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

Sacrament administered in home: does the policy discriminate?

31 March 2020

Elder Blunck,

We have in our stake a “feminist” who has long advocated for women to receive the priesthood. Over the past two years, (Name) has been encouraged by the measures and messages of President Nelson that have given women much more of a say and role, such as serving as witnesses in ordinances. Jennifer has been vocal about how pleased she is with the policy changes in the Church.

I have met with Jennifer multiple times trying to understand her feelings and to address what I could—such as asking bishoprics not to say, “We thank the priesthood for administering the sacrament” reminding them, as we’ve been reminded by Presidents Nelson, Oaks and Ballard, that priesthood is a power and authority, not men; suggesting that men are special over women.

Even with the encouraging changes, (Name) has distanced herself from the church and divorced her husband, who also has found fault with priesthood leaders and doctrine.

I just happened to see the message below that (Name) posted on Facebook last Sunday. I support the direction to allow those who hold the priesthood (with a current temple recommend) to administer the sacrament in their home. It is a true blessing in our home with our daughter and her three children living with us. On the other hand, it shines a spotlight on the painful reality that some will and some won’t get the sacrament each Sunday.

Here’s what (Name) wrote on Facebook (she has very little readership, only 41 followers) and has had no response to this FB post:

Religious post ahead. Be warned.

I've long believed that the LDS church needs to correct the sexism that exists in its leadership and organization. In the last couple of years, I've been surprised but pleased to see the Church finally begin to address and correct some of these inequities. I've always felt the easiest way to correct this was to simply give women the priesthood, but I have never expected a miracle. Changing long standing beliefs is just too mind blowing for so many people. I'm hoping the Church leaders are now seeing the need for women to hold the priesthood. It is utterly ridiculous that women like myself and my mother can not take the sacrament. My sisters can take the sacrament because they have active, priesthood holding husbands. My daughter can because she's in the same situation. I've been told over and over that priesthood blessings are available to all members regardless of their gender. I think current conditions have proved that this is not true. Can anyone truly think that the Church will somehow be less if women can do more?

I’m wondering if it might be prudent, so that no one feels left out or discriminated against, to declare Easter Sunday as “sacrament Sunday” for everyone and that be our only Sunday in April in which the sacrament is to be administered in homes. Unfortunately, it would require some ministering brothers to leave their families on Easter Sunday to administer the sacrament in the homes of others. 

Please know I fully support whatever direction you and/or the Area Presidency want to give us, but know that I pain for those who feel they’re been discriminated against or left out because of this practice. On the other hand, I would also pain for the families that could have had the sacrament in their home, but can’t because of one woman complained.

I hope this is helpful in your future planning. We are grateful for your leadership and sensitivity.

Crismon Lewis

President, Mount Hood Stake

In response to an EQ president who disagreed with the Area Seventy's authorization of taking the sacrament into homes at least once a month

27 March 2020

Hello President,

I strongly disagree with Elder Blunk on this item. Whether legal or not we should not be going into members homes in an organized and official capacity.  This creates health risks for all participants and a PR risk for the church and potential liability for the church and those in leadership positions.

This needs approval of a general authority and probably church legal representation.

This does not seem in harmony with the direction we are seeing from the general authorities with the temples being closed world wide and missionaries being sequestered or sent home.

-(Name)



Dear Bishop Kato and President Hokanson...

Thank you for sharing your sentiments on the subject. I respect your feelings and recognize how strongly you feel about this.

First, let me say that your handling the administration of the sacrament in your ward this Sunday is solely up to you. We have no plans of communicating to the members anything more beyond the original announcement made a couple of weeks ago that March 29 is sacrament Sunday.

You decide whether or not you want to organize worthy priesthood holders to take the sacrament into the homes of those who consent to receiving visitors. You did a wonderful job last weekend in taking the sacrament—at the last minute—into more homes than any other ward in the stake. Thank you and well done!

As you know, the First Presidency gave us the following directive: "Bishops should counsel with their stake president to determine how to make the sacrament available to members at least once a month.” Your ward members have had two opportunities to receive the sacrament in March (March 1 and 22). So if you choose not to make it available this Sunday, that’s your choice.

However, the First Presidency has not rescinded that directive. So, if things are the same as they are now, we’ll need to address this  subject again in April to make sure your members have the option of receiving the sacrament in their homes in April.

As for your concerns about legality…

If the governor’s executive order required everyone to stay home and they would bring food to our doorstep, that would be one thing. But, as you know, the governor’s directive allows all of us to leave our homes to go to work (for “essential” businesses) and to go to the grocery store and for other essential services.

Many of us go to the store and are exposed to other people while shopping. And we buy food, most of which was touched by food handlers. The governor’s order allows us to provide for our physical nourishment, even with such a risk.

If a government official or even a neighbor challenged a ministering brother about going into the home of another to take them the "bread and water of life," I would hope every disciple of Jesus Christ could persuasively defend why we personally need spiritual nourishment as much as physical nourishment. For many, hopefully for all of us, it’s an “essential service.” 

We appreciative ministering brothers taking all the precautions possible, such as washing hands thoroughly, keeping a distance, and using bread and water from the member's home.

As for your concerns about PR…

Our meetinghouses and temples are closed because they are gathering places.

In my opinion, our missionaries are told to stay home for three reasons, beyond the appearance: (1) safety--there’s a big difference between one or two ministering brothers going into a single home for a few minutes once a month and a couple of missionaries flitting from house to house like bees in search of pollen; (2) the Church has always been extra cautious and protective of the full-time missionaries for the parents’ sake; and (3) the maturity level of missionaries knowing some may not take this seriously.

