- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This post is about some new language contained in new Sabbath Day training: “multi-generational families”. A separate thread mentioned the focus the church will put putting on Sabbath Day observance – both inside the home and at church. This emphasis comes from the 1st Presidency and the Q12 and they have provided training for bishoprics and ward councils about how to improve Sabbath Day observance. Instead of teaching about the importance of supporting the
family, the training talks about the special importance of the multigenerational family. There is even a diagram that shows baptism / conversion-> temple endowment->sealing->having children->baptism / conversion. Repeat. I’ve never heard the church talk about the importance of “multi-generational families” vs. traditional “families.” I appreciate the importance of having kids (heck I have several) and it seems like a subtle but important shift in focus. I wonder if we’ll hear more about it in the near future.
Am I imagining this? Anyone else notice multi-generational families verbiage?
Roadrunner wrote:This post is about some new language contained in new Sabbath Day training: “multi-generational families”. A separate thread mentioned the focus the church will put putting on Sabbath Day observance – both inside the home and at church. This emphasis comes from the 1st Presidency and the Q12 and they have provided training for bishoprics and ward councils about how to improve Sabbath Day observance.
Instead of teaching about the importance of supporting the
family, the training talks about the special importance of the multigenerational family. There is even a diagram that shows baptism / conversion-> temple endowment->sealing->having children->baptism / conversion. Repeat. I’ve never heard the church talk about the importance of “multi-generational families” vs. traditional “families.” I appreciate the importance of having kids (heck I have several) and it seems like a subtle but important shift in focus. I wonder if we’ll hear more about it in the near future.
Am I imagining this? Anyone else notice multi-generational families verbiage?
I have not noticed it yet, but it sounds like “Dynasty”.I’ve heard the phrase multi-generational families a few times in recent months. I don’t know the phrase origins but google likes to hone in on a devotional in Sydney Australia where Elder Bednar was reported to have said: Quote:Multi-generational families in the Church are essential. If we don’t have them then every generation in the Church is brand new. Most likely to interrupt that cycle is a lack of gospel learning in the home. Learn the gospel and then teach it to your families. Teach them to honour their covenants and live faithfully.
Incidentally that quote, or something similar may be the one that has created some buzz about Bednar saying something that was interpreted to mean children fall away from the church because of weak gospel teaching in the home.
There was also a talk given by Elder Bednar in a video as a part of the training material for observing the Sabbath but as far as I know it’s not a public video. No links.
I view the phrase multi-generational family as a rebranding of teachings that have existed in the church for a very long time. Hinckley phrased the same concept in the following words:
Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:Never permit yourself to become a weak link in the chain of your generations.
Isn’t the ultimate goal of temple work to seal all of mankind into one large family? That’s why I view “multi-generational families” as another way to shine light on the same object from a different angle, give it a new buzz word to reignite interest and to keep the dialog fresh.
Bednar’s flowchart is all about MLMs, I mean MGFs. My first response – “REALLY?” If history has any application –
God lost a 1/3 of his family,
Adam and Eve lost 50%,
Abraham 50%,
Jacob (Israel) was totally dysfunctional,
Christ’s family was divided over him,
the Benson family divided when Benson became prophet,
converts like Fiona Givens who left her families faith to join this one.
So yeah I’m all in.
LookingHard wrote:I have not noticed it yet, but it sounds like “Dynasty”.
I agree that the church needs to be careful with this emphasis. Yes, there are a number of core families that have provided an inordinate amount of leadership in the church. Yes, this is probably replicated at the local level – and yet it does come off as snobbish.
Better I think to focus on converts, how each one of us are valued for who we are not where we come from, and that each can be a pioneer in their own way.
Roy wrote:LookingHard wrote:I have not noticed it yet, but it sounds like “Dynasty”.
I agree that the church needs to be careful with this emphasis. Yes, there are a number of core families that have provided an inordinate amount of leadership in the church. Yes, this is probably replicated at the local level – and yet it does come off as snobbish.
Better I think to focus on converts, how each one of us are valued for who we are not where we come from, and that each can be a pioneer in their own way.
My dad (kind of TBM) used to tell me that callings in the church come from revelation, relations, and desperation.
[img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/nepotismdemotivator.jpeg?v=1403276074 [/img] That fit into this topic in more ways than I thought when I first linked it in. I got my own joke (after a few seconds or so)
Things that annoy me: 1. Family Dynasty and Empire Building in the church.
2. Guys who make lots of money and move to SLC because they are certain geography is the only thing holding them back from a GA calling.
3. Multigenerational families — defined as “add more family guilt on your children when they think about leaving or questioning the church.”
I was actually a bit befuddled by that part of the training. The discussion in our council ended up revolving around temple work and somehow being linked to ancestors who were members of the church give us a legacy which would more likely keep people active. It was pointed out that almost everybody who lives in our stake is a first or second generation Mormon, with few third generations and very few others (Utah transplants – and they don’t tend to transplant here for the long haul). We sort of reached a consensus that this part didn’t apply to us as much, but that we should try to build those relationships anyway and as we age and have grandchildren, etc., it will eventually come. What I really observe happening is the children grow, go to BYU, marry a Utahns (or other Corridor residents), stay in the Corridor, and the parents eventually retire there to be closer to their grandchildren. A counselor in our bishopric just announced they are going to become snow birders to southern Utah for that very reason. Of course there is something many of use here are all too familiar with as well – grandparent induced guilt.
