Changes Are Coming! (or, Putting Up with All Those Weak, Lame-O Saints That Hold Us Back)


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have heard the conversation about two-hour blocks of Sunday meetings for many years. Speculation has ramped up significantly since April General Conference. I admit with some shame that I have listened to this speculation with more than a little distaste. The attitude displayed has had a pronounced bent of "Wouldn't it be GREAT if we didn't have to spend THREE WHOLE HOURS at Church on Sunday?!"

While this is without doubt a lousy attitude for people to have, condemnation might be a bit of an overreaction. In this thread, I speak to any who might feel like I have felt, that many Church members are openly hoping and even campaigning for a "dumbing down" of Church expectations, seeing the status quo as just too difficult. Our thinking goes something like this:

The proof of God's love for us is in the commandments he gives us. The Lord himself, speaking of faithful Saints, openly stated:

Quote

And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time—they that are faithful and diligent before me.

When the Lord seeks to bless us, he does so by giving us commandments. One of those commandments is to attend our Church services. How can any faithful Saint view that as something other than a glorious blessing? Furthermore, any Saint that would call for a removal or "easing" of commandments is, by definition, attempting to lessen the blessings we receive from heaven!

The most obvious response is: Maybe you're wrong. Maybe such changes simply would not be a lessening of blessings at all. Maybe you're biased and off-base. And I freely admit this is a distinct possibility, probably the first thing that came to mind.

But even assuming the assumption is correct, I still think it's wrong in several ways. I see nothing illogical or wrong with the reasoning presented above, as far as it goes. But I believe it misses a larger underlying point that we must keep in mind.

Some years ago, I heard or read an address given by, I think, Elder Packer, where he talked about a seminary program that was wildly successful. But it was impossible to expand it Church-wide. The alternative was a more general but much less effective program that could be rolled out to everyone. The latter was chosen.

The moral was this: A B- program that helps millions is better than an A+ program that helps hundreds.

Let us suppose for a moment that we (those who would rue such changes) are right, that such changes would in fact constitute a diminution of the blessings we are now receiving. Let's also suppose that the coming General Conference brings exactly such changes. What is the appropriate way to approach this? I have a couple of immediate thoughts.

First, the fact that Blessing X is reduced is not, by itself, very important. Perhaps Blessing Y comes into play, which more than makes up for the loss. So rather than mourning the loss of blessings, we might instead anticipate the even greater blessings that await our faithful observance of what we're told.

But more importantly (IMO), why should we complain about having to "go slower" for our brothers and sisters, even if that is indeed what we're doing? Christ himself certainly could have had a much easier life if he didn't have to put up with us. But he did put up with us, with infinite love and grace. If we suppose that we now find ourselves in a spiritual position "more advanced" than others, ought we to look askance at our supposed inferiors? Or ought we rather to love our brothers and our sisters, and look for opportunities to bless them? If a two-hour block would actually help someone who would otherwise be put off and perhaps miss out altogether on the blessings of attending Sunday meetings, might it not be prudent to just go the two-hour route? Is our own desire to spend an extra hour at Church really more important than ministering to our brothers and sisters in their weakness?

Of course, this does not even touch on the fact that we ourselves are weak and foolish. Could we step into the Celestial Kingdom today, right now, and be at home? Or would the "joyful" commandments of that realm overwhelm us? If we are too weak and sinful to be in God's presence, shouldn't we be more patient and longsuffering toward those who might not yet have reached the level we think we're at?

For myself personally, I assume I am at a point of less spiritual progress than many, and perhaps more progress than others. But our point along that path is largely irrelevant. What matters is what direction we are facing and how we can help others along that path.

I do not promise to quit feeling irritation when people keep drooling for a two-hour block, but I will do my best to keep my uncharitable feelings to myself. I do promise to try not to take inordinate pleasure when no such announcement is made in eight days. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those that wouldn't mind having two hours church on Sunday, BUT I have thought about those single parent families, unmarried brothers and sisters, youth and children without active parents... I believe shortening Church on Sunday could help some families, but maybe not those that are not the "regular Mormon family".