Finally, receiving the sacrament is a personal matter. We each make that choice in sacrament meeting. My counsel to you is to make it available “at least once a month” to all members and allow them to decide if they want to have visitors come into their home for this special purpose.

I hope this is helpful.

President Lewis

Announcement to bishops about administering the sacrament on March 29

26 March 2020

Bishops and Branch Presidents…

Thank you for planning to meet tonight for our weekly Bishops Conference Call at 9:00 pm. You have received an email from President Christiansen with the link that will bring you into the meeting. Please use a device that has both video and audio.

BTW…TONIGHT’S CONFERENCE CALL WILL BE A NO-TIE MEETING. So no one feels out of place, we’ll make this a “casual” video conference. (Even if it’s 9p, please spare us of the pajamas. :)

There’s something I wanted to bring to your attention even before we visit tonight…

Last night in the stake presidents' weekly call with our Area Seventy, Elder Blunck gave this direction / opinion:

1. Those holding the priesthood (priest, elder, HP) and authorized by you to administer the sacrament may do so in their home every Sunday until sacrament meetings are resumed or we are directed otherwise. Of course, this does not apply to General Conference weekend.

2. Members without a worthy priesthood holder in the home, who consent to have visitors to the home, may receive the sacrament this Sunday, March 29. Unless otherwise directed, another Sunday in April will be designated so everyone can receive the sacrament at least monthly.

Elder Blunck, who is also an attorney, says he feels the governor’s Stay Home Executive Order, 1-a. Does not preclude visitors going to others’ homes and administering an ordinance; that it does not fall within the guideline of “parties, celebrations or other similar gatherings.” 

He suggests that the home visits for this purpose be VERY brief; a hymn, prayer and the administration of the sacrament; no talks. He also asks that ministering priesthood holders maintain social distance as much as possible while in the home and always thoroughly wash their hands in each home so those receiving the sacrament will know every precaution is being taken. Use the family’s bread and water.

Thank you for the guidelines many of you have already shared with those who are visiting homes for this purpose.

Hopefully you can see this is a wonderful opportunity for you…

…to reach those who may have been missed last Sunday;

…to determine who is and who is not to administer the sacrament whether in their home or another’s (the stake presidency will not be making a blanket announcement about administration of the sacrament and current temple recommends); we look to you to communicate all of this to your ward or branch;

…to have the time to organize this in an orderly way without the last minute rush that we experienced last weekend.

Please take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to do it right, if you feel that some members were missed or the administration of the sacrament last time was not organized or announced in an orderly fashion.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this email or we can discuss this evening in our conference call.

Look forward to visiting with you then,

President Lewis

More changes announced as pandemic continues

23 March 2020

Dear Mount Hood Stake Members,

Thank you for the many ways you are being cautious and following guidance from Church and government leaders.

A special thank you for reaching out and watching over each other through technology. We encourage members to create video conferencing groups to stay connected or meet online to study together. We're also happy to hear about families video conferencing with other families to play games.

Please be advised of more developments:

USE OF CHURCH BUILDINGS: We recognize that our meetinghouses can make for fun gathering places and that many members have door keys. We remind you that officials have asked us not to have gatherings of 10 or more persons. Please respect this directive and not use church buildings for recreational and other private uses.

DESERET INDUSTRIES: The Church thrift store, located on 82nd Avenue in Portland, is now closed. Workers who were receiving training are now being taught online. Donations are no longer accepted at the store nor at the DI pods. The pods have been removed from all church buildings.

We appreciate your understanding and patience during this challenging time.

Stake Presidency

In response to Relief Society president who was worried not everyone will be able to receive the sacrament due to Covid-19 adjustments

19 March 2020

Thank you for sharing. Unfortunately, there’s no way to guarantee everyone will receive the sacrament on March 29 or into the future. 

Fortunately, I don’t think a mandatory quarantine is imminent, though things are changing quickly, as you know.

The bigger question will be: do those without a priesthood holder in the home even want visitors in their home? 

I would doubt we'll ever see a virtual blessing of the bread and water because, I believe, the breaking is part of the ordinance (why the bread is broken in our presence and not brought to church in small pieces already).

Many people have had to go without the sacrament for years (members in East Germany and other Soviet bloc nations) and remained on the covenant path. 

Hopefully all of us will become more appreciative of the sacrament and other ordinances through this trial.

You don’t need to reply or share, but just so you can help counsel RS presidents, as you’ve done already (thank you!), to please do everything they can to help calm fears and not create more worries and concerns.

Thx

PrL

In response to Mark Skousen's email where he was furious as to how the Brethren have handled the Covid-19 pandemic by cancelling all meetings to create social distancing

19 March 2020

Mark,

I don’t blame you for being furious about the craziness going on right now. But it is what it is. 

Please cut the Brethren some slack. Sure, they don’t run the Church like you would, but they are good and wise men, who receive revelation and they’re trying their best. I’m not suggesting every decision they make is God’s will, but they’re trying with the facts they have and the feelings they receive.

Again, I’m so sorry this is so painful to you personally. But please don’t let it turn you away from the testimony and truths you cherish. The separating of those who will stand firm and those who won’t is real and it's happening. It’s not worth getting worked up so much that you turn on the Brethren or the Church.

This will pass and we will survive. The question is what will be our status before God after it’s all over?

Crismon