- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I hate to say it, but even if they fixed the items on the list that are in my doghouse, I probably wouldn’t go back to the way I was. Being here on STayLDS helps me stay involved, and I have hopes of my own Road to Damascus experience. But once broken the bubble is hard to reconstruct again. I agree with Curtis that we should probably be more appreciative of the changes they do make, even if in the context of arrogance, unapologetic attitudes, as well as many other cultural problems. I notice that when they do make positive changes, there is a tendency to give backhanded complements or to be cynical about it. Point taken.
Minyan Man wrote:
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.
This is just my opinion, no inside info or revelation here.
Essentially the HPG and EQ do the same thing anyway. They each met together for Sunday lessons, each had home teaching routes, each leader attended the same meetings (WC, PEC, etc.). The only real difference was HPs were supposed to be more responsible for family history/temple stuff. From that point of view it streamlines things and allows more flexibility. And you can have the best people from both groups in leadership and home teaching. It’s less of a competition (yes, I have seen the quorums compete and even in my own HPG I have caught an occasional undercurrent of “being better” than the elders). And it’s also 3 less callings for good men in the ward, freeing them up for other callings (like YM, SS, or mission leader).
Remember when seventies were in stakes/wards and that change was made? The whole office of seventy was changed. In the old days they were more in charge of missionary work in the stakes. Although I don’t recall the hoopla they’ve made with this change then (there wasn’t a whole priesthood meeting dedicated to it, and I don’t recall as much “thus saith the Lord rhetoric”). The current role of the Seventy is to do the work that the apostles can’t do because the church is so large. It’s a real share the burden situation IMO.
SilentDawning wrote:
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?
My question is, how much could you change, and still have it be the same Church? Or even a religion at all?
As for h, they do this already. I just happens many decades after the fact. Humanoids living on the sun and moon? Not sense Joseph Fielding Smith. Blood atonement? Not since 1889. And take a look at EVERYTHING in the bible that gets dismissed as “personal opinion”. The trouble is, the Church has to appear to answer the unanswerable, and to appear as the sole unchanging, consistant force in this fickle universe or else lose all its power.
dande48 wrote:
The trouble is, the Church has to appear to answer the unanswerable, and to appear as the sole unchanging, consistant force in this fickle universe or else lose all its power.
I believe that the church membership needs to move towards a paradigm of a limited prophet and continuing restoration in order to deal with the current counter evidence.
If the “restoration” is a process and the church is learning line upon line and precept upon precept than we need not be shackled to the foibles of yesteryear. Maybe God helped JS start the church AND JS got a bunch of things wrong BUT God allowed it because God is not in the business of micro managing everything. Besides, God know that he would have hundreds of years to straighten the kinks out of the church.
This is in contrast to a perfectly formed church being restored to it’s original state – just like it was for Adam, Abraham, Jeremiah, and Jesus. That view locks us into replicating the church of antiquity.
This continuing restorations concept dovetails with a “limited prophet”. If and when the church is ready, God may make his will known through the church president. However, that is a fairly uncommon occurrence and in the mean time the church leaders administer the church through a combination of experience, business practices, genuine personal concern and effort, and inspiration.
This too allows us to not be stuck on the pronouncements of past leaders as though the things they said then had to be “gospel truth” forevermore.
Quote: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.
About 15 years ago, the Stake Relief Society Presidency tried to get ward Relief Societies in our Stake to have one Sunday meeting separated like HP and EQP. They felt that both groups of women needed a Sunday meeting for their specific times of life. It could be the same lesson just geared more to where they were at. It got shot down like an atomic bomb. So harsh was the SP response, that the women left in tears.
Ironically that SP never got a Mission President call or any upward calling.
Beefster wrote:
Combining high priests and elder’s quorum. That’s a good move.
If I could make head or tail of the detail.
Roy wrote:
I believe that the church membership needs to move towards a paradigm of a limited prophet and continuing restoration in order to deal with the current counter evidence.If the “restoration” is a process and the church is learning line upon line and precept upon precept than we need not be shackled to the foibles of yesteryear. Maybe God helped JS start the church AND JS got a bunch of things wrong BUT God allowed it because God is not in the business of micro managing everything. Besides, God know that he would have hundreds of years to straighten the kinks out of the church.
This is in contrast to a perfectly formed church being restored to it’s original state – just like it was for Adam, Abraham, Jeremiah, and Jesus. That view locks us into replicating the church of antiquity.
This continuing restorations concept dovetails with a “limited prophet”. If and when the church is ready, God may make his will known through the church president. However, that is a fairly uncommon occurrence and in the mean time the church leaders administer the church through a combination of experience, business practices, genuine personal concern and effort, and inspiration.
This too allows us to not be stuck on the pronouncements of past leaders as though the things they said then had to be “gospel truth” forevermore.
I am glad you can make this adjustment, but I just have to say for me this sounds like a different church.
