2 hour church ? why so happy


estowife
 Share

Recommended Posts

Upon accepting President Nelson's challenge, Book of Mormon challenge (also given by Elder Bednar and my stake two weeks prior) I feel these verses will more come to pass as we follow home centered learning: 1 Nephi 13: 37 - 41 &14: 1.

Particularly verse 37 and verse 1:

Quote

37. And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

Quote

1. And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks—

I am likening verse 1 unto myself that as I and my family hearken unto this counsel the Lord will manifest himself unto me and my family in word, in power, in very deed, and taking away our stumbling blocks (our weaknesses) as we trust in the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Edited by Anddenex
head to hearken unto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It seems to me that the flaw in this theory is that it implies that all those who lived and died prior to this change are somehow potentially worse off in the eternities. Like those living now have a better shot at dieification. It's the same problem as implying that those who faithfully lived the law of Moses when it was the law have a lesser shot at things than those who lived faithfully following Christ's teachings after Him.

I'm not saying this by way of argument, because I don't know that I fully understand it. But I trust that those who faithfully did their home teaching are just as likely to have their reward as those who now faithfully do their ministering.

It seems, as I think on it, that the change is more related to the times we live in than directly being the better way to exalt people.

 

 

To me, and by way of clarification rather than argumentation, if there were no potential for growth beyond the grave, then the supposed flaw would be valid.

On an individual basis, the supposed flaw would be like suggesting that am active member who died recently at age nine would be worse off than an active and married member with children who died recently of old age. The fact that the former wasn't availed the opportunity for more advanced gospel development in this life as the later, doesn't mean the former will be "worse off" in the after life , any more than those who didn't have a chance to receive the gospel in this life would be "worse off" than those who did--Elder Ballard's salient remarks during General Conference come to mind.

Granted, I was speaking collectively of God's people across the various dispensation.  though I believe the same principle applies.

I believe it is beyond dispute that the Kingdom of God on earth has grow and developed from Adam and Eve, and particularly since Moses, to the present day, not just in terms of numbers of members, but also in terms of increasingly higher laws and greater and more in-depth knowledge and elevating practices. It is not coincidental that the final dispensation is called the fullness of times.

Even within the Latter days there has been significant development from the rudimentary knowledge and practices of the general membership of the church in the 1830's compared with the advanced knowledge and practice of the general membership today. One need but ascertain the  differences in use of the Kirkland temple back in the day vs the modern Navoo temple.

I am simply acknowledging this continued growth and development of the Church within the context of the end goal of the gospel plan.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Connie said:

And I think it's a tragedy that we are losing the opportunity to sing opening & closing hymns in Relief Society,

That was probably the reason; I won't say the Church has a problem finding good sopranos, but the dogs near every meetinghouse I've been to seem to howl a lot during that hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

However, feeling disappointed in a prophet's announcement immediately puts one in a problematic position.

I don't think that this is necessarily the case. We aren't sheep. It's an opportunity to seek confirmation from the Spirit by yourself. If we were all just delighted with everything the prophet said, then we are probably not understanding it or processing it deeply enough.

16 hours ago, Fether said:

For those that actually do what is suppose to happen there will be some really cool blessings, but for those that don’t do the home study... they are better off doing the 3 hour block that they were already attending.

Perhaps this is true, but this has always been the case. Studying the gospel by yourself always brought blessings, even if you were attending a 3 hour block. The extra hour doesn't really make that much different in terms of time to study if you were going to do it anyway.

However, I know a fair few people who weren't attending 3 hours for whatever reason, and for them a shorter meeting will be more achievable. One particular sister in my old ward always went home after 2 hours and consequently was never at an RS meeting. Now she'll get to attend RS meetings regularly.

16 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Those in our ward who are ministering are the ones who were honorable home teachers. Since the switch I have two assigned ministers who have never reached out to me or my family.

