Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference


rongo

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I may not get through the whole thread this morning so someone may have already talked abut it after the point I stopped to answer. 

When I was ward missionary and my husband was leader when I would attend ward council when he was out of the country. I notived the same thing and had the same thoughts. So I talked with the missionaries about what was going on. They had been going to every council in every area that they could their whole mission.  I got the impression that at some point a mission president had directed them to go.

I talked with my husband, looked ward council up in the CHI and then we talked with the sisters again. 

This time we explained what missionary correlation meeting was and that it wasn't necessary to repeat everything said their in ward council. We also explained that this was part of the responsibility of the ward mission leader.

And last the handbook says that the missionaries are supposed to come as invited by the bishop, not as a definite responsibility. We didn't want them to get stuck between the mission president and the ward and the bishop so we made sure everyone was good with it all and for the most part the missionaries stopped coming - it was just redundent. I don't know what is happening now.  

I think that may have all got started because some ward missionary leaders were not doing their calling - having correlation meeting, keeping up to date on the work and attending ward council. If he is doing his calling their will rarely be a time when the missionaries need o be at council.

I used to be the WML for 3.5 years and the way we did ward council was what does the ward need to know that day, who's coming, not coming etc. and any baptisms, I dunno it seemed to work out okay. The missionaries stayed for generally 10 minutes but the district leader stayed for the whole mtg as he can speak for mission stuff, i.e. what appropriate, not appropriate etc.We had weekly ward correlation mtg. and it lasted 1-2 hours but it just me and the missionaries, best meetings ever!!!!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is not laughable at all, whether comparing a rock to a light emitting diode (both are solid state devices),

 

I assume "solid state devices" is meant to be a pun? Solid state devices are electronics that don't use the old vacuum tubes (these days vacuum tubes are found mostly in guitar amps). Rocks are solid but of course they're not literally "solid state devices".

I know, I know.

463.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nothing of significance, button.  I suppose that one might consider the lifting of the priesthood ban to be a major change, but I don't see it that way.  I can't exactly say why I don't see it that way, but I do.  

The church has been true for me since 1966, and nothing has changed in that respect.  

It can be difficult to notice changes going on around us. But even in the 90s I remember hearing a lot more talks about how perfection is possible and we should strive for it. Also a lot more talks about being saved by works and faith. Now I hear talks about how perfection is not required and more talks about grace.

When I read bits from the Journal of Discourses, it seems like a window into a totally different and alien church.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Gray said:

It can be difficult to notice changes going on around us. But even in the 90s I remember hearing a lot more talks about how perfection is possible and we should strive for it. Also a lot more talks about being saved by works and faith. Now I hear talks about how perfection is not required and more talks about grace.

When I read bits from the Journal of Discourses, it seems like a window into a totally different and alien church.

I remember no such talk in the '90s or before, going back to the '60s. 

And "totally different and alien" strikes me as highly overwrought. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think these kinds of fasts were what Elder McConkie spoke out against at BYU in the early 1980's. To me, once a month is enough

This is what I love about the Church, and wish our current correlation culture wasn't so restrictive about. Elder McConkie teaches one thing strongly. Another Seventy disagrees and gives another perspective. We all can weight both and decide where we, personally, come down on these things that are not the core of the gospel. 

Our last stake president had a firm testimony of fasting. You could feel it in him. Like the sons of Helaman on their mothers, you knew that he knew. If you were struggling with things, he invited you to fast fervently for it. Not like a desert ascetic, but a couple of times a week as you worked on your problem. I add to this using the prayer circle at the temple.

In context of this conference, Matthew 11 was mentioned (Why could not we cast him out? Ye did not believe; howbeit this kind goeth not out by by much fasting and prayer), along with the focused desires of the sons of Mosiah (Alma 17). I think that for people working on grave problems, maybe they aren't tapping into this source of power enough, and once a month may not be enough for them. Especially how we usually go about our monthly fast, as he pointed out . . . :)  But, that is a personal choice. Like Avatar said, food for thought (pun intended).

Link to comment
8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't remember that was ever proven or conclusive was it?

What I remember is this young girl had wanted to do this for some time and her mother tried to dissuade her. When she was determined to do it, her mother helped her edit it and gave suggestions to help.  I do think that friends of this girl did record it and she wanted them to.  I may not have followed it completely through to the end of what came out.

Has it been conclusively proven that it was a planned publicity stunt done by adults rather than the girl's desire to make a statement?

This is how I also remember it.  She knew the Bishop and was close to him and felt safe getting up and expressing what she had written out (and had wanted to do this for some time).  She didn't know the Bishop wouldn't be there, but decided to go ahead even though he wasn't.  I don't agree at all with the venue she chose, but she chose it.  I do believe that her Mom got involved with helping her reword some things when she couldn't talk her out of doing it (maybe soften it some or just express it in a more concise manner...it's been awhile since I read about this).  And she had support there by her friends in attendance.  One of them videoed it (not something I'd approve of either).

