- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Elder Oaks’ story of the EQP receiving revelation for an Elder in his Quorum is inspirational, but it is a two-edged sword – easily abused by people who assume they can get revelation for others. It is a tricky balancing act to talk of fathers presiding in the home while simultaneously being equal partners with their wives. I would like to change that wording to co-presiding or simply drop the whole presiding wording and focus on equal partners.
It is obvious that President Nelson has heard the chatter about Elder Uchtdorf being demoted. I like the focus on ministering one-on-one. “I began to love and respect him.” That is the key.
Sheldon wrote:
So with no PEC, is this a Sunday with no other meeting except for Bishopric meeting? How often is correlation meeting held? This was the biggest time consumer when I was Bishop. Every Sunday we had bishopric meeting, then PEC or correlation.
In this area bishops have toned down PEC a lot over the past couple years. Mostly stuff had been done in ward council. Ward council is held as often as necessary. Again, here that’s usually twice a month.
Old Timer wrote:
Elder Oaks’ story of the EQP receiving revelation for an Elder in his Quorum is inspirational, but it is a two-edged sword – easily abused by people who assume they can get revelation for others.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Interesting because I believe Oaks has made the point that we can’t receive revelation for someone else before.
On the other hand, I have felt I had a specific message for someone else on two occasions. One was easy because the message was simply that everything would be ok, and that’s all I said. The other one I decided to do from the pulpit as a testimony without saying who the massage was for. Turns out lots of people thought it was for them. Maybe it was.
I love the idea. I was talking to my FIL who is a traditional Mormon. I mentioned how I come out with these ideas all the time — and mentioned the artifical and sometimes counter-productive distinction between EQ and HP’s. If you make ground up suggestions like that it’s almost always met wtih disapproval for conflicting with the inspired version of policy. I took a bit of a lighthearted jab at him today and reminded him how I’d mentioned this years ago. And how I was glad to see the church finally caught up with me. I said I wondered how long it would take before they realized the HT program needs to be totally revamped or cancelled (just kidding, I thought of that but didn’t want to mention it for fear of getting kicked off the face time call).
Looks like Russel M. Ballard is making some pretty swift changes. I guess you can do that when you’ve been watching the church, and been part of it for a long time. Kudos!
I also asked my FIL if he could comment on how it says the division between HP and EQ is in the D&C. He said they addressed that and said things can change over time.
To me, it’s just another man’s quality improvement ideas.
If you had asked your SP a few weeks ago why the HP were separate form the Elders, you would have gotten all kind of justification using D&C and the BofM. He would have told you about the different roles each play, and why they need to be separate. Fast forward to today, and it’s all out the window. Good. We ask for change, so we can’t complain when good change happens. When I was RSP, I hated, hated coming to WC after the men met in PEC. They were doing us women a courtesy of asking us what we thought about the decisions they had already made in PEC. Waste.
Of.
My.
Time.
Glad to see it gone. I had not heard the news until I read it here.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
Sheldon wrote:
If you had asked your SP a few weeks ago why the HP were separate form the Elders, you would have gotten all kind of justification using D&C and the BofM. He would have told you about the different roles each play, and why they need to be separate. Fast forward to today, and it’s all out the window.
Exactly, and before today, it would have been presented as this beautiful, inspiring piece of genius-like administrative policy that required a glorious explanation. Now it’s the new policy that will be described that way.
Makes me want to attend just to experience something new.
I also want to say that there was a ripple of excitement on Facebook and with my wife’s friends. It had me thinking that in calcified organizations, change even just for the sake of change can be good.
I still remember when I asked for a third assistant when I was a HPGL. I got sat down by our HC, shown the spires on the Salt Lake Temple as symbols of the proper structure of presidency, and a lecture why it was that way.
But now that I have eaten from the fruit of the three of knowledge of good and evil, I realize that we can change, justify and improve the way we do things as we see fit. Even what appears to be inviolate language in scripture can be altered to suit current needs…and with the blessing of upper leaders, most of the traditional believers will accept it and obey it and move on.
Old Timer wrote:
Good. We ask for change, so we can’t complain when good change happens.
Good point. I am happy for the change. I often wonder if, given the experiences that led some of us here, if they:
a) cancelled home teaching
b) did away with tithing
c) gave women the priesthood
d) did away with conscripted service
e) became transparent with the finances
f) gave gays full fellowship…
g) apologized for past mistakes
h) admitted certain doctrinal mainstays were actually just opinion and mistaken
would that change our willingness to be involved, to feel proud of the church again, etcetera?
Sometimes, really stupid explanations get created by people who need explanations, even if they don’t make sense. Good heavens, the First Presidency had three counselors at one point. :wtf: I care FAR less about changing justifications than about accepting changes. Continuing revelation is important, even if some of it doesn’t seem like traditional revelation. It is the idea that is important to me, especially when calcification and retrenchment are so easy and natural.
This isn’t a criticism, I’m really trying to understand the need for this change. If combining the Elders & HPs is good on the Ward (rank & file) level, why isn’t it good on a Leadership level?
Bishopric, Stake Presidency, High Council & General Authority. And why do we need the office of a Seventy?
On the surface, it would be less confusing if all Melchizedek members were Elders.
Just asking.
SilentDawning wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
Good. We ask for change, so we can’t complain when good change happens.
Good point. I am happy for the change. I often wonder if, given the experiences that led some of us here, if they:
a) cancelled home teaching
b) did away with tithing
c) gave women the priesthood
d) did away with conscripted service
e) became transparent with the finances
f) gave gays full fellowship…
g) apologized for past mistakes
h) admitted certain doctrinal mainstays were actually just opinion and mistaken
would that change our willingness to be involved, to feel proud of the church again, etcetera?
If they did all this, it would make me willing to stay, if only for a little while longer. Though for point d, I think it’s beneficial for leaders to be taken from the unambitious, which is sort of a side benefit of conscripted service. Those who aspire to positions of authority are often the worst choices for leaders.Though I would add a few items to your list
i) Eliminate the requirement to live the WoW to have a TR
j) Fix garments to actually be practical/comfortable for women. Men could use a few upgrades too, but it’s not as much of an issue.
k) Stop shaming young people about modesty and sexuality. There are healthier ways to promote waiting until marriage.
l) Show more willingness to address the elephant in the room when people bring up controversial topics such as worthiness interviews and historical issues. And hold leaders accountable when they do horrible things instead of covering it up.
m) Use bishop’s storehouses as soup kitchens and build homeless shelters. You can still promote self-reliance in homeless shelters by giving them the resources and skills they need to get out of poverty (but the gospel alone will never magically make them rich). You can even use the mall to fund it. I don’t care. Just show that you care about the poor instead of merely paying lip service to the idea.
n) Stop making such a big deal out of sharing the gospel and reduce the pressure to go on a mission. If the message of the church isn’t good enough for people to want to share it on their own terms, there is something wrong.
o) Drop Sunday School and shave 10 minutes off SM. SM and PH/RS are enough. 2 hours of church is plenty.
For me, it’s starting to become an issue of doing too little too late.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.