In a lot of cases you could be right, but I have seen some counter-examples as well. One brother in my ward struggled to do any home-teaching for whatever reason, he had his excuses. But since the start of the ministering programme (and by coincidence I was called as a quorum president at around the same time) I have encouraged him to reach out to his assigned families in other ways. He now frequently invites those individuals to have a meal with his family after church on a Sunday, which wouldn't have "counted" as home-teaching but is arguably just as valuable and is much easier for him to fit in his schedule.

Sure, there are those who take the lack of reported visits as an opportunity to be lazy, but there are also new opportunities now which, while they were there under the home-teaching programme (no one would have stopped him inviting home-teaching families to his house for a meal), they were not emphasised as much as a monthly visit and a first-presidency message. I love the new focus.

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the relatively short-lived introduction of councils into the third hour, which isn't included in the new meeting format (except for maybe 5th Sundays), gave people enough of a taste to apply it in their homes and for leaders to use it in assigning problem-solving groups.

The FAQ that the first presidency released indicated that Elders Quorums and Relief Societies can use some time during their allocated twice-monthly hours to counsel on topics as the need arises. I think that allows us some flexibility to implement these principles when we need them.

9 hours ago, Connie said:

And I think it's a tragedy that we are losing the opportunity to sing opening & closing hymns in Relief Society.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that opening & closing hymns were not required, but not forbidden either. Surely a unit could still do them if they want to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reaction...

overall I am neutral on the change itself.  Several points...

1.  I am excessively GRIEVED at how the members are taking it.  The rejoicing is NOT due to their ability to have a greater time to focus on the Lord, but simply that they will have less time to worship.  They are too joyful and happy because they felt church was a burden, and I HIGHLY do not see them spending anymore time at home studying the gospel than they were previously overall.  You may have a few here or there, but for the most part, people are just happy because they didn't like being in church or spending time doing church things.

2.  I think this idea of rotating between Sunday School and Priesthood is a BAD idea.  It creates a rotating schedule which makes for an unsteady ark.  When investigators come to church more than one Sunday in a Row at first this will be rather confusing and maybe even offputting.  It's a start of chaos.  Further, some members will take it that ever other sunday they can skip Sunday School and go home (as there is no temple requirement and attendance taken really doesn't go anywhere).  I think it may have been better just to relegate it to Priesthood and Relief Society and have Sunday School as a separate thing.  Other religions that have a shorter block (which I think is what we are trying to emulate a little) have Sunday School as optional and have it either prior to the service, some time later in the day, or during the week.  I think we should have done something similar.

3.  For those who hate church, when they know it is shorter, may decide it is just short enough that they will come back.  I don't expect a majority, but a few, here and there.

4.  it gives Bishoprics an hour more to be able to maybe get a nap during the day (or at least a better chance to get home earlier than they had before with interviews and such).  I still expect tithing settlement to keep Bishoprics out to all hours.

5.  Going back to #1, I think the attitude that I've seen for the most part reflects 3rd Nephi where it does not say those who were righteous were saved, but those who were less wicked than everyone else.  I think our attitudes in some ways are becoming more in common with the world and as it does, we will see more and more changes that make it easier to have things in common with the world.  As such, I think we can celebrate that the Prophet has revealed a program to try to help those who are trying to keep the Sabbath day holy while at the same time appealing to those who just want out of the church so they can go water ski (or whatever Sabbath activity they have planned), but at the same time feel concern about the reasons WHY it needed to be done in the first place.

Just my thoughts on the entire thing thus far...it's still new and I hold the right that my opinions and thoughts on this can change as time passes.  It may be I will be more positive and see more positive effects of it as time passes.  Right now I can see good and ill in it.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

My reaction...

overall I am neutral on the change itself.  Two points...

1.  I am excessively GRIEVED at how the members are taking it.  The rejoicing is NOT due to their ability to have a greater time to focus on the Lord, but simply that they will have less time to worship.  They are too joyful and happy because they felt church was a burden, and I HIGHLY do not see them spending anymore time at home studying the gospel than they were previously overall.  You may have a few here or there, but for the most part, people are just happy because they didn't like being in church or spending time doing church things.

