A thank you email to the Ma's and Pa's on our 2019 Stake Trek

31 July 2019

Dear Ma’s and Pa’s for the 2019 Stake Trek,

First, will you please forward or share this email with your spouse as I only had one email address per couple.

I didn’t want the trek to become too distant before expressing my personal thanks to all of you. I wish I could express my gratitude in person, but I’m out of town on vacation for the next couple of weeks.

I have visited with as many youth and adults as possible since you returned from the trek and I’ve been deeply impressed by the comments I’ve heard on how this year’s trek impacted so many lives. I was especially gratified to hear how quickly the trek families bond, which is a tribute to each of you (I understand a rain and lightning storm the first night helped, too :)

The youth came back so touched by the entire experience and the heartfelt feelings they had for each of you, their Ma and Pa. Your kindness, encouragement and spiritual guidance was the key catalyst in helping them have a spiritual experience. For many, we hope, it will prove to be life changing.

As you know, one of the sweetest gifts in life is when the Lord allows us to be an instrument in His hands in touching and influencing the life of another. Each of you played such a role during the trek and on behalf of the stake presidency and, especially the many parents who welcomed home a “new” child, thank you for your love, encouragement, and endurance to make this a most remarkable trek experience for the youth of our stake.

With the deepest of gratitude,
President Lewis

Thank you to President Steven and Alisha Christiansen, who oversaw our stake's 2019 Pioneer Trek

Dear Steven and Aiisha,

I had a wonderful time yesterday visiting with many, including youth, about the trek. It was life changing for so many!

In almost every instance, they shared how their highlights was the “youth pull” where you, Steven, were led by the Spirit on how to modify that plans to bring about a sweet spiritual experience for everyone involved. In visits with some of the leaders before, during and after the trek, many commented how your vision and leadership, Steven, made all the difference in the trek’s success.

Others commented how the food was delicious, which is a tribute, Alisha, to your remarkable gift to organize and prepare so well, considering the limited facilities you had and how many you had to feed...so often.

I wanted you both to know how very, deeply grateful I am personally for the consecrated lives you gave to the trek. It was especially touching in knowing your final plans had to come together in the midst of your own family’s terrifying challenge of a life-and-death struggle with your first grandchild. And yet you never complained or asked to be relieved. I truly believe that baby’s miraculous recovery was in direct response to your faith and determination to bless Heavenly Father’s children via the trek.

You don’t need a note of thanks from me to know what a marvelous blessing the trek is for our stake. You saw it first hand and I’m sure heard from many others as to how it changed their lives.

I can’t thank you enough. I take consolation in knowing the Lord knows how to express His thanks and trust you are feeling that assurance this week and for years to come.

With much love and gratitude to you both.

Crismon

In response to an EQ president's concerns about the request they conduct a brief discussion on ministering

Good morning, my friend…

You don’t need to repent or apologize. Obviously, I need to apologize for being the cause of such feelings in your heart. I hope you can forgive me.

Please know that the phrase in our letter “Will you please consider…” means just that. This was not to be a directive or commandment, but a request that you could either do or not do. We will not be monitoring or chastening those who choose not to comply with our request. We do trust you and know you will make the right choice for your quorum.

Maybe some background will help explain how this even happened.

So why did we even ask such a thing?

There are two concerns that have weighed on me recently:

1. Ministering Overshadowed: It has appeared to me that the emphasis on the wonderful home-centered learning through Come, Follow Me and the reduction in the number of times the RS and EQ leaders are able to meet with their members have affected, even overshadowed, the emphasis we received a year ago on the importance of ministering.

2. Waning Interest in Home-Centered Learning: From observations in Sunday school classes it seems to me members are getting casual about the emphasis on home-centered learning. I don’t know if it’s a case where the novelty of Come, Follow Me has worn off or if it’s because Sunday school is held so infrequently that it seems members are not as engaged in studying the gospel at home like we were earlier in the year.

So when the idea of how to get “two birds with one stone” in addressing my two concerns, frankly I couldn’t resist. In hindsight I probably should have done what you recommended and that’s just share my concerns and ask the presidencies to come up with solutions.

Deep down I was hoping that making such a recommendation would help RS and EQ presidents to see how they can encourage home-centered gospel learning by incorporating Come, Follow Me in their instruction, too, helping to support the idea that Come, Follow Me is a weekly home-study activity and not just something we study the week before the first and third Sundays.

So why was it sent out so late?

Frankly, I didn’t get the idea until Thursday while in my own personal study. I planted the “seed” of an idea and it began to grow throughout the day. I had interviews until 10 pm that night so was unable to draft the message until early Friday. I then sent it to the stake presidency for approval and/or counsel. I received two excellent recommendations and made the changes then sent it out.

Could it have waited? Yes, but I wanted to take advantage of the timeliness of studying Acts 6-9 this week in Come, Follow Me. My hope was that by outlining the discussion would make it very easy for you—no added preparation time.

