Jump to content

hoo rider

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About hoo rider

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

337 profile views
  1. I'm surprised that a drop in baptisms per missionary would cause the church to change the mission length policy. It seems pretty logical to me that if you have a missionary serve less time, he/she will have less baptisms. If the time went from 24 months to 18 months, then I would expect a 25% drop in baptisms per missionary. If memory serves, the 18 month mission was in the early 80's, and there is less than a 25% drop from the peak of just under 8. Obviously this chart doesn't show the number of missionaries in the field, so if the 18 month mission made it so there were more missionaries in the field (that is, more served because an 18 month term was ok while a 24 month term was not) then the number of baptisms per missionary would have gone down more than one might expect per my reasoning above. I expect changes in missionary service length have more to do with societal expectations and the church reacting to those expectations.
  2. I don't live in Utah, but it seems to me that any person in the United States that is exercising governmental authority and has special immunities that are granted by the government should be subject to open records law (subject of course to some redactions to preserve confidentiality). If memory serves, the BYU police have argued that they should not subject to open records laws because they are not publicly funded. In my view, a private police force that is not accountable to the people could allow for all sorts of bad actions.
  3. In response to the your statement that I bolded: Do we know when the church started keeping all missing-in-action (MIA) members of the roles until 110? Is it possible that the age used to be lower, but then a change was made during that period? If the policy on keeping MIA members on the roles changed to 110 from a lower age (say 95), then we would expect that there would be a lower reported "death rate" of MIA church members for 15 years. I know I"m preaching to the choir, but I wish the church would give more information on membership counting. It can be difficult to tell what is happening when we can't see the whole picture.
  4. The problem I see is that we have been counseled to consider/review the secondary questions (I would call them issues) as a way to determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet. Elder Corbridge's speech seems to encourage a different tactic, namely, one should determine whether Joseph Smith is a prophet without looking too closely (or in some cases, even being aware of) of what Joseph Smith did (i.e. issues listed by Elder Corbridge including church history, polygamy, how the Book of Mormon was translated, DNA and the BOM, different accounts of first vision).
  5. A couple years ago I was the 2nd counselor in the YM presidency. One Sunday we had a Bishopric counselor visit the deacons quorum to give a lesson. The lesson was on the sabbath, and this was just after church leaders had emphasized sabbath day observance while stating that they were not going to give people lists of ok/not ok activities. This bishopric counselor was clearly trying to not give the deacons a list of ok/not ok activities, but I could tell he had some in mind as not ok. One he was fishing for was playing video games on the sabbath. Of course, the obnoxious deacon (every quorum has one) raised his hand and said that at his house he and his dad keep the sabbath by playing video games together, but to recognize the sabbath they don't play the real violent ones on Sunday. Clearly this was not the answer he was fishing for!
  6. The church invites and encourages every single person in the world to listen to general conference. There is no privacy at general conference, it is open for everyone to view (maybe not in person, but certainly via video). I think the complaint is that the church is playing both sides of the fence: On the one hand general conference is public and for everyone, on the other hand changes to talks given in conference are private and shouldn't be mentioned. My personal life is very different. I have never invited the world to view my personal life and I have taken measures (i.e. different passwords, pseudonyms) to ensure my privacy. I think there is a big difference between something that has always been private and something that has always been public; it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to have different expectations about those two scenarios.
  7. In my personal opinion, it matters for two reasons: 1) It makes me question the role of revelation, as opposed to the role of correlation. I was taught and believe in revelation as set forth in D&C 33:8-10, and I believe these verses apply to speakers in general conference. But when you see someone's mouth being filled (e.g. example above of President Hinckley not following the teleprompter) and then it is changed by an unknown person (we hope the speaker was consulted and approved, but we don't really know), it makes me wonder if church leaders don't really believe in the promises set forth in D&C 33:8-10. 2) It deprives members of an opportunity to learn what is not doctrine. Part of understanding our doctrine includes learning what is not our doctrine. When a change is made and no explanation is given (indeed, the change isn't even noted) then we don't know if it actually was a mistake (i.e. it isn't actually doctrine), or if they just liked a different phrasing better, or why the change was made. I don't see any benefit to not having the changes in a footnote. Furthermore, failing to mention the changes (I won't use the word hiding, but some might) leads some to think the church is trying to hide things and it does feed into the culture of the leaders are perfect and never make mistakes. My last thought on the issue is it would be nice to be able to trace ownership of a change (meaning we know who did it) rather than it being "the church". One frustration often expressed online is that people were taught things by "the church", but then have a hard time pinning it down to one specific leader. My preference would be that nothing is taught by "the church", but rather we have teachings from (and attributable to) specific leaders. When changes are made after the fact and aren't noted, we don't really know who is making the change and whether the speaker agrees with it.
  8. I think this is a great move for 11 year olds. I have always felt bad for the 11 year olds with birthdays in the later part of the year because they remain in primary while their friends with birthdays earlier in the year move on. It seems that most 11 year olds are no longer excited about primary singing time.
  9. Fair enough. Let me put a finer point on it. I don't understand why a bishopric member asks about my tithe paying obedience/status 3 times every 2 years, while I am never asked specifically about the greatest commandment, nor the second, nor the outer darkness sins, and am only asked about obedience to other commandments once every 2 years. Perhaps the commandment of tithing is 3 times more important than the other commandments? I comply with the practice and expect to be blessed for my obedience, but that doesn't mean I understand the "why" behind the practice and the "why" behind tithing being treated differently compared to the other commandments.
  10. It has always struck me as unusual that we need to declare our obedience/status to the Bishop for the commandment of paying tithing, but we aren't asked to declare our obedience/status for the greatest commandment, nor the second (Matt 22:36-40), nor any of the commandments that can lead one to outer darkness (denying the holy ghost, murder?). I'm sure that church leaders in the latter days have a good reason for treating tithing differently than the other commandments, I just don't know what it is.
  11. I think you are using the word "kids" for two different purposes. Here is what I hear: - Bishops shouldn't meet with our kids children one on one. - There aren't near enough secular professionals out there to meet with our kids college students (i.e. adults) one on one. I see a difference between the two.
×
×
  • Create New...