Predictions on policy changes during conference?

[Just_A_Guy]

Could we do 3.5 hours of church, if the extra half-hour were spent on “inoculating” discussions over thorny historical issues?  

Edited September 20, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Could we do 3.5 hours of church, if the extra half-hour were spent on “inoculating” discussions over thorny historical issues?  

It won't happen, but in all seriousness, I like this idea.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't know what you're talking about. What I do know is that children don't just "get used to" being tired and therefore magically stop being cranky that one day a week where they don't get the nap they actually need. If church falls during nap time, sure...the child doesn't get their nap...and may or may not sleep after church or before. Either way, it messes things up. That's just the way it is. But it is the way it is.

TFP, it doesn't mess things up because children don't have the exact same schedule everyday.  If your children do, it's because you set it up that way.  Therefore,  saying "Church falling at naptime" is the family (or Church) revolving around the child (the focus is the child).  Church is not naptime, it is Churchtime, so it can't fall at naptime because there shouldn't be a nap scheduled there so naptime is some other time - the focus is the family (or the Church).  That's the difference in focus that sets a child to revolve with the family instead of the other way around.

Edited September 20, 2018 by anatess2

[Overwatch]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Who said anything about the other extreme?

What?

I didn't say anything about four hour church block.

I lumped you in with the others to cover all of what I was seeing. Others wanting four hours and you not wanting less than three. The pharisees used to wear the scriptures on their foreheads and count their steps on Sunday, they couldn't even spit in dirt because it was a form of making a canal. It was spurred by you calling other people's opinions a cheap slice of meat (bologna) Having one less of hour of church is not going to make you less holy or take away from the sacredness of the day. 

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

It won't happen, but in all seriousness, I like this idea.

In all seriousness, that sounds like a nightmare. A half hour of this forum...live from your ward every week!

No thank you.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe we're going to be unable to communicate on this matter if you believe not sealing gay couples in eternal marriage is a mere "policy".

Are people leaving the church because the name is too short/long?

Is anyone leaving the church over this "policy"?

...or this?

Do you really believe that not backbiting or gossiping is merely "policy"?

There is, of course, a difference between changing approaches to deal with our cultural problems, and the idea that the previous approaches actually CAUSED those problems. Home Teaching did not cause the problems and that's not why it got changed.

I suppose here's where we disagree. This sort of thing is only a stumbling block if someone's walking the edge. It strikes me that getting people to stop balancing on the edge is the real key to help them stop falling. Not removing anything that anyone thinks they might trip on if already on that edge.

Focus on scripture study and temple attendance wouldn't be a change at all, of course. And these things are, exactly, the sort of thing to get people away from the cliffs edge. Get people studying their scriptures and praying, etc., and no one's going to "trip" over not being a High Priest by 45. But it might be interesting if "policies" are enacted that work to help people focus on these things.

Policy has different reasons for existing.  Some policy is directly reflective of what we believe (which is why we don't allow Gay Marriage in Temple Sealings, because it is against the commandments, hence why I do not see the policy that does not allow it to change either.  that does not mean I am wanting Gay Marriage sealings, just using it as one example that some may want changed that will NOT change), while other policies are merely there in regards to order and administration but are of not necessary for salvation.  It is of these latter policies which I have seen change over the years and continue to change today.

I think people are not understanding what I am predicting will happen at conference and what I am discussing in regards to a change I wouldn't mind.

If I am making any predictions on what will be discussed at conference, it would be Temple Attendance and Scripture Study.  Everything else isn't really something I expect.

BUT if there are policy changes, I think they will deal with the problems at hand that we can see from various reports on declining baptismal rates and factors pertaining to that as well as inactivity in the church and a growing number of those young adults who are leaving the church.  The lines on the graph would indicate if these numbers keep declining as they are, either we are going to have the Second Coming really soon, or the church could soon be going into the negatives with membership numbers.  If we believe in modern revelation, it would be foolish to think that the Lord would not have answers to combat the great evils of the world that are leading people astray, and much of that could be with the policies in place within the church. 

