STILL FLAWED!!

[dellme]

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

One thing I notice and agree with about our church culture is that although we say we WANT everyone and the church IS for everyone...it really isnt. Its only for those that want to conform to the gospel, its commandments and church policys.

Our church culture makes it seem like we are an exclusive organization.

Yes, we are an exclusive organization-something that has personally bothered me about the messaging more recently-this push to be "more inclusive and to do more"-total rubbish IMO.  We invite ALL to come who are WILLING to abide by the code of conduct the Lord has set forth.  http://www.lds4u.com/Discussions/Interview.htm

You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards.  What do you understand of the following standards?  Are you willing to obey them?

1. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman?
2. The law of tithing.
3. The Word of Wisdom.
4. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.

Anyone who is willing to abide by the questions in the Baptismal interview is welcome to join. But yeah if someone doesn't want to abide by those commandments and policies-they can go and start their own Church.

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

The dress standards for example is one of the rules that we have a zero tolerance for. Take the trunk or treat, we dont want to tell the whole community because they dont know the rules about proper costumes and we dont want it to get out of control, heck even members that come to the event with improper costumes are asked to alter it or go home.

Yes of course we don't broadcast it to the entire community b/c it isn't for the entire community-it is for the membership, investigators and their friends and families.  That's sort of the point of being part of a group, you get together with the group and socialize with the group.  If the event has 25% members and 75% community, well that means it's no longer an event for the Church community-it's for everyone else. I'm not sure why this is even controversial?

Yes, somethings can be what others might call tickey/tackey-for example dyed hair-does dyed blue hair really matter in the long run-no probably not, but I personally don't really care to hang around people with dyed blue hair . .. you might say I'm just not "inclusive enough", nope not it at all. It's b/c I understand people. More likely than not someone who has dyed blue hair is rebellious, haughty and proud. They are someone who wants to stand out in a crowd, make their own way, are more likely to have divergent opinions on anything and everything.

How you dress and how you portray yourself is critically important and when you go to Church with dyed blue hair you are sending a very strong message about who you are.

"How dare you judge me?" Eeexacctly.  Like I said pride-normal people recognize that how you dress, talk, act impacts how people perceive you, the fact that one says "How dare you judge me?" just confirms-yes you are a rebellious prideful individual.

6 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Another example: My 15yr old daughter has a big butt and skinny waist, she wears the same type of jeans and shirt to youth activities as everyone else but she has gotten flack from her leaders about covering it up which makes no sense but because her body is more sexually attractive its a problem.

 It sucks that your daughter's body type is like that-but you are just going to have to learn to deal with it-you aren't going to have utopia.  She is going to be sexualized for that from now until she no longer looks pretty (i.e. old)-it's just the way the world works. You can either learn to just accept that fact or howl at the moon.

 

[wenglund]

12 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

I only believe that it could use a small tweak which, come to think about, can actually be done. How? In our one-on-one interviews with the EQ pres about how our ministering is going, I will ask him, on top of the families that are assigned to me...can I have the (A) and (B) family too? Boom! mission accomplished. 

I am the Elders Quorum Secretary in my Ward, and I am aware of several instances where your suggested "tweak" has occurred. We have assigned priesthood holders or husband and wife teams either to formally minister or informally minister requested households. In some cases the same household has been assigned to multiple companions. And, it is working great. The program as it now stands allows this flexibility (see the Ministering FAQ page)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 24, 2018 by wenglund

[Vort]

8 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

One thing I notice and agree with about our church culture is that although we say we WANT everyone and the church IS for everyone...it really isnt. Its only for those that want to conform to the gospel, its commandments and church policys.

The way our leaders often phrase this is that "we invite all to join us and come unto Christ". The Church is the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God is for those who wish to be ruled by the King and conform their lives, will, and desires to his commandments. Obviously, the Church is not for those who hate the Church.

[Traveler]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 12:11 AM, priesthoodpower said:

(disclaimer: title is kind of a click bait)

No matter what way you slice and dice it, it is still an ASSIGNMENT! ..now its an ASSIGNMENT with out a check box.

The whole problem with home teaching was that members felt that they were being assigned friends, aka fake friends. This new ministering concept is a step in the right direction but it still needs fine tuning.

If you understand my personality I come from a sheltered upbringing, I only had two or three "real" friends in high school and when they were not around I was a loner, I dont socialize very well. I love all my fellow EQ brethren but other then one or two of them, I really dont care what the others did over the weekend because other then being LDS I have nothing in common with them.

The "tweak" in Ministering should be one in where us as individual members report back an interaction we had with ANY of the ward members (male/female/young/old) during the month. And it shouldnt be limited to our ward only, include the stake and maybe even any LDS member. We are a worldwide church connected through the internet, why cant we be an influence and example to all.

Examples:

1. Every once in a while as I drive around town I will see one of the youth boys in my ward sitting at the bus stop. I stop and offer a ride. I have also done the same with my friends son who is in another ward. That is true ministering.

2. Im at the soccer field watching my kids game, after the game as we walk toward the parking lot we see another family from the ward and their kid playing in a game. We stop and cheer for their kid a few minutes and go on our way.

3. I played college basketball and I love the sport dearly. I hear about a father in the ward who is training his 14yr old son to be a basketball player. I offer to come and practice and help train with them. A family that I only used to say hi to at church I now become very close to them. Organic genuine Friendship.

4. I have one friend in my ward that we been going to the gym together for the past year. One of the other EQ members over heard us talking about the gym and wanted to join us. We now have a group of three that go to the gym together. That is true ministering

5. My relationship with my ward clerk is basically Hi/Bye at church. One day on facebook I see that he replied to a post in one of our local news stories. I replied to him supporting his stance. True genuine interaction and beginning of better friendships.

Christ was not assigned to minister to people. He casually went about his travels and anyone he met along the way he shared the message. That is true, genuine, Ministering.

 

It is not the program that is flawed - it is people.

 

The Traveler