Predictions on policy changes during conference?


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator

@Vort, dude. You know how hard it is to get converts when we say they can't drink or smoke weed? A four hour block will basically be the death blow to the church! 

(just playing everyone) 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Vort, dude. You know how hard it is to get converts when we say they can't drink or smoke weed? A four hour block will basically be the death blow to the church! 

(just playing everyone) 

Only the elect of God want a 4 hour church block.

 

(Also just joking around)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The emphasis is on teaching in the home.  That is family centered and many members are letting the Sunday church structure take that responsibility for them.  We can not survive the spiritual darkness around us (that is growing) without doing something to step up the game in the home.  A two hour block puts extra time into the home.  Those who are spiritually in tune will take that extra time in the home to improve home led spirituality, that is supported by the church, NOT the other way around.

I see marriages in the temple ending too.  We will have a "religious ceremony", also known as a sealing performed after the civil marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

The emphasis is on teaching in the home.  That is family centered and many members are letting the Sunday church structure take that responsibility for them.  We can not survive the spiritual darkness around us (that is growing) without doing something to step up the game in the home.  A two hour block puts extra time into the home.  Those who are spiritually in tune will take that extra time in the home to improve home led spirituality, that is supported by the church, NOT the other way around

I love this, but I think most members will only see this as extra Sunday TV time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just out of curiosity...why? Why would a 2 hour block be on the horizon? What's the thinking here?

I'm not necessarily for or against a two-hour meeting, but to answer why - at least in part - I can see a few reasons that may be of importance to the discussion.

1. The Church has declared in the past that too many meetings on Sunday are a distraction and to limit meetings to allow for more family time. On the flip side, ward councils and so on still need to take place and Sunday is simply the most likely time for some meetings to be feasible. Decreasing fatigue on lay ministry is historically important enough in my life time to change temple recommend interviews from annual events to every other year events to limit the time demands on ward and stake leadership. It is possible that such a change could take place with block meetings too.

2. In some areas it could save the church money on meeting houses allowing for more wards to share the same building. I don't love to think of the church as making decisions based on money, but it is a factor that I know gets considered.

3. I'm told that many branches have shorter meetings due to insufficient membership to run everything. A simplified meeting structure that is universal might appeal to the church as it also aiming for increased uniformity in other areas, even going as far as making sure that the hymn numbers match the same hymn in every language and country. 

In addition to these considerations there are also the rumours of wards piloting 2-hour blocks in preparation for the big announcement... whether the rumours are true or not, I have no idea. Also, parents the world over would rejoice at one less hour of nap interruption for small children. That extra hour can mean the difference between a child that takes a nap that day or is simply cranky the rest of the evening spoiling the remains of the Sabbath.

Are there reasons to keep a three-hour block? Sure. It was an inspired change that has been great for the church, and may very well continue to be. I'll just go on record as saying that I'll support continued three-hour or two-hour blocks as long as the one I support is the direction the Lord states through His designated servants leading affairs here on earth.

As for four-hour meetings, please think of the children. That's another hour of institutional torture being forced to do unnatural things like singing. Forget losing them between 16 and 30 years, we'll lose them between 16 and 30 months 😋

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

2. In some areas it could save the church money on meeting houses allowing for more wards to share the same building. I don't love to think of the church as making decisions based on money, but it is a factor that I know gets considered. 

This sounds great until you realize that there's not enough room in the building for weekday activities even with 3 wards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting since the 3 hour block was established in the 70s (I think) because the church grew outside of the Mormon belt and church was two hours on Sunday but separate times (Sunday school in the AM, and Sacrament meeting in the afternoon.  Priesthood/Relief Society/Mutual (YM/YW) and primary were during the week.  So, to stop people from traveling so much, they consolidated all the meetings.   In Utah, it was easy to walk to primary.  Church was closer than school.   And I wonder if they are going to basically revert to the same.  Move the meetings that were during the week back to during the week.  So, the change wouldn't really be that radical.  In fact, it's more like it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Interesting since the 3 hour block was established in the 70s (I think) because the church grew outside of the Mormon belt and church was two hours on Sunday but separate times (Sunday school in the AM, and Sacrament meeting in the afternoon.  Priesthood/Relief Society/Mutual (YM/YW) and primary were during the week.  So, to stop people from traveling so much, they consolidated all the meetings.   In Utah, it was easy to walk to primary.  Church was closer than school.   And I wonder if they are going to basically revert to the same.  Move the meetings that were during the week back to during the week.  So, the change wouldn't really be that radical.  In fact, it's more like it used to be.

