But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world D&C 1:20

[Anonymous]

I have been struggling with the above scripture lately in lieu of the new Church format. “But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;”I remember President Nelson quoting this in the April 2018 General Conference when the changes were made to all Melchizedek Priesthood holders meeting together as one united Elder’s Quorum, and as it pertains to ministering assignments.

Here is the problem:

1. Sunday School class for adults that only meets twice a week.

How in the world are all men and women able to speak in the name of the Lord in this confined, one size fits all class? Teaching callings are very limited, and opportunities to teach the gospel are lessened. Was this to weed out false teachers, and have the Bishopric in one class to oversee that no false doctrine is being taught? I think limiting the role of members in the Church as teachers in formal ways greatly minimizes the significance of the scripture: “But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world”

2. Ministering.

When was the last time I spoke in the name of the Lord while ministering?

As a home teacher I taught in the name of the Lord (perhaps I did hmm?). So anything I say or do is in the name of the Lord since it is within my stewardship? I remember having a distinct impression as a home teacher: It is nice to take the gospel to someone’s home that welcomes it, and the spirit is present, then I thought what would happen if there was no more home teaching? 4 years later, I am there.

3. Priesthood/RS vs. Sunday School

I personally like Sunday School better since I spend more time on the Bible (NT is my favorite). It seems Priesthood is a regurgitation of sacrament meeting talks which cover the same material. So twice a month we get double coverage, but the New Testament with this wonderful new curriculum gets two weeks only? I think in some ways it is a huge waste. Such a wonderful curriculum and improvement. Yes, I use it in my home every week, and for my personal study, but I think the Church as a whole would benefit more from discussions on the Savior and the Church he established in the meridian of time.

4. My brother was correct. After my mission, I personally tried diligently to maintain a high level of spirituality as a ward mission leader. I attended institute classes, regional Know Your Religion talks, purchases LDS books by general authorities, and talked about gospel subjects with friends, and tried to share the gospel. Then my brother told me at a High School football game. “You are not a preacher man anymore” (my 2 year proselyting mission was over). I did not want to accept this, I taught the gospel every chance I could get. I taught gospel doctrine, gospel principles. Primary classes. I even wanted to be a seminary teacher at one point in my life. Now, I see the reality of not being a preacher man. The same institution that I loved (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) has deleted many of the teaching callings it used to have. Now Gospel doctrine teachers teach once a month (if there are two teachers called), or once every two months if there are (4 teachers called). The Gospel Principles teacher was essentially fired, and if they had four different teachers that rotated each month that is 4 people out of a calling.

Through my empirical observations, and personal perspective this is part of the problem I have with the new way of things. Maybe we will just move to a professional clergy (one person speaking authoritatively) and become like the Catholics, or mainstream protestant churches where we just show up and go with the flow. God forbid.

[Anonymous]

I feel it too. I’m in a very large ward with a high activity rate and I’ve all but accepted that I probably won’t be teaching at church ever again unless I move to a much smaller ward, they finally split our ward, or I get in people’s ear for an opportunity.

The issue is that I think there are a lot of people out there thinking, “Phew, I probably won’t have to teach at church ever again.”

jamison wrote:

1. Sunday School class for adults that only meets twice a week.

How in the world are all men and women able to speak in the name of the Lord in this confined, one size fits all class? Teaching callings are very limited, and opportunities to teach the gospel are lessened. Was this to weed out false teachers, and have the Bishopric in one class to oversee that no false doctrine is being taught? I think limiting the role of members in the Church as teachers in formal ways greatly minimizes the significance of the scripture: “But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world”

Twice a month, but yeah.

I really do believe that the spirit behind the changes was to decrease the expectations placed on the members. Even in large wards many people can end up with multiple callings. In some of the smaller branches I’ve attended over the years it wasn’t uncommon for the same person to give a talk in SM, teach the gospel doctrine class, and give the lesson during PH.

It’s a shame there can’t be at least two formats, a format for large wards that includes various SS classes for adults and a format for smaller units that has the one class. But the organizational church likes uniformity. Things are probably easier to administer that way.

