Has the church really changed

Lots of talk about all the rapid changes lately. For the record I support all of them and find it refreshing. Especially not having to wait a year to go to the temple. That always bugged me.

But really has anything fundamentally changed? A few policies and procedures for sure but the power structure remains intact. Everything is still top down with no local input. 15 aged white men still make every decision. Maybe that is a good thing to keep things going in a unified direction but never is a good system for real change.

I guess the real question is fundamental change even needed? I guess that would be a debate many would have.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot of small changes aggregate to big change. I believe RMN and our past prophet have made a lot of changes that are significant…

priesthood ban disavowal

elevating role of women in leadership decision-making

HT changes

2 hour church

One Year Waiting Period gone

new Hymns coming…

I’m sure we can add other things…

Yes, we still have a gerontocracy, and they are 15 aged men. But I think, given the “blinded by faith” problem that leads to a kind of unconscious arrogance about the divinity of their opinions we spoke of in another thread, these changes are significant. The Internet affords a very rich place to get broad-based input from groups within the church. I believe, rightly or wrongly, some of the recent changes were things we have written here at StayLDS — not as a movement, but just as opinion. I heard one Apostle even quote something that had its genesis in the Bloggernacle (Members have the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience).

So, I do think there have been some pretty sweeping changes, and the church has fundamentally changed.

There are a lot of other things that could change, but there always will be.

Some changes are more immediate but I think it will take time before other changes start to have an effect on established culture.

1 year wait period: Short term I imagine most couples doing what we’ve done historically, make a combined marriage/sealing in the temple the priority. Given time we may move to where couples default to separating marriages and sealings to make the marriage ceremony more inclusive.

Ministering: Our area still talks about ministering using the exact same language as we used when we talked about home teaching. Frankly I don’t know what it will take to change the culture of this program… at least where I live.

What has changed with ministering: There are less in-home visits, though we still stress them and some families expect them. We often set goals where ministers are expected to do an in-home visit.

What’s more or less the same about ministering: Reporting. Now instead of reporting via a call or email once a month there’s another meeting to attend once every three months.

What hasn’t changed with ministering: I thought the spirit of the change was to focus on helping people with their needs but we’re still using the program to check up on people to ensure they’re meeting the church’s needs. Maybe those are one and the same for a lot of people but it’s hard for me to have any enthusiasm at all about a program where the only reason for the contact is to find out how my family is doing with some stake goal that has been imposed on us.

2 hour church: A welcome change. One that has more immediate effects. I hope we’re open to tweaking the formula and we don’t lock the current formula down for the next 30 years.

The shift to two hours was mostly positive but there was one change that has actually made the Sunday experience more difficult for me. We got rid of announcements, hymns, and an opening prayer to kick off the 2nd hour. It makes for 50 minutes of instruction. I’m sure the boys in Salt Lake are happy that we all have more time for indoctrination (and I don’t use that term pejoratively) but it’s been 5 months now, we’ve mostly settled in, and from my experience over the last 5 months… we really struggle to fill 50 minutes with material.

Is increased indoctrination time really a concern for people that have had or will have decades of exposure to the doctrines? The doctrines are very finite, attend for 6 months or so and it all starts to become repetitive. Especially when we’re doing things like reading conference talks. Especially when it’s less of a discussion and more a means to ensure everyone ends up on the same page with beliefs.

It’s been an experiment for me. When it was the 3 hour block I went home after SM. It was the easier choice. With the 2 hour block I find it easier to stay for both hours. But the issues I had with the 2nd and 3rd hours haven’t been addressed, we just alternate which one we do each Sunday, and my issues have even been exacerbated by increasing the time we spend on the indoctrination portion by anywhere from 15 to 25 minutes. I could still go home after SM like I did with the 3 hour block, but with the reduced block it becomes tempting to not go at all. [shrugs]

Lots of words to say that the changes have had a few immediate effects and I expect them to have more effects a generation from now as the people married to the old ways forget them or the people married to the old ways take a less prominent place in the culture.

They’re making the change for themselves and not waiting for permission.

I am seeing this inch by inch, whether it’s one hour church or no taking callings.

Policies and programs have changed but the church and its doctrine have not changed.

I read one cynical comment that said that changes in church policy are being driven from the ground up rather than the top down. In other words the changes are a reaction to demands from the members. I can’t say whether or not that is true.

I think recent changes to the garments are a result of member complaints.

Has any research been done on church history to see if there where groups/underlying philosophies that helped mold the change of priesthood/polygamy ect. And what will things look like 50 years from now because of blogs, movements, podcasts. Changes that impact the “unfolding of the restoration of fullness of times”.

I think the biggest influence for change in polygamy was the fact that laws were past against it and had it continued the government would have seized church assets.

I think the biggest influence for change of the priesthood ban was the fact that the São Paulo, Brasil Temple was being built but there weren’t enough white members to operate it. Missionaries were being trained as temple officiators. The local people who contributed to it being built were banned from entering. This influenced the prophet to seek counsel from The Lord on whether the ban should be lifted.

There have definitely been some changes but I suppose it depends on what you define as “substantive change.” For some, the changes are not enough and for others, too much. I’ll be honest and say (I think I may said it earlier) that I don’t care much for the changes made. But that has more to do with my nature (change averse) rather than any particular issues with the adjustments themselves. It’s a matter of getting used to things.

I see the church changing in big and small ways. It is much like the United States in that way. There are some core principles that are very difficult to change because of the unique history of the founding of the organization. I see the right to bear arms as part of that unique United States history. The constitution affirmatively grants the right to bear arms (that has been interpreted as the right to own guns in one’s home). In contrast, the right to vote is not affirmatively granted. Also, there is no right to drive – it is a privilege. Firearms is a right and has become for many a part of the culture of the USA.

Bringing this back to the church. I believe that the church (like the USA) will continue to change, but it will always be the church and will retain things that are seen as important to the identity. There are some fundamental core principles that are unique to our history and the founding of the organization. Taking away polygamy is perhaps the only example of removing a core principle. It was removed slowly over a 20 year period, it catalyzed several splinter groups, there were numerous high profile excommunications, and we as mainstream LDS still have vestiges of it swirling around us over 100 years later.