[Trump 2024?]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:40 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I am of the opinion that there'd be no war in the Ukraine if Trump had won a 2nd term.

We all saw the war coming.  If the bombastic orange dealmaker had been there at the time, he would have made a deal with Putin to keep it from happening.  Eastward NATO expansion was becoming intolerable to Russia.  So Trump would have worked a deal where Putin didn't go to war, Russia would get some NATO expansion curtailing treaty or deal or something, and both of 'em would get some mutually beneficial deal regarding Russian oil exporting and Ukrainian grain.

And he would have been all loud and self righteous about it on Twitter every step of the way.  Shaming NATO member nations into paying more, crowing about how he owned Russia, shaming the Biden pay-for-access family mafia over their involvement with the corrupt Ukraine, basically taking really loud credit for every bit of good to come out of him leading the free world, while at the same time publicly humiliating his opponents and enemies.   And we would have all hated him for it.  And there would be no war in Ukraine right now.

I’m not so sure.

You can certainly get some mileage out of being the craziest guy at the negotiating table and (appearing to be) lacking in any long-term strategic commitments or alliances.  North Korea is an excellent example of that.  I think that was Trump’s style as well, and it did yield some successes where years—sometimes decades—of traditional diplomacy had given only a stalemate.

The trouble is, the Pax Americana sort of depended on there being some basic ground rules and solid strategic alliances that could last in spite of occasional disagreements between the parties to those alliances.  If you aren’t seen as, fundamentally, a promise-keeper—if you threaten to end the deal and walk away from the table too often—then less-powerful members of your alliance will start seeking more reliable protectors.  Biden has been, of course, disastrous; but I’m unconvinced Trump was seen to have been a particularly devoted friend either.  

Additionally, presidents can only play the hand they are dealt.  Regardless of the party affiliation of the current president, the simple fact is that the American public was not willing to fight a war—nuclear or otherwise—to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  And Putin knew it.  So the prospect of territorial aggression was always “when”, not “if”.  It’s also why Taiwan and the Philippines (at least, the latter’s claims over a number of islands in the region) are basically living on borrowed time.  I don’t think there’s anyone in the Republican field who can save them.  (Maybe Vivek what’s- his- name; he seems to be an effective communicator and could perhaps persuasively rally the country to a war footing.  But due to his ethnicity Chinese propagandists here would likely collude with anti-war, communist-sympathizing leftists to paint him as an agent for an India that’s looking to tweak China on its western border).

[Was the Fruit in Lehi's Dream an Olive?]

Then again, in 2 Ne 2:15, Lehi suggests that the fruit of the tree of life (in Eden) is bitter; in opposition to the forbidden fruit, which he describes as sweet.  

[Book of Mormon Reading Group?]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I have never been able to reconcile 1 Nephi 3:7 with Doctrine and Covenants 124: 49

1 Nephi 3:7 

7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no ^bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall ^cprepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 124:49

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

 

I also cannot see how Adam and Eve could have kept both of the commandments not to eat of the fruit and to go forth and multiply. Was a way prepared for them to accomplish both of these things?

 

Perhaps a youthful and enthusiastic naivete of Nephi is the best explanation?

1 Nephi becomes more poignant when we remember that Nephi is writing this story down the second time (he’s already written the large plates), and he’s writing over twenty years after the events he’s writing about, and he knows the later events—the arguing, the disintegration of the family group after his failed efforts to maintain unity, the ensuing bloodshed that he has seen and that he knows is only the beginning of a thousand years of war that must end in extermination.  This is Nephi the (guilt-ridden and somewhat disillusioned, Hardy suggests) old man, writing about Nephi the invincibly optimistic boy.  

[Book of Mormon Reading Group?]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

First comment on today's reading:

Its  not made very clear who Laban was - only that somehow or other he had the records which the new Israelite colony would need to maintain continuity with their past.

I remember my first time around reading this, there was something (in the Book of Mormon I had then) about Laban being "high up in the church". Since this was 600BC there couldn't have been a "church" per se, and I wondered if "church" was a clumsy reference "Temple" or "synagogue".  I asked the missionaries about this, but I couldn't get them to see what I was asking.