I teach the lesson on the 4th Sunday. I've missed RS this past 3 Sunday as I've been sick. Even though I been teaching about ministering over and over and over again this past 6 months... do you know how many people/sisters actually ministered to me this past 3-4 weeks to ask me why I've been missing RS? My point is, we are already NOT doing what we are invited and called to do, but yet we rejoice when we think less church would be awesome.

We are invited to care more for our brothers and sisters (TRULY LOVE EACH OTHER), and shortening the time some members spend with others might hurt those that are some what afflicted or going through trials.

I don't know, I'm just rumbling. I think we are far from becoming Zion, as we don't really seem to care about others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vort said:

f a two-hour block would actually help someone who would otherwise be put off and perhaps miss out altogether on the blessings of attending Sunday meetings, might it not be prudent to just go the two-hour route? Is our own desire to spend an extra hour at Church really more important than ministering to our brothers and sisters in their weakness?

 

1

This is the point I have a problem with.  Will it really help them?  How?  We have agency and use that to progress our service and faith, or not.  What are people doing that three hours instead of two keeps them out of church?

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are called Latter-day Saints.  It is my general understanding that the "end of times" is not going to be a lot of fun - especially for Saints.  One thing I have learned in sports - if you are going to be any good then you are going to have to train.  And the kind training needed to be successful in a challenge that anyone will care about or remember will not be suitable to most.  I am thinking that those looking for convenience  are not paying much attention to what we have been told will happen, especially to Saints, in the last days.

I had a great great grand mother walk across the plains bear foot when she was 8 years old - then when she finally got her first pair of shoes donated them so some other little girl would not have to walk so far bear foot.  And our generation complains about 3 hours of meetings on Sunday.  I know something are harder for some than others but I have to believe what ever difficulties anyone is facing life - 3 hours of Church on Sunday is not really something to lose sleep at night over.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

This is the point I have a problem with.  Will it really help them?  How?  We have agency and use that to progress our service and faith, or not.  What are people doing that three hours instead of two keeps them out of church?

I can see two possibilities (both seem to be grasping, but...): (1) it might not be quite so daunting to investigators, making their conversion a little easier; (2) some people get so caught up in what they already think / know that the obvious never occurs to them - as in:

1) Church is 3 hours long

2) I can't stand that idea

3) Therefore, I won't go to church

...it never occurs to them to just go to one hour or two.  (I find this far fetched because I know of plenty of people who hie to their car right after Sacrament meeting.)  Perhaps, for some who think this way, learning that church is only 2 hours will shake the cobwebs loose and they'll have a "duh" moment - or they won't, but 2 hours will seem do-able.

Freebie Threebie: One overly-curious looky-lu will show up once just to see what the whole 2-hours thing is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one could view it that we went to the three hour block due to the weakness of the Members if we go by the Logic of this thread.

Church USED to only BE around an hour to an hour and a half.  It was ONLY Sacrament meeting.  Of course, you also had Priesthood (or Relief Society) at a different hour, most times also on Sunday (so you go to one meeting, go home, and then go to another meeting later in the day).  You also had another meeting mid week (or perhaps for some, a third meeting on Sunday).

People didn't like all this coming and going...so they combined all three into a three hour block.

President Nelson is old enough to remember the comings and goings we used to do before the three hour block.  If they do reduce it to a one or two hour block, maybe it will just be Sacrament and we will have all these comings and goings again!

Of course, people complained about it then, so I'm not sure how they would take it now.  I'd imagine for most of them, especially with Gas Prices today, it might not be taken as easily.  Afterall, they went to the three hour block because people complained about the Two Hour Blocks/One Hour block in the first place!!!

I don't know if there will be a policy change.  If there is, it will be to accommodate the modern ways that we have changed and to help us Spiritually better in the way our lives go today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zil said:

Hmm.  SkypeChurch - the wave of the future.  Virtual Sacrament.

Well, not Skypechurch but we already have BYUTV which you can watch over the internet, on a tablet or computer or even your TV.  I think they have a pre-recorded half hour Sacrament meeting they show on Sundays around 9 (I'm not sure, I think it's around that time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a story that took place in a Mormon home prior to the block - of a man returning from early morning priesthood to get the family for Sunday school.  He pulled up in the family car and honked the horn.  But no one came - so he honked some more.  After the third round of honking the wife came out by herself - mostly ready but not quite.  She told her husband that it was her turn to sit in the car and honk the horn while he when back in the house and tried to get the kids from fighting with each other and finish getting ready for Sunday school. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The proof of God's love for us is in the commandments he gives us. The Lord himself, speaking of faithful Saints, openly stated:

And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time—they that are faithful and diligent before me.

