JamesZA

I did a brief check, so apologies if I'm bringing up something that has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it. After musing on the changes we've seen recently, not just the 2-hour Sunday block, but the shift towards ministering vs home-/visiting-teaching, but also other things such as the lowering of the age for missionaries, introduction of Preach My Gospel, the shift from PH/RS "manuals" from teachings of the prophets towards recent general conference messages, council meetings, focus on special topics (Sabbath day, ministering, personal scripture study), various iterations of Come Follow Me youth manuals over the past few years, a new Gospel Principles book, new For the Strength of Youth pamphlets, etc. etc. The trend that I'm seeing is that it's steering the members towards deeper conversion, taking more responsibility for keeping the Holy Ghost with them and making the Gospel part of their daily doings. This is great. I fully believe that each person should do his or her best to get Christ's image in his / her own countenance, and the new resources and programmes to guide us to do this are wonderful. However. We currently have many members who are just floating along. You know the ones I'm talking about. They are good people and attend (most of) their meetings, they don't swear, drink coffee or steal from their employers, they have read enough of the scriptures at some point in their lives to be able to answer questions in a Sunday School class. And yet, they are not particularly diligent in studying the scriptures or praying regularly, or perhaps they don't pay a full tithe or fulfil home-teaching assignments very well. (They might not even know it's called "ministering" now because they took a holiday on that conference weekend.) In my most honest moments, I can see this has actually been me for parts of my life, though not always. Corridor-talk at a leadership training meeting this past weekend in my stake suggested that many leaders are of the opinion that these changes are filters, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I kind of see their point, but at the same time it worries me a bit. I'm keen to hear some others' thoughts. What will happen to our members who aren't as diligent perhaps as they could be? Will they get left behind somehow? Will it be possible to maintain their current status quo, albeit with an hour extra to nap on Sunday afternoons? Will there be a divergence between "wheat" and "chaff"?

Been away for a while so I didn't notice your response. The "coincidence" that I was referring to was, a couple of weeks before the general conference my previous quorum president had moved away. I find out after the fact that the leaders wanted to call me to replace him, but I was travelling for work for several weeks and only got back after the general conference, had I been called then I would have immediately been released (as all the quorum presidents and high priests group leaders were). I may well have been re-called, but in my mind the fact that my calling came around the same time as the change was the coincidence that I was referring to.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the women's session (for what are probably obvious reasons, I hope?) - but Pres. Nelson invited the youth to do a similar thing a little while ago. My wife is in the YW presidency in our ward so she did it with them. Just like normal fasting isn't about giving up food entirely, but rather strengthening our spirits over our physical needs, so I think this social media fast is to strengthen our spirits over our social desires and urges. Because let's face it, maybe not with everyone, but with a lot of people the social media is out of control. Even for those who don't have a problem this can be a blessing. (I'm not really on many social media, a couple of forums perhaps, so it wasn't too hard for me to join the youth in their fast recently 😉 This is a real concern. With families being spread all over the world (or even just in different cities), social media has become a good way to keep in touch. I guess that in the strictest sense if one wants to fast from all social media for 10 days, this could cut you off from your family, which I don't think is in the spirit of what was being asked. One could find a bit of a distinction in the kinds of social media that one uses though. Something like Skype is more "focused" if you will? It lets you make a phone-call or text message much like a normal phone, but cheaper. Something like Facebook on the other hand, while it does have those functions, also bombards you with lots of other stuff which is calculated to keep your eyeballs on the web-page as long as possible so that Facebook can make money by showing you ads. The things it shows you are not necessarily good for you, but only calculated to keep you there for as long as it can.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is about. IMO MormonHub was fine, not the name I'd have chosen but fine. I'd prefer something involving LDS as others here have mentioned. Pres. Nelson was very emphatic about using the proper name of the Church. The forum isn't connected to the Church as such, except that it's owned (and mostly populated) by members of said Church. What Pres. Nelson didn't call for was expunging the word "Mormon" from our vocabulary or vernacular, but we do need to stop using it to refer to the Church. "Third Hour" is quite a nice title actually, IMO, if the forum was specifically for seasoned Mormons (whoops, old habits die hard) members who miss three-hour meeting. Kind of an insider reference. But as has been mentioned - it would be difficult for an outsider to identify what the forum is about. All that being said, I'll be most annoyed if my bookmarks break, so as long as the "mormonhub.com" URL redirects to the right place I'll be happy.

It depends on the unit really. Our unit at the moment: 3 hours on Sunday, 1.5 hours mutual for youth and leaders during the week, 1.5 hours of institute for young adults, 30 minutes of seminary on weekdays for high school children, then there are usually ad-hoc activities or service projects. Ministering (formerly home teaching) takes time too, and since about everyone hasa calling of some sort there's usually some kind of meeting or interview once or twice per month to attend. I've never (well once, briefly and tragically) been involved in any sort of choir so I'm only vaguely aware of their practices. So it could be roughly 5 hours per week, on average, for active members.

