Predictions on policy changes during conference?


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I am simply stating a simple concept - if 3 hours of Sunday worship gets you too tired that you wish it was only 2 hours - then something needs to change.  And it's not gonna be Sunday because the prophets make that call.  So, the way I handle it is.... I find something to change in the rest of the week so I'm not too tired by Sunday.

If giving my opinion makes me judgmental then I don't know what we're doing in this forum.

I'm trying to figure out why the argument.  Like I tell my kids when they start to argue about something that hasn't happened or is still TBD - There is no point!

"If" two hour church happens - some people will find it a blessing because of the business of Sunday, some people may not -it's okay.  3 hour 1 hour, 12 hours - it's tradition that is changing not doctrine. 

I do think it interesting the comments President Eyring said in the conference in Washington on Saturday. -

As for the heads up - President Eyring said this last Saturday - 

“God is an unchangeable God, but as the church moves to every nation and people, and in the last days, we can expect and take joy in new messages coming from God through the Prophet. 

“The gospel will not change, but we will need personal revelation to feel the hand of the Lord when practical ways of doing things are changed by the Lord through His prophet.

“It will also take personal revelation to see that a new way of doing things is better than the ways we have enjoyed.” — President Henry B Eyring

There are going to be a bunch of changes this conference and from rumors I have heard it's not stopping then.  Just because some changes benefit us immediately and others do not, it's okay - we are all blessed when we move the work forward.  If less church is what moves the work forward then, lets do it!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's not super complicated. Make a list of everything you do during the week. Then consider which of those things are less important than church and family, and do less of those things instead.

You said it so much better!  See... I need to learn to express myself better.  Learning grammar is so not enough... it's like I read the Book of Mormon and know all the stories so I must be pretty good, well no, there's a lot more to it than that.  But then I don't know how I could express myself better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, e-eye said:

I'm trying to figure out why the argument.  Like I tell my kids when they start to argue about something that hasn't happened or is still TBD - There is no point!

"If" two hour church happens - some people will find it a blessing because of the business of Sunday, some people may not -it's okay.  3 hour 1 hour, 12 hours - it's tradition that is changing not doctrine. 

I do think it interesting the comments President Eyring said in the conference in Washington on Saturday. -

As for the heads up - President Eyring said this last Saturday - 

“God is an unchangeable God, but as the church moves to every nation and people, and in the last days, we can expect and take joy in new messages coming from God through the Prophet. 

“The gospel will not change, but we will need personal revelation to feel the hand of the Lord when practical ways of doing things are changed by the Lord through His prophet.

“It will also take personal revelation to see that a new way of doing things is better than the ways we have enjoyed.” — President Henry B Eyring

There are going to be a bunch of changes this conference and from rumors I have heard it's not stopping then.  Just because some changes benefit us immediately and others do not, it's okay - we are all blessed when we move the work forward.  If less church is what moves the work forward then, lets do it!

 

 

 

There was no argument.  Well.. until carlimac said it was judgmental but that's later on.

We were just bouncing possibilities and stating what we feel about it.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, e-eye said:

"If" two hour church happens - some people will find it a blessing because of the business of Sunday, some people may not

I expect that those who have learned to make the Sabbath a delight will still make the Sabbath a delight, and those who have not learned to make the Sabbath a delight will still struggle in making the Sabbath a delight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk Prophet this is the part of your statement that raises my defenses for myself and for other families, too.  "For the great majority of people, I expect, the declaration that they want one less hour of church so they can spend time with their families (or "rest") is garbage."

You seem to be seeing life for every member of the church exactly like it is for you. Maybe you do have the luxury of doing all those fun things with your family on a Saturday and perhaps being with your family for an extra hour on a Sunday is just ho hum- more of the same. 

There are so many situations in which that extra hour actually would make the difference of seeing their family or not.  Of feeling rested or not. Think of extended families who don't live in the same ward or even the same city. That one hour might facilitate visits that couldn't happen otherwise.  Maybe you have someone who works a Sunday job ( service and emergency people rarely get all their Sunday's off) and it might just mean that that one extra hour means they would get to eat dinner together before Dad has to leave to go work in the ER. When we moved into this ward our bishop came to visit us on Sun evening at about 7:30. He hadn't been home for dinner yet. 

The way you describe your solution is so oversimplified and generalized. Until you have walked in " the great majority of people's" shoes, you have no idea if what they say is garbage or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I'm pretty confused by this post.  Here are just a few thoughts that came to mind.  Please don't take this as accusatory because I honestly don't mean it that way.  I'm trying to put myself in your position.

