- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This was a recent announcement by the Church. It relates to the minimum membership requirements for creating new stakes or changing boundaries.
When I read something like this, I wonder, what are they really doing? It’s probably nothing & I’m paranoid.
The questions that come to mind are:
Are they trying to create smaller stakes, wards & branches?
Are they trying to create more leadership positions & opportunities in given areas?
Is it a way to encourage more tithe payers, etc?
I’m always looking for the ulterior motive.
If I am being paranoid than “never mind”.
It seems like there are usually reasons behind the stated reasons when there is any new policy change. In my stake, we’ve noticed new wards created when it seems like there are not the members to fill those wards. All the wards are smaller now, there are fewer meaningful ward activities, and fewer people to fill the callings. What’s more, the boundaries are sometimes meaningfully geographic, but also completely goofy and look like some political gerrymandering. I’ve been told, in essence, that’s exactly the case in order to collect the requisite number of righteous priesthood holders sufficient to create a ward.
My suspicion in the case of my stake, is that an ambitious stake president wants to give the appearance of growth to hopefully gain church recognition and/or a temple in our area. I also suspect he’s not the only church ambitious stake president or area authority out there. So, maybe this general
standardization of policy regarding the creation of wards and stakes is meant to slow down the tendency of such folks to push growth when there really is none, but couched in the idea that we’re just going to make stakes abroad look more like stakes in the states. Who knows.
Minyan Man wrote:This was a recent announcement by the Church. It relates to the minimum membership requirements for creating new stakes or changing boundaries.
When I read something like this, I wonder, what are they really doing? It’s probably nothing & I’m paranoid.
The stated intent is to standardize the “numbers” to 2000 people across the globe.
– Short term impact “slightly fewer less stakes over time” in nations outside U.S. and Canada (the requirement is shifting by needing 100 more people).
– Short/Medium impact “more stakes” with the “membership bar” set lower (mostly U.S. and Canada). Which means, “Mormon Corridor” requirements may change.
From years of playing civilization based video games, I formulate these conclusions:“Group A (slightly fewer less stakes)” will have a short term delay as some stakes take longer to reach that 2000 person bar. I think that within 5 years, only statistic-minded people will calculate the difference.
Group B (“More Stakes”) is more likely to decrease travel time for an individual member, and more likely to group like-minded members together (to an unknown degree). I think in some specific instances, it will allow “marginalized families” to “shop around” a bit better if there are more stakes in their area. But that really depends on where the family is and how many stakes there are in their area. Having always been outside Utah, I don’t know how that will play out with the more concentrated membership.
Yes, “the smaller stakes” will have a more impressive number to rattle off among people who care about such things. But people are not leaving/decreasing church participation “because the church doesn’t have enough units”, so ALL consequences are going to be “consequences in the margins” aka indirect consequences.
SIDE TANGEANT: I think it could be an interesting church culture that has a “woman predominant” that was formed with the bare minimum of priesthood holders. BYU researchers figured out that a meeting needs to be “3 women for every 1 man” in order to achieve a ratio where the majority of women feel comfortable speaking and that they will not be overshadowed by male speakers. In theory, you could have a ratio of 1880 women and 120 men (minimum requirement). To match the researcher observations, 1500 women and 500 actively involved men is where the power shift should be (but that isn’t taking in account the “moral authority the priesthood wields”).
Is it because of a need to downsize in general? When it comes to numbers, I wonder about the impact to any given ward or branch, regarding the policy change where there has to be (2) primary teachers for each class. That impact has happened for a while now. Units have gotten used to it by now? If a given ward has 8 primary classes, the ward has to come up with 8 additional teachers. They you can combine HP & Elders. Plus, eliminate the local 70’s quorums.
That will eliminate some leadership positions.
Minyan Man wrote:
When it comes to numbers, I wonder about the impact to any given ward or branch, regarding the policy change where there has to be (2) primary teachers for each class. That impact has happened for a while now. Units have gotten used to it by now? If a given ward has 8 primary classes, theward has to come up with 8 additional teachers. They you can combine HP & Elders. Plus, eliminate the local 70’s quorums.
That will eliminate some leadership positions.
I remember being a primary teacher about a decade ago. The Primary President explained to me that the rule for me as a man to never be alone in the classroom (or if absolutely necessary, to keep the door open) was for my protection. I remember asking about the female primary teachers and why they did not deserve similar protection. Well, it looks like I got my wish.
P.S. It was never for my protection to begin with and I am mature enough to understand the church making policy decisions based on business needs and liability considerations. The fact that I was given the line that it was for my benefit seemed patronizing. Other than my one snarky comment above, I was happy to comply. I also worked in cub scouts and was happy to honor the “two deep” rule.
