More Changes to Come in 2019

[zil]

Once again, we need a "puke" reaction icon. 🤢

[SpiritDragon]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

It is a surefire way, though I am not sure it is the "most."  It is hard to beat man buns (particularly when worn with a kilt) for repelling higher callings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The facial hair is sure to help as well.

[BJ64]

On 1/5/2019 at 11:40 PM, askandanswer said:

I'm fully expecting a revelation that Australia, rather than America, is now the new promised land and that fountain pens really are the tool of the devil.  I'm not sure why the rest of the church has not yet realised this.

I suppose fountain pens could be problematic in Australia, being upside down and all. 😄

[BJ64]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:06 AM, NeuroTypical said:

My ward once had the distinction in our stake as Most Bearded Ward.  It's a distinction I try to keep going.

A few weeks back I counted in priesthood meeting. A full 1/3 of those in attendance had beards. 

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

A few weeks back I counted in priesthood meeting. A full 1/3 of those in attendance had beards. 

Were they all sitting towards the back?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[e-eye]

10 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Were they all sitting towards the back?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

With colored shirts? 

[BJ64]

17 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Were they all sitting towards the back?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, there were thirty of us meeting in the high council room, sitting around the table in the middle of the room and lining the walls of the room. Basically a circle within a circle. Ten had beards. There were 23 with beards in sacrament meeting but some go to the primary, some to the young men and then there’s those who just sit in the foyer or leave after sacrament meeting. 

A member of our bishopric has a beard, the ward clerk and two assistant clerks have beards. Two members of the elders quorum presidency have beards and a member of the Sunday school presidency has a beard. 

Three bearded men teach Sunday school and four teach primary. Our ward family history consultant who is also a school district superintendent also has a beard.

 

[BJ64]

Oh, a member of our stake high council also has a beard. 

[wenglund]

7 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

No, there were thirty of us meeting in the high council room, sitting around the table in the middle of the room and lining the walls of the room. Basically a circle within a circle. Ten had beards. There were 23 with beards in sacrament meeting but some go to the primary, some to the young men and then there’s those who just sit in the foyer or leave after sacrament meeting. 

A member of our bishopric has a beard, the ward clerk and two assistant clerks have beards. Two members of the elders quorum presidency have beards and a member of the Sunday school presidency has a beard. 

Three bearded men teach Sunday school and four teach primary. Our ward family history consultant who is also a school district superintendent also has a beard.

 

My question was tongue-in-cheek, particularly given that I have a beard and am the Elders Quorum secretary, and am obliged to sit in the front.

Thanks -Wade Englund-

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, BJ64 said:

A few weeks back I counted in priesthood meeting. A full 1/3 of those in attendance had beards. 

I guess this is not quite the same as everyone in attendance having 1/3 of a beard? Same amount of beard but different distribution. 

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

What if they made our ministering companion our spouses?

[zil]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

What if they made our ministering companion our spouses?

That option exists, including in the software (often, the Church software clarifies the rules, because the business rules have to boil down to 0s and 1s ).

I think two of the things preventing this as the norm, at least for now, are the desire to include youth (I could see this resolved simply as the entire family ministering together), and the number of adult members without a spouse (more difficult to resolve without generating even more feelings of exclusion).  Also, when women minister to women, the interaction is very different from when men minister to women (or really, from when a man is simply present), so there may be a net negative effect were the former eliminated.  (No idea why there's never been a men ministering to men program - probably something innate to maleness.)

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

1 minute ago, zil said:

That option exists, including in the software (often, the Church software clarifies the rules, because the business rules have to boil down to 0s and 1s ).

I think two of the things preventing this as the norm, at least for now, are the desire to include youth (I could see this resolved simply as the entire family ministering together), and the number of adult members without a spouse (more difficult to resolve without generating even more feelings of exclusion).  Also, when women minister to women, the interaction is very different from when men minister to women (or really, from when a man is simply present), so there may be a net negative effect were the former eliminated.  (No idea why there's never been a men ministering to men program - probably something innate to maleness.)

Those are good points.

 

[Traveler]

On 1/5/2019 at 9:47 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we did see changes just this week to some of the dialogue in the temple endowment.