SilentDawning wrote:
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
a) Ministering –> I am happy and hopeful for the change.
b) I have been musing about tithing/giving away physical resources for others –> I think that the checklist mentality (an accompanying acrimony/confusing) have reduced meaning for this principle. However, the church theoretically needs funds to supplement the resources/time already accrued.
c) I don’t want the priesthood. I think that men have a distance from their spouses and children that is important and essential. I want cultural recognition that women can bless their children as well using their own innate authority as women. I want to be able to hold my children/grandchildren as they are given a name and a blessing in a way that is supporting the priesthood holder giving the blessing. I want to be able to request a blessing from a sister if I am dealing with a female rite of passage (childbirth for example).
d) I see progress as it becomes easier for non-missionary people to not be judged for that, and the calling of local level missionaries to assist with things.
e) I think this would be a good thing, but I am not a financial person so I don’t know for sure.
f – h) Yes, all these would be good things in my mind – but I understand about not moving the organization too fast.
Beefster wrote:
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.
i) eliminating the WoW only works if they increase their social services support to work with those who take their newfound freedom too far.
j) Absolutely – but also giving passing nod to those times of the month that biologically are not compatible with garments. Right now it’s “whatever you think is best” while not admitting that monthly cycles are an issue for garments. It is the elephant in the room that I would like to see people acknowledge that it exists,
k) Absolutely.
m) I think that “Just Serve” is a nod in that direction – but I agree a lot more could be done.
SilentDawning wrote:
Would that change our willingness to be involved, to feel proud of the church again, etcetera?
I think some of those changes would be helpful. I am already more interested in re-engaging because of the ministering effort. BUT, my biggest hang-ups are in my own head (more or less literally). Until I can resolve the cognitive disconnect between my perception and God (and what that means regarding commandments, authority, and the church organization), and until I am thoroughly convinced that there is “room in the tent” for me, these changes only go so far. I am blessed that people in our branch invite me into their lives, and want to be involved in our lives. This makes me hopeful that there is room for me personally.
The other source of disconnect for me is the “Unity/One-Size-Fits-All” vs “Individual (Needs/Perspectives/Commandments for)”. At what point does the need for unity/for administering everything the same overtake the needs of the individuals who can’t be administered to in the same way?
EXAMPLE:
My husband takes a controlled substance daily. This medicine has shown to be addictive in general, and addictive for him. We went through a horrible series of withdrawal symptoms 1 day when we were short his medicine. We are wise about managing his medicine. He knows what he needs to do to manage the side effects, and we work together to ensure he has the medicine when he needs it. He follows the prescription guidelines and follows up with his doctor every 3 months. 20 years ago he would have faced extreme social judgement at church. Now, we don’t know if he faces social judgement at church – those who know seem to approve of his choices, or recognize his freedom to make independent choices (plus, I am not great at reading non-verbal language, so would miss it and my husband does not always get things because of social anxiety and who he is). But no matter how you look at it, this medication does not fit in the One-Size-Fits-All category (because not everyone needs to take this medication, and most people probably shouldn’t – but he should, he really should and does).
I understand that a can of worms is unleashed whenever people are allowed/expected to make their own choices vs following the flock and having everything the same in black and white terms. However, I am reminded of several of the talks in General Conference that seem to say “the prophet will lead, BUT he is a better leader as YOU seek personal revelation/inspiration in governing your life. [Maybe that was just my take on it because that is what I would look for] “
Minyan Man wrote:
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.
I see a big need for change. For me, it’s driven by the decades long failure of the HT and VT programs to meet the needs of members. This has probably hurt activity rates, although I have no data to support that. At a minimum, it’s made being an active member a drudgerous task at which you can never feel successful.
People are often stretched in the church — in this case, we have freed up 3 or 4 positions in the name of efficiency — no more HP quorum leadership. It can all be handled by a single presidency. This means other programs can be strengthened that are always crying for committed people,.
I hope our church replicates this looking at failed programs and making adjustments in the future. Too often, they create programs that are ineffective, impractical, drudgerous, and then simply beat up on the members for not engaging with the program. As a quality guru said, 80% of the problems are systemic and not with the individuals doing the work. So if you see all the leaders are frustrated trying to get the members to engage with a program in spite of really hard trying/training/communicating/measuring/controlling over a period of years, is it perhaps a problem with the program rather than the people? Particularly when these are good people who are active in the church and generally have their hearts in the right place?
Get the message!!!!!!! And then act on it. And do it quickly.
I like how they squeezed this out for conference, even though training videos are not ready, etcetera. There was actual movement and a feeling of urgency when I read the FAQ’s — something I appreciate given the slow, drudgerous, plodding unresponsive organizational policies I’ve seen over the last 30 years.
AmyJ wrote:
c) I don’t want the priesthood. I think that men have a distance from their spouses and children that is important and essential. I want cultural recognition that women can bless their children as well using their own innate authority as women. I want to be able to hold my children/grandchildren as they are given a name and a blessing in a way that is supporting the priesthood holder giving the blessing. I want to be able to request a blessing from a sister if I am dealing with a female rite of passage (childbirth for example).
I love this!
I suppose what I want is cultural recognition of fatherhood. I love father’s blessings, Giving a name and a blessing, baptizing my children, dedication of family graves, perhaps being a temple escort (for endowment) or witness to a temple sealing. I love that those aspects of fatherhood are given social and ritual significance in our tribe. We have twisted it all up with priesthood authority and responsibility but the cultural recognition of fatherhood is there to a degree not common in the broader society.