So why didn’t we send it to presidents only?

I should and would have, except for two reasons:

1. The Church's broadcast email system doesn’t allow me to send to presidents only, only to presidencies;

2. I didn’t know which presidents might be on vacation and not accessing their email.

So, as you can see, there was a whole series of well-meaning blunders along the way. I appreciate your feedback and concerns. I feel badly it has caused within you such deep discontent. Again, I hope you can please forgive me.

Thank you for your patience with me. I take heart in President Eyring’s talk in the Priesthood Session last April when he referenced priesthood leaders as “imperfect human beings.” So I guess I take some consolation in knowing that I’m not alone in my stumblings.

Thank you again for writing and sharing your feelings. You are a mighty EQ president and I am honored to serve with you.

Crismon

P.S. I understand you shared with your son (Name) and his wife the link to the Area Presidency presentation on June 25. That led to both of them raising some questions, even challenges, as to the direction we’re taking in the Spanish branch. As the “father” (grandfather?:) of that fledgling little group, I’m sure you’re still very interested in how your “baby” is doing. We, too, have concerns and are struggling to find answers. But we’re still encouraged. Anyway, I’m going to take the liberty of sharing Corey’s email to me and my response, in case he didn’t share it with you, so you can see what wonderful, out-of-the-box thinking is coming from Corey and Marie—he’s a cut out of the same cloth as his dad. He,too, is going to be an outstanding leader in the Church.

On Jul 12, 2019, at 6:40 PM, Don Hokanson <hokansondm@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear President Lewis,

I am probably out of line for writing this and even more so for thinking it. I recently finished a historical fiction book called the Muddy about early pioneers and polygamy which explored the relationship between individual agency and following the brethren. As I read it I realized that I similarly struggle with the same concept.

I appreciate the selfless sacrifice you give to our stake.

I should probably be faster to heed your counsel. But this is what happens when I get a directive like this.

I read and try to follow the handbook and try to apply the principles behind the handbook.

This week I prayerfully considered a topic and have spent a bit of time preparing for Sunday.

So when I read this email these are the thoughts in my mind:

1. President L doesn't trust us to use our keys.

2. Why is President L varying from the handbook? Is he executing his "On exception the stake president or Bishop may assign..." clause? And if so, why such a short notice? How often will this happen?

3. Why does this kind of micro managing cause such a strong reaction in me? What is wrong with me? Some people are great at just doing.

Just like the people in the Muddy who followed the brethren, sometimes begrudgingly, obedience brings blessings although not always what was hoped for. 

I will do my best to work this into the discussion.

I would prefer that guidance from the stake come in the following manner:

- Tell us the problem or concern and let our presidencies and ward  councils seek our own inspiration and make our own plan.

- In the event of a crisis or urgency let us know that this is a commandment so that we just do it. Use sparingly.

- Send to the appropriate presiding authority rather than all presidency or council members effectively bypassing key holders and presidents.

- Trust us to do the best we can.

I shall now go and repent and do my best to get my heart in the right spot for Sunday.

(Name)

Guidelines on how to help members get involved within 48 hours with those the missionaries are teaching

 

The following are guidelines that full-time missionaries are to follow when communicating to the ward or branch mission leader within hours of identifying a sincerely interested person to teach.

MISSIONARIES TO REPORT

Name and Contact Information of Those Being Taught: 

Background:

1. How found:  Member referral?   Media referral? Personal contact?   Contacted Us?
2. Family:   Single? Spouse’s name? Children’s ages? 
3. Occupation or other Interests: 
4. Needs:   Employment?    Self-Reliance?   Professional counselling?   Temporal assistance?
5. Member friends: Who in the ward do they already know and how?
6. Gospel truths of most interest: Restoration? Book of Mormon? Revelation? Prophets? Other?

MEMBERS TO RESPOND

Ward or branch mission leader is to take the above information and as soon as possible assign individuals or families in his ward or branch (“members”) to assist in the fellowshipping of the new person being taught (“new friend”) in one or several of the following ways:

Members Respond within the first 48 hours:

1. Member(s) to attend next lesson with missionaries; Who assigned:
2. Member(s) to invite new friends to their home for a social; Who assigned:
3. Member(s) to introduce new friends to Family History or tour Visitors Center; Who assigned:
4. Member(s) to invite new friends to attend Church with them; Who assigned:
5. Member(s) or Leader(s) to help new friends with needs #4 listed above; Who assigned:
6. Member(s) to pray for new friends; Who assigned:

Request of RS and EQ presidencies to teach about ministering in their 2nd-hour meeting

12 July 2019

TO: Relief Society and Elders Quorum Presidencies

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

The book of Acts that we’re currently studying in the Come, Follow Me curriculum offers wonderful insights and guidance into living the gospel today.

One story in this week’s reading can help (1) keep ministering in the forefront of our discipleship and (2) continue to focus us on home-centered gospel learning.

It’s the story of Philip teaching the Ethiopian eunuch found in Acts 8:26-40.