My folks in CA have some pretty fond memories of bringing picnic lunches and basically spending the day together as a ward, since many members lived an hour or more from their church building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Grunt mentioned "Linger Longers" I was reminded of my mission (same general geographical area) and we had them too.  Members lived somewhat far from the building, so we did a potluck after church.  I never heard of it before that, and we don't have them here.  But even here in California, I have a several chapels within a 15 minute drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bytebear said:

When Grunt mentioned "Linger Longers" I was reminded of my mission (same general geographical area) and we had them too.  Members lived somewhat far from the building, so we did a potluck after church.  I never heard of it before that, and we don't have them here.  But even here in California, I have a several chapels within a 15 minute drive. 

I, too, only heard of linger longers ('snack and mack' in the singles wards) on my mission, we don't seem to have them here either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

This sounds great until you realize that there's not enough room in the building for weekday activities even with 3 wards.

So I guess putting some of the meetings back on week nights is out? I've gotta say, going back to Church on Wednesday night would be all kinds of troublesome - it can be hard enough to find a job that let's a person have Sundays off for church, but evenings as well? Not everyone has that luxury. Soon we'll all need to be dentists or work some other job that allows for bankers hours, and not the modern extended bankers hours at that 😜 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

So I guess putting some of the meetings back on week nights is out? I've gotta say, going back to Church on Wednesday night would be all kinds of troublesome - it can be hard enough to find a job that let's a person have Sundays off for church, but evenings as well? Not everyone has that luxury. Soon we'll all need to be dentists or work some other job that allows for bankers hours, and not the modern extended bankers hours at that 😜 

Or we can live in Zion, where society is built around mutual caring and communal worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I hope you're right. I hope it goes to a 4-hour block.

I totally see it going to 4 hours.  For those who want to go to 2 wards each Sunday...

Really though, as i expect 2hour church to be announced.  It will be more time to sit around or watch football for those who don’t apply it correctly but for those who take the challenge to minister - it will require more work and sacrifice- it’s a higher law.  This has been a step y step process.  First, we focused on keeping the sabbath day holy and then, ministering. Now we will take the reigns off and see how we do with what we learned. I heard one rumor that the brethren wanted to go to 2 hour church awhile ago but were worried that some would just go home and watch an extra hour of football.  Well, if this change happens, itwill be up to us on what we do with that extra time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe I'm misreading you. It seems like the implication is something along the lines of -- we're losing our youth because church is too long.

No, it's that we are simply losing the young adults.  One of the major complaints that I see at times is with LDS church policies.  Some of these policies WILL NOT change as they are inherent to our belief systems (for example, we do not approve of Gay Marriage as per religious belief and thus I do not think the policy against sealings of that sort will EVER CHANGE).

Other policies seem to come and go depending on who is in charge at the time.  A prime example is using the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This is not the first time we've had this policy with the church as it has been enacted multiple times in the past 30 years.  How far it is stressed and utilized seems to change depending on the shifts of leadership.  It was strongly stressed in the 90s, but as we saw in the past decade with Monson in charge, we actually started using Mormon (the slang) as a self-identifier in film and other areas.  It's matter's of policy.

One item that has changed over the years are the policies regarding Age. For example, even though it had died out by the time I was born, a few decades prior they had an ordinance that was popular called the Second Anointing.  In those years if you had been faithful and got to the Age of 55 you could get that ordinance.  A change in leadership and it was felt that to many were having this ordinance done.  It was, for all intents and purposes, discontinued as it was being done.  It is still done today, but is a matter of election by others and rarely performed (needing a General Authority to do it I believe).

High Priests is another common item that was done by age at times and in some instances.  Normally when one hit 45 it could be something that one would be ordained to (With Seventy being at a lower age and normally these Ward Seventies being part of a Stake group and performing the duties which we now see our Ward and Stake Missionaries doing).  I believe this was a hold over of the earlier age requirement (Second Anointing) as I think one had to be a High Priest (could just be my perception at a young age) to be able to have this ordinance done.  Thus, age requirements for both...but while the Second Anointing was not held much anymore, the holdover of the ordination to a High Priest at a certain age for all faithful male members (but racially exclusive) continued.

