- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been attending a new Ward for several months now. I have not said one thing in any of the meetings because most of what I have to say is divergent in some way. I don’t want to come across as apostate. Well, new HPGL initiates a discussion on what home teaching is and why we should do it — because the numbers are low. Ever heard this one before? Deadness filled the room.
I finally put my hand up and commented on why people don’t like home teaching. Indicated its something you have to do for your entire life and at which you can’t feel fully successful at. The gold standard of a “a visit in the home” depends on the agency of the family and the home teachers. There is a case for reporting HT two ways — the gold standard of a visit in the home, and then one that indicates if the home teacher met the family at the highest level of contact that family wants/permits. That as an organization, we should acknowledge that people generally don’t embrace working for years at something at which there is no sense of accomplishment — why do we expect this to be different in the church?. That we would find ways of rewarding home teachers who have done all they can with a family who is reluctant to keep or make appointments.
The good news was that an ex-Bishop and another gentleman who seemed long in the tooth with church administration both supported me fully in this perspective.
‘Twas a satisfying experience.
It’s always a pleasant surprise when people support your ‘unorthodox’ views. I was very surprised the other day that someone I’d presumed very orthodox said he was in favour of legalising gay marriage. I know — I wanted to push it after I made that comment and everyone agreed, but I kept it to myself. Someone piped up and said “its not about the numbers” after my comment. I wanted desperately to tell them that from a Stake perspective it is…that multiple times the stake has come to our Ward and called everyone to repentance over the gold standard numbers without even looking at the level of effort, or even asking what the quorum has done to try to improve the numbers.
Case in point — the Stake Presidency came to our HP quorum and “called us all to repentence” (used those words) over home teaching when two weeks before 7 companionships had gone out on a blitz and made 35 visits on top of their regular HT assignments. Talk about making decisions based solely on reported numbers. And the Stake’s behavior totally demotivated our quorum — they had just gone above and beyond the call of duty and deserved praise, not censure.
Another time, the records showed 99 prospective elders and only 1 active. The stake assumed that our records were not straight, and told us we needed to work harder at figuring out who was actually in the Ward, and who wasn’t. We had actually visited all of them within the last year. Most were deacons who received the priesthood as boys and then became inactive — many who were in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s — and wanted no contact.
And then, when I started reporting letters sent to everyone who wasn’t visited, and reported those letters as visits, the stake stopped crashing our meetings (High Councilors) and raising concerns about HT.
So, yes, numbers are critical. They are the starting point for scrutiny from the Stake – and their emphasis on numbers can actually have strong demotivating effects on quorums when the Stake does not look for the effort and reasons behind the numbers.
I wanted to say this, but it was open criticism of Stake leadership…so I didn’t…
At least you can get it off your chest here 
You mentioning about prospective elders reminded me of something.
I was in Sunday school today and someone said (answering the question of ‘what are the blessings of the priesthood?”):
“There were some church statistics that were shared in a training meeting recently that showed that if you have the Melchizedek priesthood you’re much more likely to be active. The training taught that if men magnify their Melchizedek priesthood it’s much more likely to protect them from inactivity.”
I couldn’t let that one go and so said “I work in research and an important principle is that correlation does not equal causality. I’m sure the stats do show that more active men have the Melchizedek priesthood and more less-actives have the Aaronic priesthood. But that’s probably because you have to be active in the first place to get the Melchizedek priesthood.”
I got a slightly stunned look.
I have no worry of being seen as unorthodox, simply because I have learned to phrase my unorthodox comments in the vocabulary of orthodoxy – and because I have a filter on my mouth that usually stops me from sharing my most unorthodox views. Both are important. Seriously, I say things all the time that would be labeled as unorthodox by many people if I said them differently – in word OR in tone.
Ray — let me share an unorthodox belief using naked truth — how would you (or anyone else) rephrase it? (Provided its not offensive to you). “I don’t believe in unilateral chapel cleaning assignments because I think the Church has resources to relieve the members of this burden. Members pay a significant portion of their earnings to the church that could provide resources for this task. Also, members could be devoting the time and energy to other causes that have a larger impact. Further, I consider it an unwanted, authoritarian approach to raising volunteers who should be given an opportunity to volunteer if they want to do it.”
mackay11 wrote:At least you can get it off your chest here
You mentioning about prospective elders reminded me of something.
I was in Sunday school today and someone said (answering the question of ‘what are the blessings of the priesthood?”):
“There were some church statistics that were shared in a training meeting recently that showed that if you have the Melchizedek priesthood you’re much more likely to be active. The training taught that if men magnify their Melchizedek priesthood it’s much more likely to protect them from inactivity.”
I couldn’t let that one go and so said “I work in research and an important principle is that correlation does not equal causality. I’m sure the stats do show that more active men have the Melchizedek priesthood and more less-actives have the Aaronic priesthood. But that’s probably because you have to be active in the first place to get the Melchizedek priesthood.”
I got a slightly stunned look.
