My LONG Summary of the CHI Training Today

[Anonymous]

The following are the highlights of the training session for me:

1) Pres. Monson said something that sounded at first like a typical Stage 3 outlook. He said, “There is safety in the handbooks.” However, by the time he finished his brief introductory remarks, and especially by the end of the training, it ended up representing much more of a Stage 5-6 statement to me – and that REALLY surprised me. [the change in how I understood it, not that he would say something that represents Stage 5-6 thinking]

He talked about how much time the FP spends correcting errors of local leaders – especially in regard to disciplinary councils.

2) Elder Oaks said that the CHI does NOT have the same standing as scripture, but that it represents the best understanding of our current leadership.

The current version has 12% fewer words than the last one – even with three new sections in this one. That is significant, imo. He also said explicitly that all women and men in leadership positions will have a FULL Handbook 2. It’s important for all leaders to know the responsibilities of each leader throughout the ward.

Leaders need to delegate extensively – and lessen things that are non-essential, like helping every member move.

The programs are less important than the people. Each individual member should not have more than ONE major calling – and that applies also to couples with minor children. They should not both have a major calling.

Official church policy is changed only by the FP – not by rumor or statements from individual leaders. [This one drew a laugh, but it’s instructive that he felt the need to say it.]

3) Elder Cook’s part blew me away. [Seriously, it almost left me speechless – and everyone knows how hard that is to do.]

PEC no longer is the top council at the local level. [Yeah, that’s right. Go ahead and re-read that if you have to in order to believe it.]

Ward Council is the primary ministering council now; PEC is to discuss anything that is not addressed in Ward Council and is to be “greatly reduced in length, perhaps to a few minutes prior to Ward Council”. [Totally didn’t see that one coming.] Welfare Committee is eliminated immediately, since those discussions now will occur in Ward Council. Everything that can be done outside of the actual Ward Council meeting (like calendaring and activity approval) should not be done in Ward Council. This change was done primarily to make sure that ALL local leaders have direct input into the decision-making process of the wards and branches, and it was stated forcefully that this means men AND women leaders acting as equals within a council.

Bishops were encouraged to solicit input from all council members and then reach decisions – NOT present their view and ask for input. (Later in the training, Elder Bednar said something like, “Sometimes Bishops express their opinions and then ask if anyone disagrees, which almost always is met with silence. Well, DUH!!” [That produced a laugh, but it was wonderful to hear it said openly.] ALL members of the Ward Council should be encouraged to speak “openly and honestly as equals through their own experiences and perspectives”. Bishops were told to value such open and honest input.

Each organization presidency has the authority to address issues that are internal to that organization – and have a voice in ward-wide issues.

Acitivities Committees are eliminated immediately. [another one I didn’t see coming] All ward-wide activities will be overseen by assignment from the Bishop, after input from the Ward Council. There should be an appropriate number of activities – enough, but not so many that families and members are over-whelmed.

Small units have the flexibility to adapt standard programs and policies to meet their needs, through inspiration from the councils in those units. In many cases, leaders may fill ONLY those callings that are essential. ALL service requires sacrifice, but excessive sacrifice should not be asked of anyone.

Young Single Adults can fill many positions to which they currently are not being called.

HT/VT may be adapted to meet local circumstances, if membership simply can’t visit every member each month. For example, some families may be removed from the visit list completely – or some families may be visited one month by HT and the next month by VT. Again, these decisions are to be made at the local level through inspired council discussion.

4) A model Ward Council was presented [and, as much as I usually dislike role-playing, I really liked this one].

It was stressed that it’s important to ask council members to ponder and pray about some issues or questions, then to come to the next meeting ready to discuss their impressions.

The YW Personal Progress and YM Duty to God were talked about as equal in importance.

At one point, the Bishop said to one of his counselors, “Talk with them, then extend the invitation – if it feels right.” “Invitation” was used multiple times; “challenge” wasn’t used at all.

The YM Pres. was talking about taking the YM to a member’s car shop to learn about some basic car maintenance, and the YW Pres. said, “Don’t forget the YW just because the activity is about fixing cars. They need to know how to do that, also.” Later, the YW Pres. was talking about the YW helping a recent widow clean her house, and the YM Pres. said, “Don’t forget the YM just because the activity is about cleaning houses. They need to know how to do that, also.”

The Bishop said, “Sister _______ has given me permission to talk about her needs.”

5) There was a panel discussion with Pres. Beck, Elder Ballard, Elder Holland, Elder Bednar and Elder Gonzales. [It seemed to be a combination of scripted and unscripted, and I enjoyed it immensely.]

