Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

do you sustain yourself seems mind of redundant

Is it policy, common practice, or just in our ward that when we are asked to sustain someone to a calling, the person being sustained is also asked to raise their hand? I don't have access to Handbook 2.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here's an example of what was once taught [emphasis added].

 

Charles Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered."

https://archive.org/details/improvementera15011unse

 

Yes, and here's another example of what was once taught (by a Prophet):

Quote

 

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

 

I'm glad that is no longer taught by our Prophet.  So are a lot of the women in the church  (And many men are probably relieved a bit as well about that change in teaching!)

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, and here's another example of what was once taught (by a Prophet):

I'm glad that is no longer taught by our Prophet.  So are a lot of the women in the church 

and when that was taught it was commanded. Now we are commanded not to.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

and when that was taught it was commanded. Now we are commanded not to.

And, that's called change.  

But it's not just about being commanded (or not commanded) to practice polygamy.  The teachings have changed regarding what is required to become a God.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

Back on track . . .

One item I disagreed with was the a) possibility, and b) desirability of this:

Ward council members should grow to consider themselves first and foremost as members of the ward council, and only secondarily as auxiliary presidents.

If you are young women's president or a primary president or an elder's quorum president or a Relief Society president, I don't think that you *can* consider yourself first and foremost a member of the ward council, and only secondarily president of your organization. No matter how amazing your ward council is.

I don't think it would be ideal, even if you could. When you are that president, that organization is what you preside over. 

[ksfisher]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is it policy, common practice, or just in our ward that when we are asked to sustain someone to a calling, the person being sustained is also asked to raise their hand? I don't have access to Handbook 2.

"The person who is being presented should participate in the sustaining vote."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/callings-in-the-church?lang=eng#193

 

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is it policy, common practice, or just in our ward that when we are asked to sustain someone to a calling, the person being sustained is also asked to raise their hand? I don't have access to Handbook 2.

That's been my understanding for a long time.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

Back on track . . .

One item I disagreed with was the a) possibility, and b) desirability of this:

 

If you are young women's president or a primary president or an elder's quorum president or a Relief Society president, I don't think that you *can* consider yourself first and foremost a member of the ward council, and only secondarily president of your organization. No matter how amazing your ward council is.

I don't think it would be ideal, even if you could. When you are that president, that organization is what you preside over. 

It would undoubtedly require a major adjustment in the understanding of many, but yes, seeing the ward succeed as a whole should be the first priority of anyone in a leadership position in the ward. Otherwise we see the problem of territorialism, compartmentalization and empire building which is present in business and government but most unseemly in the Church of Jesus Christ. A presiding position over an auxiliary in the ward should be viewed as delegated task that is part of that larger vision of seeing the ward succeed.

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would undoubtedly require a major adjustment in the understanding of many, but yes, seeing the ward succeed as a whole should be the first priority of anyone in a leadership position in the ward. Otherwise we see the problem of territorialism, compartmentalization and empire building which is present in business and government but most unseemly in the Church of Jesus Christ. A presiding position over an auxiliary in the ward should be viewed as delegated task that is part of that larger vision of seeing the ward succeed.

I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. That is, one serving in a calling with hear and soul doesn't have to, or shouldn't mean, that they don't want the ward to succeed. Or, even that they aren't part of the larger vision of the ward. 

And even if one strives to "survey large fields, while cultivating smaller plots" (my first mission president's analogy), I still can't see someone actually seeing herself as member of the ward council first, and president of her auxiliary second. No matter how amazing you or the WC is.

I get what you are saying, though. And, I have been mulling this counsel over.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

Back on track . . .

One item I disagreed with was the a) possibility, and b) desirability of this:

 

If you are young women's president or a primary president or an elder's quorum president or a Relief Society president, I don't think that you *can* consider yourself first and foremost a member of the ward council, and only secondarily president of your organization. No matter how amazing your ward council is.

I don't think it would be ideal, even if you could. When you are that president, that organization is what you preside over. 

Seriously.  How would that even be possible?  I spend hours every week dealing/planning/thinking about YW stuff.  Our ward council spends about 20 minutes a month dealing with YW stuff.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is it policy, common practice, or just in our ward that when we are asked to sustain someone to a calling, the person being sustained is also asked to raise their hand? I don't have access to Handbook 2.

It's been like that in all the wards i've been a member in (wards in five different states), since i was a youth.  I've even seen bishops remind the person being called to sustain themselves.  I don't think it's in the handbook though.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

I didn't mean to say yours want working hard. Just wondered if it was a common thing in our mission and that's why most if not all of our missionaries started attending ward council. They were really surprised when I quoted where it wasn't automatic for them to be at the ward council.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. That is, one serving in a calling with hear and soul doesn't have to, or shouldn't mean, that they don't want the ward to succeed. Or, even that they aren't part of the larger vision of the ward. 

And even if one strives to "survey large fields, while cultivating smaller plots" (my first mission president's analogy), I still can't see someone actually seeing herself as member of the ward council first, and president of her auxiliary second. No matter how amazing you or the WC is.

I get what you are saying, though. And, I have been mulling this counsel over.

I don't know why it would be impossible. It would just require and adjustment in how one looks at things.

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

10 hours 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.

