- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d categorize the changes that the Church can make as falling into one of three buckets: Doctrine – the teachings of the Church or the eternal truths revealed by God
Policy – requirements and restrictions that govern how the Church and its members are to behave
Operations – day to day workings of the Church
I think it’s interesting to note that so far, most of the changes under RMN have been clearly Operational Changes: 2-hr church, ending relationship with BSA, focus on home study with new material, Seminary alignment with home/ward study schedules, discontinuing most pageants, mission calls online, emphasis on the name of the Church, ministering replacing HT/VT.
A smaller number have been Policy Changes: new Bishop/youth interview guidelines, ordination at 11, reversal of Nov 15 Policy, sister missionary attire, combine all men into one group (this isn’t a Doctrinal Change, because there is still a HP Quorum at the Stake level, just like before).
There has been only one change under RMN that I would consider Doctrine: Temple wording, not for streamlining, but for removal of some former gender-specific constructs.
While most of the change has been good, the reality is that the substance of these changes has been mostly just operational. I hope to see more Policy and Doctrine Changes.
Examples of Policy Changes we could hear would be de-genderizing many callings in the Church (you don’t have to be a man to be the SS President, you don’t have to be a woman to be the Primary President), or not requiring WoW adherence for convert baptism (both possible).
Examples of Doctrinal Changes would be women in the priesthood or changing the specifics of the WoW (neither of which I expect this time).
Quote:Examples of Policy Changes we could hear would be de-genderizing many callings in the Church (you don’t have to be a man to be the SS President, you don’t have to be a woman to be the Primary President), or not requiring WoW adherence for convert baptism (both possible).
This would be a nice, big change.
Also allowing women/girls to be witnesses – not towel barers in the temple would go a long way.
On Own Now wrote:
Examples of Doctrinal Changes would be women in the priesthood or changing the specifics of the WoW (neither of which I expect this time).
You could argue that coffee and tea are policy items — scripture inspired the policy, but it’s not specific to coffee and tea. It says “hot drinks” but you could argue that alcoholic drinks are hot drinks. For the longest time, coffee and tea weren’t on the naughty list either. It seems that what is policy and what is doctrine is a blurry line in our church. Which I’m not unhappy with — blurriness gives wiggle room when it’s time to change. Doctrine — that is harder.
Well, I’m disappointed. No major changes. Although one has to be grateful for the many changes already made. They were calling the prophet Hustle M. Nelson for a while there….now it’s time for Nestle M. Nelson (nestling into the changes). I had my hopes up about a relaxation of the WoW but looks like that ain’t happening. That was my number 1 pick after ruling out earthquake order changes that were so drastic they seemed infeasible (women and the priesthood, recognizing same sex marriage). My wife was sniffing the Orange Pekoe Tea boxes at Wal-Mart recently, and I was thinking about all the exotic coffee flavors out there now. Funny, I never even thought about taking coffee until it became a possibility in one of the rumor threads online and that my wife frequents.
Guess I’ll go back to reveling in two-hour church…
I too was disappointed. Not so much that not much was announced, but how we buy into the whole “take your vitamins” rhetoric. This can’t help but NOT live up to the hype. As for the WoW changes, it won’t affect me much one way or another. I’m on record with my wife that if it were sanctioned (or not penalized) by the church it wouldn’t taste as good. 😆 Lack of a policy change on that just makes my wait a little longer for home brewed options.The real disappointment for me was nothing on missions or even mini missions for youth. Sooooo many kids are retuning home early. Of my son’s 4 closest friends, 2 are home, as is my son. All for similar reasons. All have the option to go back out, but I doubt any will.
Rumin, I had thought that the church did recently authorize other forms a “stay close to home” mission for individuals that were not a good fit for a traditional mission. Can you help me understand what you would like to see that is different than this? Roy wrote:
Rumin, I had thought that the church did recently authorize other forms a “stay close to home” mission for individuals that were not a good fit for a traditional mission. Can you help me understand what you would like to see that is different than this?
Sure. Let me first say that what they have announced for “stay close to home” is a good start. I may have a very biased perspective on this because of my son, who is home early from his mission, and undecided as to his future course.
I would like to see:
* Mini missions (service or proselytizing for kids priest and laurel ages on up to give these kids a clue of what they can expect as missionaries)
* Service missions of various lengths (marry this inherent manpower with the humanitarian arm of the church)
* Proselytizing missions of various lengths
* Make missions like senior missions. More choice on destination, type, and length
* More communication with home (this was granted, and is an awesome change)
I realize there are real challenges with this list. But I also think the missionary program is reeling. Fewer kids are going out, and even fewer are STAYING out. For every kid it is different. But I feel strongly the model has to change. In my case, if we had had more opportunity to communicate with our son while he was out, and if a few things had been handled differently by the MP, then it is highly probable that he would still be out and thriving. I don’t blame the church for any of this. Where he is now is based off of choices my son made.
Thank you for elaborating. I agree that there are barriers to some of the changes you propose but not insurmountable barriers if there is political will. One of the things that kept me on a mission ‘white-knuckling” through some of the most difficult areas and companionships was the idea that this is what was required in order to be seen as a worthy and attractive potential marriage partner within my community. I wonder what would happen if that cultural expectation of a 2 year proselyting for men were to be removed. I have long felt that the church uses the YW to motivate the YM in the church. It is an interesting subculture twist on Sexual Economics Theory.
Rumin8 wrote:
Roy wrote:
Rumin, I had thought that the church did recently authorize other forms a “stay close to home” mission for individuals that were not a good fit for a traditional mission. Can you help me understand what you would like to see that is different than this?
Sure. Let me first say that what they have announced for “stay close to home” is a good start. I may have a very biased perspective on this because of my son, who is home early from his mission, and undecided as to his future course.
I would like to see:
* Mini missions (service or proselytizing for kids priest and laurel ages on up to give these kids a clue of what they can expect as missionaries)
* Service missions of various lengths (marry this inherent manpower with the humanitarian arm of the church)
* Proselytizing missions of various lengths
* Make missions like senior missions. More choice on destination, type, and length
* More communication with home (this was granted, and is an awesome change)
I realize there are real challenges with this list. But I also think the missionary program is reeling. Fewer kids are going out, and even fewer are STAYING out. For every kid it is different. But I feel strongly the model has to change. In my case, if we had had more opportunity to communicate with our son while he was out, and if a few things had been handled differently by the MP, then it is highly probable that he would still be out and thriving. I don’t blame the church for any of this. Where he is now is based off of choices my son made.
Your list is very similar to mine, except the mini mission thing. They used to do mini missions here and then they were eliminated. I didn’t know if it was a localized thing or church wide. I actually have mixed feeling on them. I’m definitely on board with the other things on the list and I do believe they would help more people serve missions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.