Also, it most likely would have received very little publicity and would not have been able to have been used for the accused "propaganda" if she'd been allowed to finish.  It's too bad that didn't happen, because afterwards her statement was published and she only had a sentence or two left (iirc).  It was that she was silenced that made it big news and that was unfortunate because the church does not need any more bad PR on this issue.

But I won't judge the man who got up and stopped her.  He had no idea how long she was going to go on or where she was headed or how much she was going to say.  It was not a good situation and it is unfortunate he was put in that role.  

And he became a big part of the news.  That it made international news is because she wasn't allowed to finish.  

I think that's why Scott asked if any instructions were given as to how to handle something like this in the future.  It's a good question too.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
9 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Who is attending your missionary coordination meeting?  It’s supposed to be just the ward mission leader, ward missionaries, and full-time missionaries (if they are able to attend).

 

Handbook 2 5.1.5

Missionary Coordination Meeting

The ward mission leader conducts a missionary coordination meeting with the ward missionaries and the full-time missionaries. The meeting is held regularly. If full-time missionaries serve in several wards, they attend as often as circumstances allow.

In this meeting, the ward mission leader coordinates the work of the full-time missionaries and the ward members. The ward mission leader may also lead discussions on implementing the ward mission plan, scheduling as many teaching appointments for the missionaries as possible, and arranging to have members present as often as possible when investigators are taught.

The bishop has requested that every auxiliary have someone attend.  

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I may not get through the whole thread this morning so someone may have already talked abut it after the point I stopped to answer. 

When I was ward missionary and my husband was leader when I would attend ward council when he was out of the country. I notived the same thing and had the same thoughts. So I talked with the missionaries about what was going on. They had been going to every council in every area that they could their whole mission.  I got the impression that at some point a mission president had directed them to go.

I talked with my husband, looked ward council up in the CHI and then we talked with the sisters again. 

This time we explained what missionary correlation meeting was and that it wasn't necessary to repeat everything said their in ward council. We also explained that this was part of the responsibility of the ward mission leader.

And last the handbook says that the missionaries are supposed to come as invited by the bishop, not as a definite responsibility. We didn't want them to get stuck between the mission president and the ward and the bishop so we made sure everyone was good with it all and for the most part the missionaries stopped coming - it was just redundent. I don't know what is happening now.  

I think that may have all got started because some ward missionary leaders were not doing their calling - having correlation meeting, keeping up to date on the work and attending ward council. If he is doing his calling their will rarely be a time when the missionaries need o be at council.

Our WML is pretty gung ho so I'm sure he's doing his calling well, i think this is just one of those things where the bishop gave some direction because he's very focused on missionary work and now it's practically all missionary work, all the time in the ward.  Plus, our proselyting missionaries are a senior couple that actually live in the ward boundaries, so they have a little more influence and say than other missionaries might.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bishop has requested that every auxiliary have someone attend.  

Wow, bluebell.  We only have the missionaries, ward missionaries (along with the ward mission leader and Bishopric) there for those meetings. 

That's a lot of meetings for you!

Your Bishop must feel it's important for some reason?  But, you can get most of the information in ward counsel meeting, IMO. (At least anything pertinent to your auxiliary.)  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow, bluebell.  We only have the missionaries, ward missionaries (along with the ward mission leader and Bishopric) there for those meetings. 

That's a lot of meetings for you!

Your Bishop must feel it's important for some reason?  But, you can get most of the information in ward counsel meeting, IMO. (At least anything pertinent to your auxiliary.)  

It seems very redundant.  I'll be delegating to one of my counselors anyway, and i think i'm going to tell her that she only needs to go once a month and see if we can get away with that.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I remember no such talk in the '90s or before, going back to the '60s. 

And "totally different and alien" strikes me as highly overwrought. 

Allow me to jog your memory.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/11/perfection-pending.p1?lang=eng

 

Quote

Mortal perfection can be achieved as we try to perform every duty, keep every law, and strive to be as perfect in our sphere as our Heavenly Father is in his. If we do the best we can, the Lord will bless us according to our deeds and the desires of our hearts. 9

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball_ye-therefore-perfect/

 

Quote

Paul indicated that all could attain perfection. The fact that most of us are far from perfection is not to say we can’t, but we don’t. Christ became perfect. He overcame. He suffered hunger, thirst, cold, heat, pain, sorrow, and all that life has to offer in suffering. Each time he overcame, he become more nearly perfect. Paul said:

 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And "totally different and alien" strikes me as highly overwrought. 

 

It's really not.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=04&disc=42

 

Quote

All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?

[p. 220a]

That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never.

 

This is totally alien compared to what the church teaches today.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

So him discussion her questions with her and testifying was dismissing in the questions?

Yes, it sounded just like what Elder Ballard talked about not doing when he address an audience of CES leaders recently. 

Quote

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue.

Elder Ballard wouldn't have critiqued this approach to people asking questions if there wasn't a problem with how some individuals treat the questioner by trying to bear testimony as a way of avoiding the issue. (personally I would say its more complicated than just "avoiding the issue")  I've experienced this first hand myself, and I'm sure many others have as well.  

