- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
nibbler wrote:
An extension to #7. Many will apostatize because of what will be said, they will be hitting the theme of follow the prophet, choose you this day whom ye will serve, because whatever is said will test you. Aside from hitting the theme of follow the prophet real hard (it is general conference after all ) I don’t see this happening. I don’t see this happening on a large scale. The church is VERY protective of its membership. They like to see the membership numbers growth rate increasing
just like large companies like to see their stock price growing. I don’t think there will ever be policies meant to purge us, although I do think we have seen some people leave voluntarily over the November policy. If there are massive exodii, it would be a result of the leaders being out of touch with the membership. If it was intentional, and announced that way, it would be evidence this whole thing is more true than I figured. Organizational interests drive the bus in our religion. If you accept the premise that no one really knows when the second coming will happen,
I can’t see leaders enacting policies that would cause major bloodletting. No way.
It actually wouldn’t surprise me if Nelson rolled out some new policy changes and/or “revelations” that would be especially hard for many Church members to accept. Just look at what he has already done so far. This is the same guy that publicly doubled down on the November policy, abandoned scouts, combined the high priests and Elders quorums, changed home/visiting teaching to “ministering” and publicly discouraged the use of Mormon and LDS after the recent “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign and so many Church websites already used these terms.
Basically it looks like if Nelson thinks something is a good idea for whatever reasons then he is typically going to just go ahead and do it without worrying much if at all about how many members will react to it, all the implications and possible unintended side effects of it, etc.To me there is no question Nelson is capable of making major negative or difficult changes and the more interesting question is what kind of changes could be seriously under consideration that could actually cause very many Church members to leave? As far as the two hour block rumor I think it has gotten to the point where now many Church members will be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.
With the exception of the November policy, I don’t think these changes will tick off people. They are all changes that people seemed to embrace. A lot of people thought Scouts was a racket when it comes to fees etcetera. I don’t know if he unilaterally makes these kinds of decisions without thought for the membership, but I know growth in membership and activation/retention is a huge issue for them. I honestly don’t think they will enact policies that cause a bloodletting as a result — if it happens, it will be due to poor judgment.
nibbler wrote:
Sometimes I get the feeling that we stretch the announcements portion of the meeting out to purposely leave less time for the lesson.
Lol. Been there, done that!
nibbler wrote:
Relaxing WoW requirements. I got to thinking (dangerous), during the mission years I taught a lot of people that would have been baptized if not for a coffee or smoking habit. I wonder whether the church would relax WoW requirements (even if only in order to be baptized, you’d still have to comply for the temple) so they could experience a greater influx of converts.
I would love that to happen for the reason you stated. It seems so strange to say, “Yes, Brother Jones, I see that you have faith, wish to follow Jesus and join His Church. But I notice that your house smells like coffee, so until you can stop that, you are not qualified to be baptized as a disciple of our Lord.” It would make sense to move to a model of being OK with imperfectness. I mean, if a member has a cup of coffee, do we excommunicate them?On the other hand, we have two heart surgeons in the FP/Q12 and we have 13 others in those groups who have probably never had a sip of coffee/beer in their lives.
nibbler wrote:3) A lot of time is spent on announcements that are always the same. Does the EQP have any announcements? Of course he does. He’s going to get up and remind people to do their ministering teaching. Yup, there he goes. Does the deacon’s quorum president have any announcements? Nope, says he hasn’t got anything. No wait, the young men’s president reminded him of the camp out they had. Turns out the camp out was “good.” Does anyone else have any announcements? Going once… going twice… no. Now we’ll run out the rest of the clock reading from a talk.
:angel: Interestingly, one thing I have noticed since the implementation of ministering is that I no longer hear the “get out and do your ministering” thing, at least in my own ward. I did hear it in a ward I was visiting recently.