I would love for more opportunities for social, cultural, and ritual recognition for women and mothers. Many women I have spoken to would be fearful that any steps in this direction would be usurping authority from the priesthood. I feel many women would love what you are suggesting but would be afraid to ask for it.
Roy wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
c) I don’t want the priesthood. I think that men have a distance from their spouses and children that is important and essential. I want cultural recognition that women can bless their children as well using their own innate authority as women. I want to be able to hold my children/grandchildren as they are given a name and a blessing in a way that is supporting the priesthood holder giving the blessing. I want to be able to request a blessing from a sister if I am dealing with a female rite of passage (childbirth for example).
I love this!
I suppose what I want is cultural recognition of fatherhood. I love father’s blessings, Giving a name and a blessing, baptizing my children, dedication of family graves, perhaps being a temple escort (for endowment) or witness to a temple sealing. I love that those aspects of fatherhood are given social and ritual significance in our tribe. We have twisted it all up with priesthood authority and responsibility but the cultural recognition of fatherhood is there to a degree not common in the broader society.
I would love for more opportunities for social, cultural, and ritual recognition for women and mothers. Many women I have spoken to would be fearful that any steps in this direction would be usurping authority from the priesthood. I feel many women would love what you are suggesting but would be afraid to ask for it.
I agree about the aspects of our bestowing cultural and ritual significance in our tribe to men and priesthood holders. I have learned some changes in our culture that would have meaning for me, but as outspoken as I am, I don’t know how or who to ask for these changes. Also, I am not sure how to act as if I already had that cultural authority. Blessing my children myself I have thought about, but my husband is not ready for that. Others would have cultural issues with other female-specific requests – figuring the initiatory is blessing enough I guess. Culturally, I don’t fit in as the traditional patient, craft-oriented, loving Primary mom.
LookingHard wrote:
I am glad you can make this adjustment, but I just have to say for me this sounds like a different church.
LH, I saw this comment in another thread.
Quote:A series of small changes can lead to an organization that no one recognizes eventually.
I believe that the church will need to move that direction eventually. I believe to be fundamentalist, dogmatic, and Black/white will be increasingly hard to maintain given the increasing availability of information on mistakes and/or evolution of doctrines in church history. I do not hold my breath for large changes, but small changes as the older generation dies off is not unreasonable. Our church has adapted before, it is adapting now, I believe it will continue to adapt in the future.
I heard rumors about combining the HPG and EQ a month or so ago. I was in a branch for about 7 years and that’s how they had to do things. That’s also how they already do things in some smaller wards I’ve visited. My world remains unshattered. 
Announcement aside. What I liked:
Elder D. Todd Christofferson wrote:Brethren, I devoutly hope that we will no longer speak in terms of being “advanced” to another office in the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Even though now they’ve made it such that you’ve really got to be the elite of the elite to earn (
What I really didn’t like, and something I’m frankly surprised received little to no attention:
President Dallin H. Oaks wrote:Here is an example of a priesthood holder magnifying his priesthood responsibility. I heard this from Elder Jeffrey D. Erekson, my companion in a stake conference in Idaho. As a young married elder, desperately poor and feeling unable to finish his last year of college, Jeffrey decided to drop out and accept an attractive job offer. A few days later his elders quorum president came to his home. “Do you understand the significance of the priesthood keys I hold?” the elders quorum president asked. When Jeffrey said he did, the president told him that since hearing of his intention to drop out of college, the Lord had tormented him during sleepless nights to give Jeffrey this message: “As your elders quorum president, I counsel you not to drop out of college. That is a message to you from the Lord.” Jeffrey stayed in school. Years later I met him when he was a successful businessman and heard him tell an audience of priesthood holders, “That [counsel] has made all the difference in my life.”
More like here’s an example of someone exercising unrighteous dominion. In this story the motivations were pure, help a kid realize the importance of staying in school, maybe give him the faith he needed to do so, but to receive revelation for other people and to invoke PH keys to lean on them so they’ll follow your counsel? Man that is bad… and if that talk is read during a lesson I attend I will be speaking up and I can’t promise my comments will be uplifting. I get the feeling that 9 times out of 10 when the question, “Do you understand the significance of the priesthood keys I hold?” is asked isn’t a good thing.
“No.”
“Do you understand the significance of the priesthood keys I hold?”
The strange moment of this session also comes from DHO:
Quote:We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to “the priesthood and the women.” We should refer to “the holders of the priesthood and the women.”
Pedantic stuff aside, why not say:
Quote:We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to men as “the priesthood.” We should refer to “the holders of the priesthood.”
He went out of his way to include “women” in that statement. I’m not entirely sure what it means. Highlight that women and holders of the priesthood are separate
(but equal)I think it was Elder Oaks who said explicitly later that fathers don’t need to seek inspiration or revelation from church leaders for their personal lives and families. I pointed out the danger of the story in a comment at the time of the talk. It is a great story, but it absolutely is a two-edged sword and should be the exception rather than the rule – and, ultimately, it still is the individual’s responsibility to make and own the final decision.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.