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems very redundant.  I'll be delegating to one of my counselors anyway, and i think i'm going to tell her that she only needs to go once a month and see if we can get away with that.

Perhaps one counselor can go to one meeting and the other to the next.  

Thumbs up for the bishop being focused on missionary work, but it does sound like a lot of meetings.

Edited by ksfisher
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Care to give an example of what doctrine hasn't evolved in the past 100 years, just pick one, and we can discuss further the evidence.  

All churches that remain vital must evolve. It's normal, but there is resistance in our church culture to admitting it. We're constantly evolving, but saying so is taboo.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Again, discussing the concerns is horrible advice?

That's not what I was referring too (I could have been more clear though).

Maybe you missed my next post where I did try to be more clear:

Quote

That's true too.  On the information given, it doesn't look positive but there may be much more to the story.

And, rongo has now given more information.  I trust his honest assessment and value his opinion.  What was said makes a lot more sense to me after reading the additional information (even though I might have still handled it differently....but it's not as it first appeared to me anyway).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Are you familiar with the frog in the pot of water on the stove analogy?  You're grandparents are analogists to the frog with could not detect changes in the water as it heated and changed, they eventually are cooked. However Stemelbow is describing the frog who is dropped into the hot water, that frog will immediately detect the hot water and jump out.

and he would still be incorrect

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

All churches that remain vital must evolve. It's normal, but there is resistance in our church culture to admitting it. We're constantly evolving, but saying so is taboo.

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to admitting change. Wouldn't change be part and parcel with modern revelation? Else why have modern revelation if there wasn't the possibility of change?

Of course, the changes you are talking about show how the church is moving toward mainstream christianity. So, I can see why there is resistance there. It's like admitting the prior doctrines were wrong and that maybe the restoration wasn't needed as much as advertized previously.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Gray said:

All churches that remain vital must evolve. It's normal, but there is resistance in our church culture to admitting it. We're constantly evolving, but saying so is taboo.

Yes, I hear this idea that everything is unchanging all the time at church on Sunday.  I think its a way of orienting toward the church psychologically that gives people comfort that they can trust the church.  If the church were changing some would lose trust, and so they repeat this idea that nothing ever changes, that truths aren't relative because they fear the alternative.  I don't think many people have wrestled with moral dilemma's very much as this is a very simple way of orienting, and its supported by surface readings of certain scriptures about God not changing, etc.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to admitting change. Wouldn't change be part and parcel with modern revelation? Else why have modern revelation if there wasn't the possibility of change?

Of course, the changes you are talking about show how the church is moving toward mainstream christianity. So, I can see why there is resistance there. It's like admitting the prior doctrines were wrong and that maybe the restoration wasn't needed as much as advertized previously.

Maybe it's because so many of the changes come gradually, without any announced revelation or clear line of demarcation. Maybe that's the "wrong" kind of change in some people's eyes.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to admitting change. Wouldn't change be part and parcel with modern revelation?

For some, admitting that there have been many changes over the years means that there will (or at least may) be changes in the future.  They are most especially concerned about any future change regarding the church's current stance on SSM being apostasy.  I think many fear any embrace or support of anyone involved in a gay relationship or SSM. 

But, this is already happening within wards that have gay couples attending (and the church has given some mixed messages on this, IMO).  This is also happening within families who have gay members. 

I know a member of a Bishopric in our stake who celebrated along with his sister and attended her SSM wedding (sharing pictures of all of them together rejoicing).  He was criticized by a few, but most ward members were very happy for his sister because she has been through a lot.  They thought it was wonderful that he and his wife attended the wedding and supported her.

I believe the leaders will eventually see that the recent policy is not going to be an easy or wise one to enforce.  Members have welcomed and loved gay couples from some of the experiences I've read.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to admitting change. Wouldn't change be part and parcel with modern revelation? Else why have modern revelation if there wasn't the possibility of change?

Of course, the changes you are talking about show how the church is moving toward mainstream christianity. So, I can see why there is resistance there. It's like admitting the prior doctrines were wrong and that maybe the restoration wasn't needed as much as advertized previously.

There is a tension between wanting to remain distinctive and wanting to be accepted by society.  This is part of the Mormon tradition and has a lot to do with our history of rejection and isolation.  In some ways our wanting to assimilate has paid dividends, as evidenced by the church being able to purchase the BoM printers manuscript yesterday from the CoC church.  Go back in time 100 years and the two church's were bitter enemies, never collaborating or cooperating on anything, but now they seem to be friends, thanks to a bunch of great historians on both sides who put aside differences and tried living the gospel of Jesus instead of fighting over doctrines.  

I kind of hope this model happens within the church as well, I would love it if more Mormon's within the faith could be accepting of us more secular orienting types of people, and instead of being scared of atheist/agnostics/humanist types of people, if people would accept us and build on our common beliefs and values instead of fearing us.  

Edited by hope_for_things
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe it's because so many of the changes come gradually, without any announced revelation or clear line of demarcation. Maybe that's the "wrong" kind of change in some people's eyes.

If a church is led by continuing revelation, shouldn't we expect such evolution?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...