Looking at the text now I couldn't find any reference to "church" - unless it appears later and I missed it. Can anyone shine any light on this?

1 Ne 4:26 is where the word “church” appears.

I believe most Biblical scholars would tell you that the synagogue only came into being as an element of Jewish worship, after the destruction of the Temple.  Personally, I think that even given the dominance of the temple and the familial nature of Jewish worship/teaching at the time, there must have been *some* sort of institutional forerunner through which worship practices were prescribed, ancient texts preserved and relayed (perhaps primarily in oral form) and local religious controversies mediated and resolved; and the word “church”—though inevitably a problematic term—was probably as good an English term as any to describe that institution.  (cf “horse”, “elephant”, “curelom”, etc).

[Book of Mormon Reading Group?]

Just saw this.  Like @Carborendum, the reading pace is a little ambitious for me; but I’ll chime in if I feel like I have anything useful to contribute.

@Jamie123, if you have a few extra dollars (pounds?) lying around, consider springing for this edition of the Book of Mormon.  I’ve found it immensely helpful in coming to understand the BoM more as a cohesive text (once you’re done, you might also look at Grant Hardy’s “Understanding the Book of Mormon”).

I will note, FWIW, that probably the premier scholar of the BoM text from a linguistic standpoint is Royal Skousen.  I believe he has concluded that the BoM’s English is primarily 16th-17th century, and even contains some archaic linguistic constructs from that period that do *not* appear either in the KJV Bible or in colloquial 19th century New England speech patterns.  I understand he has a pet theory/speculation (and of course, it could never be more than that) that Wycliffe, Tyndale, and others who were involved in generating the text that evolved into the KJV may have been part of a sort of “spirit committee” that was delegated, beyond the grave, to produce the translation that was given to Joseph Smith.  

[Another Utah influencer arrested, or, pride cycles]

4 hours ago, Suzie said:

I don't think my last sentence implies that only LDS counselors are abusers because obviously it isn't the case. But let me explain again in case my comment was misunderstood. I just speak out against choosing a mental health professional solely based on their Church/religious affiliation.  I observe this often and it has become a serious concern for both clients and professionals who are out there trying their best. Being an LDS counselor doesn't automatically make you a good professional and yes it applies to every other religion but the reason I mentioned this specifically is because Bishops recommended Jodi Hildebrandt and clearly, members trusted the suggestion. I was trying to explain this to my sister but all I can say is that she has been living in UT for too long.

I get where you’re going here; and generally agree.  But I would note that I think it’s a rare Saint who vets potential counselors solely on their Church membership status or hires the first Mormon counselor they run across.

I cannot speak as to the particular case under discussion in this thread.  But I stand by my general comments earlier in this thread and will propose that the problem with most of the nominally/formerly LDS families who wound up in the news over the past few years isn’t that they listened to their bishops too much; it’s that they didn’t listen to their bishops closely enough.  

[Luke 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear.]

Didn’t JFS-II also suggest that self-inflicted wounds (ie tattoos, piercings, wounds by suicide) don’t heal—or at least, leave scars— in the resurrection?  That sounds vaguely familiar.

[Sex in scripture]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

BYU needs to get a handle on this sort of thing yesterday.

BYU delenda est.

[Another Utah influencer arrested, or, pride cycles]

I want to offer a cautionary note here, gleaned from hard experience both personal and professional:

Many people like this, actually deeply love the Gospel (as they understand it).  They search their scriptures.  They take fastidious notes at conference.  They pray for hours, and think they receive revelations; some of them very beautiful and moving.  But it goes in a weird direction, and suddenly they start thinking they’re getting better revelation than the mainstream Church; better revelation than their local priesthood leaders.  We will be seeing more of this, not less, in coming decades; and the Church will not always be quick to hold membership councils for people who deserve it.  

Guys, stay humble.  Stick with your priesthood authorities—from the Prophet down to your elders quorum president.  Do. Not. Let. Go.  A lot of tragedies could have and would have been avoided if some of Mormonism’s most infamous psychopaths of the past five years had stayed a little closer to, been more patient with, and considered with more humility the counsel of their bishops and stake presidents.