Will you please consider using this incident to conduct a brief (8-10 minutes) discussion about ministering in your Relief Society or Elders Quorum meeting during the second hour this Sunday, July 14? The outline below may help. This is not to replace your study of a General Conference talk, but simply to provide a brief supplement to your instruction to emphasize the importance of ministering.

Thank you for giving this your consideration.

The Stake Presidency

True Ministering: Phillip and the Eunuch

• See the Bible Dictionary to learn more about Philip and what is a eunuch.
• Read together: Acts 8:26-40

Discuss:

• How are we, as ministers, sometimes sent to a “desert” place?
• Is Philip directed by a prompting or by an assignment? How does he respond?
• What are evidences that the Lord had already been preparing for Philip’s visit?
• Why is it significant that Philip was sent to a eunuch, one who is consigned to a very lonely life—no spouse, no posterity, denied access to the temple (see Deut. 23:1) so he has no “faith family”?
• What does the phrase “they went on their way” in verse 36 tell us about Philip’s ministering?
• What other insights about ministering do you see in this story?

In response to a bishop and his counselor who decided to put family events over a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting

Subject: I was awakened in the night...

Dear Bishop (Name) and Brother (Name),

You both have asked to be excused from our Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting this evening—a meeting that has been on the calendar for more than six months. Both of you have suggested that last-minute or at least recent family conflicts have taken priority over our stake meeting. We realize this is a busy time for busy families and I apologize for that. As you’ve found in your ward scheduling efforts, there are no dates that are convenient for everyone.

However, I awoke early this morning with some thoughts that I feel I need to share with both of you.

Let me begin by telling you of an experience I had nearly 30 years ago.

At the time I was serving as a counselor in the Gresham 3rd Ward bishopric (now Walters Hill) and Vivienne was serving in the Primary. There was an upcoming Stake Auxiliary training meeting that we were both expected to attend. We had seven children at home, several of them very young. I felt strongly one of us should stay home. I had had been able to attend many stake meetings and so I called Keith Hansen who was my counterpart in the stake presidency, to ask that he excuse me to be with our children so my wife could attend the stake meeting. I won’t give you the entire gentle lecture I got over the phone, but he taught me quite bluntly about priorities—that the family doesn’t always come first. There are times, especially in Church leadership, when we are asked to sacrifice, even “forsake…brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children…for my name’s sake.” (Matthew 19:29).

As then-President Hansen helped me understand that this was not about a meeting. For instance, I suspect if we had announced that President Nelson or a member of the Twelve would be conducting our training tonight you both would have found a way to attend. This is not about a meeting, but about priorities.

As you know, the Lord is very clear about priorities, that we are to put Him first (Matthew 22:37-39). Your struggle as to where you shroud be tonight is the same struggle many members face when trying to decide whether to go to the temple or not; consistently something pops up that gives a reason—sometimes a very good reason—not to attend. It’s the same battle members fight on Sunday mornings when they’re trying to decide whether to attend Church or join in a family gathering. You sit on the stand and cry inside for them because of lost blessings from misplaced priorities.

Sometimes prioritizing gets even tougher when called into leadership and we willingly accept a higher level of responsibility and obligation--there are so many "good vs. good" decisions. Again the Lord is very clear that if we’ll sacrifice for Him (i.e. put Him above family), we have the promise He’ll make it up to us. He even quantifies it as a “hundred fold” (Matthew 19:29).

Brethren, I know this is not what you wanted to hear from me. I love you both and appreciate greatly the many hours you put in to serve and bless our ward and our family. And I hope what I’ve shared is not offensive. But it was made known to me early this morning that I needed to share these feelings with you. 

I ask both of you to re-consider your decision and be where you should be tonight.

President Lewis

A recommendation to our Area Seventy on how to accommodate and not coerce Young Single Adults

26 May 2019

Elder Blunck,

As a follow up to our discussion in our CCM last week, I’d like to offer the following thoughts:

1. My experience as a former YSA Ward bishop is that denying a temple recommend and/or a church calling because the membership record is not in the ward or branch are not compelling enough reasons to expect YSA will attend the unit we want them to attend.

2. There are two broad groups of YSA’s: (1) 18-25 year olds, mostly students, serving missions, still figuring out their career, some getting married; (2) 25-31 year olds, mostly professionals, have a career focus, looking more intently to marry, either well-grounded in the gospel or using the Church for social reasons because they still want to marry someone of their faith.

3. The two groups above really don’t mix well no matter how hard we try to engage all of them at the same time.

My point is that no matter how hard we try to force the transplant YSA’s out of the Westlake YSA Ward to get them to go back to their assigned YSA unit, they just won’t go without placing undue guilt in their lives.

My recommendation is that we not try to push or pull them to do the right thing, but let’s recognize the differentiations between the younger and older YSA groups and provide options for them.