2.  I think this idea of rotating between Sunday School and Priesthood is a BAD idea.  It creates a rotating schedule which makes for an unsteady ark.  When investigators come to church more than one Sunday in a Row at first this will be rather confusing and maybe even offputting.  It's a start of chaos.  Further, some members will take it that ever other sunday they can skip Sunday School and go home (as there is no temple requirement and attendance taken really doesn't go anywhere).  I think it may have been better just to relegate it to Priesthood and Relief Society and have Sunday School as a separate thing.  Other religions that have a shorter block (which I think is what we are trying to emulate a little) have Sunday School as optional and have it either prior to the service, some time later in the day, or during the week.  I think we should have done something similar.

3.  For those who hate church, when they know it is shorter, may decide it is just short enough that they will come back.  I don't expect a majority, but a few, here and there.

4.  it gives Bishoprics an hour more to be able to maybe get a nap during the day (or at least a better chance to get home earlier than they had before with interviews and such).  I still expect tithing settlement to keep Bishoprics out to all hours.

5.  Going back to #1, I think the attitude that I've seen for the most part reflects 3rd Nephi where it does not say those who were righteous were saved, but those who were less wicked than everyone else.  I think our attitudes in some ways are becoming more in common with the world and as it does, we will see more and more changes that make it easier to have things in common with the world.  As such, I think we can celebrate that the Prophet has revealed a program to try to help those who are trying to keep the Sabbath day holy while at the same time appealing to those who just want out of the church so they can go water ski (or whatever Sabbath activity they have planned), but at the same time feel concern about the reasons WHY it needed to be done in the first place.

Just my thoughts on the entire thing thus far...it's still new and I hold the right that my opinions and thoughts on this can change as time passes.  It may be I will be more positive and see more positive effects of it as time passes.

I don't disagree with anything you've posted, but I'm also grieved at how the members are taking it on the other side as well (myself included).  I lament the time lost communing with my fellow Saints.  We are told to gather together and this will be one less hour of that.

However, I'm really excited about the home study program.  It looks awesome and will be a benefit once I understand it.  That said, it seems it's time to stop waiting for Church leaders to organize my time and educate me.  It's time to take the ball and run with it, perhaps even organizing a weekly gathering or two outside the home with other families for study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think this idea of rotating between Sunday School and Priesthood is a BAD idea.

I thought this was the best thing about it - an ideal way to handle the change - getting rid of one or the other would leave a need unfulfilled.  Shortening both would leave them too short to be effective.  Really, this is the best way to keep both - and gives Sunday School the extra 10 minutes they always tried to take anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

they can skip Sunday School and go home (as there is no temple requirement

Then their bishop isn't explaining the temple recommend interview questions sufficiently - or they're not asking, or they're not thinking about the questions.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zil said:

I thought this was the best thing about it - an ideal way to handle the change - getting rid of one or the other would leave a need unfulfilled.  Shortening both would leave them too short to be effective.  Really, this is the best way to keep both - and gives Sunday School the extra 10 minutes they always tried to take anyway.

Sunday School over the past decade has been problematic.  It is not required for a temple recommend and people know this (or at least we don't do anything with the attendance...it's not really reported upwards).  Thus, in order to keep as many going as possible, the suggested schedules normally sandwich it between Sacrament and Priesthood.

Rather than trying to force people to go or make it mandatory, let people have the option of whether to go or not.

This is, of course, flavored by personal opinion.  I see Priesthood as FAR more important than Sunday School in the scale of things.  Rather than relegate it to every other week, keep it a weekly thing.

Sunday School on the otherhand, simply let it be completely optional.  Put it prior to church and let those who wish to go...go to Sunday School.  Or put it at some other time. 

As it is, I think many will still see it optional, but it will result in two Sundays a month where we have a mass desertion the second hour, rather than most everyone staying around for it.