[Updated CES Standards]

On 8/28/2023 at 6:37 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

You have to explain that to me. How does the beard ban sift anyone? You mean there are legitimately, otherwise well qualified, righteous, faithful, honorable men who, because they'd have to shave, didn't attend BYU? And that's good.......why?

No, not at all.  And maybe “sifting” wasn’t quite the right word.  But within the church, I find that a person’s getting worked up about relatively trivial GA-imposed policies that they may not understand, or even don’t agree with, tends to be a sort of canary-in-the-coal-mine indicating whether or not that person will be able to develop a healthy and productive approach to deeper spiritual struggles.

Plus, tuition at BYU is stupidly cheap.  If it happens to have a couple of stupid policies in return, then IMHO the students there can suck it up and thank the Church for its largesse.

[Updated CES Standards]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because, as we all well know, Jesus was "slovenly".

The strange thing to me is that the no beard thing is 100% cultural. There's no reality to it other than perception. And it is my perception that the entire beard=rebel thing is pretty darned outdated. Obviously wording such as they used with mustaches would make sense. But a well groomed beard still being against the honor code is just weird.

It feels very out of touch.

Shrug. What do I care?

If remember correctly from his biography, even 40 years ago as president of BYU, President Oaks expressed his belief that the beard ban was cultural, not theologically necessary; and that he personally would have preferred its removal.

The fact that it remains in place all these years later suggests to me that perhaps the beard ban served, and continues to serve, a sort of “sifting function” at BYU that the General Authorities feel is desirable.

[Updated CES Standards]

17 hours ago, mikbone said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/updated-ces-standards-students-closer-to-christ?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-churchnewsroom&utm_content=later-37391910&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio

Dress and Grooming Principles and Expectations have historically varied among CES institutions and will now be simplified and unified across campuses. These updates identify a set of foundational principles while retaining an important set of common expectations.

CES Dress and Grooming Expectations

Dress for men and women should:

Be modest in fit and style. Dressing in a way that would cover the temple garment is a good guideline, whether or not one has been endowed. Accommodation may be made for athletic participation.

Be neat and clean. Sloppy, overly casual, ragged, or extreme clothing is not acceptable.

Grooming

Hair should be clean, neat, modest, and avoid extremes in styles and colors.

Men’s hair should be neatly trimmed. Men should be clean shaven. If worn, mustaches should be neatly trimmed.

It’ll be interesting to see the practical effects of this.  The new standards are less detailed and—frankly—less objectively enforceable.  They give much more authority to the subjective judgment of the enforcer; and given some of the libertine predilections of the current head of the BYU Honor Code Office (unless he’s been replaced in the last year or so)—I suspect things will get much more interesting over the short term.  

[Is Politics Driving Membership Down?]

On 8/22/2023 at 5:06 AM, Grunt said:

Please don't do that.  It's how I was elected to something I wasn't even running for.🤮

Say, what *is* your real name, Grunt?

Not asking for any particular reason, and no need to answer immediately.  Please just let us know before November of next year, mmm-kay?

[Is Politics Driving Membership Down?]

On 8/21/2023 at 3:00 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe fleeing the country is in order then? I mean if you truly want to keep your distance...right?

You’ve heard of the Benedict Option.  But are you ready for . . . the Lehi Option?

[Is Politics Driving Membership Down?]

On 8/21/2023 at 2:55 PM, zil2 said:

Apparently, it's been a problem for a very, very  long time.

Mmmm . . . Bacon.

[Is Politics Driving Membership Down?]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So I really don't get the struggle though. I mean I understand not liking Trump from a moral standpoint. But it's like saying you're struggling with the choice put before you...punched in the face....or shot in the face. Which do you choose? Is there really a struggle in that choice?

I have long believed that if (to use the language of ancient Judah’s conundrum) we keep our distance from Egypt even when getting threats by turns from Samaria, Syria, Assyria, and Babylon—that deliverance will ultimately come. I think that’s the subtext between D&C 98:10.  We have all, over the last couple of centuries, been led down the primrose path of embracing progressively more cunning and less thoughtful leaders; and we probably ought to have drawn a bright line long before now.  But Trump strikes me as an opportunity to awaken to our awful situation.  

[Is Politics Driving Membership Down?]