I do agree that sometimes the announcements can get carried away. There has been a concerted effort to limit announcements, especially in SM, in my stake. Generally only major announcements are made in SM and people are told to refer to the bulletin, which is admittedly not always accurate or complete. PH, and I assume RS, are much more long winded with announcements. Yet, a friend I often speak with is generally unaware of things which have been announced even though I sit near him most Sundays and know that he was there during the announcements.
🙄 On Own Now wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Relaxing WoW requirements. I got to thinking (dangerous), during the mission years I taught a lot of people that would have been baptized if not for a coffee or smoking habit. I wonder whether the church would relax WoW requirements (even if only in order to be baptized, you’d still have to comply for the temple) so they could experience a greater influx of converts.
I would love that to happen for the reason you stated. It seems so strange to say, “Yes, Brother Jones, I see that you have faith, wish to follow Jesus and join His Church. But I notice that your house smells like coffee, so until you can stop that, you are not qualified to be baptized as a disciple of our Lord.” It would make sense to move to a model of being OK with imperfectness. I mean, if a member has a cup of coffee, do we excommunicate them?
I’ve heard that no one in the Church has ever had official Church disciplinary action taken against them for violating the Word of Wisdom (not counting missionaries, or those in leadership). The worst that can happen is losing a TR, the bishop saying you can’t take the sacrament, and possibly assigning you to a new calling. On the levels of sin, it’s pretty low.
There’s also this human thing, where if you give someone some wiggle room, they are going to wiggle. There are so many laxed commandments no one pays attention to; with the WOW, eat meat sparingly? Eat the proper fruits and veggies in their season? Almost nobody does it. If the word of wisdom is enforced how it is currently, people will break it “sparingly”. If the word of wisdom is relaxed, people will break it ALL THE TIME.
It’s the same thing with the BYU honor code. Do people still fornicate? Look at porn? Drink? You bet they do! But they also do it much less than they would if it wasn’t so strictly enforced.
SilentDawning wrote:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
It actually wouldn’t surprise me if Nelson rolled out some new policy changes and/or “revelations” that would be especially hard for many Church members to accept. Just look at what he has already done so far. This is the same guy that publicly doubled down on the November policy, abandoned scouts, combined the high priests and Elders quorums, changed home/visiting teaching to “ministering” and publicly discouraged the use of Mormon and LDS after the recent “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign and so many Church websites already used these terms.Basically it looks like if Nelson thinks something is a good idea for whatever reasons then he is typically going to just go ahead and do it without worrying much if at all about how many members will react to it, all the implications and possible unintended side effects of it, etc.To me there is no question Nelson is capable of making major negative or difficult changes and the more interesting question is what kind of changes could be seriously under consideration that could actually cause very many Church members to leave? As far as the two hour block rumor I think it has gotten to the point where now many Church members will be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.
With the exception of the November policy, I don’t think these changes will tick off people. They are all changes that people seemed to embrace.A lot of people thought Scouts was a racket when it comes to fees etcetera. I don’t know if he unilaterally makes these kinds of decisions without thought for the membership, but I know growth in membership and activation/retention is a huge issue for them. I honestly don’t think they will enact policies that cause a bloodletting as a result— if it happens, it will be due to poor judgment.
I don’t know about that; there are some members that didn’t like having the high priests and Elders quorums combined and I think discouraging the use of Mormon or LDS as identifiers and telling people to use the full name instead or “the restored Church of Jesus Christ” will definitely annoy some Church members and even add weight to their shelf if Nelson keeps pushing this idea. After seeing some of the leaked leadership videos and documents I’m not convinced that they really have a very good idea what will cause members to stay in the Church or leave in the first place.
An example of how Nelson has done things so far is the announcement of a temple in Russia. The Church didn’t actually have official plans to build a temple in Russia. The government in Russia has already cracked down on the LDS Church to some extent and even more so against the Jehovah’s Witnesses so it hardly seems like a very stable environment to promise a temple. What happens if there still isn’t any temple there 20 years from now?