Maybe things will change and attendance will start to be recorded (it's already taken normally, just nothing is done with it) for Sunday School, I don't know.  We'll see when January rolls around.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is not required for a temple recommend and people know this. 

You are wrong.  Go see my previous post.  Then ponder and pray.  If you really need me to, I'll explain, but better to counsel with your bishop (hopefully he knows it's as required as all the other Sunday meetings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zil said:

You are wrong.  Go see my previous post.  Then ponder and pray.  If you really need me to, I'll explain, but better to counsel with your bishop (hopefully he knows it's as required as all the other Sunday meetings).

I'm positive my Bishop sees it the same way as I do.  Perhaps the Bishop should see the Stake President during PPI?

That little humor aside though...

I understand what you mean, but in reality as per records, at least we do, only go off of Sacrament and Priesthood attendance for male members.  It's a tough thing with Sunday School and my opinion as to why the suggestion for meeting plans (when we had the 3 hr block) was to sandwich it between the two other meetings.

Yes, we should go to the meetings, but, as this two hour change shows with how some are celebrating it, many were not happy with going to three meetings a week and many did NOT (and still don't) like Sunday School.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JamesZA said:

We aren't sheep.

Speak for yourself. 😜

5 hours ago, JamesZA said:

It's an opportunity to seek confirmation from the Spirit by yourself.

I already have confirmation from the Spirit that God leads this church and that Pres. Nelson is His prophet.

That's not to say I don't expect to gain a strong testimony of the new church program. But I certainly don't need confirmation from the Spirit that it's it right. I already know it is.

5 hours ago, JamesZA said:

If we were all just delighted with everything the prophet said, then we are probably not understanding it or processing it deeply enough.

Hmm. I'm not sure being delighted is the opposite of being disappointed. Christ, for example, was not exactly delighted to have to go through the agony of the Garden of Gethsemane. I don't believe He was disappointing either. He had strong faith and trust in His Father's will, but that doesn't change the fact that it was extremely painful and unpleasant.

I am delighted with the home focus part of the message. I am, at the same time, disappointed with losing some of my church time. These two things are not at odds with each other, nor does my disappointment have anything to do with my faith in God or my trust that He leads this church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm positive my Bishop sees it the same way as I do.  Perhaps the Bishop should see the Stake President during PPI?

That little humor aside though...

I understand what you mean, but in reality as per records, at least we do, only go off of Sacrament and Priesthood attendance for male members.  It's a tough thing with Sunday School and my opinion as to why the suggestion for meeting plans (when we had the 3 hr block) was to sandwich it between the two other meetings.

If you're so positive, counsel with him and see what comes out of it.  Flat-out ask him which meetings are covered by the "other meetings" part of the question.

No one looks at records during your temple recommend interview.  They ask you a question.  I recommend listening very closely to the question.

Guess what happens to attendance records.  Numbers are compiled and given to the clerk and the records with the names are trashed.  They aren't given to the bishop or clerk (for example).  They aren't archived in Iron Mountain.  The presidency of the organization may use the names to identify those who are in need of ministering (based on changes in attendance patterns), but no one outside the presidency of the organization uses them.  (Unless the Priesthood do something different with their attendance records than the bishop, in which case, I'm going to discuss that fact with my bishop.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, zil said:

If you're so positive, counsel with him and see what comes out of it.  Flat-out ask him which meetings are covered by the "other meetings" part of the question.

No one looks at records during your temple recommend interview.  They ask you a question.  I recommend listening very closely to the question.

Guess what happens to attendance records.  Numbers are compiled and given to the clerk and the records with the names are trashed.  They aren't given to the bishop or clerk (for example).  They aren't archived in Iron Mountain.  The presidency of the organization may use the names to identify those who are in need of ministering (based on changes in attendance patterns), but no one outside the presidency of the organization uses them.  (Unless the Priesthood do something different with their attendance records than the bishop, in which case, I'm going to discuss that fact with my bishop.)