21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

There is a generational divide in conservative Christianity: Many young people do not understand how their elders could have voted for someone like the former president. They may not like the alternative, but they bristle--especially at those who speak of the former president in almost messianic terms.

Apparently, this divide exists in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well. Leadership is encouraging members to vote intelligently, by looking and candidates and issues, not merely at party affiliation or tradition. Mormon leaders – whose church is often associated with the GOP – push back against one-party politics (theconversation.com).

Thoughts?

As has been pointed out, the Church leadership has for years released generic statements about “all parties have done good points, vet the candidates as individuals”, etc.  This is nothing new, and I think the article’s author is to some degree making a mountain out of a molehill.

I also agree with @Carborendum in that I think our Church does face a bit of a generational gap, exacerbated by school systems that a) endorse and promulgate the ideals of the sexual revolution; and b) have bought into the cult of authenticity that says humans don’t need to change because what they are is what they were created to be.

That said:  I think that as a Church we have largely eluded the Trump problem, because our leadership never really openly embraced and endorsed him the way many on the Christian Right did.  I realize I’m not really an insider to the CR; but to my outsider view—they spent forty years setting themselves up as the faction of self-discipline and character (especially on matters of sexual restraint), and proclaiming that these were foundational elements of a stable (and Christian) society; and then for the asking they jumped completely into the camp of a guy who had been notoriously promiscuous, had been pro abortion, and had been credibly accused of wife-rape (among other probable character flaws relating to honesty, thoughtfulness, etc).  I think a lot of people felt a lot of whiplash when that happened and started asking “geez, other than gays being evil, what DO you guys stand for?”  And it betrayed a baser desire among many on the Christian Right to seek protection from strong-men with all the worldly trappings of power (particularly governmental power); which again—seemed antithetical to many longtime observers of the Christian Right generally and made their longtime/sometime libertarian allies particularly contemptuous of them.

We Latter-day Saints have problems of our own (one could certainly argue, as many hardcore LDS conservatives generally and LDS Trumpers in particular do, that we’ve generally been too accommodationist with secular governments throughout the COVID crisis).  But a wholesale sellout of a concept that had been a bedrock principle of our spiritual faith and political actions over the last forty years, isn’t one of them.  

[Question about denying the Holy Ghost]

20 hours ago, laronius said:

Of course murder is spoken of in similar terms but we generally don't put that in the same category.

This may be irrelevant, but just occurred to me and seems worthy of exploration:

Murder was much gorier, more physically laborious, and took longer to complete (ie, more opportunity for a change of heart/backing out) in scriptural times when the firearm hadn’t been invented yet.  

[LDS teen sueing Fellowship of Christian Athletes over religious discrimination]

19 hours ago, Dylan said:

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I'm considering trying to join the leadership team of my school's FCA club. A already am and have been a member of the club for 2 years, and the FCA states that they want leaders who can lead by example, not exactly who can answer theological questions. I had a friend who tried to join the leadership team last year, and after talking for hours upon hours with the FCA regional director of our area, he was still denied. This regional director's whole reasoning for why my friend couldn't be a leader was that he wanted everyone "on the same page" with doctrine; but why should this matter if we are there to lead by example and not to teach doctrine, which might have some differences. We believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as our Lord and Savior, and we strive to follow Him in all we do; why can we not join the leadership, why can we not be an example to others? The whole thing about it being a private organization so it can't be charged for religious discrimination is true in the legal sense; but even though it's okay legally doesn't mean it's morally the best decision. There's a reason the constitution protects against religious discrimination, I get that private organizations don't have to abide with this, but why wouldn't they? A popular phrase among Christians is "What would Jesus do?" Would Jesus deny anyone who believes in Him from standing as a witness of Him. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and I want to stand as an example and a witness of Him through being on the FCA leadership team. Why should I, a Christian with a few ideological differences from what may be considered "normal" by the FCA, be denied that?

Welcome, Dylan!

