- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Elder Stevenson spoke at our conference today. He spent time describing the impact of COVID on missionary work and then thanked the leaders and members for wearing masks to the meeting today and for a while into the future until not doing so is safe again. He also said church leaders walk a fine line between teaching a general, unified message for everyone in a world-wide church and adapting a message to specific areas. He mentioned differences in the COVID situation in a few specific countries and how that impacts the message leadership delivers in those areas. I thought immediately about our discussions here regarding COVID messaging.
I can’t be that clear in other public posts, since it would identify me pretty clearly, but I just wanted to post it here.
I know I’m being difficult in public posts. I know I’ve run out of patience with people and that’s a me issue, not a them issue.
It bugs me greatly, so I have to keep reminding myself they finally are getting a taste of what so many of us have experienced in the cafeteria – and the cog diss is rough, especially at first. Knowing what we have gone through, I try to remember and feel for them – even as I still get frustrated and even upset on a regular basis. I rarely express that last part here, since there are plenty of others doing it.
I’m definitely included as one of the others. As Nibbler already knows I’ve been in a bad – and worsening – mood lately and it’s mostly related to church. I try, often unsuccessfully, to be nice. I think the good part is that we don’t have any real anti-maskers, anti-vaxers here (although Sam is anti-vax he doesn’t say much about it and he seems to be currently pouting about his rape post being locked). I hadn’t thought about such a dissonance in the top leadership before. Maybe it’s good for them, maybe it will help them recognize that we’re not really all the same nor are we meant to be. Maybe this is a maturing moment for the church.
I didn’t want to post this on the main forum because I don’t want people to think I’m more of a hypocrite than I am (Uchtdorf said we’re all hypocrites anyway) so despite the fact I won’t go in the chapel with unmasked people we are making a visit to Utah and Texas starting 8/21. I will still do what I generally do here, which includes wearing a mask where requested and where I perceive it to be crowded (some stores and most restaurants). We won’t be attending church in either place, even though my son says his ward in College Station does mask.
DarkJedi wrote:
I didn’t want to post this on the main forum because I don’t want people to think I’m more of a hypocrite than I am (Uchtdorf said we’re all hypocrites anyway) so despite the fact I won’t go in the chapel with unmasked people we are making a visit to Utah and Texas starting 8/21. I will still do what I generally do here, which includes wearing a mask where requested and where I perceive it to be crowded (some stores and most restaurants). We won’t be attending church in either place, even though my son says his ward in College Station does mask.
Confession: I am a hypocrite. After some tentative attendance in person to church meetings, my family has once again pulled back. Part of this is due to the COVID surge but there is more to it.
We did send our daughter to girl’s camp and our son attends some of the activities. We also have resumed some participation and activity in the community (library programs, park & rec., community pool, volunteering, etc.). I believe that traditional church members would look at that and say that SM attendance is so important that it should be the last thing to go and the first thing to be added back. The truth is that attendance to Sunday meetings is one of our least favorite parts of the LDS experience. To put it bluntly, we prioritize what is important to us and Sunday attendance just isn’t very important to us.
I’m pretty consistent, I’m happy in my cave. I will come to your defense though. This is judgmental, so it’s not like I’m going into uncharted waters
:angel: , but I feel there’s a higher concentration of anti-mask/anti-vax types at church than just about any other place I’d go. That factors into the decision.It’s not too hypocritical to sacrifice for kids, our family does it for our son’s marching band. Here’s the thing… my son only gets 4 years to experience marching band, after that the opportunity is forever gone. Covid robbed him of 1.5 years of that experience, leaving only 2.5 years. Meanwhile church will always be there for when we’re ready to go back.
I’m not inclined to risk it to attend a meeting that for all intents and purposes I’ve already attended a thousand times and can attend a thousand more on the other side of the pandemic. Time with family, especially young kids, is fleeting. Fast and testimony meeting is eternal.
:sick: :angel: Roy wrote:
Confession: I am a hypocrite. After some tentative attendance in person to church meetings, my family has once again pulled back. Part of this is due to the COVID surge but there is more to it.We did send our daughter to girl’s camp and our son attends some of the activities. We also have resumed some participation and activity in the community (library programs, park & rec., community pool, volunteering, etc.). I believe that traditional church members would look at that and say that SM attendance is so important that it should be the last thing to go and the first thing to be added back. The truth is that attendance to Sunday meetings is one of our least favorite parts of the LDS experience. To put it bluntly, we prioritize what is important to us and Sunday attendance just isn’t very important to us.
You have the good fortune of being on the same page with your spouse. My wife and I are not on the same page and she would run headlong into full maskless activity. She sits in the foyer because I do, not because she wants to or thinks it’s safer. She does listen when I say “Oh, look, our county is now a high transmission area” or “Most of the cases on Cape Cod this weekend were breakthrough cases” or “Utah is out of ICU beds” or “It’s looking like the lamda variant may be vaccine resistant.”
We aren’t involved in community stuff like you because we live in a very small community where not much exists to begin with and we’re empty nesters. I will however go to a store without a mask (we rarely go to stores together), even though I won’t go in the chapel. She does get that if an airplane is a crowded place so is the chapel – and the airplane has better ventilation, everyone is wearing masks, and they aren’t singing. I think there is a little bit of cog-diss there but she tends to try to understand where I’m coming from and be tolerant. The reality is I think much more like you – church attendance isn’t very important to me. But it is to her and she also has that fear that I may become inactive again.
That kind of brings up another point which may be a good discussion on the open forum sometime. Being that there’s a difference in the gospel and the church, is attendance or lack of attendance really an indicator of activity? That is, I could be very active in the gospel while not active in the church and I believe there are people who are very active at church who are not active in the gospel. A lot depends on definitions there, but I think people here probably mostly understand what I’m getting at.