I'm pretty certain of what he would say and how the conversation would go.  It is most likely because he doesn't set the policy and the ideas are not dictated by him but from others above him.  Thus it would need to go through the Stake in regards to some of the reasons and questioning. 

With SS numbers, our ward simply doesn't do anything with them. 

You refer to the question of whether one attends sacrament and other meetings and keeps their lives in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel.

Which could be expanded in many ways, but as per our instructions we've received, for men, the most important ones to stress is Sacrament and Priesthood meetings.  Of course we could expand that to any and every meeting in the church (Firesides, Ward activities, etc.) but with our stake we directed in a specific focus for our area at least.

It is, of course, open to each member to discuss what they feel about and if they feel they have not been doing such, should answer honestly (which goes hand in hand with the question on being honest...of course).  However, we are only to really bring it up and stress it in our stake if we have distinctly NOT seen the individual at certain meetings when they state they have been going. 

It could change in stake directives in the future...especially with the new program coming in January.  I don't know.  (and originally, we were only specified about Sacrament, it has been more recently when that was expanded beyond regular Sacrament attendance to include specifically focusing on Priesthood in relation to men's attendance of their quorums...it's changed once it might change again).

Pertaining specifically to attendance records, we keep records.   Quarterly reports have us report on the numbers (so yes, numbers, not names, but we get the numbers from the names on the rolls) I believe for Sacrament attendance, Priesthood Holders attending Melchizedek Priesthood, prospective elders attending these meetings, Women attending Relief Society meetings, young adults attending either of those, endowed members with a temple recommend and other items.  I believe ONLY the last month is actually the recording month, though we keep it for the entire quarter.

We don't use the Sunday School records at all.  They don't come into play. We don't use them as per what I know.  We take Sunday School Attendance but the numbers do not go anywhere.

Anyways, this is derailing the thread from it's topic which is probably far more important on a side track that really...I'm not sure why we are discussing it.  So, I'll post something more on topic of the thread below this.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I am delighted with the home focus part of the message. I am, at the same time, disappointed with losing some of my church time. These two things are not at odds with each other, nor does my disappointment have anything to do with my faith in God or my trust that He leads this church.

My overall tone for me, I think, is more neutral though.  I have some misgivings, I see some positives (I think the focus on the home is a good thing to bolster those who do it), but overall, I'm more of just neither elated nor disappointed on the policy change itself.  I just don't feel moved to feel any strong emotion either way.

The final talk of the conference is one where I think it went round circle.  He talked about the home focus once again, but then also stressed about temple attendance and how we should be going to the temple more.  I have slacked off some in the past year and need to strive to go more often and regularly.  We have temple workers going several times a week, and with the availability of temples around us today, there is no reason I should not be going far more often.

I remember when I was a young man the closest temple was a day's travel away.  They would have temple trips where we would take buses just to get to the temple.  Now days I have a temple that is far closer.  I can go, do several sessions, and be back home all within a day's time.  With the house empty much of the time except me and my wife, there is no reason we should not be able to go to the temple far more often then we do. 

Perhaps that is one of the focuses that I should concentrate on with the new home study program and do more family work and genealogy as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zil said:

Then their bishop isn't explaining the temple recommend interview questions sufficiently - or they're not asking, or they're not thinking about the questions.

Last year when I worked on Sunday and could only attend the 1hr sacrament, My bishop told me in my TR interview "due to your circumstances its ok to only attend sacrament, partaking of the sacrament is very crucial." and issued me my TR.

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

.... They are too joyful and happy because they felt church was a burden, and I HIGHLY do not see them spending anymore time at home studying the gospel than they were previously overall.  You may have a few here or there, but for the most part, people are just happy because they didn't like being in church or spending time doing church things.

The internet is opening social avenues for people of all ages and particularly the younger generation. I am 42 and not really a millennial but I relate more with that generation. Outside of work/school, we are having less and less tolerance of being told what to do because we can go online in social media (FB, IG, Blogs etc..) and find acceptance there. When you attend church you hear people telling you what do to...or else you are "going to hell", or "you will not have the spirit with you." 