I said the same thing when someone quoted a statistic that sacrament meeting attendance was the best predictor of youth’s activity into adulthood. This is confusing correlation and causation. It is likely the independent variable is the parents’ expectation the youth attends Sacrament meeting with them, or family tradition etcetera.
mackay11 wrote:“There were some church statistics that were shared in a training meeting recently that showed that if you have the Melchizedek priesthood you’re much more likely to be active. The training taught that if men magnify their Melchizedek priesthood it’s much more likely to protect them from inactivity.”
I couldn’t let that one go and so said “I work in research and an important principle is that correlation does not equal causality. I’m sure the stats do show that more active men have the Melchizedek priesthood and more less-actives have the Aaronic priesthood. But that’s probably because you have to be active in the first place to get the Melchizedek priesthood.”
I got a slightly stunned look.
I remember about three years ago a missionary was telling me about the church’s smoking cessation program that was “100% successful for people that really want to quit.”
😯 I told him that from my limited knowledge of nicotine addiction there is no program that is 100% successful. He then backpedaled and said he was only repeating what he had heard other missionaries say.But don’t we do this all the time in church? “The LDS formula for happiness is 100% successful if you really want it.” – “Tithing will bring blessings (financial and otherwise) 100% of the time, when done in humility” – “Priesthood blessings will heal the individual if they have enough faith (and if it is God’s will).” – “The HG will make you know without a doubt that the BOM is true if you but follow Moroni’s challenge/exhortation.”
SD, it’s not offensive to me, but I wouldn’t say it in most church settings because I know it would be offensive to most members – and because, while I don’t disagree with you, I also don’t think it’s an important enough hill to wage war on it. It’s not an unorthodox belief; it’s a disagreement with practical, non-religious policy. Those are two different things. Now, if I was asked directly about how I feel about the current way the church buildings are cleaned, I would say something (with a grin on my face) like:
Quote:“I miss the good old days when members who were receiving welfare assistance cleaned the church under the supervision of a building janitor who was paid a stipend for that work. Saturday mornings are important for me, since I have so little time to spend with my wife and children on other days – and it’s the only day I can sleep in. I also think there are wonderful opportunities for service that I miss when I spend even more time here at the church building. I know it’s important to keep the church clean, but I miss the way it was years ago.”
SilentDawning wrote:Ray — let me share an unorthodox belief using naked truth — how would you (or anyone else) rephrase it? (Provided its not offensive to you).
“I don’t believe in unilateral chapel cleaning assignments because I think the Church has resources to relieve the members of this burden. Members pay a significant portion of their earnings to the church that could provide resources for this task. Also, members could be devoting the time and energy to other causes that have a larger impact. Further, I consider it an unwanted, authoritarian approach to raising volunteers who should be given an opportunity to volunteer if they want to do it.”
I say this every time I have to clean the church and I say it about the same way that you have worded it with the added thought that there are others that could really use the money that a part time job would provide, but I say it to one or two people at a time, maybe even the whole group of people who are cleaning the building. We get this “wonderful” assignment about every ten weeks and it bothers me every single time, but I do show up and fulfill the assignment because I want the right to bitch about it and if I were to blow it off like so many other people do, I think I would loose that right.
I am openly unorthodox more to people I know well, and to some degree in general, but I do it with respect and love (at least that is my goal), and when I am required to give a response or a talk which in my case on the HC happens every month.
church0333 wrote:We get this “wonderful” assignment about every ten weeks and it bothers me every single time, but I do show up and fulfill the assignment because I want the right to bitch about it and if I were to blow it off like so many other people do, I think I would loose that right.
I choose to blow it off. If I disagree with a certain assignment, don’t see the value in it and it imposses on my family/personal time – I don’t do it (and my need to complain about it diminishes). Adapting my participation level to what I can give without feeling taken advantage of is one of the ways I choose to StayLDS.
Isn’t it wonderful when we can act and speak in our own unique way and not have to have a one-size-fits-all approach or outlook? :thumbup: My approach to unorthodoxy, as I’ve mentioned before is the “quote of the day” thread. If a GA said it then those who are the most orthodox can’t really dispute it. If they do then they’re approaching unorthodoxy. I must organise it into a neater structure. I think I’ll create a google doc by theme and link to it from the OP. Tonight sounds as good as any.
Someone once told me that if a priesthood leader tells you to do something, and its wrong, you still get the blessings due to obedience. I believed that as a young, impressionable adult in my early twenties until I mentioned it to someone. They told me that was an outright falsehood and dangerous too. SilentDawning wrote:Someone once told me that if a priesthood leader tells you to do something, and its wrong, you still get the blessings due to obedience. I believed that as a young, impressionable adult in my early twenties until I mentioned it to someone. They told me that was an outright falsehood and dangerous too.
I was taught the same thing multiple times in institute. The instructor shared that in his family if the priesthood leader instructs them to burn down their house then the kids know to salvage the photo albums and the rest of the house is to be torched. He would use this as an example of how his family was prepared to obey no matter what. He could justify it from the scriptures and it seemed to make perfect sense at the time. God has a history of commanding contrary things – like to marry more than one wife or to kill other people. In all things the correct course is obedience.
Quote:“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”
“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”
“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.”
“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.”
Be wise today; ’tis madness to defer:
Next day the fatal precedent may plead.
Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time
Into eternity.
“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: “Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;” but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.”
– Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also “The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon,” Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.