- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
NightSG wrote:
The one improvement I’ve seen was putting the Single Adults program (mostly) into the hands of single adults.
To me, that seems like a no-brainer. I’d take it one step farther and take out bishoprics from the equation, leaving, at most, one high councilor to oversee the singles programs. But the actual single rep (who is single BTW) is the one actually in charge. Period.One benefit that would arise from YSA wards being abolished would be that they wouldn’t constantly be hurting for membership to fill leadership callings. Rather than having to piece together a EQP, RSP, SSP, and WML from people who have little idea what they’re doing, you free up slots and the people who would be stuffed into them to do other things. YSAs would benefit greatly from more opportunities to interact with people from all walks of life instead of “same boat” and “bishopric”. Just throw on meaningful activities (most FHEs suck because it’s done by the same two people every week) and YSA reps and you’re golden. Put the activities on a rotation (and give them an actual budget to work with) and each ward rep only has to plan one thing a month to have two activities per week. I’d probably also make FHE separate from those two activities and emphasize that all activities are, in fact, optional.
At any rate, this is off topic.
I think we can all agree that the Brethren are out of touch and are answering with standard PR non-answers to difficult questions.
Beefster wrote:(most FHEs suck because it’s done by the same two people every week)
Every one I’ve been to was basically “let’s speed-read the high points of this Ensign article in five minutes or less, then spend the rest of the evening on fantasy football.”
Quote:I think we can all agree that the Brethren are out of touch and are answering with standard PR non-answers to difficult questions.
Some of them could become answers, if there was a serious push all the way down the chain of command to make it happen.
nibbler wrote:
Phrased differently, they’re stuck answering 21st century questions and concerns with 19th century answers.
Yes, I think that is a fair and concise assessment.
nibbler wrote:
They’re in a difficult position. Their theology has placed limits and constraints on the kind of answers they can give to the questions asked.They’re going to have to receive new revelation to give answers that are any more satisfying than the ones they gave.Until then, they are painted into a corner…Phrased differently, they’re stuck answering 21st century questions and concerns with 19th century answers.
I don’t know about that; personally I think there are quite a few possible answers they could have come up with that would have sounded better to both TBMs and outsiders alike than the answers they gave even if they don’t feel like they can make major changes in the Church’s structure, commandments, etc. For example, even if they feel like they can’t ordain women that doesn’t mean they needed to respond to Peggy Fletcher Stack the way they did and talk about how women are meant to be wives and mothers as if that is the only thing they are good for.
Likewise I don’t believe that “marriage” is one of the only possible answers they could have given to the question about trying to retain millennials. In fact, it sounded almost more like some kind of Freudian slip than what I would expect them to openly admit publicly as one of the best answers they could think of for a simple question like that. Like I said before, I think many of these responses actually ended up basically adding fuel to the fire for people seriously questioning what the Church is doing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.