For instance, why not let all YSA’s know that they are expected to stay in their stake’s assigned YSA unit until they’re 25 years of age. And then when they turn 25, if they want, they can transfer to a designated  “older” YSA ward—in this case, the Westlake YSA Ward.

Maybe they’ll appreciate that we recognize the difference in YSA ages and that we’re trying to accommodate them—that we’re not trying to “tie them down” to one YSA unit for their entire YSA years, but that we want to work with them if they’ll work with us. Hopefully they'll recognize how much we want to help them and will stay in their assigned unit and serve at least until they reach the age of 25.

I have a grandson who recently visited MIT in Boston with his father (our son, a UofO professor). While attending Sunday meetings, they reported to me that this is exactly what they’re doing at MIT and neighboring Harvard University—they have one YSA ward for the 18-25 year olds for both campuses combined and they have another YSA ward for the 25-31 year olds, if they choose to attend. 

I realize there is a little more flexibility with campus YSA units, but nonetheless it underscores the importance of addressing the significant difference in maturity and interests for the younger and older YSA in the Church.

I hope this is not too radical or I’m not too naive, but I strongly encourage us to find a way to work with the YSAs (recognizing the reasons there is a migration to the Westlake Ward) and not try to force them to come back just to obey the handbook.

Thanks for listening,

Crismon Lewis

President, Mount Hood Stake

503-914-8689

Letter to Grandson Jackson Lewis to help sort out answers to Church history questions he was asking in April 2019

24 April 2019

Dear Grandson Jackson,

I don’t know if you see email or not (a lot in your age group don’t). 

But I wanted you to know that your ol’ grandpa has been thinking about you and that I appreciated so much your thoughtful questions about Church history and doctrines. I can tell that you’ve been studying a lot and that it’s raised some serious questions in your mind and maybe even in your heart.

I thought I would share with you a suggestion to please give “equal time” to what some call the “primary questions” while seeking answers to the many “secondary questions.”

This BYU devotional talk by a general authority can explain and describe what are primary and secondary questions:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge_stand-for-ever/

It’s OK to ask questions…lots of them…but I encourage you to spend as much or more time focusing on the primary questions before you get caught up in the secondary questions, which are not always relevant to what’s really important in our lives.

After you listen to or read this talk, I’d love to visit with you again to get your feelings on what you feel are the most important primary questions for you personally and how important the secondary questions are to you.

You are a great and mighty grandson, destined for amazing things in life. I just feel it when I visit with you. You make me so proud of you and doubly honored to be your grandfather. I saw it again in you when you gave that beautiful blessing to Clark during his ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood.

Hope we can visit again soon.

Love,

Grandpa Lewis

Why we ask bishoprics not to dismiss from the pulpit the Young Men after they pass the sacrament

Bishop (Name),

It was a joy to be with you today. I enjoyed your testimony. I believe there was widespread support for your call.

Thank you for asking and thank you for eliminating the extra organ playing.

We’ve worked hard to train bishoprics to not dismiss the young men from the pulpit or draw attention to them. Our preference is that the YM excuse themselves and go and sit with their families. 

I know this goes counter to what you’re asking to do, so I appreciate you asking.

It’s not a huge thing, but our concerns about dismissing the YM from the pulpit are the following:

• It draws attention to the young men and thus may take away from the ordinance itself;

• It gives the YM a “pat on the back” potentially making the young women feel neglected or that they’re not as important to the ward;

• It takes time away (just like the extra organ playing) from the speakers, who have so precious little time now with the shortened sacrament meeting;

• It adds an element of regimentation that we want to avoid.

Sorry! Again, thanks for asking. Please do not dismiss the YM after the sacrament.

Hope this helps,

President Lewis

In response to a question about the Church's change in policy regarding same-gender marriage

9 April 2019

Good morning, (Name)…

Thank you for your thoughtful, caring concerns about the Church’s change in policy regarding same gender marriage.

I don’t know that I have all the answers, but I will be attending a Coordinating Council Meeting (CCM) with other stake presidents under the direction of our Area Seventy where your questions may be answered more fully. 

But here’s a stab:

Q: So are the Brethren ‘vaguely' declaring that the church policy is now accepting of same gender marriage and that members participating in that type of marriage are held in the same standing as heterosexual members, i.e. priesthood, callings, temple recommend?

A: I don’t think the Church is more accepting of same-gender marriage, but are simply removing direction to priesthood leaders that same-gender marriage is a transgression that should be merit formal Church discipline, possibly disfellowshipment or excommunication. Because it is still considered a serious transgression, such couples would not be allowed to hold the priesthood, receive callings or be issued a temple recommend. Marriage between a man and a woman is still the only authorized marriage in God’s eyes. I feel the Brethren are simply softening or removing the “hammer” (Church discipline) that appeared to the outside observer to be a punishment of gays. There are many less-active members who commit serious transgressions (immorality, breaking of temple covenants, etc.) who are not automatically disciplined by the Church. I believe the Brethren recognize that homosexual marriages falls in line with these other serious transgressions and must be addressed through repentance if the members desire to return and enjoy all the blessings of the gospel. By making this adjustment, the Brethren have also removed the policy that children of gay parents could not be baptized. That was another directive that was very painful to some members and smacked of discrimination by the Church, instead of trying to be sensitive to the unique dynamics of such a family, which the Brethren were originally trying to do.