My family runs something like yours.  I'm up at 0400 every day to read the scriptures.  I don't have time at night.  I'm off to work before my family rises.  My wife gets up, gets the kids off to school, and goes to work.  In the evening we reverse the process adding in sports practices, evening meetings, member dinner visits, ministering, etc.  Saturdays are sports games, farm work, and more of the above.  

 

And my point is that every family is different, has different strengths and struggles. That extra hour being home on Sundays might just be the hugest blessing to them. To others it might mean they have one less hour with their BFFs and it makes them sad. 

I'm just annoyed with all the " well you're wrong. It can be done because I can do it" attitude that seems to be coming out in this thread. Rather an attitude of " Wow I realize now how lucky I am to have been able to make this work" And " that must be a challenge for you"  seems more Christlike. 

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, carlimac said:

And my point is that every family is different, has different strengths and struggles. That extra hour being home on Sundays might just be the hugest blessing to them. To others it might mean they have one less hour with their BFFs and it makes them sad. 

I'm just annoyed with all the " well you're wrong. It can be done because I can do it" attitude that seems to be coming out in this thread. Rather an attitude of " Wow I realize now how lucky I am to have been able to make this work" And " that must be a challenge for you"  seems more Christlike. 

Perhaps.  However, it goes both ways.  "I want less time working for Christ so I can spend relaxation time at soccer" isn't very Christlike either.

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

Folk Prophet this is the part of your statement that raises my defenses for myself and for other families, too.  "For the great majority of people, I expect, the declaration that they want one less hour of church so they can spend time with their families (or "rest") is garbage."

You seem to be seeing life for every member of the church exactly like it is for you. Maybe you do have the luxury of doing all those fun things with your family on a Saturday and perhaps being with your family for an extra hour on a Sunday is just ho hum- more of the same. 

There are so many situations in which that extra hour actually would make the difference of seeing their family or not.  Of feeling rested or not. Think of extended families who don't live in the same ward or even the same city. That one hour might facilitate visits that couldn't happen otherwise.  Maybe you have someone who works a Sunday job ( service and emergency people rarely get all their Sunday's off) and it might just mean that that one extra hour means they would get to eat dinner together before Dad has to leave to go work in the ER. When we moved into this ward our bishop came to visit us on Sun evening at about 7:30. He hadn't been home for dinner yet. 

The way you describe your solution is so oversimplified and generalized. Until you have walked in " the great majority of people's" shoes, you have no idea if what they say is garbage or not. 

If you don't spend any time doing anything that's lesser priority than family or church then good for you. You don't fit into what I presume are "the great majority of people" then. As for your defensiveness on behalf of others...you don't know them one bit better than I do and so your assumptions are just as potentially faulty. You can translate my words "I expect" as "in my opinion" or, "the way I think it is", or "in my view". I could be wrong. But I do expect that most people prioritize things higher than church and family that they should not and could do well in seriously considering their priorities and making some adjustments. I also know that a suggestion to do so is harmful to no one. Everyone can benefit from such a consideration even if they find that their lives are perfectly prioritized and they have nothing to adjust, they can then move forward with that knowledge. (As if anyone is really going to find that. Do you really believe your life is perfectly prioritized and you have nothing to adjust?)

Frankly it just seems like people who don't like church want less of it and people who like church want it to remain. Anecdotally, I didn't like church many years back because I had the wrong attitudes about it, didn't get involved, and was, frankly, not quite on the right track as far as my spirituality. When I got those things in order I learned to like church. I would, indeed, be sad about losing part of the church block now because it is precious to me. It wasn't always so. The difference was me. The same goes for my calling(s). And I see the same in others attitudes about their callings. Some people, some times, have the right attitude about their (even difficult) callings and turn them into something special that they sorrow for upon losing. Others have bad attitudes all the time and see their callings as burdens instead of blessings.

Regardless...the principle remains. Sacrifice brings blessings. If worship, service, and humility were cake then we'd all be a lot better at them. They're hard. They take sacrifice. They're supposed to be hard. They're supposed to take sacrifice. It is, partially, by that sacrifice that we are sanctified. Sacrifice is one of the main principles of the gospel. If the church block does, indeed, change to 2 hours I very much doubt it will be because it's too great a sacrifice to go to church for 3 hours for the great majority of the members. If anything, we need more sacrifice in our lives -- not less.

I don't believe that everyone who struggles with 3 hours of church merely has a bad attitude. But I do presume that most of the church/religious stuff we all struggle with in this life does comes down to our own bad attitudes and our inability to truly humble ourselves. And I believe that pretending otherwise is typically another tool in Satan's arsenal to convince us that we aren't accountable for ourselves.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Folk Prophet this is the part of your statement that raises my defenses for myself and for other families, too.  "For the great majority of people, I expect, the declaration that they want one less hour of church so they can spend time with their families (or "rest") is garbage."