I would join with others who would say that FCA is a private organization with specific institutional goals (among which, as I understand it, is to turn out Trinitarian, Nicene Christians) and that if they don’t want to Latter-day Saints among their leadership ranks—well, their house, their rules.  🙂

Now, if the Spirit is telling you that you should still make the request—by all means, go for it.  It may create opportunities for good conversations that will lead folks to a higher path down the road; especially as you strive to comport yourself in a godly manner regardless of whatever opposition you face.  If, in the process, the local FCA bigwigs comport themselves in a way that openly shows to all and sundry that their religion has utterly failed to turn them into decent human beings (and may actually be excusing and exacerbating their natural human flaws)—well, all the better for us, as we try to model a more excellent way.  

But, don’t go into the thing thinking that they’re going to accept you.  They aren’t.  By their standards, we are damnable heretics.

[Does God actually want our worship?]

3 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is whether or not God actually wants our worship, obviously, he wants our respect, he wants our gratitude, but does he really want the endless fawning?  Perhaps this is a function of my own misunderstanding of what true worship is, or, perhaps, it’s a miscommunication on how society portrays worship. growing up protestant, Penecostal in this case, all I remember, is people, hands raised, waving back and forth slowly. Or speaking in tongues, depending on the service lol. This instilled in me, a vision of worship as endless praise, endless, speaking, gratitude expressed over and over without end. 
 

But my thoughts Lately have turned to the idea that perhaps it’s just living a righteous life, acknowledging his hand in your life, but not necessarily laying prostrate on the floor endlessly. in the way that I would worship my own father on earth. I want to do all that he has set me up to do, I also want to bring honor to his name I don’t wanna make him disappointed. And in doing this, this is the worship he wants and this way he isn’t the egomaniacal narcissist that a militant atheist would describe, he’s just a dad who loves his kids and wants them to do well, and they gave him honor by doing their best to do so. 
 

It ties into a thought that I’ve had lately that if you love me keep my Commandments it’s just a statement of if you love me trust me and in doing so we can fill the other part of that statement that if we do the will of the father we will know of the doctrine and our love for the father will grow.  
 

I understand these are basic statements but they haven’t came into my mind in this way before. And just figured it kick it around with one of my favorite sounding boards

I remember on my mission watching some Protestant services and having the distinct impression that it felt like they were kissing up to/flattering God.

I am inclined to think the way you do, but with the caveat that while I think that most of the rituals in the Church that we would call “worship” have more value to us and to our fellow Church members than they really have to God—that doesn’t excuse us from participating in them.

The idea of spiritual gifts here also feels appropriate to me.  Some people’s gift is to build, others is wisdom, others is healing, others is dance or song—and some people’s gift is oratory; and I’m not always good at discerning whether a speaker is being a beautiful orator or just plain long-winded.  So I try to be patient with mellifluous or maudlin speech or prayer at the pulpit.  

[Mandatory reporting and ministering visits]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Does this reporting system effect the civil cases at all?  If someone reports it, records are kept.  If a parent wants to divorce, they could use that record to get custody of the kids... just wondering.

I'm just wary because I've seen both extremes IRL.  And I see how bad it can be either direction.

In Utah, for what it’s worth:  DCFS maintains what the statute calls the “management information system” (colloquially, we call it “SAFE”).  If Intake decides, based on a report, that a CPS investigation should open, then the system will hold the case activity logs of the CPS worker who handled the investigation (they should be logging every contact, conversation, forensic interview, etc), and the case will eventually close with one of four findings:

1). “Supported”:  basically, the caseworker thinks there’s a greater-than-fifty-percent chance that abuse or neglect actually occurred.

2).  “Unsupported”:  the caseworker thinks there’s a less-than-fifty-percent chance that abuse or neglect actually occurred, but can’t conclusively disprove the allegation.

3).  “Without merit”:  the caseworker uncovered information enabling them to prove that the allegation was false.

4).  “Unable to complete:  the casework was unable to locate the family, or wasn’t permitted to interview the child directly.

The SAFE system is confidential and may only be used for internal Utah Department of Human Services (DCFS’s parent agency) purposes, including vetting foster parent license applicants and potential DHS employees.  (I have heard that school boards have the option to access the system to vet potential teachers, but the people I’ve talked to who are in a position to know for sure, get really vague whenever I try to pin them down on this issue).  (Utah also recently enacted a regimen for expungement of “unsupported” and certain types of “supported” findings, though it’s still relatively new and they’re still working out the wrinkles of how to apply it.)  However, “supported” findings of severe and/or chronic abuse or neglect (including sexual abuse) do get forwarded on to the “licensing information system”, which is accessible by various state agencies that handle licensing of various professions.  