My 2c: In my experience, whenever the church "changes" something it's nothing more or less than a shake-up because we've forgotten what we were supposed to be doing anyway. There's never been a time when the emphasis wasn't about the home primarily, with the church to support. There never was a time when we weren't supposed to study the gospel on our own and with our families, and there have always been useful resources that the church produces which can help us. There's never been a time when home teaching was about delivering a monthly message instead of ministering to the needs of the assigned families. Unless we got complacent, in each case. Which we often do. Sure, there are some superficial differences at church which if you compare January 2019 with January 2017, but if you think about it nothing is really different. The mission of the church hasn't changed.

My 2c. I can't stand by and watch Black Panther slandered like this. I thought it was pretty epic as Marvel movies go. I thought Killmonger was certainly one of the more interesting villains that Marvel has produced so far. Why would there need to be an SJW spin on this though? Black Panther has been in Marvel comics since forever, and it makes sense that the majority of the cast would be black since... well.. Africa? So why single it out? It's not an SJW move, it's just a good action movie.

You're not a failure! I've read the BoM many times and though I usually plough through these chapters, I seldom get much out of them. Even simply reading the BoM is a victory in many ways. For the most part the truths therein are plain and precious.

I'm surprised at the reaction to this. Sure, the homosexuality topic touches a nerve for some. The church isn't legitimising it here. Merely acknowledging that it exists. We also believe infant baptism is an abomination but we'll happily use records of infant baptism in our family history. This has been done right since the beginning and it hasn't led to the church practising infant baptism either for the living or the dead. It's not a slippery slope at all. Just part of our keeping a record of what happened. No fundamental doctrines were changed. Similarly with this. No doctrines are in danger of being changed. Sure. It may be uncomfortable to show your children the family tree if there are such couples represented in it. Family trees can be uncomfortable anyway. My great grandfather was a serial womaniser and had children by several women. Recording these children's births is uncomfortable but it happened. Doesn't legitimise sinful behaviour one bit.

I'm going to point out some problems with the logic here. @Grunt said: "Standards of modesty exist when we interact with each other." All of a sudden, in the next post, suddenly women aren't responsible for the thoughts men have? I think that someone has jumped to a few conclusions here. Western society has, historically anyway, some conventions regarding what Mormons usually call modesty, but can also be called propriety, decorum, dignity, etc. It's a social convention, yes. Other societies don't have quite the same rules, e.g. those originating from tropical regions. If you want to get along with someone, then you need to follow the rules that they consider to be important. This is a two-way thing, one group can't just demand concessions from the other, there needs to be some compromise. In this instance, the guest may not have been comfortable around the lady of the lady of the house dressed as described. If she wants him there, then as much as he needs to respect her rules, she also needs to accommodate him. If she doesn't want him there, then she and her husband need to have a discussion around when guests are and are not appropriate, which ones are ok or not ok, etc. As to what is appropriate and what is not, I venture no opinion. If we want to associate with each other, then we need to agree on these kinds of things. The issue here is *not* "If [guest] looks at [hostess]'s lady parts and thinks naughty thoughts, it's his problem not hers."

I'm going to be a bit pedantic and suggest that a more correct way to put this would be, that (in general) men are more aroused by visual cues than women are. Being "susceptible to sexual desires" doesn't make much sense. Both men and women desire sex, but (again, in general) become aroused differently.

Sorry, that wasn't a swipe at your memes, just a general expression of frustration. Like Nephi said of those who don't search out knowledge, etc...

Hello all, Have lurked on these forums for ages. Created an account just to respond here because it's something I feel strongly about. NeuroTypical's last info-picture from the Genetic Literacy Project is very informative, and his (or her? sorry, it's not quite obvious) assertion that GMOs are "safe and cool, and keep people from starving on a global scale" is true but with some qualifiers. In the spirit of actually educating yourself, please consider the following nuances: Everything you eat is genetically modified anyway. Corn, carrots, tomatoes, chickens, basically anything that isn't game meat, has been through thousands of years of husbandry. You don't get that stuff in the wild, because it wouldn't survive in the wild. It's not 'organic' if you want to use it in the truest sense of the word. So the objection to GMOs for health reasons (as pointed out in that last infographic) is completely unfounded and frankly selfish. As NeuroTypical mentioned, it keeps the biggest portion of the world's poor alive. Check out the Wikipedia article on Norman Borlaug and the green revolution for more details. That being said, however, there are some pitfalls. Monsanto is normally the biggest bad-guy when it comes to GMO stuff but they're not the only player in the game. They do have some questionable business practices, and when you start combining commercial science and research with food production then patents and IP start becoming a problem. I know of a number of farmers who have been burned by legal issues with Monsanto for essentially following traditional farming methods which weren't part of the terms and conditions in the sale of seeds. This is a complex issue and worth looking up if you're interested but not really anything to do with nutrition. That being said however, a common genetic modification is to grow pesticide-resistant crops, so that lazy farmers instead of weeding and killing bugs manually, just spray loads of poison on their crops. That poison doesn't always wash away, and crops that have been sprayed with lots of insecticide can in lab-tests be shown to have elevated levels of them still when they reach the consumer. This is a real concern, but it's not so much with the crops themselves as with the poor farming technique. The amount of misinformation out there does frustrate me, and it's better to approach this topic from an informed, rational perspective.