Pres. Beck quoted the D&C passage about when ALL have spoken, ALL may be edified together. Elder Holland and Elder Bednar both emphasized that the focus was on families and parents and people, not programs. Elder Gonzales stressed assignment and follow-up. The following were the highlight quotes for me:

Quote:

The Bishop listened more than he talked. It’s important to direct, not dominate.

Quote:

The presentation seemed perfect, but the patterns are important despite the imperfections in the actual units.

Quote:

ALL presidencies are councils. They ALL should counsel as this one did.

Quote:

Nobody knows all the answers to all the questions. That’s why councils are so critical.

Quote:

“Counseling” is “counter-cultural” almost everywhere. It can be seen as a spiritual gift, in a way – and we all should seek that gift.

Quote:

The Bishop needs to acknowledge and affirm revelation from all sources and levels. He shouldn’t expect to receive all of it.

Quote:

The women in the council were engaged in the conversation. We haven’t always encouraged that as we should. (Elder Holland)

Quote:

Take care of in presidencies what can be done in presidencies. “You are a RS President. You have authority as a President for MUCH. Tell the Bishop, ‘This is what we found. This is what we’ve done.'” (Pres. Beck)

Quote:

We can be too quick to do too much. (Elder Bednar – addressing allowing others to do for themselves what they are able to do)

Quote:

International areas don’t have models for how to run the Church. The CHI generally is the only “model” they have. (Elder Gonzales)

[On a personal note, I found it interesting that Pres. Beck interrupted Elder Ballard at one point to add her own comment about something he was saying – and not one of the men on the panel batted an eye or seemed surprised or upset in any way. It was obvious that it had happened previously. That seems like such a little thing, but it impressed me.]

[The summaries from each participant were enlightening and quite powerful. I will summarize Pres. Beck’s last, since it was the second strongest highlight of the training for me:]

Elder Holland – We need to teach, first and foremost. We can’t motivate like the world motivates, especially by using negativity and threats. We need to teach.

Elder Bednar – My fondest wish is that we could remove the word “meeting” from our vocabulary – as in, “We are going to a meeting.” I wish we could view them as “revelatory experiences” – and that won’t happen unless we strive to make them such experiences and quit viewing them just as meetings.

Elder Gonzales – We need to seek the will of the Lord.

Elder Ballard – There is great power in group synergy – when WE decide we will act together. Women are just as important as men in everything we do.

Pres. Beck – We have to decide what counts. The Savior didn’t count statistics and numbers. What counted to him was caring, love, service, ministering, blessing, etc. We need to make a new beginning in the Church and count as He counts.”

6) Elder Packer finished with a short statement, and it was the absolute highlight of the training for me. It reminded me of why I sustain him as a prophet and apostle. I mean that sincerely. It was astounding, and if he dies before the next General Conference, it will be the memory of him that stays with me. Among the things he said, in my own summarized words (except where I use quotation marks), were:

Quote:

This CHI is meant to provide “simplification and flexibility”. “Let me underline that.”

Quote:

Pres. Clark once said that too much regimentation can remove revelation. We are in danger of that happening in the Church.

Quote:

ALL meetings should be conducted by the Spirit. It is time for our young men and young women to prophecy and for our old men and women to dream dreams.

Quote:

There is a danger of establishing the Church and not the Gospel. Planting the Gospel in our hearts MUST accompany having the Church in our lives. Busy-ness can’t replace testimony.

Quote:

Families are not tools to staff the Church; the Church is a tool to serve families. Don’t over-burden families!

[Feel free to share your impressions generally of the training, and feel free to excerpt parts of this post and start your own post about something that was said today.]

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray — I read a bootleg copy on the internet.

I feel they are finally putting their money/policy where their mouth is — we have always said women are equal partners but few of the structures around us supported it. Elevating Ward Council is a step in the right direction.

Putting the Ward council at the head of the meeting pecking order gets the women out of the back shop and into the forefront. Great job FP and Q12.

I also heard/read that RS presidents can now attend PEC as needed by the Bishopric — another good step forward.

I liked the fact that the manual has sections on adaptations to small wards and branches so we aren’t reading a book written for Utah population and resource densities. Although they do script some of these situations, the fact that they are now ACKNOWLEDGING that every Ward on the planet can’t behave like a well-staffed ward is positive.