To be fair I think they actually are concerned about it but it looks like they don’t really know what to do about it and they have painted themselves into a corner to some extent with claims about prophets and revelation, how the “gospel” doesn’t change, etc.
nibbler wrote:
So this post isn’t just me complaining, here’s another rumor that I’ll start.Relaxing WoW requirements. I got to thinking (dangerous), during the mission years I taught a lot of people that would have been baptized if not for a coffee or smoking habit. I wonder whether the church would relax WoW requirements (even if only in order to be baptized,you’d still have to comply for the temple) so they could experience a greater influx of converts.
This would actually surprise me even though I think it is a change that would actually make sense from a fairly TBM and practical perspective if leaders really pay attention to the history of how it evolved to the point it is now and what the scriptures actually say. Personally I don’t think it will happen as long as Nelson is in charge, maybe someday if Uchtdorf or someone more like that ends up as Church President. For example, in the last General Conference Nelson told a story about how his parents weren’t living the Word of Wisdom when he was young so he smashed all their bottles of liquor on the basement floor as if that was something to be proud of. Seriously, he never said anything like I shouldn’t have done that, we need to respect others’ agency, etc. he just said he expected his father to punish him but that he never said a word about it.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
Another example of how Nelson has done things so far is the announcement of a temple in Russia. The Church didn’t actually have official plans to build a temple in Russia but it sounds like Nelson basically thought why not and announced this on his own. The government in Russia has already cracked down on the LDS Church to some extent and even more so against the Jehovah’s Witnesses so it hardly seems like a very stable environment to promise a temple.
I think there are things we don’t know like private discussions in Russia. The Orthodox church hates competition, even the Salvation Army, but I don’t think this is out of the blue.
The key point is that we are NOT the JWs. I discussed the JWs recently on this forum. They are extremely anti-state and anti-military and that is probably what rankles with Moscow. The LDS doesn’t have that issue:
Quote:We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law
The main risk to a Russian temple is the constant anti-Russian content in the American media… but Russia today is a less repressive environment than East Germany was thirty plus years ago, and we got a temple there.
There is a temple in Kiev/Kyiv, but since the Russo-Ukrainian war many Russians won’t want to go there. Nor will the Ukraine want them there.
I know at this point I’m fairly positioned with my ideas and beliefs, and manage expectations to avoid frustrations…but… I’m predicting it will be a snowflake of change…to which everyone will whirl up stories of a huge blizzard about how amazing it all is.
I mean…did the missionary age really change much about missionary work?
Did the HP/EQ combined change anything?…except as Nibbler points out…there is one less announcement about ministering to be made in opening exercises (and..I guess it did take away my calling…but…not a big deal).
I don’t think the majority of people are starved for change…they don’t like change and prefer the conservative path to hold the line on “what we know to be true.” But if changes are made, and then church rolls on, pretty much the same, it seems to me.
Even if they do make the change for a 2 hour block…I’m guessing church will feel the same each Sunday.
I will not be watching conference again this year. I’ll read the headlines afterwards.
[Also…just as an admin note…for the etiquette on the board…should there be changes we like or don’t like, or not enough changes…let’s keep comments constructive to our thoughts and how we process them, and not personal attacks to President Nelson directly, lest we lose a level of respect even unintentionally, just as we might respect the Dalai Lama or Pope or any other figure deserving respect.Just a reminder on the tone so we don’t get off course here. It’s good for us to safely share our thoughts and disagree here, and be honest…but can’t cross the line of attacking the prophet personally.
Thanks for all your comments! Excuse mine if I share my views as too negative…I’m just sharing my own feelings where I’m at in my journey.]
Heber13 wrote:
I’m predicting it will be a snowflake of change…to which everyone will whirl up stories of a huge blizzard about how amazing it all is.…
I don’t think the majority of people are starved for change…they don’t like change and prefer the conservative path to hold the line on “what we know to be true.” But if changes are made, and then church rolls on, pretty much the same, it seems to me.