When the Lord seeks to bless us, he does so by giving us commandments. One of those commandments is to attend our Church services. How can any faithful Saint view that as something other than a glorious blessing? Furthermore, any Saint that would call for a removal or "easing" of commandments is, by definition, attempting to lessen the blessings we receive from heaven!

Such a good point. I had never thought of this concept before, but recently read about it from Elder David A. Bednar in his book Power to Become. He brought up this very scripture and concept, so it's pretty cool you brought it up here. I love the idea that the commandments are a blessing.

Personally, I'm really hoping for a nice, quiet general conference with maybe some clarification and encouragement regarding all the recent changes we have already received rather than getting a whole new set to have to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, one could view it that we went to the three hour block due to the weakness of the Members if we go by the Logic of this thread.

Church USED to only BE around an hour to an hour and a half.  It was ONLY Sacrament meeting.  Of course, you also had Priesthood (or Relief Society) at a different hour, most times also on Sunday (so you go to one meeting, go home, and then go to another meeting later in the day).  You also had another meeting mid week (or perhaps for some, a third meeting on Sunday).

People didn't like all this coming and going...so they combined all three into a three hour block.

President Nelson is old enough to remember the comings and goings we used to do before the three hour block.  If they do reduce it to a one or two hour block, maybe it will just be Sacrament and we will have all these comings and goings again!

Of course, people complained about it then, so I'm not sure how they would take it now.  I'd imagine for most of them, especially with Gas Prices today, it might not be taken as easily.  Afterall, they went to the three hour block because people complained about the Two Hour Blocks/One Hour block in the first place!!!

I don't know if there will be a policy change.  If there is, it will be to accommodate the modern ways that we have changed and to help us Spiritually better in the way our lives go today.

We had Sunday School in the morning and then we went back in the afternoon for Sacrament meeting.  Relief Society and every other organization met during the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
2 hours ago, Vort said:

why should we complain about having to "go slower" for our brothers and sisters, even if that is indeed what we're doing? Christ himself certainly could have had a much easier life if he didn't have to put up with us.

I would also add to this that Peter’s “slowness” did not hold Christ’s progression back. Neither should other’s slothfulness and subsequent adjustment of the length of church (should it happen) slow us down.

What would be fantastic would be a 2 hour block and then a separate voluntary 3rd hour for members that want more.

Not sure how to prevent this 3rd hour from becoming a “you aren’t going? You must not have a testimony” situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like going to church. There are some days it can be rough, especially since I have a baby and I am in a permanent morning (9 AM) ward(definitly not a morning person), but I need church. There are many weeks I am so spiritually exhausted or I've made so many mistakes I look forward to the Sacrament like a thirsty man for water. But whether it's 2, or 3, or 10 hours is truly irrelavant to me. I'm sure whatever the Lord decides to do through the brethren will be right, so personally I'm not concerned either way as long as I still receive my spiritual healing and refreshment from worshipping the Lord. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love and totally support President Nelson.  And I know that he is God's Anointed.  As a fellow surgeon, I can see his perspective and appreciate what he is doing (triage, cutting away necrotic tissue, healing the sick...)

Sometimes policy and tradition totally get in the way and create a unintended catastrophe.  

The Church is not the Gospel.

Jesus Christ is the core of the Gospel.  

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/sacrament-meeting-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng

We should aim for more devout worship in our homes.

If my male children decide not to go on a mission, I don't blame the Church.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Visit elderly relatives. Take sister’s dog for walk. Collapse in arm chair. I have a serious health problem and work 6 days a week.

i vote for 2 hour church

Then leave after the first hour.  I'd rather observe the Sabbath in worship together, as Christ says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

One of the questions in the interview, Are you attending your meetings?

Sure.  And the answer is "Yes.  I stay for the first two hours, then I have to visit elderly relatives and walk my sister's dog".  If your Bishop yanks your recommend for that, I'd go to the Stake President.  Has a Bishop ever done that to someone who could only attend 2 hours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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