On home teaching — yippee — they now acknowledge that phone calls and letters can be used when there are insufficient resources to home teach everyone. I just wish they had a clause that indicates letters and phone calls can also be used in circumstances when members don’t want home teachers as guests in their home. I just hope they allow some form of tracking of contacts vs visits so priesthood leaders are continually NOT judged on the gold standard of an in-home visit when members dont’ want you there. So, hopefully our systems will keep pace with our policies. There is also a clause about RS visits being used (I’m not sure how) when there are small wards. Again, another one for the women.

Moving!!!!!!!! Moving!!!!! Moving!!!!!! What a relief that is. I may even do it willingly now that it’s not expected.

I’m also glad they have said you shouldn’t expect everyone to sacrifice their left arm as in the past. Perhaps this will stop local leaders from taking our commitment for granted. Naturally, there should still be sacrifice, but a huge issue for me were the times they expected me to take on hefty callings when I was already stretched.

At first I thought divesting the Ward of a social activities committee was a stupid idea. However, after a few minutes of reflection — I like it. The Ward Council can assign an individual to do it, or a couple auxiliaries. This is actually a great idea as it can leverage the talents of individual members of the Ward, and even get someone who is partially active involved. Ward Social activities committees have rarely worked in the past — the activities are infrequent. Plus, project-based initiatives are good for volunteers because they can really apply themselves over a brief period and then see an end in sight — and aren’t expected to do it forever.

I like the idea that it’s not about the Church, it’s about individuals. I’ve felt it’s all about the Church for quite a while with the money, time, and respect flowing mostly one way. Kudos on acknowledging that what’s good for individuals is, in the long run, good for the Church.

Some things I felt were missing. The section on callings and releases, after they mention the private interview where the person is thanked for their work in the calling, it could indicate something like “members should continue in their callings until they are formally released in an announcement during the appropriate meeting. Except in rare circumstances, the announcement should occur shortly after the individual is informed of their release in the private interview” or something similar. I know this is autobiographical, but to release someone informally and then leave you hanging in the calling, with the whole Ward expecting you to be going full-tilt for months upon months on end is not good for the Church.

After my read of the handbook, I see they changed a whole whack of things I’ve been disturbed about over that last couple years. When I told my wife, she said “maybe theire lurking at StayLDS for ideas”. Probably not, but the alignment with some of the changes I’ve suggested to her over the years is startling.

Ray — thanks for thinking of myself and cwald by the way when you heard these things. It’s encouraging to know someone out there truly understands where I’m coming from and cares enough to make note of it. I appreciate that, I really do. No one at the local level does, that’s for sure.

[Anonymous]

Re: YSA’s holding additional callings. Is the Young in that intentional? Is there still an age beyond which a Single is a Menace to Society?

Thanks,

Tom

[Anonymous]

THANK YOU Ray. That was very informative and sounds like the FP and leaders must have heard enough by now that too many thought the church was becoming a corporation and looseing the spirit of the law. I am happy to hear about the changes. Too much burn out and putting families first is so important.

[Anonymous]

Tom, I love the menace to society reference. For anyone who doesn’t recognize it, it’s from a rumor of something that is attributed to Brigham Young.

The comment about YSA’s was in relation to the Bishop’s and Branch President’s increased responsibility to care for them in particular. Nothing was said about regular, old single adults 😈 in that context.

[Anonymous]

Ray… Thank you so much for posting your notes. I loved Sister Beck’s final thoughts, and as for Pres. Packer…Wow! …words I would have never expected him to say! Thanks again for sharing… after a less than inspiring GC, my hopes have again been lifted.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

Thanks for taking the time to put this post together especially since you lost it the first time which I’m sure was very frustrating for you. I am very happy with the tone and mood set by the meeting and the handbook. I have great hopes that the local leadership will follow this encouraging book. I hope practice will mirror the intent. Thanks again.

Canada

[Anonymous]

canadiangirl wrote:

Ray,

…. I am very happy with the tone and mood set by the meeting and the handbook. I have great hopes that the local leadership will follow this encouraging book. I hope practice will mirror the intent. Thanks again.

Canada

Me too.

What was said about the new emphasis on having a TR to perform ordinances?

[Anonymous]

What was said about the new emphasis on having a TR to perform ordinances?

The three paragraphs dealing with that issue were read verbatim – but, in actuality, there really isn’t a new emphasis. It simply was clarified to be applicable to a few specific situations – like being the voice in ordinances. The general rule of “worthiness” was in the former handbook; this one clarifies it as being worthy of a temple recommend (NOT actually holding a recommend). (interesting wording)

Those things that require temple worthiness are: voice in confirmation of someone as a member; conferring the MP; ordaining a person to an office in the MP; setting apart a person to a calling.