Even after changes in policy, several stakes kept these guidelines or similar (though the Second anointing was gone by the time I was born and growing up for all intents and purposes, priesthood offices remained) and you saw, even up to the turn of the century (1999-2000) that there were stakes that had various policies in regards to being a High Priest and Age ordination (though they varied anywhere from the age of 40 to the age of 55 from what I've seen).

This was something that I thought was wise as it kept those who were part of the "popular" club from gaining as much prominence and segregation.

Another thing that used to be a policy (and actually backed up in the D&C) is that teachers (yes, those 14 year olds) and Elders were supposed to curb backbiting and gossip in the church.  This could be part of Hometeaching (another policy that has changed recently).  I haven't even heard this really mentioned in recent years, much less stressed as an item to be focused on.

As a result, one of the complaints I've heard from various woman deals with this gossip component where, for any odd reason, woman feel the need to compare the priesthood office or level to their own level within the church.  Thus, the wife of a higher church leader in some places is held in higher regard than another.  It's stupid.  It's foolish.  Unfortunately, it happens.

Maybe it's just me waxing on the older policies, but it seems to me that older policies that used to be age based helped to keep this type of thing in check.  It didn't matter if you were rich, poor, disabled, or the idol of the community, you were all equal in the eyes of the Lord.  Hence, all were granted the same rank  in the Priesthood and had the same opportunities for ordinances.  As long as you were as faithful and obedient as any other, you were ALL held and ordained to the same office of High Priest.

IN this fashion, after a Stake President or Bishop finished their term, they may still have the recollection and calling, but be placed back among the High Priest at the same office as any other.  If one had been just as obedient, they would have the same rank of High Priest.  Hence, all were equal.  There was NO favoritism in regards to the Priesthood held.

We still have this idea, but because we do NOT have the great equalizing effect that previous generations policies had, we see stratification.

How does this deal with Young Adults today?

Well, first, it tampers expectations.  As a youth in my day, we knew what to look forward to.  We had personal reasons, but it also gave us external reasons with church emphasis to stay in the church. 

Secondly, Young Adults today are all about equality and other such things that are common in the US and Europe.  When they perceive inequality among church offices (as per their perceptions, not necessarily reality) many find this disturbing and it is a stepping stone to researching other things that they find discriminatory and prejudiced in the church today.  Seeing a young man who is part of the "Good Old Boys" club who gets selected because of this or because the young adults perceive the individual is richer or otherwise causes GREAT consternation among many of the Young Adults today.  They see it as discrimination against those who may be righteous but do not fit the right profile.  Whether it is a correct view or not, it is the perception.  Anything we can do to kill this perception of inequality is a good thing in my book.

This perception, in my opinion, has been due to some of the policies we have in place.

We have already started down the path of doing away with these perceptions (uniting the High Priest and Elders quorum.  Technically, in these quorums all should be equal, but I have noticed that people still refer to themselves as High Priests and Elders, and in some stakes, only the High Priests are granted being the Elders quorum Presidents when it effect, all should be equal instead).  Since we have already started down it, I would think going even further in policy would be a GREAT thing.

I don't expect it though, and have made that clear.  I would WELCOME such a policy change with open arms though.

I DO NOT think it would be a solution to the problem of the Young People  leaving the church, just a solution to ONE of the things that causes a stumbling stone to many that do eventually fall away.

Other church policies that deal with this may be coming (not a prediction on my part...that is only a thought).  We also had a change in policy to deal with another one of these things which have caused difficulties with people, that of Home Teaching.  With an increased emphasis on personal interaction and being more involved with what people NEED rather than visiting for a lesson and accounting, the change from Home and Visiting teaching to Ministering is another change in policy to adapt to the modern changes in our culture dealing with these young folk.

I think if we DO have more policy changes incoming they WILL be dealing directly (just as the two mentioned above) with the complaints and stumbling blocks in current church policy that lead the younger generation to fall away eventually.  We are doing away with the old stumbling blocks in an attempt to keep the Young Adults who have different motivations and different ideas within the church.

It's happened already, and I suppose this thread is evidence that people think that this will continue with more changing policies in the upcoming conference in a few weeks.

I on the otherhand, rather than make predictions (as I don't know what will happen or what will be approved, voted upon, or determined...for all we know something will pop up among the Twelve in the final week right before conference, one never knows) of policy changes...I find it far safer to predict what WILL be talked about....

