- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here is the link to the FP’s statement today encouraging vaccination, masks, social distancing, and following general medical advice: I appreciate this because as has been discussed here in various threads there are those who think the prophet has not done enough or been forthright enough in saying we should be vaccinated. In fact, I just read this today in the Salt Lake Tribune’s Latest From Mormon Land (emphasis added): Quote:We noted last week that more Latter-day Saints are becoming believers in the COVID-19 vaccines. (A new PRRI study shows that 65% of members are now acceptors of the shots, up from 50% in March.)
But how has the church done overall in its response to the pandemic? By Common Consent blogger Sam Brunson took up that question recently and gave the Utah-based faith a less-than-glowing grade.
While saluting the church’s sweeping and decisive responses in the early stages some 18 months ago — suspending all services, for instance — he found its efforts ultimately lacking on vaccinations and the return to the status quo.
Yes, top church leaders set the proper example — getting the vaccines themselves early on — and they exhorted members in news releases and social media posts to do the same. But when the church wants members to do something,” Brunson writes, “it sends a letter, signed by the First Presidency, to be read in sacrament meeting. It says explicitly to members that they need to get vaccinated. Perhaps President [Russell M.] Nelson or one of his counselors says it clearly and unequivocally in conference.”
And Brunson, a law professor at Loyola University in Chicago, argues the church seems too eager to embrace a return to in-person and often maskless meetings — even as the delta variant surges.“If we didn’t learn anything from the last year and a half, if we haven’t figured out how to minister better to our ward members, we’ve wasted an opportunity,” he states. “And if we treat the pandemic like it’s over, even though … our children cannot yet get vaccinated, we’ve failed as a people. And that strikes me as true failure.”
The bold italics part above describes my ward exactly. The bishop was almost giddy a couple months ago announcing the return to full meetings and activity. No one in my ward wears a mask despite some of them being unvaccinated.
And this message is not going to change that!From the FP message: Quote:To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective.
It is too wishy-washy – “
urge(d)” to wear masks “whenever social distancing is not possible.”My ward leadership is going to assert we are social distanced when we are not and they’re not about urging anyone to wear masks these days. I should note here that this is partly due to their belief in religious freedom, but that’s not really the bulk of it. The bulk is, as Sam Brunson is quoted above, “the church seems too eager to embrace a return to in-person and often maskless meetings — even as the delta variant surges.” The FP needs to act more like they did in the beginning of the pandemic when they actually took action instead of urging people to do something they don’t want to do. The statement should be “Effective immediately we are returning to wearing masks and social distancing in all meetings regardless of vaccination status. Those who can’t wear a mask should refrain from attending and local units should return to using technology to make worship services available to those who can’t attend as was previously done.”
I have a near identical opinion DJ. The global church organization may have started out strong with their response to covid but the local church organization has failed in the last year or so and they have gone completely off the rails in the last month. Perhaps leaving decisions like these in the hands of local, lay clergy could be considered a global organization failure as well.
Our local units recently halted online offerings. They’re applying pressure to get people to return to in-person church. Masks are suggested but not required. The members that are concerned about the lack of a mask requirements have been read the “don’t judge” riot act several times direct from the SP. There’s a headlong rush to get back to normal.
I’m sure politics get mixed up in all this. I’m sure covid fatigue gets mixed up in all this. I’m sure a desire to improve metrics gets mixed up in all this.
“Urging” may move the needle for a few people. I hope the few it moves the needle for are the local leaders in a rush to… I don’t know what.
I suppose it’s, “something is better than nothing. I’ve seen other churches come out strong to recommend that their members not get vaccinated. I’ve seen some churches requiring a vaccine and a mask for in-person attendance. We’re middle of the road.
Local policies have rendered me inactive (unsafe environment at church, halted online offerings). The pandemic response at the local level has been an eye opener. I don’t know that I’ll ever feel comfortable returning to church. It doesn’t feel like a physically OR spiritually safe place.
I will admit, it’s a no-win situation for the church. Accommodating one group alienates the other. nibbler, I understand what you’re saying:
nibbler wrote:
I will admit, it’s a no-win situation for the church. Accommodating one group alienates the other.
Yet throughout church history, there were times when they took the risk to declare a “true” gospel principle or
spiritual belief.
nibbler wrote:
I will admit, it’s a no-win situation for the church. Accommodating one group alienates the other.