We were also asked not to talk openly (outside of the temple) of such things.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, zil said:

That option exists, including in the software (often, the Church software clarifies the rules, because the business rules have to boil down to 0s and 1s ).

I think two of the things preventing this as the norm, at least for now, are the desire to include youth (I could see this resolved simply as the entire family ministering together), and the number of adult members without a spouse (more difficult to resolve without generating even more feelings of exclusion).  Also, when women minister to women, the interaction is very different from when men minister to women (or really, from when a man is simply present), so there may be a net negative effect were the former eliminated.  (No idea why there's never been a men ministering to men program - probably something innate to maleness.)

Just had a thought - I know of nothing to prevent ministers from going in greater numbers than 2.  Even in on my mission it was not all that uncommon to have 3 or more missionaries (ministers) teaching together for some visits.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just had a thought - I know of nothing to prevent ministers from going in greater numbers than 2.  Even in on my mission it was not all that uncommon to have 3 or more missionaries (ministers) teaching together for some visits.

The Traveler

This is also correct and the software supports it.  I've never tried to see how many people I can add as companions, but "more than 3" appears to be correct - and I have companionships of 3, and one husband & wife companionship (perhaps it's the Elders who have this, or the ward, or something - really not sure exactly how to qualify that companionship - I entered them in the system, but he's an Elder, so...).

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, zil said:

This is also correct and the software supports it.  I've never tried to see how many people I can add as companions, but "more than 3" appears to be correct - and I have companionships of 3, and one husband & wife companionship (perhaps it's the Elders who have this, or the ward, or something - really not sure exactly how to qualify that companionship - I entered them in the system, but he's an Elder, so...).

Maybe the end goal is to take a ward of, say...200, and assign all 200 of them as ministering companions one to another, then assign that companionship to minister to the 200 people in the ward.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

We were also asked not to talk openly (outside of the temple) of such things.

 

The Traveler

Its public knowledge.

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its public knowledge.

Irrelevant.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Irrelevant.

Really?

 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-worship

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Really?

 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-worship

Is it so hard for you to comprehend that it's not about whether / how / what the world learns of sacred things, but of whether one will obey instructions from a prophet?

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, zil said:

This is also correct and the software supports it.  I've never tried to see how many people I can add as companions, but "more than 3" appears to be correct - and I have companionships of 3, and one husband & wife companionship (perhaps it's the Elders who have this, or the ward, or something - really not sure exactly how to qualify that companionship - I entered them in the system, but he's an Elder, so...).

In our Ward, we have assigned multiple companions to certain "high need/priority" households, oft where one companionship is comprised of two men and the other companionship is comprised of a husband and wife. 

This is particularly useful with divorced women and single mothers.

However, the church software only assumes a single companionship, and lists both companions as though they are one. I have submitted a suggestion to allow for separate companions, but have seen nothing as yet.

I suspect that another reasons there is a reticence to assign husbands and wives as companions is the natural tendency for certain men (the weaker among us) to shift the weight of that responsibility to the women and Relief Society. If the ladies have make visits as ministering sisters, the men might figure that the houshold has been taken care of for that month since his companion had already made a visit.

On the other hand, some of the husbands may be more likely to get out and minister were their wives prodding them along.

Who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 10, 2019 by wenglund

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Is it so hard for you to comprehend that it's not about whether / how / what the world learns of sacred things, but of whether one will obey instructions from a prophet?

I think Rob is trying to say that since the church has issued press releases about it, and the press releases are clearly approved in some way by the Prophet, than certain aspects of the temple ceremony can be addressed in slight ways. 

Or maybe not. Who knows? 

Edited January 10, 2019 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

Is it so hard for you to comprehend that it's not about whether / how / what the world learns of sacred things, but of whether one will obey instructions from a prophet?

So I quoted a statement by the first Prseidency. What part are you missing?

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think Rob is trying to say that since the church has issued press releases about it, and the press releases are clearly approved in some way by the Prophet, than certain aspects of the temple ceremony can be addressed in slight ways. 

Or maybe not. Who knows? 

We have this problem as LDS where we are afraid to mention anything whatsoever from inside of temples. Much of what goes on inside of temples is public knowledge. What we dont discuss are the sacred parts and details of our covenants with accompanying signs, tokens and rites.