We are on the internet learning of new ideas (science, diet, health, spiritual, medical, etc...). We are more informed and connected to cultures and people on the other side of the world that are interesting to us and we have less interest in the social culture going on in our own physical neighborhoods. With new research coming out everyday we are more able to connect the dots between science and religion. I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true gospel and his church is the only true church but church is a social activity, worship is an individual thing between you and God. If I attend church and the majority of active members are 60 and over (wheres all the young families?) I have to put up with old people and their old way of projecting their ideals upon me. Its not a social environment I have to be in .  

Technology has brought satan into our homes 24 hours a day so its spot on that our Prophet is countering with "less church" and more "home worship". This revelation is also the result of the reports coming up the chain from the stakes and wards that many are going inactive (I speak for my stake as a prime example). There are many that have left the church (my ex-wife is one) but have not requested removal from church records, so despite thinking that membership numbers are high, active members is a different story.

I see these new revelations and changes in our church as a process of problem solving.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

Last year when I worked on Sunday and could only attend the 1hr sacrament, My bishop told me in my TR interview "due to your circumstances its ok to only attend sacrament, partaking of the sacrament is very crucial." and issued me my TR.

The internet is opening social avenues for people of all ages and particularly the younger generation. I am 42 and not really a millennial but I relate more with that generation. Outside of work/school, we are having less and less tolerance of being told what to do because we can go online in social media (FB, IG, Blogs etc..) and find acceptance there. When you attend church you hear people telling you what do to...or else you are "going to hell", or "you will not have the spirit with you." 

We are on the internet learning of new ideas (science, diet, health, spiritual, medical, etc...). We are more informed and connected to cultures and people on the other side of the world that are interesting to us and we have less interest in the social culture going on in our own physical neighborhoods. With new research coming out everyday we are more able to connect the dots between science and religion. I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true gospel and his church is the only true church but church is a social activity, worship is an individual thing between you and God. If I attend church and the majority of active members are 60 and over (wheres all the young families?) I have to put up with old people and their old way of projecting their ideals upon me. Its not a social environment I have to be in .  

Technology has brought satan into our homes 24 hours a day so its spot on that our Prophet is countering with "less church" and more "home worship". This revelation is also the result of the reports coming up the chain from the stakes and wards that many are going inactive (I speak for my stake as a prime example). There are many that have left the church (my ex-wife is one) but have not requested removal from church records, so despite thinking that membership numbers are high, active members is a different story.

I see these new revelations and changes in our church as a process of problem solving.

 

I agree that there are MANY of the young generation that are leaving for various reasons (and many who are inactive).

There are many reasons for this (though I primarily would say it is due to having a testimony in an imperfect vehicle, the church, rather than that of the gospel itself.  Where the church may have flaws in leaders and in it's history and thus easy to lose a testimony of, the gospel is a different matter), I think there are some other more solid solutions one could have. 

A big complaint I hear about is the way the church goes about inequality.  This is a real turn off for many of the younger generation.  For the "me" generation they want to see themselves as valued or that there is at least an equality in the church.  When one individual gets to be a High Priest (for various reasons, and they see it due more to family connections, wealth, power, or other such items) and/or a higher church leader while they do not and they can point out others that were better but ignored, or other things, it only reinforces this idea of inequality in the church.   They use it as a crutch to point out racism, wealth divisions, and nepotism.

It's something I've had to deal with directly being told during various inactive member visits I've gone to. 

Though I point this out and have heard this, there are some things we WILL NOT do in the church along these lines (gay marriage, women getting the priesthood).  Complaints that follow these (and I've heard them) are probably barking up the wrong tree.  I don't think there is a way to make these people feel more welcome in this regard while at the same time staying true to the gospel.