Perhaps MGF’s have become the focus because they realize that convert baptisms in the West are hitting a wall and will probably continue to decrease (as a %of population) over the next many years. Thus, how do we keep what we have? How to attempt to stem the tide of return missionaries leaving the church? Patrol the borders, talk about dynasty, lay on guilt and shame at increasing levels. I’m just not seeing how this is going to appeal to people or help, but I’m not very smart and cannot see the future, so I don’t know seems to be a common answer I give a lot these days.
SunbeltRed wrote:Perhaps MGF’s have become the focus because they realize that convert baptisms in the West are hitting a wall and will probably continue to decrease (as a %of population) over the next many years. Thus, how do we keep what we have? How to attempt to stem the tide of return missionaries leaving the church? Patrol the borders, talk about dynasty, lay on guilt and shame at increasing levels.
I’m just not seeing how this is going to appeal to people or help, but I’m not very smart and cannot see the future, so I don’t know seems to be a common answer I give a lot these days.
I agree. As I have thought about this it seems like exactly what they’re saying. I also agree it’s not going to have the affect they think it is, but they said they have prayed and pondered it for a long time and they’re the prophets, not me.
(Clouded by the dark side the future is. Difficult to see. Guessing is fun though!)
Someone made the point that this was really for a leadership meeting; it just got shared with the lay membership. The issue with that is that leaders are more concerned with higher level goals and trends whereas members internalize messages from leaders as applies (or doesn’t) to their own situation (not to a population which is where trends emerge). It’s like telling a group of salespeople selling cars that the real key is to get customer loyalty through referrals and getting people to buy a car for their kids also. But when you take that message out to the consumers directly the message is off. “But I only need one car.” “I already have a car.” “I can’t afford a car.” “I bike for health reasons.” “How greedy are they? I already bought one car. What do they want from me? Blood?” “I don’t have any kids or friends who need a car.” hawkgrrrl wrote:Someone made the point that this was really for a leadership meeting; it just got shared with the lay membership. The issue with that is that leaders are more concerned with higher level goals and trends whereas members internalize messages from leaders as applies (or doesn’t) to their own situation (not to a population which is where trends emerge). It’s like telling a group of salespeople selling cars that the real key is to get customer loyalty through referrals and getting people to buy a car for their kids also. But when you take that message out to the consumers directly the message is off. “But I only need one car.” “I already have a car.” “I can’t afford a car.” “I bike for health reasons.” “How greedy are they? I already bought one car. What do they want from me? Blood?” “I don’t have any kids or friends who need a car.”
It’s part of the video that’s supposed to be shown all the way down to at least the ward council level. I saw it in stake council, each bishop was given a flash drive and instructed to use the whole thing, both parts, in in their ward/branch councils. There was no mention of not using it during fifth Sunday lessons and so forth, and frankly some if it has some weight to it. I like Elder Cook’s plea to give sacrament meeting back to the Savior at the end of part one, for instance, and wouldn’t hesitate to share that with the general membership. I also liked Elder Anderson’s portion about the sacrament being much more than just renewing our baptismal covenants. I’m not so sure it wasn’t intended to be shared with the general populace – it’s not like those secret seminary trainings.
DarkJedi wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:Someone made the point that this was really for a leadership meeting; it just got shared with the lay membership. The issue with that is that leaders are more concerned with higher level goals and trends whereas members internalize messages from leaders as applies (or doesn’t) to their own situation (not to a population which is where trends emerge). It’s like telling a group of salespeople selling cars that the real key is to get customer loyalty through referrals and getting people to buy a car for their kids also. But when you take that message out to the consumers directly the message is off. “But I only need one car.” “I already have a car.” “I can’t afford a car.” “I bike for health reasons.” “How greedy are they? I already bought one car. What do they want from me? Blood?” “I don’t have any kids or friends who need a car.”
It’s part of the video that’s supposed to be shown all the way down to at least the ward council level. I saw it in stake council, each bishop was given a flash drive and instructed to use the whole thing, both parts, in in their ward/branch councils. There was no mention of not using it during fifth Sunday lessons and so forth, and frankly some if it has some weight to it. I like Elder Cook’s plea to give sacrament meeting back to the Savior at the end of part one, for instance, and wouldn’t hesitate to share that with the general membership. I also liked Elder Anderson’s portion about the sacrament being much more than just renewing our baptismal covenants. I’m not so sure it wasn’t intended to be shared with the general populace – it’s not like those secret seminary trainings.
Same here, flash drives went out to the Bishops to train the ward council and use as inspired. DJ, I am with you, I think the first portion of the training of bringing more Christ to the worship service is good, I don’t disagree with it, in fact I think its a step in the right direction.
It’s the second part that has my hackles on edge, because I have seen my mom internalize the failure part of the message very deeply, so deeply that it is a reason I will probably never leave the church while she is still alive. Promote Sabbath Day, be my guest, in and of itself I think it can be a good thing, but lay on the “your and your children’s eternal salvation is at stake” rhetoric along with it and “the other guy” is getting ready to make an appearance.
I love the concept of multi-generational families and the concept of eternal sealing. I love the concept of making our worship service more worshipful.
I loathe the idea that parents can be blamed unilaterally for their children’s choices, even as I understand that many choices by children actually can be attributed directly to the actions and choices of parents.
I have NO problem with the concept and focus of this initiative. I don’t like at least one of the applications / implications / implementations of the message – but that isn’t surprising, since I don’t have a man-crush on Elder Bednar. Much of what he says just doesn’t work for me, and I am okay with that, since much of what some others I like say doesn’t work for others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.