In my ward there’s a semi-active guy with some mental health issues who believes COVID is all a hoax, etc., and refuses to wear a mask. He was accommodated prior to ending the wearing of masks last time but then we had the Zoom option which I chose. The bishop has had long conversations with him and of course is out to “rescue” him. Unfortunately I seem to be the only one with enough…er…guts to say anything to bishop and stand his ground. It’s why I currently don’t go in the chapel for SM and don’t go to second hour. It’s apparently OK that I’m being alienated. Granted, I have not been much of a contributor of late but I have contributed much over the years and I am willing to contribute under the right circumstances. The bishop’s “friend” contributes nothing and never has. I think there are several reasons our ward will not return to wearing masks despite what the FP says, but I think this is the main one.
Related, I was surprised when talking to my son who lives in Texas this week and he brought up the FP statement. He said his ward, which did eschew masks earlier than ours, returned to wearing masks a couple weeks ago and it’s like it was before – not an option, people must wear masks. It does seem that politics has some limitations where he lives in Texas.
Yes, they may try to straddle a fence but with the actual policies they’ve taken they are more than content to run off people that would like to see precautions taken. As I mentioned earlier… over the years I’ve adapted to some of the spiritual dangers in our meetings. I never thought I’d have to face down physical dangers. I won’t abide that, and since they’ve intentionally cut off access to online offerings I guess I’m inactive now.
Truth be told, I’m not sure I’m going to want to return to such a group even after this all blows over.
Out of curiosity I went and compared some of the language in this announcement with the family proclamation. Quote:“We
findourselves… We
wantto do all we can… We
knowthat protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population… To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we
urgeindividuals to be vaccinated…
Compared to:
Quote:We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
solemnly proclaim… We
declare… We
affirmthe sanctity of life… We
warn… Further, we
warn… We
call uponresponsible citizens and officers of government everywhere…
I wish the announcement about masks and vaccinations had more of the authoritative tone the church uses for other things. Instead it has the feel of a “friendly reminder”. Maybe they should have said failure to wear a mask and get vaccinated will “bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
Arrakeen, what an interesting comparison in the use of language & how as a church we choose to communicate principles & ideas.
Our Stake Conference today included masks for everyone, including the Stake leadership and the visiting authorities. I celebrate this statement. I live in an area with low vaccination rates (in the 40s for percent). Any public figure that comes out and says to vaccinate is doing a good thing IMO. As strange as it might feel to say that encouraging vaccines takes some courage in my area that is the reality. Businesses, Chamber of Commerce, Main Street Association, County Fair Board, Local Rodeo Commission, School boards, etc. etc. All of them stand to lose out if hospitals get overwhelmed and restrictions become reinstated, yet some/many are hesitant about offending roughly half the population that believe all kinds of negative things about the vaccine.
The letter says that the vaccines are safe and effective. I just hope that people will “follow the prophet” when it runs contrary to what their political subgroups are doing.
nibbler wrote:
I will admit, it’s a no-win situation for the church. Accommodating one group alienates the other.
In my ward the attendance is down to about half what it was pre-pandemic. The people that came back to church first and with the most fervor are the same that would prefer to not have any restrictions. I assume that church leadership has many pressures to consider in trying to divine what course is best for the church moving forward.
You’d think they would err on the side of caution/safety. I know there are several families in my ward that won’t attend because of how accommodating our area is of people that don’t want (or won’t follow) restrictions. We don’t appear to have any issue with running those types off.
We had no prior announcement about the statement from the ward, but the SP did send an email asking everyone to follow the prophet’s advice. Both the FP and SP statements were read in SM, where just over half were masked (and there were masks available in the foyer). There was some conjecture that word might not have gotten out enough and it will be different next week. I think it will be different, but I still don’t think everyone will be masked because we have some refusers and some who think that because we’re vaccinated we don’t need masks (despite current CDC guidelines for our area which is considered a high transmission area). Many local businesses have returned to mask policies regardless of vaccination status. And I do have a co-worker who just tested positive and was vaccinated. I sat in the foyer with my mask on again today, as I have been for the last few weeks (since they stopped Zoom meetings and authorization to do the sacrament at home). I leave at the end of SM.
If we think about it from the broadest view possible, it is next to impossible to give a “commandment” on exactly what to do, given the complexities of the issue and the different approaches of governments around the world (including states in the USA). The best I can expect and even hope is a clear statement of counsel. “We urge” is about as strong as I think it can get.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.