Thus, when I say IF we continue to have changes in policies this conference, it will be in a similar line with those of last Conference most likely, and deal directly with the issues that the last policy changes also dealt with.  what would these be.  I don't know.  Because I don't, I merely pointed one out that I wouldn't mind seeing (and probably similar in vein of those who want a two hour block on Sunday, for many of them it is what they would like to see).

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

First off, referring to parts of your post that I haven’t cited here—the only real distinction I remember noticing about the High Priests in the wards where I grew up and spent much of my time as a twenty-something Elder, was that the room where they met invariably smelled terrible after one of their meetings.  (Apparently, those old guys could really “let loose” in there.)  I have never had any desire to be a part of that group, and no one has ever suggested to me that I should want to be a part of it.  This business of the high priests group as some super-duper club that everyone wanted to join, is absolutely foreign to my experience in the restored Gospel.

Second, as pertains to the above specifically:  I question the assertion that receiving the Second Anointing was ever seen either as a) a social status symbol, or b) a rite of passage to which an active Mormon was ever seen as being “entitled” to receiving on reaching a fixed age.  So far as I recall, Buerger’s seminal work on the topic makes no such assertions; and in fact suggests that the 2A has always been something that a) if you had it, you didn’t talk about it and b) a ritual that Church leadership has traditionally guarded very closely at least since the John Taylor presidency and, even at times of relatively broad administration, was still the exception rather than the rule and was typically reserved for the “very elderly”.  

I actually didn't grow up in the church and even if I had, the Second Anointing policy was gone before I was even born.  However, people assume that this thing was always a secret.  I don't think it was ever a secret, but like we see many of our temple ordinances today, as sacred.  As the number of people aware of it have slowly died off over the decades, less and less people seem to be aware it even existed.

When I joined the church it seemed the age for being ordained to a High Priest still existed.  It was explained as policy.  You actually normally were a Seventy prior to becoming a High Priest, and meetings were not all held on Sunday.  There were MANY policies that were far different than what is in the Church today. 

Some would say it is nostalgia (and perhaps it is) for my young adult years, but I don't recall the troubles among us that Young people seem to have today (o course, there were a LOT less people in the church at the time as well).

Individual Stakes kept the High Priest Age idea alive at least until the 80s and 90s (though I unfortunately was NOT in one of those Stakes at the time, so got the humiliating experience at times of being an Old Elder among the High Priests, and yes, even then we saw stratification of a degree, and from what I've seen when I've talked to some inactives today, it's gotten a LOT worse).

Some may not notice it, but even many of those who say they are not bothered by it when they get older, are bothered.  I am fortunate.  I stayed in the church and eventually my time came.  However, due to my experiences (and maybe thus it is a blessing) I am better able to see when it bothers people and how it affects them.  In addition, it seems that the differences of Priesthood IS a thing that bothers people.  The gossip of families and trying to place one group higher than another DOES bother people.  I don't recall this being as bad when I was a young adult, but I see it a lot in the church today.  There is a lot of pride.

That's not unexpected (it was perhaps the most common problem called out in the Book of Mormon) but I think many may be ignoring it.

3 hours ago, Fether said:

Riches often  follow Faithfulness as well (not always, but often). What causes someone to be poor? Lack of work ethic, poor preparation, lack of drive/inspiration etc. 

This is a prosperity gospel idea.  Saying this is why we should select leaders who have the riches of the world is absolutely NOT something we should be aspiring to.  If this is our fruits that we are showing to the world, then true Christians would avoid us.  Even the Lord taught against riches.  If we get them, it should be to help the poor, not for us to keep.  Ironically, if one did that, they would no longer be rich themselves.