Which for me would compose of Temple Attendance (and who knows, there MAY be a policy change in regards to this to encourage better attendance...our area has struggled with this, I'm not sure with others) and talking about studying scriptures (and I think this is an area of emphasis that will be Stressed.  I'm only willing to bet at least one talk, but my feeling is that scripture study and gospel study will be something of MAJOR interest and focus in this next upcoming conference).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, e-eye said:

It will be more time to sit around or watch football for those who don’t apply it correctly but for those who take the challenge to minister - it will require more work and sacrifice- it’s a higher law.

Assuming this happens....   How is it a higher law?  People don't like the gospel enough to spend their own time studying it, so we'll cancel an hour of the Lord's time so that people don't have to cancel an hour of Babylon's time.  That's what I'm hearing.

More rope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

 

2. In some areas it could save the church money on meeting houses allowing for more wards to share the same building. I don't love to think of the church as making decisions based on money, but it is a factor that I know gets considered.

 

This is one of the things I have heard that was a factor in the decision to change to 2 hours.  Not the main one but.....  You could then put 4 wards into a building and save on the cost of more buildings.  Use that money more towards ministering of the members than building care and maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It didn't matter if you were rich, poor, disabled, or the idol of the community, you were all equal in the eyes of the Lord.  Hence, all were granted the same rank  in the Priesthood and had the same opportunities for ordinances.  As long as you were as faithful and obedient as any other, you were ALL held and ordained to the same office of High Priest.

This has RARELY been deciding factors... and they shouldn’t be.

BUT! I do want to point out that rich people tend to have better organizational skills, popular people tend to command attention better, have more influence and be more liked. 

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. 

I read a lot of self help books that deal with creating a successful financial future. What do they say it takes to become incredibly wealth?? Discipline, strict budget, charity, perseverance, the ability to cope with great failure, ability to work with others and inspire them, sacrifice, balance in life, and many other Christ like attributes that are required for leadership. This list is coming from the richest people in the world. Very rarely does being rich have to do with your degree and how long you work (in fact not a single book I have read backs the idea that getting a degree is the best way to get wealthy). But has everything to do with your discipline to not buy what you don’t need and to not let failure overcome you. I would argue that any man that is both righteous and wealthy has most, if not all, attributes needed for any leadership position.

There is no “good boy club” as you keep saying. Networking definitely is a part of calling assignments, but the heirchay of the church is not a club.

 

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Secondly, Young Adults today are all about equality and other such things that are common in the US and Europe.  When they perceive inequality among church offices (as per their perceptions, not necessarily reality) many find this disturbing and it is a stepping stone to researching other things that they find discriminatory and prejudiced in the church today.  Seeing a young man who is part of the "Good Old Boys" club who gets selected because of this or because the young adults perceive the individual is richer or otherwise causes GREAT consternation among many of the Young Adults today.  They see it as discrimination against those who may be righteous but do not fit the right profile.  Whether it is a correct view or not, it is the perception.  Anything we can do to kill this perception of inequality is a good thing in my book.

Very few of us find this disturbing, and those who do are aspiring to leadership for the wrong reason, these are the same people that will only be active if they have a “great calling”. People are called to positions via revelation/inspiration. And sometimes it doesn’t matter at the time who is called as Bishop of the ward so the stake president does his best and calls someone he feels would do well.

 

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

in some stakes, only the High Priests are granted being the Elders quorum Presidents when it effect, all should be equal instead

 

I have seen the exact opposite. The oldest Elders Quorum president I have met since the change has been 35 years old. Twice I have met EQP that were beneath the age 29. The EQP I had after I was released from the presidency was only 26 years old and had two 65+ year old men as his counselors.

ALSO, how can you make such a claim!?!? This change has only been in effect long enough for one EQP to be in their position 😛 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bytebear said:

When Grunt mentioned "Linger Longers" I was reminded of my mission (same general geographical area) and we had them too.  Members lived somewhat far from the building, so we did a potluck after church.  I never heard of it before that, and we don't have them here.  But even here in California, I have a several chapels within a 15 minute drive. 

We have linger longers on 5th Sundays in my ward.  One is coming up this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

In addition to these considerations there are also the rumours of wards piloting 2-hour blocks in preparation for the big announcement... whether the rumours are true or not, I have no idea. Also, parents the world over would rejoice at one less hour of nap interruption for small children. That extra hour can mean the difference between a child that takes a nap that day or is simply cranky the rest of the evening spoiling the remains of the Sabbath.

<snip>

As for four-hour meetings, please think of the children. That's another hour of institutional torture being forced to do unnatural things like singing. Forget losing them between 16 and 30 years, we'll lose them between 16 and 30 months 😋

Small children go 4 hours before needing naps.  Having small children getting their nap interrupted on Sundays simply means you're scheduling Church around your child instead of scheduling your child around Church.