I think we could do FAR more to create more equality and a feeling of  justice among the various members who do have these types of dismay in the church though in regards to priesthood, callings, and other things than we are currently doing (and I've suggested a few of these ideas in this regard in other threads that deal with equality and how to try to make it seem a little bit more equal in the priesthood in regards to members so we don't show that favortism and even towards women and the priesthood [not giving them such, but recognizing their role in it] but until we get new blood in to actually deal with equality more, I don't think these ideas will be taken seriously).

I think the younger generation has several things, but they are all about equality and fairness according to WHAT THEY perceive them to be.  (meaning not necessarily what it actually IS).

That, along with a lot of the half truths and other things that are trying to attack the church (not really the gospel, normally these things attack church history or various leaders in the church) I can see exactly what you are talking about with many of the members becoming inactive from what they see and read on the internet and what they are influenced by.

The adversary is truly attacking us in our homes and on the internet.  This is extremely potent in it's target audience of our young people today.

Equality seems to be a HUGE sticking point for many of the young adults, as well as believing anything they hear on the internet dealing with church history from just about anyone opposed to the LDS church (whether true or false).  I see these things in my own ward and members bring these things up to me (though with our area it seems more to do with racism and equality rather than the church history, or at least what they talk to me.  Church history was something I was bombarded by this summer by some individuals that were doing research with me in another area).

I'm not sure reducing the Church by an hour is the answer, but if that's the revelation that the Brethren have received, I hope it does the trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(These are only my opinions and my perspective)

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A big complaint I hear about is the way the church goes about inequality.  This is a real turn off for many of the younger generation.  For the "me" generation they want to see themselves as valued or that there is at least an equality in the church.  When one individual gets to be a High Priest (for various reasons, and they see it due more to family connections, wealth, power, or other such items) and/or a higher church leader while they do not and they can point out others that were better but ignored, or other things, it only reinforces this idea of inequality in the church.   They use it as a crutch to point out racism, wealth divisions, and nepotism.

We do have two big familys in our stake whose roots go back to the settlement of the church in this area. Most of their relatives have served in high positions over the decades. Recently their two son-in-laws were bishops in two wards one of um is now the Stk pres. People here are really laid back and dont care about those things because those families are really good genuine LDS people. My thoughts are more along the lines that they have more stable support from their realtives to fulfill those callings.  I can see how in places like Utah or Idaho where the thought of nepotism would raise eyebrows because it seems that the church culture there is a competition sort of like keeping up with the joneses both spiritualy and financially, atleast thats what I observed when I lived in Provo from 1995-2002. Maybe its good that we (specifically Utah) is getting less church, more time to reflect on themselves at home instead of going to church to compare themselves with their neighbors and even worse...judge each other.

 

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

My overall tone for me, I think, is more neutral though.  I have some misgivings, I see some positives (I think the focus on the home is a good thing to bolster those who do it), but overall, I'm more of just neither elated nor disappointed on the policy change itself.  I just don't feel moved to feel any strong emotion either way.

I loved the 3hr block and I loved my upbringing in the church back in the 80s and 90s because it was 100% my social life, more church was ideal for me growing up,  but may I make an interesting observation and comparison? I got my associates degree in 2002 and failed to return for my Bachelors because life got busy and I just dont like traditional schooling. I love learning but not in a college setting and definitely not at the price of tuition. I made one attempt in 2010 to finish my degree at the Univ of phoenix but only lasted one semester and dropped out..it was 50% on-campus and 50% online.

This past summer I was introduced to a 100% online accelerated program, you work at your own pace and test out of classes as fast or slow as you want. Price is also way cheaper. So this past June 2018, I started the program and so far after 4 months have completed 21 credits. I dont meet face to face with any teachers or counselors and dont need to wait on other students, not much pressure and Im in control. Is this an anti-social environment? Yeah, but what matters is the end result. My Bachelors degree will be just as valid as one from any other Big or small university.

I was not planning on going back to get a Bachelors degree in my lifetime but a new system was introduced and it met my needs.

