lord usually allows very ordinary men and women to figure things out, become more sensitive, make mistakes, yearn for help, learn to judge righteously…before He gives revelation. I think the prophet is also allowed to struggle, to listen and learn from others, become more sensitive, etc. (in President Nelson’s case and the temple change, it may be because he has 10 daughters!) 

Whatever the reason, I’m grateful the Church is moving forward, changes are happening, revelation is continuing, restoration is ongoing, and the Lord’s purposes are being fulfilled. It’s thrilling to watch how He is moving us toward His second coming. We are blessed to live in such a day!

I hope this is helpful. Would you like to visit on a Zoom call sometime? I would be honored to visit with you, though I can’t guarantee you’ll be satisfied with my responses. But I’ll be happy to apologize for and, if possible, clarify anything I’ve shared before that has offended you. 

Please know we love you and Herb and miss you both!

Crismon

An appeal for monetary assistance to food pantries in and near our stake

25 April 2020

Dear Mount Hood Stake Members,

We are reminded in King Benjamin's masterful sermon in this week's Come, Follow Me study that we are to reach out to the less-fortunate. He then asks, "For behold, are we not all beggars?"

While we may feel confined and unable to help those around us, there is something we can do right now for our communities.

We are blessed with a number of non-profit food pantries in and near our stake that would benefit greatly from our generosity.

Last fall we collected several tons of food goods for local pantries (see photos). They were very grateful to our stake members. Now, during these uncertain times, the demand on the food pantries is even greater—double for some. And a food drive is not practical.

If your budget will allow, please consider monetary donations to the food pantries in our communities, all of which can purchase surplus canned goods from the Oregon Food Bank at a very affordable price. For instance, $5 can buy 100 lbs. of food.

The most effective monetary donation is to our Church's Fast Offering (to help those within your ward or branch) and Humanitarian (global assistance) funds, which can be made online with our tithing. This is where we should begin when giving monetary assistance.

If, however, you are still able, please consider donating to any of the following local food pantries:

• SnowCap Communities Charities - Gresham

503-674-8785 • http://www.snowcap.org/

To donate, go to this website

• Zarephath Kitchen & Pantry - Gresham

http://www.feedeastcounty.org/

To donate, go to this website

• Sandy Community Action Center - Sandy

503-668-4746 • https://sandyactioncenter.com/

To donate, go to this website

• Estacada Area Food Bank - Estacada

503-630-2888 • https://estacadafoodbank.org/

To donate, mail check payable to Estacada Area Food Bank, PO Box 1196, Estacada, OR 97023

• Neighborhood Missions - Welches

503-622-9213

To donate, mail check payable to Neighborhood Missions, PO Box 594, Brightwood, OR 97011 or contact Shirley Dueber, of the Sandy River Ward, 503-349-6879

• St. Vincent de Paul / Catholic Charities - Gresham and Sandy

503-235-7837 Gresham • 503-668-4446 Sandy

To donate, mail check payable to St. Vincent de Paul to St. Henry's Catholic Church, 346 NW 1st St, Gresham, OR 97030 or St. Michael's Catholic Church, 18090 SE Langensand Rd, Sandy, OR 97055

Thank you for giving this your consideration. Please do not feel obligated. This is not an assignment or directive. We simply want you to be aware of a growing need within our stake's communities. And this is one thing we can do even when confined to our homes.

With love and gratitude for your generosity,

The Stake Presidency

---

Clarifying questions to our Area Seventy about activities for youth

19 April 2020

Elder Blunck,

1. In the most recent guidelines issued last Friday by the First Presidency, it states: “Bishops and ward leaders may use technology for messages to supplement a member’s home-centered worship.”

We have some bishops who would like to record an occasional video message and email or stream the message to ward members. Until now, that has been prohibited. Is this now permissible?

2. We continue to be deeply concerned that bishoprics are struggling to connect with the youth of their ward. It’s a challenge when there are no activities or events to plan with the quorum and class presidencies.