I know you were saying this tongue-in-cheek but I just wanted to say... Singing is a very natural activity for children - even the ones without musical talent.  In the Philippines, music is an inherent part of life especially in the poorest of homes - the lesser resources people have, the more their basic natural inclinations surface, and singing (as it doesn't cost anything) becomes more and more exercised.  Singing to babies (just like Reading to babies) aids in healthy brain development. 

My kids - ever since they started primary - would stay in church all day everyday with their primary friends if you let them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

Assuming this happens....   How is it a higher law?  People don't like the gospel enough to spend their own time studying it, so we'll cancel an hour of the Lord's time so that people don't have to cancel an hour of Babylon's time.  That's what I'm hearing.

More rope.

Yeah more rope. The higher law is always more rope - more agency. 

So instead of spending an extra hour in church i believe the focus will go to teaching in the family at home.  The best place to learn is in the family.  Now i have kids of all ages and this may be tough at times and harder to accomplish but there is also a higher reward.  I read a rumor awhile back that the brethren have wanted to go to 2 hour church for awhile but that they were worried some members would just go home and watch more football- that is still going to happen for some  

The other rumor i have heard is that the church wants smaller wards and stakes - in parts of AZ we did this in 2016 - not sure if we were a pilot program but if you wanted smaller wards in some places you need more space and the way to accomplish that is 2 hour church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

we do not approve of Gay Marriage as per religious belief and thuat s I do not think the policy against sealings of that sort will EVER CHANGE

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".

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Other policies seem to come and go depending on who is in charge at the time.  A prime example is using the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This is not the first time we've had this policy with the church as it has been enacted multiple times in the past 30 years.  How far it is stressed and utilized seems to change depending on the shifts of leadership.  It was strongly stressed in the 90s, but as we saw in the past decade with Monson in charge, we actually started using Mormon (the slang) as a self-identifier in film and other areas.  It's matter's of policy.

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

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

One item that has changed over the years are the policies regarding Age. For example, even though it had died out by the time I was born, a few decades prior they had an ordinance that was popular called the Second Anointing.  In those years if you had been faithful and got to the Age of 55 you could get that ordinance.  A change in leadership and it was felt that to many were having this ordinance done.  It was, for all intents and purposes, discontinued as it was being done.  It is still done today, but is a matter of election by others and rarely performed (needing a General Authority to do it I believe).

Is anyone leaving the church over this "policy"?

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

High Priests is another common item that was done by age at times and in some instances.  Normally when one hit 45 it could be something that one would be ordained to (With Seventy being at a lower age and normally these Ward Seventies being part of a Stake group and performing the duties which we now see our Ward and Stake Missionaries doing).  I believe this was a hold over of the earlier age requirement (Second Anointing) as I think one had to be a High Priest (could just be my perception at a young age) to be able to have this ordinance done.  Thus, age requirements for both...but while the Second Anointing was not held much anymore, the holdover of the ordination to a High Priest at a certain age for all faithful male members (but racially exclusive) continued.

...or this?

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Another thing that used to be a policy (and actually backed up in the D&C) is that teachers (yes, those 14 year olds) and Elders were supposed to curb backbiting and gossip in the church.  This could be part of Hometeaching (another policy that has changed recently).  I haven't even heard this really mentioned in recent years, much less stressed as an item to be focused on.

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

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Other church policies that deal with this may be coming (not a prediction on my part...that is only a thought).  We also had a change in policy to deal with another one of these things which have caused difficulties with people, that of Home Teaching.  With an increased emphasis on personal interaction and being more involved with what people NEED rather than visiting for a lesson and accounting, the change from Home and Visiting teaching to Ministering is another change in policy to adapt to the modern changes in our culture dealing with these young folk.

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.

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I DO NOT think it would be a solution to the problem of the Young People  leaving the church, just a solution to ONE of the things that causes a stumbling stone to many that do eventually fall away.

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.

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Which for me would compose of Temple Attendance (and who knows, there MAY be a policy change in regards to this to encourage better attendance...our area has struggled with this, I'm not sure with others) and talking about studying scriptures (and I think this is an area of emphasis that will be Stressed.  I'm only willing to bet at least one talk, but my feeling is that scripture study and gospel study will be something of MAJOR interest and focus in this next upcoming conference).

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.

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