Your concern about the youth suggesting that the Church is accepting same-gender marriage is valid. If true, is incumbent on us to help leaders, parents and youth to understand this is a policy change, not a change in doctrine…and what is the difference.

While not an official publication, the following article in the online Meridian magazine may be helpful in understanding the difference between policies and doctrines. I’m sure 

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/why-policy-reversals-should-strengthen-your-testimony/

Finally, you raised good questions and concerns. As a consequence, I’m taking the liberty (hope that’s OK with you) of copying this to the stake presidency so we can discuss this further in our presidency meeting this Sunday and make sure we are united in our response…and also to see if there are any other insights they may have.

Please do not forward this until the stake presidency has had a chance to visit.

I hope it’s helpful and I do appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

President Lewis

Comments about disciplinary councils around Brett Caudle's excommunication

8 April 2019

Dear family,

It seems that each of you have learned, one way or another, that a disciplinary council was conducted this evening for Brett in the Portland Stake.

As you may be aware, such councils are supposed to be VERY confidential. Technically none of us should have known, even though your sister was asked to appear as a witness.

It became “public” of sorts when Brett, who was invited to participate by the stake president, texted some of his family members, including a close first cousin, and told them his stake was holding such a council and that he didn’t plan to attend (he did not attend). Brett has told Vivienne that because he (Brett) has not received personal revelation confirming the inspired conclusions the stake president reached about his (Brett’s) behavior that merits a disciplinary council, then the stake president must be misguided. So Brett feels the council is a sham and should be disregarded.

We don’t believe the council was held because Brett and Vivienne are divorcing, but because of his abusive actions in their marriage especially while Brett was serving in a significant priesthood leadership capacity.

However, we know you want to know what happened tonight. We’ll tell you what we know from mother’s perspective and then ask that we not speculate or seek a final disposition. Again, this is all supposed to be extremely confidential and so we need to be careful we don’t ask too many questions.

Vivienne appeared before the disciplinary council this evening (stake presidency and high council) for about an hour. Needless to say it’s extremely intimidating for anyone to be brought into such a setting. Vivienne later said, “I felt the family’s prayers and love for me during the whole thing.” So thank you!

Vivienne was allowed to invite mother to be with her. Mother sat next to her at the end of the high council table as Vivienne responded to questions about the marriage and what happened over the years.

Mother said Vivienne was amazing! She was extremely credible, not attacking Brett but just explaining—sometimes in detail—how he abused her mentally, emotionally, spiritually, financially and tragically sexually. Mother said several in the room wept or fought tears. Mother was also asked to share her observations, which she did at the end.

Overall it was, as it’s supposed to be, a “council of love.” There was no attacking or criticizing, but just an open discussion as to what has happened over the past 10 of their 13 years of marriage. Brett and Vivienne’s bishop was also invited to share after Vivienne and mother were excused. They were not privy to his “testimony,” but he was only in the council for about 15 minutes. They were all excused after that.

Typically, after listening to testimony, the stake president invites those serving on the council to share observations and feelings. After that the stake presidency adjourns to the president’s office where they discuss their feelings and then, if they come to a consensus (among the three), they then present their decision to the Lord in prayer for confirmation or the president may ask each of the three to offer a prayer as they seek the Lord’s guidance.

A judgment is reached (the stake president having the final say) and taken back into the high council room where high councilors are asked to sustain the decision. The “defendant” is then brought back into the room where the decision is rendered to him (or her) and, for lack of a better explanation, "terms of repentance" are given. Later the stake president writes a letter describing again the “terms of repentance” (expectations of the person before he or she is brought back into full fellowship or even full membership again).

So there’s a decent chance we’ll never know what the decision was tonight. It would not be out of the question if the stake president calls Vivienne tomorrow to tell her the outcome and then adds, “But you are not to tell anyone.”

Even though he didn’t attend, Brett also needs to be informed of the decision. There’s a chance he’ll “broadcast” it to his family and if it gets back to us that way (several still communicate with Vivienne) we may share it with you.

In the meantime, know that the council is over and Vivienne is moving on. We’re sorry we can’t give you more details or even the final outcome. But know that your prayers on Vivienne’s behalf were much needed and most helpful to her. Mother could not say enough how very proud she was of Vivienne in such an intimidating situation.

One more thing…prior to the council meeting, the stake president asked Vivienne to write down all the abuse incidences she could remember. She later submitted to the stake president a 9-page document, single spaced, detailing the many ways and the many times Brett had used abusive tactics to break down Vivienne’s self-worth and convince her she was the abuser and that she alone was the cause of their marital problems. The last thing the stake president declared to Vivienne at the end of her testimony tonight was: “Vivienne, I know and every man in this room knows that you are not an abuser."