We are hearing about wards elsewhere where Young Women and Young Men are meeting regularly for their Activity Nights via video conference. They’re playing games online together, working on family history together, sometimes discussing the gospel, sharing service ideas, etc.

Can we ask the Area Presidency for permission for bishoprics and youth leaders to conduct weeknight activities, at least once a month,  via video conferencing? 

That would also give our class and quorum presidencies more reason to meet regularly to plan these virtual activities in addition to addressing ministering efforts.

Thank you for giving this your consideration.

Crismon Lewis

President, Mount Hood OR Stake

503-914-8689

Forwarding pandemic guidelines from the First Presidency

17 April 2020

Bishops, Branch Presidents and Stake Leaders…

You have likely seen the attached guidelines issued today by the First Presidency with more details for leaders on Church administration in challenging times, including the performance of essential ordinances and blessings.

You’ll notice in the attached 10-page document that the Brethren first spell out the principles of administration upon which the guidelines are based and then the approved practices.

It is gratifying to note that we have been instructed well by our Area Presidency and Area Seventy such that we have already been following nearly all, if not all, of the practices outlined in the document.

One of the most significant changes that I noted was the permission granted for leaders, family and friends to view the performance of ordinances via technology, such as video conferencing.

Despite the current challenges, we are privileged to personally witness the truth of these words in the document: “Inspired direction over many years has prepared the Lord’s Church and its members, both temporally and spiritually, for changing and challenging times…When we look at the interlocking patterns of these efforts and many others, we can see how the Lord has carefully orchestrated and sequenced us to prepare for challenging times."

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to respond privately to this email.

President Lewis and the Stake Presidency

In response to a single sister's hurt feelings about not able to receive the sacrament

15 April 2020

Elder Blunck,

As you remember, the First Presidency’s original Covid-19 announcement on March 12 stated that "Bishops should counsel with their stake president to determine how to make the sacrament available to members at least once a month.”

In contemplating how to fulfill this direction, I have wondered if there might be something more we can do to accommodate a few single sisters, who are deeply pained by the current sacrament administration policy. Fortunately, the vast majority of those affected have been very accepting and have not even complained.

But there are some who feel that our policy is isolating them even more.

One dear single sister, who we helped return to activity after 30 years of being less-active, wrote me: “I’m really not trying to be a problem, it’s difficult in the church to be a single woman. Unless you have experienced how it is, it’s hard to understand. I’m really needing to get the opportunity to partake of the sacrament.”

My first thought was, “Leslie, you went without the sacrament for 30 years, can it really mean that much now?” But that would be unkind. I will try to teach her how she can abide the current policy and still enjoy the blessings of heaven.

However, my question…

Would it be counter to the Area guidelines if those few single sisters, who feel isolated by the current policy, could be allowed to choose an invitation into a home where there is a worthy priesthood holder? We would be willing to do that for our friend Leslie.

I can see where a sister could be invited into a home and, if everyone wore masks, could still practice social distancing within the home for a brief service, including the sacrament. The greatest risk is to the single sister herself since she would be touching and consuming bread and water touched by the priesthood holder. 

So a sister, who is feeling isolated and is willing to take the risk, could be told she could be invited into another home and partake of the sacrament in that way—assuming a family is willing to have a guest. Frankly, I don’t believe we’d have more than a few such sisters in our stake willing to take the risk. But at least it would be their choice.

I know this a very small thing that falls into a “Law of Moses” category, so I apologize for even bringing it up. My request is to see if you’d be OK for me to advise the bishops in our stake that if they have a single sister, who feels especially offended or alienated by the current policy, that this approach may be considered if a family can be found who is willing to invite her into their home for the sacrament.

I welcome your counsel.

Thank you,

Crismon Lewis

Mount Hood Stake

Discussion about starting a Stake Religion Class in our stake while the Church has cancelled all meetings

14 April 2020

Brethren,

I will support your decision. 

When we’re coming out of the blocks with something new like this class, we want all the positives we can gather to appeal to as many members as possible…to give them as many reasons as possible as to why they’d want to attend; and therefore gain momentum for future growth by creating a buzz among members. (President Nelson has proven to be a master at creating a buzz in the Church.)