A father who holds the MP but is NOT fully temple worthy may name and bless his children (as in baby blessings). Any father who holds any Priesthood may baptize his children or ordain his sons to offices in the AP – without any mention of objective qualifications. A father who holds the appropriate Priesthood but is not temple worthy may participate in all of the ordinances where he can’t be the voice.

Finally, the requirement (should) to show a current temple recommend (or a Recommend to Perform an Ordinance form) outside of one’s own unit applies ONLY to acting as voice. It does not apply to mere participation.

Frankly, this has been WAY overblown in some discussions, imo – since the actual restrictions are few and understandable.

[Anonymous]

*Brian stands up and applauds*

Sounds really great Ray. Thanks for taking all that time to write notes and then make a post about it. I really liked the theme of adapting the giant buffet of Church programs to the needs of the local level, ESPECIALLY in smaller units like are so common outside Utah and the main LDS population centers. Focusing on the results and the needs of the members, and not so much on making sure that every unit has ALL the programs implemented in the same way is encouraging to me.

When I think of that topic, I remember once working with a Primary President in one ward. I was a scout leader, and one of the more experienced ones. I knew what to do, and how to keep the boys interested and engaged. I wanted to support the sister as much as possible, she was a great PP, generally, and very caring. But she spent an ENORMOUS amount of her limited time and energy (in addition to being a mother of 8 kids) researching a trying to coordinate all the publications ever produced on the scouting program so she could understand it. She had a deep need to make it all tie together (since she viewed it as absolute revelation), and made a 3 inch thick binder with all the various pronouncements and requirements.

The reason she did this was because of her belief that our program had to work exactly the right way, matching the pronouncements from SLC. It would have saved her so much time and energy if I could have convinced her that we needed to just do the best we could and adapt the program to meet the needs of the boys in the troop. Having an “official” policy clarification, like in the new edition, was really important for people like her (in a good way).

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Frankly, this has been WAY overblown in some discussions, imo – since the actual restrictions are few and understandable.

Oh? I guess I was unaware that one had to have a TR to ordain the MP or to ordain another a member of the church. I wonder how many times that policy was not followed in the last 10 years? I’ve done it at least twice myself.

I don’t know Ray – did it go from being “worthiness” to “temple worthy?” I don’t know these things. If it did – it is huge, as to be “worthy” is entirely different than what mormon consider to be temple worthy. You and I both agree there are many many folks in our ward/branches that drink coffee and tea, who are VERY worthy – more worthy than many others who currently hold TR. So I guess, I disagree with you on this not being a big deal if they are now stating that “being worthy” means one must abide by the WoW and pay 100% tithing.

I like your notes on the meeting. All good.

[Anonymous]

I think the CHI is important. I’ve stated before and say it again. 85% of the members WANT IT, ASK FOR IT, NEED IT and would have a tough time functioning in the church without it. It’s only the 15% of us poor SOBs that have problems with the whole concept.

You know, actually, i don’t even have a problem with a general manual of guidelines and procedures. What I dislike is that SO MANY members consider/considered it scripture and following it like the ancient Isrealites followed “the law.” AND I also have problems with the concept that only the “upper crust” of the church is “privileged” to have a copy, be able to read it and know what is in it. (Martin Luther all over again.) I know I know – I’ve just stated the argument for the reason — I’ve heard it many times – members take it as scripture and can’t handle it – so they aren’t allowed to have a copy and know what the rules and procedures are.

….and I still disagree with the concept.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

So I guess, I disagree with you on this not being a big deal if they are now stating that “being worthy” means one must abide by the WoW and pay 100% tithing.

I’m sorry Ray, but I have to agree with Cwald on this. I isn’t that big a deal, and is way overblown, as long as it doesn’t effect the people who say it isn’t a big deal. It isn’t doesn’t change anything for them.

It is a big deal to me because it changes my relationship to the church. And on some levels, that’s all that really matters. Sure, I do not represent a significant majority of active members, so in that regard it isn’t a “big deal” from the macro organizational level. It just matters to individual, real people, not to organizational level “statistics.”

[Anonymous]

I just learned that the Church has posted the training and volume 2 of the CHI on its website for all to see. We can all watch the training and view the book and make up our own minds.

[Anonymous]

behappy wrote:

I just learned that the Church has posted the training and volume 2 of the CHI on its website for all to see. We can all watch the training and view the book and make up our own minds.

Sorry, but that is not entirely true. Most of the things we are discussing and that are “controversial” are in volume 1 — which is not on the website. It is only available to church priesthood leadership down to the BP/Bishops. It can only be read by regular members via bootlegging a version off the internet.

[Author]

Posts