Minyan Man wrote:
When it comes to numbers, I wonder about the impact to any given ward or branch, regarding the policy change where there has to be (2) primary teachers for each class. That impact has happened for a while now. Units have gotten used to it by now? If a given ward has 8 primary classes, theward has to come up with 8 additional teachers. They you can combine HP & Elders. Plus, eliminate the local 70’s quorums.
That will eliminate some leadership positions.
Our ward still struggles with the two deep classes in Primary and YM/YW. But our ward is struggling anyway. We once met that 250/20 active MP holder threshold but we are far from that now. Sixty in Sunday attendance is high average. My wife is in the Primary presidency where they average 3 kids, if all the “active” kids come there are 5. They usually have them in two groups (younger/older) but often combine and most weeks one of the presidency has to go to one or both classes. There is also a nursery with 2 kids, and it’s also not unusual for one of the presidency to go there. But bigger wards probably don’t have the same problem.
AmyJ wrote:
The stated intent is to standardize the “numbers” to 2000 people across the globe.– Short term impact “slightly fewer less stakes over time” in nations outside U.S. and Canada (the requirement is shifting by needing 100 more people).
– Short/Medium impact “more stakes” with the “membership bar” set lower (mostly U.S. and Canada). Which means, “Mormon Corridor” requirements may change.
I think this is pretty much spot on. It made little sense for there to be a difference between North America and the rest of the world anyway, except perhaps to say “Look how many stakes we have in Ghana!” when the the threshold for a stake was much lower there. Also, raising the number required in other places (I’m thinking South America and Africa mostly) helps ensure longer term viability. My son served a mission in Chile where they often didn’t have enough “worthy” MP holders in a stake to fill a high council. There was a (corrupt) bishop in one of his wards that had no counselors and had been bishop for years because there was no one else. I don’t think Chile is unique in that respect, although it may be more pronounced there.
One more thought that I just wanted to be separate from the others. From the article (and Instagram it looks like), Elder Christofferson: Quote:“There is genius in the organization of local Church units based on geography. We don’t choose a congregation based on who we like or want to be with,” he wrote. “Wards are chosen for us based on a reasonable geographic alignment, and we learn to live with, serve, and love people who might well be different in background, preferences, and opinions.”
Or not. I know several people, and have known several over the years (and some have talked about this here as well) who just choose not to go than to go to a ward where they don’t feel liked or welcome or where they don’t get along with certain leaders. I think this is another example of the leadership living in a bubble they don’t think exists – it’s not all rainbows and unicorns, but no one they listen to is going to tell them that.
DarkJedi wrote:
From the article (and Instagram it looks like), Elder Christofferson:Quote:“There is genius in the organization of local Church units based on geography. We don’t choose a congregation based on who we like or want to be with,” he wrote. “Wards are chosen for us based on a reasonable geographic alignment, and we learn to live with, serve, and love people who might well be different in background, preferences, and opinions.”
Or not. I know several people, and have known several over the years (and some have talked about this here as well) who just choose not to go than to go to a ward where they don’t feel liked or welcome or where they don’t get along with certain leaders. I think this is another example of the leadership living in a bubble they don’t think exists – it’s not all rainbows and unicorns, but no one they listen to is going to tell them that.
I think it might have worked this way for Elder Christofferson – he learned to live with, serve, and love people he was in the geographical place with. It may have made some wards and related situations easier for him to sort out/accept believing there was a divine reason behind it (and to be fair, there may be/may have been). But as a lawyer and administrator, his geographical place was the court room, the administrative office, and related places. He was focused on the legal/laws side of people, not working directly with those individuals who are harder to love.
I also think that there is a “where else would we go?” bubble that the older leadership isn’t aware of. For them, “there is no where else”, and they cannot imagine somewhere else (and they don’t necessarily have the energy to be somewhere else either). I’m middle aged, and the “where else would I go (outside the church)” question gets solved by, “I would be elsewhere to get things done, to take care of myself, or to have fun. There are tons of entertainment options, enrichment options, and just being still options. I can be part of conversations to design spaces for me to interact with others that aren’t harmful to me that utilize my strengths.”
We start with whatever we as an organization are doing. We assume that it must be inspired/revealed because otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it. We create elaborate justifications for the advantages of this system of doing things. Sometimes, the way that we do things changes. We assume that the change must be inspired/revealed because otherwise we wouldn’t have changed it. We create elaborate justifications for the advantages of the change. repeat forever.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.