You seem to be seeing life for every member of the church exactly like it is for you. Maybe you do have the luxury of doing all those fun things with your family on a Saturday and perhaps being with your family for an extra hour on a Sunday is just ho hum- more of the same. 

There are so many situations in which that extra hour actually would make the difference of seeing their family or not.  Of feeling rested or not. Think of extended families who don't live in the same ward or even the same city. That one hour might facilitate visits that couldn't happen otherwise.  Maybe you have someone who works a Sunday job ( service and emergency people rarely get all their Sunday's off) and it might just mean that that one extra hour means they would get to eat dinner together before Dad has to leave to go work in the ER. When we moved into this ward our bishop came to visit us on Sun evening at about 7:30. He hadn't been home for dinner yet. 

The way you describe your solution is so oversimplified and generalized. Until you have walked in " the great majority of people's" shoes, you have no idea if what they say is garbage or not. 

I think I understand where you are coming from, and I partly agree.  But, I think @The Folk Prophet‘s observation about “a majority” of Church members is likely to be empirically true (if also rather unparliamentary).  I base that off my anecdotal experience that, in any given Church class, it seems that fewer than 40% of the class has done the reading that pertains to the lesson.

If I can’t find 20 minutes of personal time to study Church curriculum under the status quo, then claims that I’d devote another hour of free time exclusively (or even just primarily) to similar activities suggest either a lack of honesty or a lack of self-awareness on my part.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think I understand where you are coming from, and I partly agree.  But, I think @The Folk Prophet‘s observation about “a majority” of Church members is likely to be empirically true (if also rather unparliamentary).  I base that off my anecdotal experience that, in any given Church class, it seems that fewer than 40% of the class has done the reading that pertains to the lesson.

If I can’t find 20 minutes of personal time to study Church curriculum under the status quo, then claims that I’d devote another hour of free time exclusively (or even just primarily) to similar activities suggest either a lack of honesty or a lack of self-awareness on my part.  

Crap. I've never studied the church curriculum before class.

Unparlimentary my teeth! I always follow parliamentary procedure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Crap. I've never studied the church curriculum before class.

Unparlimentary my teeth! I always follow parliamentary procedure!

I rarely do either.  And thus I include myself in the group of people who would probably not utilize an extra hour in a Sundays nearly as well as we like to think we would. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm don't believe that everyone who struggles with 3 hours of church merely has a bad attitude. But I do presume that most of the church/religious stuff we all struggle with in this life does comes down to our own bad attitudes and our inability to truly humble ourselves. And I believe that pretending otherwise is typically another tool in Satan's arsenal to convince us that we aren't accountable for ourselves.

To each his own I guess. But I still think it varies from person to person and I also believe the Lord doesn't expect the exact same three hours of "sacrifice" if that's what you want to call it, from each of his children. You can't apply the exact same rule in all cases to every person. What about the parent of a child with autism or sensory disorders who can't tolerate all the noise and singing in Primary? What about an elderly person who has arthritis to the point that sitting that long is so painful they can't even absorb the lesson?   I just think it shows a lack of compassion and understanding and perhaps life experience to expect that all those who can't do 3 hours are slacking somehow.  And dangerously prideful to think they are lacking in their spirituality. Really the only person you have to worry about or should even be making guesses about is you and your own family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think I understand where you are coming from, and I partly agree.  But, I think @The Folk Prophet‘s observation about “a majority” of Church members is likely to be empirically true (if also rather unparliamentary).  I base that off my anecdotal experience that, in any given Church class, it seems that fewer than 40% of the class has done the reading that pertains to the lesson.

If I can’t find 20 minutes of personal time to study Church curriculum under the status quo, then claims that I’d devote another hour of free time exclusively (or even just primarily) to similar activities suggest either a lack of honesty or a lack of self-awareness on my part.  

Who says that's what they would be expected to do with that extra hour? Maybe the prophet and the Lord would want each individual or family to decide how best they can use the time. If it's an extended nap and that helps someone to be more human and loving to their families, then that would be up to that person. If it's going on a walk by the river to decompress and enjoy nature, again- up to that person. Maybe it's a game of horse with a son or sewing the binding on a quilt or just sitting looking out the window and listening to good music. Why do we care how others would use that hour? It's really none of our business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I just think it shows a lack of compassion and understanding and perhaps life experience to expect that all those who can't do 3 hours are slacking somehow. 