This is, however, NOT necessarily what is happening in the church, it is merely a PERCEPTION by some of what is happening in the church.  Thus, the key isn't to change how we select our leaders by inspiration, but the policies which may be making young people and others perceive this is what is happening. 

I don't know if there will be more policy changes or not.  I am not going to hazard a guess whether there will be or will not be.  I am perfectly fine if we have NO policy changes (and I think I have more difficulty with policy changes than many here to tell the truth, I just have a harder time adapting I guess at times).

However, since it seemed that we were mentioning what various people might favor (and it seems a two hour block is one some favor) I mentioned those that I might.  When asked why, I gave my reasons for it. 

But I'm not going to conference in the expectations of any policy changes.  If they happen, they happen.  If they do not, well, no surprise there.

What I DO expect at conference though, even if @The Folk Prophet says it is not a change in policy (and it isn't, its just what I expect will be discussed), is regarding the Temple and Scriptures.  These are much larger things I see right now that probably will be addressed in Conference.  A focus on Gospel study I think is an even LARGER item in regards to faithfulness in the gospel, and I think is perhaps an even BIGGER item that young adults are not doing enough.  Without that vital testimony and retaining that testimony once they have them through prayerful  study of the gospel each day and seeking the inspiration of the Holy Ghost many are falling to the sensations of the world and the misleading twistings of the truth from others. 

It may not be new policy (as @The Folk Prophet pointed out) but that does not make it less important.  I think it is an extremely important thing which is why, if making any predictions, that is what I would say will be discussed (even if it is not a new policy change).

 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

I lumped you in with the others to cover all of what I was seeing. Others wanting four hours and you not wanting less than three. The pharisees used to wear the scriptures on their foreheads and count their steps on Sunday, they couldn't even spit in dirt because it was a form of making a canal. It was spurred by you calling other people's opinions a cheap slice of meat (bologna) Having one less of hour of church is not going to make you less holy or take away from the sacredness of the day. 

And now you're mixing your conversation with @The Folk Prophet with my conversation with TFP.  He never referred to you as bologna.  He referred to my parenting idea as bologna - and it's not because he thinks I'm a cheap-slice-of-meat mother, rather, just that he doesn't think it's correct.

You sure have a funny way of expanding things beyond what the writer intended.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

TFP, it doesn't mess things up because children don't have the exact same schedule everyday.  If your children do, it's because you set it up that way.  Therefore,  saying "Church falling at naptime" is the family (or Church) revolving around the child (the focus is the child).  Church is not naptime, it is Churchtime, so it can't fall at naptime because there shouldn't be a nap scheduled there so naptime is some other time - the focus is the family (or the Church).  That's the difference in focus that sets a child to revolve with the family instead of the other way around.

My child typically naps when she gets cranky and needs a nap. Surprise, surprise, that happens around the same time most days.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Could we do 3.5 hours of church, if the extra half-hour were spent on “inoculating” discussions over thorny historical issues?  

 

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

It won't happen, but in all seriousness, I like this idea.

That's what your ministering hour is for.  An extra half-hour won't suffice because by the time the meeting starts, it will be opening prayer, opening hymn, then half hour is over so you'll have to go to closing prayer.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My child typically naps when she gets cranky and needs a nap. Surprise, surprise, that happens around the same time most days.

Yeah, that's child focus.

My child won't need to nap when he's just had a nap.  So I schedule things so he can have his rest during appropriate moments to lessen the risk of him being cranky in inopportune moments - that's family focus.  The child grows up learning not just to meet his needs but also to adjust and meet the needs of the family.

Edited September 20, 2018 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Yeah, that's child focus.

My child won't need to nap when he's just had a nap.  So I schedule things so he can have his rest during appropriate moments so he won't be cranky in inopportune moments - that's family focus.

Interesting conversations on nap time.

I get cranky if I don't get a nap on Sundays!!!  

It seems like an excellent way to spend time on the Sabbath if you can do it. 

I don't always get a nap on the Sabbath though.

