- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If I am reading this right, there was some considerations to try a shortened Sunday meeting schedule. John Dehlin leaked it and they are now pulling back from doing so??? http://www.standard.net/Faith/2015/11/23/Report-Mormon-church-may-start-shorter-Sunday-meetings.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.standard.net/Faith/2015/11/23/Report-Mormon-church-may-start-shorter-Sunday-meetings.html If so, I am upset at John if he blew this!
You can be mad at John for blowing it, but it’s incredibly petty to pull back on this kind of pilot just because it was leaked. This would be a popular enough change to possibly bring back a few of the inactives and make up for some of the loss of the recent horrible policy! So not doing it just because it was leaked seems really childish. That would be a welcome change. More and more reasons are coming together for me to go back to church — our building is getting close to completion meaning a short commute, 1/2 of my family is fully active again with a change in leadership, and the new Bishopric is supporting the heck out of me in my non-profit. Add a shortened block and it would be a reason to try it out again. Overwhelming support and excitement??? Attracting disaffected back to church?? Even sigh of relief from TBMs??? …nah…it is too widely accepted and positive by everyone. A religion that doesn’t require painful sacrifice isn’t worth it…they won’t want to make things easier because that makes it harder to separate wheat from tares, or glory of the sun from glory of the moon. Right?
This rumor has been circulated for decades. I’m skeptical until I see some true piloting.
I’d love to see a bishop do it unofficially. Not ask for permission, but just start dismissing classes 30min early every fast sunday and tell families to be together and see the reaction.
hawkgrrrl wrote:You can be mad at John for blowing it, but it’s incredibly petty to pull back on this kind of pilot just because it was leaked. This would be a popular enough change to possibly bring back a few of the inactives and make up for some of the loss of the recent horrible policy! So not doing it just because it was leaked seems really childish.
Are you trying to paint a silver lining on the thunderous dark cloud of the policy?
Do you mean childish like the “we are going to pout because the BSA had a vote on gays while we were on vacation?”
Quote:Do you mean childish like the “we are going to pout because the BSA had a vote on gays while we were on vacation?”
Blerg.
I’d be a huge fan of shortening to two hours as opposed to three and I think there is support for the idea at the top levels of leadership. However, (no offense intended) I think this is a puff piece with no credibility. In other words, I’ll believe it when I see it. I love John, but he can be his own worst enemy at times. There are a few narratives floating around. When I first heard about this the story was that local leaders in Boston decided to shorten church to 2:15, John announced it, church HQ got wind of it because of the publicity it was receiving and they reminded the rogue Boston leadership that they didn’t have that kind of leeway and put the kibosh on project “Everyone Wants It.” And that was the exmormon community reporting.
Now there’s this narrative that the decision to pilot a shorter church block was initiated by the brethren and they changed their minds out of spite.
I suppose it could be either story.
Heber13 wrote:…nah…it is too widely accepted and positive by everyone. A religion that doesn’t require painful sacrifice isn’t worth it…they won’t want to make things easier because that makes it harder to separate wheat from tares, or glory of the sun from glory of the moon. Right?
Ha. You’re reminding me of that April Fools story about the 4 hour block. You really could separate the sheep from the goats based on reactions. Some friends groaned at the news, breathed a sigh of relief once they realized what day it was, then got angry as their attention was drawn back to still having 3 hour church. Some friends got excited about the prospects of a 4 hour block then said nothing once they realized what day it was. (P.S. the goats wanted 4 hour church).
nibbler wrote:(P.S. the goats wanted 4 hour church).
That is baaaaad
Those that want a 4 hour block should get it. Maybe we can have the equivalent of carbon credits. I can pay someone to go to church for one or two hours and they stay an extra hour. We all win! And I get $0.001 off every transaction.
Here is what they should pilot: 1. Sacrament meeting as is.
2. Sunday school classes where possible broken into Gospel Doctrine (with Hawkgrrrl teaching real scriptural accurate messages), Gospel Principles, and Gospel Instruction (a class to discuss how relief society and priesthood topics can be taught…basically take our 3rd hour lessons and make a class of it). In areas without the ability for 3 classes (not enough people), they can just integrate RS and MP topics into GD.
3. 3rd hour optional for all leadership meetings (bishoprics, presidencies, planning committees, correlation committees, interviews, blah blah blah). If you take out all the announcements and “ward business” out of our meetings, you can get 2 hours of church without “business” and leave that for the 3rd hour to be done effectively. There should be leeway to allow this to happen as the first meeting of the day and sacrament to be the last meeting.
I know spiritual meetings should not look for ways to streamline or be more efficient. Time is both Quality and Quantity to give people opportunities to mingle.
But I have increasingly become irritated at the wasted time and effort at so many announcements and ward business that lengthens church. We actually build in that stuff into our formats.
Let the 3rd hour be optional or required for the goats that want to act all business-like with the ministry.
Heber13 wrote:But I have increasingly become irritated at the wasted time and effort at so many announcements and ward business that lengthens church. We actually build in that stuff into our formats.
I always enjoyed long announcements when it was my turn to teach.
It does get a little crazy with PH though. Opening exercises for both the general PH and individual quorums can easily combine to take up 20 minutes. Then again if we had that time back what would we do with it? Shorten church (lol) or have 20 more minutes to read out of the latest teachings of the presidents manual.
—
Of course there’s nothing keeping people from only attending 1 or 2 hours of church. Plenty of people leave after SM. I think the problem is that if they were to add an “optional” 4th hour many would feel obligated to attend. I’m not sure “optional” works in church culture. Either guilt would motivate people to attend or attendance might become a public display of personal righteousness.
It’s also hard to cut out early. Let’s say I make 2 hour church my reality. I’d eventually have to deal with leaders insisting that I attend all required meetings.
The only comfortable way for most people to accept what they would rather do would be through a decree from on high.
I also see it as a quality vs. quantity issue. I’d attend all day if meetings were awesome. It’s just that at this stage shortening the meetings feels like the more realistic goal. Who knows, maybe shortening the meetings would have a side effect of making meetings better and more productive.
I checked the curriculum for next year. Another teachings of presidents manual isn’t exactly the most enticing of carrots to be dangling on a stick. No surprises there, which is another thing that tosses a wet blanket on my Sunday experiences and think that less is more.
Heber13 wrote:Let the 3rd hour be optional or required for the goats that want to act all business-like with the ministry.
Agreed…
One issue with shortening meetings or eliminating announcements is that our church culture often encourages giving time to whomever requests it. If you skip the choir announcement the choir director is angry, if you skip recognizing the new Eagle scout then Mom & Dad are offended. If you don’t announce the stake event the Stake President reminds you. So by trying to be less business-like (e.g. avoiding administrivia) some will accuse leaders of being too business like (e.g. efficient).
I’m the first one here who would sign up for a 2 hour block but we’d have to fundamentally change the structure of church. Our leaders preach Good Better Best and Simplicity but then add new programs and new callings. We need someone mighty and strong to just eliminate meetings. Maybe that’s what we’re all saying here.
I can’t remember. How long have we had the three hour block? Ann wrote:I can’t remember. How long have we had the three hour block?
Since 1980.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.