Love,
Dad & Mom


Dear family,

President Dickey, Vivienne’s stake president, called her this morning and told her the outcome of the disciplinary council last night. He did not say she cannot tell others, but only that she was not to post it on social media. 

We’ve also learned that Brett was notified this morning and that he then texted his family announcing he was excommunicated last night.

While a very sorrowful time, we believe it will help Vivienne heal. She now knows, after being told for a decade that she was a horrible wife and mother and that she was a chronic abuser of her husband, that, in fact, she was not an abuser—a fact now validated by 15 priesthood leaders, who are trying to live the gospel and entitled to inspiration. 

We fully expect Brett will paint himself the martyr, that Vivienne threw him under the bus. He continues to insist he was the victim, not the abuser. But if he truly believed he was innocent, he would have accepted the invitation to attend the disciplinary council last night and defend himself. But he declined.

One of the ironies of all of this is that Brett threatened Vivienne many times in their marriage that he would divorce her if she ever went to priesthood leaders or even parents about their marriage. In the end, she not only had to tell a priesthood leader, but the entire body of priesthood leadership of their stake! (BTW...Among those sitting on the council was Brett’s uncle, his mother’s brother. He was the one who wept the most as the story was unfolded to the council last night. He went up to Vivienne afterwards expressing his deep sorrow for what she had to endure.)

Beyond sharing this with your spouse, please do not tell others. We wanted you to know so you can take hope that while this deeply saddens Vivienne, we believe this will be a benchmark in her healing.

There is a still a long road to travel—both in completing the divorce settlement and future parental interactions (Brett continues to try every way he can to control and manipulate her)—but we are hopeful this is one more step in the right direction.

Love,
Dad & Mom


Dear family,

One of your siblings replied privately asking if I was shocked that Brett was excommunicated and not disfellowshipped or something less harsh. I thought it would be helpful if I answered that question to all of you.

First, let me say that I would have been shocked had he NOT been excommunicated. I’ll try to explain why below.

Vivienne’s stake president called me last evening to make sure I had received word as to the outcome. We had a nice visit, but didn’t really visit much about the council itself inasmuch as it’s very confidential. So I’m not positive how he viewed it, except how he was so disappointed that Brett in multiple meetings refused to own up to any wrongdoing.

In my journal last night, I referenced 5 reasons that I think justified excommunication: (1) the abuse occurred for so long (about 10 years); (2) Brett’s church leadership position (bishopric for 3 years); (3) espousing and sharing apostate views; (4) his refusal to comply with counsel from priesthood leaders after being asked to repent (specifically to slow down the process and seek marriage counseling before jumping to divorce); and (5) use of the temple ceremony to justify unrighteous dominion.

You may find interesting the factors priesthood leaders are instructed in Handbook 1 to consider in reaching a decision in a formal disciplinary council; they are (with an explanation about each):
1. Violation of covenants
2. Position of trust or authority
3. Repetition
4. Magnitude
5. Age, maturity, experience
6. Interests of the innocent
7. Time between transgression and confession
8. Voluntary confession
9. Evidence of repentance

These are not to be the only factors, but to help leaders make sure they consider all facets before making a final judgement that can have such lasting, maybe eternal, impact on the lives of members.

My personal feeling is that excommunication is not punishment, despite how it appears. As you know, God binds us to Him through ordinances and covenants. That’s one of the singular purposes of even having a church. It provides a vehicle for the proper authority to bind God’s imperfect, mortal children with Him with a promise of eternal life—life with Him and life like Him. These are not just nice rituals that make us feel good. They are each centered on covenants—magnificent promises from an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God.

In my opinion, when we openly rebel against the light, knowledge and truth of these ordinances and covenants, God, in His mercy, “frees” us from this binding power so that our covenants do not condemn us, just as they bless us. This is not a doctrine, but my opinion.

While in that sense, it may seem excommunication is a blessing to the rebellious. The flip side, of course, is that it becomes extremely difficult to repent. Not because we don’t know better, but because we no longer have the gift of the Holy Ghost to draw us back into His influence and feel that yearning from Him for us to come home and to be one with Him.

So here are three reasons that I feel justified Brett’s excommunication:

1. MOCKING GOD: A few of you are aware that a few nights ago mother, who is very sensitive to spiritual promptings, awakened in the middle of the night a few nights ago with the forceful thought “Mockery of God.” It, of course, caused her to recall a phrase with which all of you are familiar: “God will not be mocked.”

I may have shared with you a teaching that I use relatively often to help explain to members why the bishopric (and other presiding officers) sit on the stand in our services. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for them to sit on the front row to demonstrate that they are “ordinary” members—not paid clergy? I teach that its the Lord’s way of helping all of us understand that priesthood leaders face us because they represent the Lord to the congregation. They do not represent the congregation to the Lord. That’s why we can accept their counsel in righteousness and the inspiration within their stewardship. We are to look to them, even with all their failings and weaknesses, as God’s mouthpieces for us.