Which I did not say.

3 minutes ago, carlimac said:

And dangerously prideful to think they are lacking in their spirituality. 

This is my favorite. When people tell you how prideful you are for suggesting sacrifice, humility and obedience. As we all know, the path to pride is sacrifice, humility and obedience.

5 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Really the only person you have to worry about or should even be making guesses about is you and your own family. 

Was that the 11th commandment? Thou shalt mind thine own business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, carlimac said:

Who says that's what they would be expected to do with that extra hour? Maybe the prophet and the Lord would want each individual or family to decide how best they can use the time. If it's an extended nap and that helps someone to be more human and loving to their families, then that would be up to that person. If it's going on a walk by the river to decompress and enjoy nature, again- up to that person. Maybe it's a game of horse with a son or sewing the binding on a quilt or just sitting looking out the window and listening to good music. Why do we care how others would use that hour? It's really none of our business. 

People sort of make it “our business” when they suggest that our church is preventing them (and/or a critical mass of its own membership) from accomplishing in a thirteen-hour Sunday what they could and would easily and consistently accomplish in a fourteen-hour Sunday.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which I did not say.

This is my favorite. When people tell you how prideful you are for suggesting sacrifice, humility and obedience. As we all know, the path to pride is sacrifice, humility and obedience.

Was that the 11th commandment? Thou shalt mind thine own business.

Not in those words but clearly inferred.   I didn't say YOU were prideful. But you did tell us 3 hours was no longer hard for you once you were more spiritual. My point- whether or not someone tolerates loves or hates the 3 hour block is not always about how spiritual or humble or obedient they are. And if we think that's how it's measured then we're walking in the direction of the Pharisees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

People sort of make it “our business” when they suggest that our church is preventing them (and/or a critical mass of its own membership) from accomplishing in a thirteen-hour Sunday what they could and would easily and consistently accomplish in a fourteen-hour Sunday.  

Haha! No one but you are making it your business unless you are their bishop and and they say no to a calling that you really need them for because golf is on TV at 3 PM.   And there, even I'm making a judgement about a fictional person who perhaps has such a personal reason they can't talk to the bishop about it so they make up a lame excuse.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Not in those words but clearly inferred. 

So first of all...I would have implied. You inferred. But I did not imply. You inferred anyhow. I could not be more clear -- in that I did not say that -- and in that I explicitly said otherwise. I will quote myself as proof:

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe that everyone who struggles with 3 hours of church merely has a bad attitude.

See...explicitly. I'm not sure how you can have inferred from my explicit statement that I meant something else.

7 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I didn't say YOU were prideful. But you did tell us 3 hours was no longer hard for you once you were more spiritual.

Is spiritual and prideful the same thing to you?

7 minutes ago, carlimac said:

My point- whether or not someone tolerates loves or hates the 3 hour block is not always about how spiritual or humble or obedient they are.

Agreed. Not always. As I explicitly said.

9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

And if we think that's how it's measured then we're walking in the direction of the Pharisees.

First, I've said nothing about "measured". I'm not talking about "measured". I have never been talking about "measured". That's entirely your inference -- entirely your issue. Second, God does measure us by our willingness to sacrifice, be obedience, and humble ourselves. So even if we were talking about being "measured" it's not Pharisaical to imply that we need to be more humble and sacrifice more. We do. Third, it is perfectly reasonable to presume that if someone struggles with humility and sacrifice (as we all do) that they might well struggle with things are are an actual sacrifice. There's nothing wrong with struggling with a sacrifice. If they weren't a struggle, they wouldn't be a sacrifice. A Pharisaical attitude would be a presumption that one is righteous merely because they perform an outward sacrifice. I did not say that anyone who goes to church and/or loves church must be righteous. But the disliking of church is perfectly reasonably a potential sign of something problematic with ones spirituality. It's not proof positive. Of course there are exceptions. But it is evidential, and worth consideration. But, of course, I didn't even say that. I didn't say "if you have a problem with church you're lacking spirituality". That's you turning things around on me. And fourth, since I've been very clear in my points that A) I don't believe "all" people who struggle with church fall into this category and B) we should all take assessment of our priorities and put the things of God first, the clear implication is that ONLY IF WE AREN'T putting things of God first is our resentment for church problematic. My assumption that "the majority" of people who want a shorter block do so for invalid reasons is merely a statistical assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Haha! No one but you are making it your business unless you are their bishop and and they say no to a calling that you really need them for because golf is on TV at 3 PM.   And there, even I'm making a judgement about a fictional person who perhaps has such a personal reason they can't talk to the bishop about it so they make up a lame excuse.   