Parents may appeal a “supported” finding by requesting review by DHS’s Office of Administrative Hearings, and may appeal the OAH by requesting a hearing before a juvenile court judge.

Parents have the ability to pull the complete (unexpunged) SAFE history of their kids.  So, a divorcing couple could access reports of abuse or neglect involving the children and try to implicate the other parent in court.  But an unsupported, without merit, or UTL finding isn’t going to get them very far with the court (and may not be admissible at all under evidence rules); and even if there’s a “supported” finding—the parent would still probably have to subpoena the same witnesses DCFS spoke to in their investigation, and have them testify in court firsthand; the DCFS records would only play a secondary role from an evidentiary standpoint.

[Marine nuclear power explanation for enlisted recruits]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

My assumption as a non-sailor non-military non-nuclear-plant-operator non-physicist is that you get far better efficiency using the steam from the reactor to drive propellor turbines directly than to drive generators to create electricity which you then use to drive electric motors to turn the props. There are batteries and generators on board, of course, and I would guess that things are set up to allow much more quiet running with electric motors. But again, non-etc.

Random factoid:  

With the big ocean liners of the early-to-mid 20th century:  the British and Germans generally had steam turbines (more or less) directly linked to the propeller shafts.  The French were generally less comfortable machining the large reduction gears necessary to such a setup, with the degree of precision required; so they opted to have the turbines drive generators which then powered electric motors that turned the propellers.  It was reportedly a more fuel-efficient design—when it wasn’t breaking down. 

[Sunday School podcasts]

On 8/11/2023 at 9:48 AM, Carborendum said:

I have had a sneaking suspicion that this is the go-to method when the instructor has not properly prepared a lesson.

They can be done well, but it’s actually *more* work to do it right.  Because (in my experience) you have to appoint group leaders several days in advance, and spend some time with them to make sure they’ve read the lesson themselves and understand what it is that you (as teacher) are hoping to accomplish.  Some topics (brainstorming, hypothetical scenarios, problem-solving) lend themselves well to small-group discussion; others (“share your most intimate spiritual experience in this small group, so that the ‘group leader’ can recount a watered-down version of it to the entire classroom a few minutes later”) really don’t.  

[Circumcision]

My understanding is that in Romans, Paul uses “circumcision” as a sort of metaphor/ shorthand for the outward performances of the Mosaic law generally.  See, eg, https://benspackman.com/2023/08/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-lesson-36-romans/?fbclid=IwAR1N096XHqlUZVNG54lvij3tubZS-JFvv8w4jn-UYKYHF9sTherYhTy1q8Y

[Inward v. Outward Focus]

On 7/23/2023 at 7:04 PM, prisonchaplain said:

A common refrain in Evangelical circles is that we must get outside the church walls. The idea is that we spend too much time inside our church walls blessing ourselves and we do precious little out in our communities--presumably where God would having us being his salt and light. Some of us (mostly older folks, I'm afraid) are pushing back against this idea (complaint) because: 1. We do plenty that blesses 'the world' (prison ministry, homeless ministry, crisis response ministry, volunteering (mostly individual), etc.). 2. We only spend 2-3 hours per week in church, and already represent the faith the rest of the time. We probably need to spend more time inside the walls and our teachers need to be less afraid of delivering the meat of the word (v. always bringing lite, easy instruction). 

Do the same conversations take place among saints? Does the system of volunteer callings keep this balance from becoming an issue?

On an individual level, there’s a strong ethic that we should be “anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of [our] own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness” (D&C 58:27).  And there’s always a tension generally about how we as Saints can make sure that we are doing, not merely “good” things, but the best/most effective things we could be doing given our limited time and resources.  (Apostle Dallin Oaks gave a rather memorable sermon about this sometime back, entitled “Good, Better, Best”.)

But on a collective/organizational level, the laity mostly trusts that the leadership knows what it’s doing and is doing it for a good reason; so (aside from a cadre of internet-based professional complainers) it’s fairly rare for congregations to form large groundswells of people saying “why aren’t we doing more of x?”.