So when we are in a position of leadership, especially when we sit on the stand, we are to represent God in righteousness. If we are presenting ourselves as being righteous in public, but transgressing in private, we mock God. And God will not be mocked.

2. UNRIGHTEOUS DOMINION: In my opinion, Brett mocked God in yet another way. He regularly used the temple ceremony to threaten Vivienne that she must submit to him and his will in every aspect of their marriage. He was tenaciously controlling, often demanding that she admit, believe and even convince him over and over that she was being abusive to him.

Vivienne was so determined to keep her temple covenants and honor the priesthood holder in their family, that she accepted his direction even when she felt uncomfortable to do so. That was compounded by Brett often threatening divorce if she ever confided with parents or priesthood leaders about what was happening in their marriage. Vivienne, terrified that divorce would suspend her own eternal covenants and blessings, painfully kept silent through the years.

[As an aside, Brett’s declaration of divorce in late December 2018 was a blessing. We've come to the conclusion that Brett’s insistence that he received a revelation to divorce his wife may truly have come from God—as confusing as that may sound. But obviously not for the reason Brett assumed. His declaration of divorce finally “unchained” Vivienne to divulge with us and priesthood leaders what had bee happening for the past decade in their marriage.]

3. SPIRIT OF REPENTANCE: To me the most compelling factor when it comes to church discipline is the transgressor's spirit of repentance. Did they confess voluntarily…and quickly? Or did they do it out of duty or being caught? Are they contrite, willing to be taught about repentance? Are they willing to walk the repentant's path? Do they understand how they offended God? Do they experience Godly sorrow? Are they submissive, willing to turn to the Lord in every thing asked of them by those with priesthood keys, called to be judges in Israel?

That has been the most heartbreaking aspect of Brett’s response to his priesthood leaders’ multiple attempts to help him desire to repent. He insists personal revelation must confirm every decision or counsel from priesthood leaders, including the President of the Church. If he doesn’t get such revelation, then Brett concludes it must not be true or not of God. Brett has placed himself as the ultimate judge as to God’s direction for himself and others. 

If Brett had even shown a sliver of remorse, the slightest hint that he wanted to repent and follow priesthood leaders’ counsel, I personally think the disciplinary council would have been very different and possibly with a very different outcome.


So there you have it. More than you ever wanted to know why I believe the Lord directed the Portland Stake presidency to excommunicate Brett.

Despite my current leadership calling, please know that I am sharing personal opinions above. They are not handbook edicts or guidance for you. My only hope is that they will be helpful insights into understanding why I believe Brett is no longer a member. We miss him and continue to pray for him that his heart will soften.

Some day, possibly not until the next life, his pride will be stripped, his “eyes of understanding" will be opened and he will “come to himself” and realize with horrible remorse what he has done. For his sake, we hope it will happen sooner, not later. Not only so Vivienne can receive the apology she so deeply deserves—and which he refuses to give her—but so he can put his feet again on this marvelous covenant path back to our loving Heavenly Parents.

As your earthly parents, we love you with a love we cannot adequately express and thank you for the many ways you honor us and honor God.

I hope the above is helpful.

Love,
DadL

A discussion with President Christiansen about parents attending the worthiness portion of priesthood leader's interviews

Thanks for sharing your feelings.

I guess I don’t fully agree with what you’re trying to do. But I do agree that parents can and should visit regularly with their children about worthiness at home, as you’re doing. 

I recommend you consider making the focus of your “mini-crusade” is to help priesthood leaders know you expect them to ALWAYS notify you when they want to schedule an interview and NEVER to just pull your son or daughter into an interview without notice.

In my opinion, the ideal is for the priesthood leader to have one or both parents in the interview with the youth and, if appropriate, to discuss how the gospel is being taught in the home, what parents are doing to prepare their child for the next ordinance, how much is the child grasping it, if the child is having personal prayer and scripture study, etc.

Then I recommend the parents be excused, unless they’re worried that inappropriate questions will be asked. It would be appropriate for the leader or parents to make it clear to the youth the parents will be right outside the office if they feel uncomfortable they can get up, walk out and share concerns with the parents. 

But, as you know, a private interview is the only way some youth are going to divulge confidential info they don’t want the parents to know. The leader, of course, will eventually help teach the youth about repentance, including being honest and forthright with the parents. But if youth are deceiving their parents at home, they’re certainly not going to be forthright in a church interview with the parents present. So, in a way, we’re encouraging the youth to continue to lie or deceive.

Hopefully as parents I would think we would welcome priesthood leaders to discover issues that children may not want to reveal yet to their parents. Priesthood leaders can help teach youth how to approach the parents as part of their repentance. I don’t think we want to eliminate that. I believe the handbook guidance is to give the parents assurance they can sit in on interviews, if they choose, but if they welcome discovery by priesthood leaders to help their children become totally honest and repentant, they’ll want to allow privacy in part of their interviews.