As wonderful as the Teachings of the Presidents are, if anyone perceives it as a “rerun” that’s a negative.

I encourage you to consider a compromise approach: use the Cornerstone Course “Foundations of the Restoration.” You can easily select and focus on 8-10 of the chapters including The First Vision, Doctrine of Revelation, The Prophet Joseph Smith—a Choice Seer, The Book of Mormon—the Keystone of our Religion, Jesus Christ our Divine Redeemer, etc.

That way we are offering a class with teachings that are timely to the Bicentennial and at the same time we can tell members we’re drawing from course material that used to be taught exclusively at BYU, but is now available to all members. That removes the potential  of a negative and maybe even create a buzz.

Again, I will support your decision. I appreciate so much you moving this forward so quickly and wanting to launch the class in 10 days. Thank you!

Your prompt action is much appreciated because, as  you know, governments are already taking about reducing the social distancing. I feel there’s a fair chance we’ll be able to gather again by late June. Whenever it happens, we will be watching closely as to whether we gained enough momentum for a Stake Religion Class to carry on into the summer and possibly fall. 

Thanks for all you’re doing to provide another opportunity for the members of our stake to connect with each other and become more converted.

Crismon

Message to the Stake: Something we can all do

7 April 2020

Dear Mount Hood Stake Members,

During this stay-at-home time, our hearts turn to the full-time missionaries assigned to our stake. They, too, must stay in their apartments, except for occasional exercise time outdoors. This is not easy on them.

There is one thing we can all do to let them know how much we appreciate their service with us:

Invite them into our homes via video conferencing.

Will each of you please contact your ward or branch mission leader to schedule a video conference with the full-time missionaries in your ward or branch?

The missionaries will only take a few minutes to have prayer with us, bear testimony, share a scripture or two, and visit briefly about the blessing of the gospel in our lives.

It will be such a blessing to them to be able to teach and converse with others again. 

And you will love the spirit they bring into your home!

We will send you in a subsequent email with the contact information for your ward or branch mission leader. 

Please schedule a visit soon. They need our care and support.

Gratefully,

President Lewis and the Stake Presidency

By the way...

Did you know?

Did you know there is a missionary serving in our stake right now whose mother was disowned by her parents when she joined the Church years ago? She moved from the East Coast to Utah to be near other Church members and later married a returned missionary.

Well, their daughter is now serving in our stake. And when she announced her plans to serve a mission, her grandparents— still upset about their daughter's decision years ago—offered to buy their granddaughter "the car of your dreams" if she would NOT serve a mission. She chose a mission and serves in our stake today, blessing many with her testimony. 

When you invite the missionaries into your home via video, ask them about how they came to serve a mission and why.

A message of apology to bishops and branch presidents after a video conference tonight

2 April 2020

Dear Brethren,

I need to write and apologize for the direction I gave tonight in our meeting. I was out of place in suggesting that you should allow, maybe even encourage, families to invite others (especially single sisters) to their home to receive the sacrament.

Such a suggestion causes a number of problems:

• It can lead to hurt feelings when members begin to hear that someone got invited and they didn’t;

• A suggestion from the stake president that you should not “police” this, is, as Bishop May questioned, is the same as being authorized by your priesthood leader to neglect your duty as a key holder to oversee the administration of the sacrament;

• It sets the wrong example by priesthood leaders, especially the stake president, in circumventing the letter and spirit of Elder Blunck’s direction.

Please forgive me for allowing my heart (sadness for the many who will feel left out) to override good judgment. I deeply desire to be “strict” and “quick” to obey my priesthood leader. I was wrong and I ask you not to follow my earlier instruction.

I encourage all of you to follow the direction we will receive from Elder Blunck in his letter that should come tomorrow. 

Please know I will not invite our single sister friend to join our family for the sacrament on Easter Sunday. That’s the last thing you need is to have someone say to you, “Well, the stake president did it."

I realize we may not be able to be aware or oversee every instance of what happens in the homes with regard to the administration of the sacrament, but I want to be found firmly and completely on the side of my file leader.