You are mistaken about whether it should be our business or not. It should.

We should be about our Father's business. His business is the immortality and eternal life of man. That should be our business. Because spirituality is key to that, our spirituality should be our fellowman's business. Always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So first of all...I would have implied. You inferred. But I did not imply. You inferred anyhow. I could not be more clear -- in that I did not say that -- and in that I explicitly said otherwise. I will quote myself as proof:

See...explicitly. I'm not sure how you can have inferred from my explicit statement that I meant something else.

Is spiritual and prideful the same thing to you?

Agreed. Not always. As I explicitly said.

First, I've said nothing about "measured". I'm not talking about "measured". I have never been talking about "measured". That's entirely your inference -- entirely your issue. Second, God does measure us by our willingness to sacrifice, be obedience, and humble ourselves. So even if we were talking about being "measured" it's not Pharisaical to imply that we need to be more humble and sacrifice more. We do. Third, it is perfectly reasonable to presume that if someone struggles with humility and sacrifice (as we all do) that they might well struggle with things are are an actual sacrifice. There's nothing wrong with struggling with a sacrifice. If they weren't a struggle, they wouldn't be a sacrifice. A Pharisaical attitude would be a presumption that one is righteous merely because they perform an outward sacrifice. I did not say that anyone who goes to church and/or loves church must be righteous. But the disliking of church is perfectly reasonably a potential sign of something problematic with ones spirituality. It's not proof positive. Of course there are exceptions. But it is evidential, and worth consideration. But, of course, I didn't even say that. I didn't say "if you have a problem with church you're lacking spirituality". That's you turning things around on me. And fourth, since I've been very clear in my points that A) I don't believe "all" people who struggle with church fall into this category and B) we should all take assessment of our priorities and put the things of God first, the clear implication is that ONLY IF WE AREN'T putting things of God first is our resentment for church problematic. My assumption that "the majority" of people who want a shorter block do so for invalid reasons is merely a statistical assumption.

That must have been exhausting to try to explain. I find that when I try to use big words and explain something I usually make a donkey of myself. And I'm slow to figure out what people are really trying to say. I sometimes have dislexia- not in the symbols but in logic. Is there a word for that?  Also baseballs disappear from my sight when I swing to hit them. I think I have a smooth spot on my brain when ideas slip off.  Anyway, simply put- things are not always as they seem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Haha! No one but you are making it your business unless you are their bishop and and they say no to a calling that you really need them for because golf is on TV at 3 PM.   

Not really.  If someone’s saying that a particular policy change (like, shortening the Sunday block) would bring about a desired result (like, people actually doing Godly stuff they aren’t currently doing), and TFP or I say “it might not work, because many of the people who would be affected are unlikely to actually do critical action x”, it isn’t really valid to reply “well, it’s none of your business whether they do x or not!!!”

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, carlimac said:

That must have been exhausting to try to explain. I find that when I try to use big words and explain something I usually make a donkey of myself. And I'm slow to figure out what people are really trying to say. I sometimes have dislexia- not in the symbols but in logic. Is there a word for that?  Also baseballs disappear from my sight when I swing to hit them. I think I have a smooth spot on my brain when ideas slip off.  Anyway, simply put- things are not always as they seem. 

I honestly can't tell if this is being said sincerely or is laced with sarcasm so I'll assume the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You are mistaken about whether it should be our business or not. It should.

We should be about our Father's business. His business is the immortality and eternal life of man. That should be our business. Because spirituality is key to that, our spirituality should be our fellowman's business. Always.

But you can't force someone else to be spiritual. All you can do is love them and help them if they want you to. Learning that lesson with my 26 yr old son right now. He's gone to a total of about maybe 2 hours of church in the past 18 months. At this point even suggesting he start attending again only creates a chasm between us.  So I just love him. I share my testimony with him occasionally but I honestly can't do anything about his spirituality. I can only pray for him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not really.  If someone’s saying that a particular policy change (like, shortening the Sunday block) would bring about a desired result (like, people actually doing Godly stuff they aren’t currently doing), and TFP or I say “it might not work, because many of the people who would be affected are unlikely to actually do critical action x”, it isn’t really valid to reply “well, it’s none of your business whether they do x or not!!!”

But no one is saying that yet. And if the prophet were to say that, what would be your response? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I honestly can't tell if this is being said sincerely or is laced with sarcasm so I'll assume the former.

1) Mostly I didn't follow your reasoning very well and  2)It would have been better for me to simply say  "things are not always as they seem." Another simple statement- We're not always right about people. 

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