The end result for us LDS is to obtain and maintain a temple recommend, which assures us greater chances of eternal life with our Heavenly Father.

Traditional methods of Home Teaching are gone, a new ministering system is introduced to meet the needs of the people. Traditional 3 hr church is gone, 2hr blocks are introduced to meet the needs of the people. In the end its all the same goals and results. Get that TR.

Who knows, maybe one day we wont need to go to a church building, interviews with bishops via skype or even through an lds.org website chat app. Not having to be face-to-face with my leaders is not going to influence me to be less obedient, heck maybe even the opposite, I will be able to grow at my own pace and take responsibility for my own salvation and be more serious about it. I know members who have left the church (my ex) who is still very spiritual and God fearing but the current human structure of any religion is a big turn off for her. She actually found a place of worship and no human stand between her and her faith, its listening to abraham hicks talks on youtube. I dont like those abraham hicks talks but I dont see how our church cant morph our style to reach out and fill the needs of people like my ex. I see this change from 3hr to 2hr church as a form of taking just a little bit of the social human element out of the worship and putting it onto ourselves.

 

*once again, just my perspective.

 

Edited by priesthoodpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to have to change some things in my life.  I am impressed that we are going to have to learn to get along better with each other with less structure to rely on to help us.  I am going to have to learn to be more like my wife.  Being of service to others without the extra hour for calling will mean I am going to have to try harder.

I was convinced that the main reason we had calling is because we would not do what needed to be done without a calling to do it.   I never went to any home to minister unless I was called to do so.  I must become a better person in order to minister without a specific calling.  So I can no longer blame priesthood leadership for not giving me more important callings - Now I must learn to listen to the spirit and sometimes; I am not sure I hear the spirit well enough to figure out what to do with one hour more of personal Sabbath time.  I am not good about seeing what others need - I am better at service when someone asks or assigns me - or at least asks for a volunteer.  And I do not think asking others what they need is the kind service G-d expects of me.  My wife is always chiding me for not being aware of other's needs - I thought I was a great member reading scriptures on my own - but I am rethinking my place and wondering how I am going to get this right.  I fear that I am going to have to learn to apologize a lot more for missing important promptings and clues.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Grunt said:

I don't disagree with anything you've posted, but I'm also grieved at how the members are taking it on the other side as well (myself included).  I lament the time lost communing with my fellow Saints.  We are told to gather together and this will be one less hour of that.

I must have missed the commandment not to gather outside of designated meetinghouses.  Maybe you should push your luck and risk heresy by visiting at each others homes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing one hour of classes is Heaven Sent for my ward. We do not have enough members to comfortably staff positions. It is common for people with seriuos illnesses to be pressed into service. I am glad there are no more hymns in Relief Society. More time to get something done. I think that the prophet is responding to the needs of the majority, the non USA saints. The small ward, hanging on by our fingernails, saints. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

We do not have enough members to comfortably staff positions.

There are no fewer positions.  OK, except RS Pianist and Music Leader.  I suppose you can double up because teaching callings will only be every other week, and Primary callings will only require a one hour commitment rather than 2 hours on Sunday, but the actual number of callings hasn't changed.  I would assume fewer speakers on Sunday with 10 minutes gone, but I could be wrong - they could make it harder and ask for the same number, just shorter talks (shorter is always harder to do well than longer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zil said:

There are no fewer positions.  OK, except RS Pianist and Music Leader.  I suppose you can double up because teaching callings will only be every other week, and Primary callings will only require a one hour commitment rather than 2 hours on Sunday, but the actual number of callings hasn't changed.  I would assume fewer speakers on Sunday with 10 minutes gone, but I could be wrong - they could make it harder and ask for the same number, just shorter talks (shorter is always harder to do well than longer).

Big difference teaching every 2nd week and teaching every week. And will we double up? You bet we will. I was once asked to serve on the Young Women’s pres and teach in RS. No one thought this odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share