What is there left to change?

[Anonymous]

The “Policy of Exclusion” has been rescinded.

See the separate post about that.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The “Policy of Exclusion” has been rescinded.

Happily Blindsided by this one. And it isn’t officially conference or Friday (when the other details have rolled out.)

Quote:

The real issue, IMO, is that we’ve lost our way on what the unique Mormon take is on the gospel.

That to me is the key question. What is the gospel according to Mormonism? Sealing families, living clean lives, collecting converts?

On the WoW issue – the one slant that could be taken is that other cultures have other substances that are healthy/unhealthy – thereby as a World Wide Church, we will let local areas define that. I think in the long run it will just slip out of sight.

[Anonymous]

Reduction in food storage requirements

No canneries at Bishop’s storehouses

[Anonymous]

Why do you think they rescinded it before conference, and didn’t wait to announce it? So they didn’t have to admit it in the conference personally?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Why do you think they rescinded it before conference, and didn’t wait to announce it? So they didn’t have to admit it in the conference personally?

Why did they announce any of the changes they made since last conference?

In this case it was clear they wanted to make it public (probably in part because of the backlash when the original policy was leaked) but in truth neither was a public announcement – they were both intended for leaders.

Or maybe there’s so much to announce during GC that they figured they wouldn’t have enough time.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Reduction in food storage requirements

No canneries at Bishop’s storehouses

They’ve already reduced food storage “requirements” (quotations because it’s not a requirement of anyone, it’s a suggestion at most). Yes, the wording about a year is still there but it’s buried and the first paragraph wording is much more manageable and makes much more sense (for those who don’t know, it’s three months of food you actually use every day and your family actually eats). And canneries have been on their way out as well, ours went out of business years ago and we just got a brand new bishop’s storehouse. That said, and this is not directed toward SD personally, but when was the last time you heard any GA (especially the Q15 and especially in GC or the Ensign) say anything at all about food storage, preparedness, etc.? They’re not going to make any announcement about reducing food storage or closing canneries because that’s not their focus any more. Those things just slip away because they’re not talked about. What is talked about more than anything else now? Jesus Christ. That’s the focus. Wake up, the restoration’s happening!

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Why do you think they rescinded it before conference, and didn’t wait to announce it? So they didn’t have to admit it in the conference personally?

First off, I don’t see this as something that they would announce during conference. The PoX was quietly put in place and was only made public via a “leak.” It blew up from there. But I can’t imagine that they would announce either the introduction or removal of this type of policy during GC. I’m on the fence as to whether this would have more of a letter from the first presidency to be read over the pulpit feel. They don’t typically read every change they make to the handbook in that format either.

And of course I have a cynical side. Days before conference is a really good time to back out the policy. Time to put on the tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

A few days after the presser about the reversal and every member will be awash in sessions of general conference. It brings the intracultural news cycle to a quicker end.

It’s general conference weekend. That means members in their homes watching lots and lots of TV instead of going to the chapel to gossip with others about the latest reversal of the policy. By the time people get back together in chapels the policy change will be old news, replaced by the buzz of that amazing thing that was said during general conference.

It is pretty common knowledge and “kind of a big deal”. I doubt anyone really feels “neutral” about it, which makes me think they will almost certainly mention it in GC, to put their own positive spin on it. Or at least to reinforce the status quo (“We thank thee O’ God for a prophet, to guide us in these latter-days”).

[Anonymous]

I can see them not wanting to call attention to a bad policy. Just announce it through non-sensational channels and move on. Why draw attention to it?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Last of all – Women can have their own Meeting. No men allowed/needed/required/requested. OR – The chicks get to come to Men’s Night. And sit, speak, lecture, etc.

Yep.

I love this.

I think we could all agree that women bring a perspective that men may simply lack.

That said, many, many men would scoff at having to listen to a woman talking to him at church. :wtf:

I lost all fuzzy feelings for the PH meeting when, as a teen, I brought a nonmember to church and walked him to the PH meeting. I fully intended to sit next to him during class (we were dating). I was stopped at the door (literally) and told that I was not allowed in. I explained that my friend was new and that I wanted to be with him. No-go. I still remember the embarrassment and frustration I felt then. A LOT would have to change for some women to feel those fuzzies again.