What are your thoughts to this?

That's the part she's most interested in being a part of. We've tried to adopt the church's allowances for parents to be in interviews since the policy was changed. Unfortunately, some times we've not been invited when Cole or London have been "pulled into an interview" and we didn't even know about it. 

In our own small way, we hope to be part of changing church culture surrounding worthiness interviews and protecting against misunderstandings. We of course check in with London and make sure he's okay with it/wants one of us there. It has proven very helpful for us as a family since we've started going. What are your thoughts about this?

From Handbook 1, 7.4, “Protecting against Misunderstandings”When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to be present during the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.

For Alisha and I, our #1 priority for our kids is safety. That’s why we were excited when the church acknowledged that if desired, parents could be in interviews with their kids. We feel that it’s protection for both kids and the leaders. I even changed my practice at school when the church came out with the new guidelines—I think I mentioned to you that I uncovered the window on my door so people can always see into my office now. For us, it’s not about feeling uncomfortable with one leader and feeling more trustworthy with another leader, it’s just about establishing a new norm with our kids that one of us will always be there with them.  It’s kind of like our “no sleepover” policy—we don’t consider one family versus another—we just don’t let our kids sleep over at any other kids’ houses nor allow sleepovers here. In that same way, we want to be with our kids in interviews.

For sure there are times when youth will not be truthful to parents, but will confide in a priesthood leader. That’s a great thing that they shared it with the Priesthood leader!  There are times of course when the youth isn’t truthful to the priesthood leader either, and then the missionaries have returned home early. Parents there or not there didn’t necessarily make a difference in the youth being upfront with leaders.  In some ways it may even be “better” that parents are in the interview when they’ve gone through a searching interview themselves with the youth, as they (the parents) are there then to follow up with the youth as he/she shares things with the ecclesiastical leader.

In the “good, better, best” model, I think it is best when the youth shares with his parents her/his struggles and then the youth and parent can/do meet with the ecclesiastical together and make a plan of action. We’ve done this with London and it’s been great. The more support a person has when they’re struggling with something, and the more team players working together on the same plan, the better. Similar to going to a doctor’s appointment, where the treatment plan for an illness is being explained, more ears to hear and understand make for a higher likelihood that the plan will be carried out and followed through, ensuring a better chance at recovery, especially when it’s a youth. (This “good/better/best” would even extend to church callings—having a second set of adult ears to hear what the leader tells Cole his responsibilities will be as a Teacher’s Quorum President would go a long way to help us support him in this role.)

I do feel that if an individual requests another person to be in an interview or if parents make a request to be in an interview with their child, then a leader should allow it for the entire interview. This could be one of those areas where “Home Centered, Church Supported” includes the parents being fully aware of where their child is at (including sin) because of the strong, open relationship , and then being supported by leaders, as the leaders hold the keys for ordinances and so forth.

Thanks. I don’t know if this is a big enough topic to bring Paul in on our conversation, but I’m fine if you want to get his perspective. 

I appreciate the ongoing conversation. And I commend you and Alisha for feeling so protective of your children. You are extraordinary parents, as you are certainly aware after your years in the schools and church leadership. I wish there were more parents like you who are so concerned and caring about the spiritual well being of their children. 

However, your approach still seems to me a bit extreme. I agree wholeheartedly that parents should be the first to discover transgressions among their children, if possible, and parents are responsible to take or direct their children to the bishop, but I would want my children to understand that the repentance process includes going voluntarily to God's representative (bishop) and confess sins. I would want them to practice that now so they'll apply it later in life—on their own.

I would not want them to experience the feeling that their parents were "hauling" them into the bishop's office to confess sins; just as you would not want the bishop to haul your child into your home and demand in front of you that they confess to you newly discovered sins. It's so much better when the young person is taught how honesty with parents is part of repentance. In my opinion, teaching the principles of repentance and helping our children want to apply those principles independently is one of the greatest gifts we can give them.

I hope we can teach parents and bishops this "new" partnership (creating a plan of action, as you suggest) so that there is more of a "team" approach to helping youth, knowing our ultimate goal is to help them want to live the gospel on their own.

Please know I love the idea of the bishop and parents working together on a plan of action, once a sin or even an addiction, is discovered and the young person wants to change. But my concern is that having the parent even in the worthiness part of a priesthood leader's interview undermines a Church leader's ability to help the parents discover unrepentant sins. If a parent insists, then, of course, the priesthood leader must comply But I hope the spirit of partnership will prevail so parents and priesthood leaders are in sync with the mutual goal of helping the young person learn to live the gospel independently.

Are we going in circles (saying the same thing over and over to each other)?

If you still insist on the parents sitting in on the worthiness portion of the interview, then I assign you (and Alisha to join you, if you choose) to conduct the interview with your son and then make the recommendation to the stake presidency as to London's  preparedness and worthiness to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. (Another perk of your calling :)

Thanks,

Crismon