It's a nice thing to be able to get though.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

Interesting conversations on nap time.

I get cranky if I don't get a nap on Sundays!!!  

It seems like an excellent way to spend time on the Sabbath if you can do it. 

I don't always get a nap on the Sabbath though.

It's a nice thing to be able to get though.

I always nap after getting home from Church regardless of what time-slot we are on.  So, we go home, we eat, then I nap.  My husband watches football during NFL season while I nap.  Yes, my husband is not perfect.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

He referred to my parenting idea as bologna - and it's not because he thinks I'm a cheap-slice-of-meat mother, rather, just that he doesn't think it's correct.

I think the idea that a parent can control their child's crankiness at church by theorizing that the child must conform to the clan and not the clan to the child is bologna. Children get cranky when tired. Parenting philosophies cannot magically make that go away.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the idea that a parent can control their child's crankiness at church by theorizing that the child must conform to the clan and not the clan to the child is bologna. Children get cranky when tired. Parenting philosophies cannot magically make that go away.

A child doesn't get tired for no reason.  He is tired because he needs rest.  They don't get tired because it's 2PM so it's time for them to get tired.  I, as their parent, control their activities.  Children who still need mid-day naps are usually at an age where the parent controls every single activity for every single minute of that child's day.  Therefore, if your child is tired when you don't want him to be tired, you have control over that.  And yes, that's a parenting philosophy that has been in existence since the dawn of time.  Child focused parenting is actually a luxury of prosperous societies.

[JohnsonJones]

Here's a funny story about naps.

Last Sunday I was taking a nap.  Grandma (my wife) had made some cookies and laid them out.  While I napped we had a few grandkids over for sunday (along with their parents).  Shortly after waking Grandma called me over.  She asked me suspiciously if I had eaten any cookies.  I said, no I had not.  Why was she asking. 

It seems she had laid out the cookies in three rows.  One of the rows had disappeared!  I said, I couldn't have taken them, I was taking my nap until just now!

I was wondering if I somehow was sleep eating!  Grandma still couldn't figure out.   She was suspicious because I have a sweet tooth, and yes, I have snuck cookies off the cooling rack in the past.  Normally it's just one or two.

This time, I was taking a nap though.  Then I noticed one of the Grand daughters had a few crumbs around her mouth.  I asked Grandma about it.  She said the grand daughter had asked about having a cookie.  So, we asked the grand daughter about it. 

I assured the grand daughter there would be NO PUNISHMENT.  We are grand parents afterall, not her Parents.  She looked at us sheepishly and said she had asked if she could have some cookies (which is the difference between grand ma hearing a singular and grand daughter asking in plural).  She had eaten at least 5 or 6 she said, and perhaps more.  She hadn't kept exact track of them.

Grandma still looked at me suspiciously. 

That's what I get for commonly trying to sneak off with a cookie or two right after they are baked (but they are GREAT when they are hot!).

She's a wonderful woman and she still loves me too.  In some ways it's a joke we about it, and she always makes sure there is enough for me to do that.  In fact, these days I think she expects it.  I love her.  She has that great sense of humor and still very loving, even when I'm a snark.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Here's a funny story about naps...Grandma (my wife)

Yeah, that's pretty funny. Disturbing, but funny.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

Others wanting four hours and you not wanting less than three. 

I didn't say that I didn't want less than three. Two hours sounds awesome. I'm just honest enough to admit that it sounds awesome because I'm lazy instead of trying to claim it's some sort of higher plane. I understand that sometimes (oft times) the things I want are not the better way.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah, that's child focus.

My child won't need to nap when he's just had a nap.  So I schedule things so he can have his rest during appropriate moments to lessen the risk of him being cranky in inopportune moments - that's family focus.  The child grows up learning not just to meet his needs but also to adjust and meet the needs of the family.