I agree. I guess, while I’d like to see change, the heart of the Church will remain pretty constant. It’s not the policies that make me sad, so much as some of the core teachings. Let’s say, for example, the biggest change possible happens: Women get the priesthood! Even better, they can be given any position within the Church, up to prophet. Wow! But… Don’t anybody take this the wrong way, but what would change? Now, instead of a man-bishop condemning me for my lack of faith, it’ll be a woman-bishop giving the same condemnation. Instead of getting lectured on the importance of home teaching, we’ll all get lectured on the importance of ministering. There will still be major gender discrimination. There will still be position pride and position envy in the Church. Those with “authority” will still make poorly thought-out decisions because of the promise of divine revelation.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d hate to be a member in Brigham Young’s time. I’m glad the church changes, and a lot of the change is good. But at it’s core, it’s the same Church it was back in 1832. No matter what change comes, it’ll still be a struggle for me. I’ll still have to learn to accept the Church as it is, and make peace with it.
dande48 wrote:
Don’t anybody take this the wrong way, but what would change? Now, instead of a man-bishop condemning me for my lack of faith, it’ll be a woman-bishop giving the same condemnation. Instead of getting lectured on the importance of home teaching, we’ll all get lectured on the importance of ministering. There will still be major gender discrimination. There will still be position pride and position envy in the Church. Those with “authority” will still make poorly thought-out decisions because of the promise of divine revelation.
I feel similarly skeptical
In my experience some female dominated churches seem to pander to female interests much as male dominated ones pander to male ones. dande48, While reading your post I couldn’t help but think, the church needs something more to hang its hat on than authority. Or is that the principle role of the church? Help people find comfort in having authoritative answers, authoritative ordinances, authoritative beliefs, etc.
Is it the church in particular that couldn’t change to meet your/our needs or is it more of that organized/formalized religion in general fails to meet your/our needs?
Perhaps this is the subject of some other thread but if it’s more of a general thing, what place can organized religion make for people that are at a place where organized religion doesn’t work? Is it best to just move on? Is such a person in the organized religion obligated to be pigeon-holed into a role of helping the organization be more authoritative for the benefit of people that do thrive in organized religion? Does that role meet their spiritual needs? What are their spiritual needs?
I look for Dande’s answer, and others who want to answer. But for me…my need right now in my life is to travel my own path for a while to sort things out. And I need a church to allow me to without pressure or shame or guilt. I need the church to change to be more accepting and open to different approaches and ideas and to drop so much authoritarianism and control of things. I need more spiritual experiences, and less formulas and recipes for success.
I don’t expect conference to provide me that.
Dande…what are you looking for? Others?
nibbler wrote:
dande48,Perhaps this is the subject of some other thread but if it’s more of a general thing, what place can organized religion make for people that are at a place where organized religion doesn’t work? Is it best to just move on? Is such a person in the organized religion obligated to be pigeon-holed into a role of helping the organization be more authoritative for the benefit of people that do thrive in organized religion? Does that role meet their spiritual needs? What are their spiritual needs?
This thread has taken a very interesting turn! (Or at least very interesting to me). I think Nibbler’s question is excellent and gets to the very core of organized religion. Organized religion does great at helping those in stage 2 or stage 3 faith. In fact, it serves them perfectly and gives them exactly what they need and are looking for. Once someone moves beyond that, organized religion can fall short in meeting someone’s spiritual needs. I’m not sure how organized religion can serve both those in stage 2 or 3 and also those in a 4 or 5 stage. Unless there are at least some spiritual leaders in those stages who can be mentors for those who need that guidance. And unless there can be more acceptance throughout the church in accepting, acknowledging, and even encouraging that type of development.
It’s a conundrum. Those in stage 4 or 5 can seem to be a threat. Where do they go for spiritual fulfillment? Are they obligated to stay and help those in stage 3 to be fulfilled?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.