SEMINARY:

I am a seminary teacher (the crazy kind who gets up at 4:30am).

I love being with the kids.

I love those kids.

I hate teaching the D&C :crazy:.

I hate that I want to crash when I get home…but I can’t b/c I have 5 children still at home…and we homeschool…so…

I can’t imagine that seminary would change to online only

Teens would NOT take those classes.

Why?

Most of my students stay after school for activities and get home in time for dinner (or later) and then if they don’t also have other non-school activities, homework kicks in and then it’s bedtime b/c they, too, have to get up just a few hours later for seminary.

Many youth simply stay very busy.

Seminary would be lost on them.

AND, how many youth do you know that actually WANT to go go seminary? I do have those students, but I don’t have many.

For some of my kids…seminary is the only place where they get structured/formal gospel lessons. I think that is important. I know that the kids like the spirit they feel of seminary. I’m sure seminary isn’t going anywhere.

As for the credentials for serving a mission and needing seminary…those seminary certificates mean nothing to me.

We have students who come in with 10 minutes left in class. How do these kids still get credit for attending?

One kid (the 1C in the SP’s son) sometimes comes in for the closing prayer. How does he still get credit for attending?

I know that there are other kids like that who will still graduate after 4 years with a diploma in hand.

Yeah, not much behind that.

BUT, while we are on the topic of seminary…

I’d like a salary for teaching.

If full-time seminary teachers are teaching, say, 6 classes of seminary a day…and getting paid to do it…I’d like 1/6 of their salary.

Could someone put that request in for me? :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

My To-Change List:

End the year rule

Require those receiving church assistance to pay it back by cleaning the building (or something to help).

Take away the rule that men cannot reveal their New Name to their wives.

THAT is the last thing keeping me from the temple.

Where is the temple suggestion box?

Like, seriously, where can I send that request?

Shorten the endowment session (by a lot).

Or allow us to take several names through at the same time.

I like the idea of GC being shortened.

Offer “mission trips” like other churches do. Something to give our teens real, tangible, hands-on humanitarian experience.

Allow women to be SS presidents.

Now that my list is done…here’s a question…I really don’t think that I believe that our “new name” in the temple is the NN or white stone that we will be given in heaven. If my husband “calls me from the grave” with my NN. I’ll stay put. I won’t respond to that one.

If everything in the temple is symbolic, then aren’t the NNs?

Like, aren’t they just “words?”

If so, then why the secrecy?

Has anyone googled the list of NNs and checked to see what their spouse’s new name is?

I totally want to…but I’m also a bit superstitious…and I’m afraid that I’ll be struck down right then and there. Yep, I am neurotic. 🙄 😆

That said, when I really feel like screaming at heaven about it, I get the feeling that it really won’t matter if I look up my husband’s NN. It’s just a word, anyway.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

It’s all symbolic.

Period.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see the church have retreat centers. Not as an alternative to or replacement for temples but as a compliment to them.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Reduction in food storage requirements

No canneries at Bishop’s storehouses

They’ve already reduced food storage “requirements” (quotations because it’s not a requirement of anyone, it’s a suggestion at most). Yes, the wording about a year is still there but it’s buried and the first paragraph wording is much more manageable and makes much more sense (for those who don’t know, it’s three months of food you actually use every day and your family actually eats). And canneries have been on their way out as well, ours went out of business years ago and we just got a brand new bishop’s storehouse.

I know these aren’t being mentioned since they are not the focus anymore, but why not? For decades I carried around a couple thousand dollars of rice and wheat and other food — why stop emphasizing it, particularly since we have to be getting closer and closer to the second coming? Every day that goes by brings us closer and closer.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I would like to see the church have retreat centers. Not as an alternative to or replacement for temples but as a compliment to them.

Very cool idea.

[Author]

Posts