DarkJedi wrote:
That kind of brings up another point which may be a good discussion on the open forum sometime. Being that there’s a difference in the gospel and the church, is attendance or lack of attendance really an indicator of activity? That is, I could be very active in the gospel while not active in the church and I believe there are people who are very active at church who are not active in the gospel. A lot depends on definitions there, but I think people here probably mostly understand what I’m getting at.
Internally? Yes, I think someone can be active in the gospel but not at church.
Externally, or how we measure and are measured at church? No. I get the feeling that if you aren’t active in the church then people see you as deficient in some way.
I went back to look at emails to see if I was being unfair in my assessment of the stake and their continued covid response. I think I ran across what serves as motivation for their policies. They cited section 29.7 Streaming Meetings and Holding Virtual Meetings in the handbook. It’s a long section, I won’t quote the entire thing here, but I believe they’ve seized on the following portions of the policy (emphasis placed on where I believe they’ve placed emphasis:
Quote:When possible, Church members should strive to attend meetings in person.Live in remote locations or have limited ability to travel.
- Have physical, mental, or emotional health challenges.
- Are immunocompromised or in a care facility or hospital.
- Are essential workers or otherwise are required to work on the Sabbath.
- Care for someone who is homebound and cannot be left alone.
- Need sign-language interpretation.
- Have allergies that put their health at risk in a meeting.
For the benefit of these members and others,
the bishop may, as an exception, authorize a livestream of sacrament meetingsI don’t know for sure, but I’d wager this policy was written before the pandemic. At any rate, they’ve really focused on the importance of meeting in person and my bishop is all about going though him to authorize things.
The policy continues. Blah, blah, blah, blah, then another portion at the end.
Quote:Streams and virtual meetings are not meant for the convenience of those who could reasonably attend in personA variant of that language was used in an email from local leadership. Once there was blanket authorization to bless the sacrament in our homes but then an email was sent out revoking blanket authorization and how the bishop now had to authorize. They explicitly stated that it was not to be done for convenience and that concern over health was no longer a valid reason to be able to bless the sacrament in our homes.
Treasures, these. But it’s probably out of a concern to follow their interpretations of the handbook. Shame that.
Quote:Quote:Streams and virtual meetings are not meant for the convenience of those who could reasonably attend in person. For example, the bishop does not authorize streaming of sacrament meeting for ward members who are traveling and could attend another ward.
A variant of that language was used in an email from local leadership. Once there was blanket authorization to bless the sacrament in our homes but then an email was sent out revoking blanket authorization and how the bishop now had to authorize. They explicitly stated that it was not to be done for convenience and that
concern over health was no longer a valid reasonto be able to bless the sacrament in our homes. Who said the bolded part about concern for health? I am not seeing that in anything shared thus far. (This isn’t a challenge or rebuttal. I simply am interested in knowing who said it and how it was worded.)
The e-mails I’m referring to were from local leadership. They’ve all been in the format of the stake presidency emailing the bishops for an update on covid policies at the stake level; the bishop then forwards that email to everyone in the ward, adding his two cents as a preface. I can’t speak for Nibbler, but we received a very similar message from our bishop/stake. The subtext was if you were concerned about health you could wear a mask and attend. I think I shared this privately with Nibbler but not more publicly. We have a sister in our ward who is in her late 70s and has several health issues. Because of her general health she is afraid to get vaccinated believing the side effects of the vaccine may be her undoing. When she was coming she sat just inside the door of the chapel on the back bench because that’s as far as she could get with her walker and not gasping for breath. She was able to watch online with the help of her daughter (inactive member) whom she lives with. Alas, they cut her off with everybody else. More recently they did allow her ministering brother to take the sacrament to her. She meets him on the porch and takes it outside. She has asked if they would stream for her and she was told no.
(I was typing at the same time as Nibbler.)
That is beyond regrettable. It is directly against the spirit of the Gospel and general inclusivity, and even more so inclusivity with “the faithful”. I am sorry to hear that is happening. I am fortunate to have a Bishop who has said he will stop the streaming option only if he is ordered to do so – after extended conversation about why he believes it should continue.
Leadership roulette can suck.
live streaming has continued in my little ward. We are considered a “hot spot” with vaccination rates in the 40ish percent. My wife watches the live stream regularly to stay connected and to receive “announcements”.
I do know that there is a desire for everyone to return to in person attendance and that some leaders feel that live-streaming is keeping people like us from returning in person.
Old-Timer wrote:
Leadership roulette can suck.
The saddest thing is this guy is generally pretty compassionate. I’ve known him for 30+ years. No question he’s all in though. The descriptor I apply to him is “all church all the time” which has been the case all the time I’ve known him (sometimes at the expense of his family). And, yes, he’s old school. Not any appreciable difference in home teaching and ministering to him, but to his credit he’s mostly doesn’t preach that. The situation with this poor lady is puzzling to me.
After complaining about ward decisions I thought I’d take a moment to give them a little praise. Our schedule swaps with other wards each September and we now have the last shift. Now that we’re the last unit in the building they’re bringing back ‘linger longer’ after F&T meetings. They’re cancelling their first LL on the 5th due to concerns over covid. A small reason to pat them on the back, but it’s a departure from recent trends so I’ll take it.
But the real reason I wanted to dote on them is for the subject of a recent BYD. They discussed what “3 mental health experts” taught about anxiety, perfectionism, religious OCD, and depression.
No one in my family attended, I don’t know what was said, but the fact that it was on their radar at all is very much appreciated.
They have also decided to stream meetings again.
Positive changes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.