So if my child wakes up at 8 to 8:30, and church is is 11...I'm supposed to put my child down for a nap at 9...a half hour after wake time, so they can have "just had a nap" so they won't get tired at 12:30 to 1:00 when they're still at church?

They just have to learn, dang it! Nap time on Sundays is 9am! Because...family!

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Child focused parenting is actually a luxury of prosperous societies.

That may be true...but entirely irrelevant.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So if my child wakes up at 8 to 8:30, and church is is 11...I'm supposed to put my child down for a nap at 9...a half hour after wake time, so they can have "just had a nap" so they won't get tired at 12:30 to 1:00 when they're still at church?

They just have to learn, dang it! Nap time on Sundays is 9am! Because...family!

You actually also control when your child wakes up - which is tied to when he sleeps.  So if you think waking up at 8 does not work with an 11am church time - you can wake him up at 6 instead... or 10.  Whichever works better for your family.  We've already established Church is important.

And yes, because... family!  That's a very integral part of childhood development - that they meet other's needs and not just their own - revolving as a society rather an just an individual.

Edited September 20, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That may be true...but entirely irrelevant.

Well, you're the one that brought it up.

But I think it is relevant because of my last paragraph above.  The luxury of prosperous societies makes it possible to live as individuals - which has its benefits but is not ideal especially as it relates to the organization of the kingdom of God.  So children will eventually have to learn to cooperate and live as a society.

Edited September 20, 2018 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

You actually also control when your child wakes up - which is tied to when he sleeps.  So if you think waking up at 8 does not work with an 11am church time - you can wake her up at 6 instead... or 10.  Whichever works better.

And yes, because... family!  That's a very integral part of childhood development - that they meet other's needs and not just their own.

So if what works best for everyone (family) is to put the baby down at a time where they wake at around 8:30 every day except for Sunday...we're back to what I originally asked? Do you expect me to alter the schedule for waking every day just to accommodate the church schedule -- and accordingly make the rest of the week's schedule not work well? Or do you believe that forcing my 1 year old out of bed at 6am that one day a week won't result in crankiness from said 1 year old?

You seem to be discussing two different things. I agree that a child should not rule the roost, so to speak, and must accommodate (as much as possible) the greater needs of the family. That is an entirely different issue than expecting said child to not be cranky from said accommodation. You keep implying that I believe in letting the child's nap needs take precedence over everything. I haven't said that. I haven't even implied that. So why do you keep implying it?

What I am suggesting is that having the child accommodate the needs of the family will, inevitably, at times, lead to the child being cranky. How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So children will eventually have to learn to cooperate and live as a society.

No they won't. Children never have to learn anything. Learning is unimportant. Children should remain spoiled and pampered their whole lives.

Is this what you believe I am saying or think?

[Guest]

I see the arguments for more time and for less time.  And most of them are even reasonable.  But whatever happens, I rest assured that the Lord is leading this Church.  I'll do what the Lord leads me to do.

[Chilean]

1 hour ago, Overwatch said:

Oh my goodness. Those asking for four hours of church can have that. I, for one, enjoy having the rest of my Sunday to rest after church meetings and leadership meetings. I used to work all week and then "Saturday is a special day; it's the day we get ready for Sunday" so that only left Sunday as my day to partake of the sacrament, pay my tithes and give my offerings. After that I wanted to go home and rest. I used to go out with the missionaries but I got a bit burnt out. Now I have more time on my hands but still I could only imagine how exhausting it would be having a four hour block. Especially for someone who works a lot and just needs some rest. Sunday is a day or rest where we rest from our labors.

  My husband and I have a rule, we don't do anything on Sundays other than going to church. We don't do ministering, and we don't let others come and minister either. or anything like that. We would host dinners with the missionaries and their investigators, but as far as leaving the house to go to the Work, we don't do it on Sundays. Sundays is to spend them with family. I think we feel that way as me and my husband work fulltime jobs, and have 3 kids, and want to be able to spend time with our family on Sundays.