I appreciate your patience with your “old" stake president who sadly continues to make “rookie” mistakes more often than I care to count.

President Lewis

In response to a mother who didn't agree with me requiring a young man to seek her forgiveness for a teenage pornography problem

1 April 2020

Excerpt from an email received from a mother in our stake:

I hope you’ll forgive me if I mention one more thing that’s been troubling me, and President, I hope you know that I pray for you night and day, I’d jump off a cliff if you asked me to, but I need to tell you this. When (son's name) confessed to his leaders that he had a pornography problem, you counseled him to apologize to us, his parents, which he did. It has bothered me ever since, not because I didn’t want to hear that (heaven knows there isn’t much that shocks me these days), but because it really was none of my business. (Son's name) didn’t need to feel that shame in front of us, it was between him and his Heavenly Father and his leaders, not us. He was an adult, for one thing, but even a teenaged person shouldn’t be required to do that. No apology was necessary. I think it made a difficult process more difficult and unnecessarily so. I agree that an underage child should be able to turn to their parents for help, to formulate a plan to overcome those issues IF THEY CHOSE, but not all parent/child relationships are healthy enough to be helpful. I wish that weren’t the case, but it really is. No harm was done at our house, but harm can really be done elsewhere if those forced admissions aren’t handled with complete and unconditional love and acceptance. 

Dear Amazing (Mother's name),

Thank you for sharing all of this with me. And thank you for the wonderful example you and (husband) give all of us in the way you live the gospel and teach your family. It’s wonderful to see!

As for the confession to parents, I’m not offended. I’m grateful to know your feelings and especially thankful that it did not hurt (son's name). My feeling is that whenever a young person is living at home, no matter the age, and is hiding something from his/her parents that is contrary to how he/she is taught in the home, that the spirit of repentance requires that person to seek forgiveness for the dishonesty and deceit. It’s not so much a sexual addiction confession, in my opinion, as it is a matter of integrity. Even if (son's name) was an adult and was living on his own, but had deceived his parents by accessing porn while in high school, I would have still counseled him to seek your forgiveness for deceiving you while in the home.  (I typically say something like, “You don’t have to go into very much detail, just say something like, ‘You made it known that we had a rule and expectation that I was not to look at pornography in our home, but without you knowing, I did. Will you forgive me?’ “)

I hope that helps a little in understanding why I counseled him to do so. I’m sure other priesthood leaders do not agree with me and feel as you do. I don’t know if there is an absolute right or wrong to the matter. I do try to take into consideration the young person’s relationship with his parents and the parents’ understanding of the gospel before giving this counsel, but I feel pretty strongly about this.

Maybe this strong feeling comes from an experience I had a long time ago. When I was a teenager, I deceived my mother about something that I never told her about that most would think to be inconsequential. 15 or so years later my parents were staying in our home the night before leaving on their first mission. As I knelt in my personal prayers, asking the Lord to bless my parents, I suddenly had the memory of my teenage deception vividly come back to me. I knew that I needed to seek her forgiveness before they left. So I sought out my mother and asked her forgiveness for my inconsequential deception many years before. It was a sweet experience and she, of course, forgave me. But I learned that even the small infractions of the Lord’s law of honesty must be addressed before God and man.

Sorry to take so long in responding on that question.

Thanks again for the wonderful work you two do in blessing so many around you and in our stake.

Crismon Lewis

Putting out an alert to bishops about those 'on the bubble'

1 April 2020

Bishops and Branch Presidents…

The pandemic is creating a whole new group seeking welfare assistance.

This is what we’ve talked about in our most recent stewardship interviews. This is the group that concerns me—those who’ve prided themselves in never asking for help in the past or simply never having needed help. 

As this crisis continues, soon we may see many more than ever who are in need of Church assistance.

Thank you for putting your ward/branch leaders, as well as ministering brothers and sisters, on alert to identify those who may be “on the bubble”—who may lose employment soon and won’t say anything until it’s a devastating personal crisis.

Thank you for watching over your flock with such care and concern

President Lewis