Believing Christ by Stephen Robinson came out in 92.  Very popular book that had, imo, a big impact on how we talk about Salvation.  As such in Utah and Canada, such talks pretty much disappeared (which were few and far between in my memory, I remember being shocked a friend claimed this in the early 80s).

[Duncan]

Something i've noticed about perfection is there are 3 kinds. In no particular order people who expect perfection from others, people who expect it from themselves and then people who think it's expected from them (but not really) and all three can spin off of each other, like if you think it's expected from you then you'll expect it from yourself and then if you have to do it then you'll expect it from others. 

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

And, that's called change.  

But it's not just about being commanded (or not commanded) to practice polygamy.  The teachings have changed regarding what is required to become a God.

obedience was always required. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. He was required to offer him for His exaltation.

we are commanded not to kill.

God commands and revokes as He sees fit. Our obedience to those commands and our faith in Christ are what qualifies us for exaltation.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Believing Christ by Stephen Robinson came out in 92.  Very popular book that had, imo, a big impact on how we talk about Salvation.  As such in Utah and Canada, such talks pretty much disappeared (which were few and far between in my memory, I remember being shocked a friend claimed this in the early 80s).

Yes, I remember reading that a few years after it came out. It was a breath of fresh air.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, and here's another example of what was once taught (by a Prophet):

I'm glad that is no longer taught by our Prophet.  So are a lot of the women in the church  (And many men are probably relieved a bit as well about that change in teaching!)

I am also glad this teaching of BY has been disavowed.  

[Rain]

 

 

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Back on track . . .

One item I disagreed with was the a) possibility, and b) desirability of this:

 

If you are young women's president or a primary president or an elder's quorum president or a Relief Society president, I don't think that you *can* consider yourself first and foremost a member of the ward council, and only secondarily president of your organization. No matter how amazing your ward council is.

I don't think it would be ideal, even if you could. When you are that president, that organization is what you preside over. 

 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Seriously.  How would that even be possible?  I spend hours every week dealing/planning/thinking about YW stuff.  Our ward council spends about 20 minutes a month dealing with YW stuff.  

I think it might be a way of looking at it. If we consider that we want people to be a part of a family then we focus on them as part of a family. We help them have stronger families. That doesn't mean the work we do with and for individuals will be less, just that we consider help for them in a different way. 

Years ago I heard the best/most spiritual people in the ward should be in primary, but I thought "but you can look at it as the best leaders should be in RS because the women the RS work with are the mothers of the primary children". And then there are the fathers of the children. And the siblings of the children and so on. 

By considering yourself as part of the ward council first you recognize no individual is alone. That we all affect each other, even if that individual is alone physically in a household.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think the two are mutually-exclusive. That is, one serving in a calling with hear and soul doesn't have to, or shouldn't mean, that they don't want the ward to succeed. Or, even that they aren't part of the larger vision of the ward. 

And even if one strives to "survey large fields, while cultivating smaller plots" (my first mission president's analogy), I still can't see someone actually seeing herself as member of the ward council first, and president of her auxiliary second. No matter how amazing you or the WC is.

I get what you are saying, though. And, I have been mulling this counsel over.

What about (for want of a better term) the men's auxiliaries? Should a Sunday School president see himself as president of the Sunday School first and a member of the ward council second?

Or a Young Men president, for that matter?

(And before anyone starts with me on this, yes, Sunday School is an auxiliary -- with its own general presidency. There are five priesthood auxiliaries in the Church: Relief Society, Primary, Young Women, Young Men and Sunday School.)

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Believing Christ by Stephen Robinson came out in 92.  Very popular book that had, imo, a big impact on how we talk about Salvation.  As such in Utah and Canada, such talks pretty much disappeared (which were few and far between in my memory, I remember being shocked a friend claimed this in the early 80s).

When I first heard his bicycle analogy, I thought, "What a wonderful teaching too to convey an eternal principle."

But as for the principle itslef, I thought, "Well, duh! Everybody knows that, or should."

I just don't remember the work-your-way-to-heaven concept being common in the Church, though I know that many Protestant anti-Mormons often accused us of believing or teaching that.

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about (for want of a better term) the men's auxiliaries? Should a Sunday School president see himself as president of the Sunday School first and a member of the ward council second?

Or a Young Men president, for that matter?

From his original comment:

"or an elder's quorum president"

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

From his original comment:

"or an elder's quorum president"

Good point, but priesthood quorums are not auxiliaries.

 

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

obedience was always required. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. He was required to offer him for His exaltation.

we are commanded not to kill.

God commands and revokes as He sees fit. Our obedience to those commands and our faith in Christ are what qualifies us for exaltation.

Ok.  That doesn't change the facts that I stated.  Teachings have changed (I'm still not sure why some have an issue with admitting that).

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  That doesn't change the facts that I stated.  Teachings have changed (I'm still not sure why some have an issue with admitting that).

Yep, things change. It's the one constant in life, and the church is not exempt. A lot of it is cultural, but a lot has changed in policy and doctrine (the nature of the Godhead, the necessity of plural marriage, and so on). In the nineteenth century, it was common practice to carve three symbols over the main door to church buildings (meetinghouses, bishop's storehouses, and ZCMIs): a beehive in the middle, and compass and square on either side. These days most church members would consider that inappropriate. Indeed, sometime in the 20th century, most of these symbols were sanded off, except for the beehives.