I don’t feel like the changes were made with the intent to weed out rogue teachers or to make it easier to police lessons. I feel like we were already doing an excellent good job of creating at least two Brother Grumpuses per class to harumph all lessons back on track.

jamison wrote:

3. Priesthood/RS vs. Sunday School

I personally like Sunday School better since I spend more time on the Bible (NT is my favorite). It seems Priesthood is a regurgitation of sacrament meeting talks which cover the same material. So twice a month we get double coverage, but the New Testament with this wonderful new curriculum gets two weeks only? I think in some ways it is a huge waste. Such a wonderful curriculum and improvement. Yes, I use it in my home every week, and for my personal study, but I think the Church as a whole would benefit more from discussions on the Savior and the Church he established in the meridian of time.

I think with the two hour format the leaders were not comfortable with the idea of getting rid of PH/RS altogether. Tradition and duty. There was probably a tough decision to be made with how to have both the 2nd and 3rd hour represented in the new two hour format. I’m with you though, PH is reading conference talks and we don’t even get any input on which ones. I find we tend to gravitate towards reading the “rah-rah” talks, the very talks that turn me off the most, so PH becomes something that is more endured than enjoyed.

I know what the orthodox answer would be to your conundrum. Warning, it won’t be very satisfying.

Every man might speak in the name of god the lord as they instruct their family in their homes. Do your home church!

[Anonymous]

The ship is turning, and I think a lot of what you are saying really depends on point of view. I personally love the culture change Nelson is trying to bring about. Period.

1. I do agree that the class size in SS in too big and not conducive to discussion type lessons in general. I think this will evolve. I think one thing many people are missing here is that it’s not about SS (or Primary) class – it’s home centered, church supported. If we’re talking about that kind of ministering, I think the intent is for it to be happening in the home. (I actually think all ministering is supposed to be primarily outside the church building, except for the wonderful ministering that used to happen second hour in the foyer – which is arguably outside the church.) In the home in this case would also include those small groups that Cook mentioned in introducing the two hour block. I think the only reason we don’t hear more about small groups is because the Brethren are too afraid of programming it – which is another culture shift.

2. I hated the canned message my home teacher brought, and I hated it even more wen he brought one that wasn’t the canned message. I never liked it. IMO the monthly visit, give the canned message, and check the box was exactly what was broken and wrong with home teaching. I’m thrilled at not getting that call in the afternoon of the last Sunday of the month asking if my home teacher can come by. That said, my ministering brother (I’m assigned a husband/wife team and my wife and I are also assigned as a couple) and I do have gospel conversations – but they are much more real and free than before.

3. I honestly don’t like either and generally occupy myself with something else second hour. I don’t leave because DW teaches Primary and we live far enough away that bringing 2 cars all the time would not be cost effective or environmentally friendly. The plus side of EQ is that there is small enough group (in my ward anyway) that we could have discussion. The downside is the curriculum itself (rehashing a talk) and our instructor who likes to lecture and isn’t real keen on other points of view. I also favor the NT, and I like the Come Follow Me thing for this year for that very reason – at some point on Sunday and at other times of the week I can be found with my Oxford Study Bible and at least a couple apps open studying the readings for the week. My study has taken on a new more invigorated dimension this year, and I’m eating it up. But I can also see down the road – next year will be the BoM and it will not be the same. I am all about talking of Christ, rejoicing in Christ, preaching of Christ, etc., and I agree with you that EQ would be much better were it more Christ focused – but I also know where I am and know perfection (completeness) is the goal and not the method.

4. I think the only thing I have to say to this one is the adage “Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary use words.” (FWIW, I like that we’re almost all less busy.)

[Anonymous]

There are things that I like and things that I dislike. I LOVE that we lose an hour in church. I understand that some others might miss that extra time.

I too was very “preacher man” when I got home from my mission. It gave me purpose and drive, which was something that really helped as a young person.

jamison wrote:

Through my empirical observations, and personal perspective this is part of the problem I have with the new way of things. Maybe we will just move to a professional clergy (one person speaking authoritatively) and become like the Catholics, or mainstream protestant churches where we just show up and go with the flow. God forbid.

I agree generally that the church is becoming slightly less demanding of our time. They are trying to find a balance between being too demanding and not demanding enough (“taffy-pull” experience). I personally feel that home church allows for this flexibility. If you want hard core church then teach that to your kids. If you want “love your neighbor”, “forgive others”, and Golden Rule church then teach that to your kids. It allows everyone to have a little bit more of what they crave the gospel to be in their own home.

[Author]

Posts