Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

1. Lowering the age for sisters to serve missions (to 18) and allowing them for serve for 24 months. 

This is interestingly the smallest change but I still think it's less likely than the 2 hour block.  It baffles me why the church always wants to keep women one peg below men in even the most trivial aspects of service. 

Phaedrus 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is not an area where I feel compelled to judge. In fact, I think there may be value in practising responding to extremely unlikely hypotheticals ... a bit like training at very high altitudes.

I have a strong feeling none of us sails through the experience of discipleship without our loyalty (and our ability to receive revelation that we dislike!) really being tested in some rather painful way.

When Nephi was shown certain things in vision, an angel asked him if he comprehended what he saw. His response (I’m paraphrasing here) was that he knew God loves His children, but that he (Nephi) did not know the meaning of all things. 

That God does not love His children is an example of something that, for me, is so far outside the realm of possibility that I can’t entertain it even as a hypothetical. We can disagree about what things are in that category, but in principle, at least, that category does exist. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Someone made a statement earlier about how there are many conservative members and they couldn't handle this much change. There may be some truth to that BUT I think people would be excited for massive changes, not because they believe things are wrong now, but because it would indicate real leadership and revelation. I think many members, even conservative ones get excited about any change, even if they are only policy/procedure.

When I was a kid, I remember speculations about what might happen, especially who might be called to a particular calling, was frowned on by church leaders.  I still recall a time when President Hinckley was conducting a general conference session and people were anxious to hear who a new apostle would be, and he said something to the effect that this would put an end to the speculation, and he got a large number of laughs at that line.  

It seems like the current leaders in charge are stoking the flames of speculation, and trying to use it to their advantage.  I'm not sure which is the better approach, but its definitely a different approach.  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Meerkat said:

We can still share the "really good stories and analogies of yesteryear."  The advantage of the new programs is they help us role play thinking on our feet and expressing what we believe.  That way, when the opportunity presents itself to share the Restored Gospel, we don't freeze.  We can follow the Spirit and testify.  That's the advantage I have seen in my own life.  Our discussions in Gospel Doctrine and with family members and others are wonderful.  

Sure, we "can," but with them not being included in the curriculum materials, this relies solely on the experience, temperament, and ingenuity of the individual teacher. Mileage varies, big time.

I taught youth Sunday School right after being released in 2012, and then was stake Sunday School president. And before being called again in 2015, I was teaching youth Sunday School in my new ward. What I've found is that the "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle of "January --- Godhead, February --- Plan of Salvation . . . etc." takes its toll on even the very best of teachers. Even teachers who love the system, when they teach it year after year. 

The tragedy/travesty is that the really good material in the old manuals (Preparing for Exaltation, YM/YW manuals) simply cannot mathematically be used, even by the best of teachers. The scope is too narrow with the 12 annual macro-topics and the suggested micro-topics ("What do the hymns teach about the atonement?") to possibly get to some of the topics, with anecdotes, stories, analogies, and simple topic exposure of the old manuals. So, we now have six years' worth of youth who have cycled through their teenage years only having this narrow scope, two hours each Sunday. A teacher would have to consciously seek out these old manuals and look for opportunities to include this stuff, and that isn't happening. 

My family uses the old manuals for materials and ideas for FHE lessons (my youngest is 12), so we still use them, but they are in the memory hole as far as the larger Church is concerned. 

I remember surveying the teachers in the stake using Come Follow Me as to their experiences: positive, negative, suggestions. The teacher who absolutely loved it ended up absolutely hating it three years later. "I'm so bored teaching it. It's the same thing, starting over, every year. It's hard to maintain freshness and enthusiasm." Yes, "good teachers" can seek to use inspiration and ingenuity to "keep it new," but you're essentially looking at the same narrow macro and micro topics, every year. 

In the final analysis, I don't think the church is getting its bang for the buck with the program, in terms of a) youth testimony and b) youth learning and knowledge. That's my opinion and experience. I think there's a big and growing divide between families that do a good job of teaching their own kids and laying a foundation, and kids whose only exposure to the gospel is at Church on Sunday. Granted that this has always been the case, I think the old manuals did a better job of minimum quality control than Come Follow Me. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When Nephi was shown certain things in vision, an angel asked him if he comprehended what he saw. His response (I’m paraphrasing here) was that he knew God loves His children, but that he (Nephi) did not know the meaning of all things. 

That God does not love His children is an example of something that, for me, is so far outside the realm of possibility that I can’t entertain it even as a hypothetical. We can disagree about what things are in that category, but in principle, at least, that category does exist. 

There are 2 things I know. 1. God exists. 2. He loves me. Those are deep within the core of my soul and I cannot be shaken from them. Everything else falls into one stage of belief for me.

I have met people so hurt, so broken that they cannot believe that God loves them.

If Christ suffered all things then He also suffered the feelings some have of not feeling loved by God. It is how He knew how to help them. I can entertain that hypothetical because I know God loves them and that through my understanding/sympathy/empathy of them it may help them feel his love too.

 

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is Bill Reel still a member of the church?

I thought he got ex'ed?

Just the oldest stereotype -you can leave the church but you can't leave it alone.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure, we "can," but with them not being included in the curriculum materials, this relies solely on the experience, temperament, and ingenuity of the individual teacher. Mileage varies, big time.

I taught youth Sunday School right after being released in 2012, and then was stake Sunday School president. And before being called again in 2015, I was teaching youth Sunday School in my new ward. What I've found is that the "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle of "January --- Godhead, February --- Plan of Salvation . . . etc." takes its toll on even the very best of teachers. Even teachers who love the system, when they teach it year after year. 

The tragedy/travesty is that the really good material in the old manuals (Preparing for Exaltation, YM/YW manuals) simply cannot mathematically be used, even by the best of teachers. The scope is too narrow with the 12 annual macro-topics and the suggested micro-topics ("What do the hymns teach about the atonement?") to possibly get to some of the topics, with anecdotes, stories, analogies, and simple topic exposure of the old manuals. So, we now have six years' worth of youth who have cycled through their teenage years only having this narrow scope, two hours each Sunday. A teacher would have to consciously seek out these old manuals and look for opportunities to include this stuff, and that isn't happening. 

My family uses the old manuals for materials and ideas for FHE lessons (my youngest is 12), so we still use them, but they are in the memory hole as far as the larger Church is concerned. 

I remember surveying the teachers in the stake using Come Follow Me as to their experiences: positive, negative, suggestions. The teacher who absolutely loved it ended up absolutely hating it three years later. "I'm so bored teaching it. It's the same thing, starting over, every year. It's hard to maintain freshness and enthusiasm." Yes, "good teachers" can seek to use inspiration and ingenuity to "keep it new," but you're essentially looking at the same narrow macro and micro topics, every year. 

In the final analysis, I don't think the church is getting its bang for the buck with the program, in terms of a) youth testimony and b) youth learning and knowledge. That's my opinion and experience. I think there's a big and growing divide between families that do a good job of teaching their own kids and laying a foundation, and kids whose only exposure to the gospel is at Church on Sunday. Granted that this has always been the case, I think the old manuals did a better job of minimum quality control than Come Follow Me. 

I wish I had some old copies of those manuals so I could compare.  Are they still available online somewhere?

I taught Priests Quorum out of those old manuals from 2001 to 2006.  After that I was teaching early morning seminary and then into the Bishopric (where I was when Come Follow Me was published).

I don't recall having strong feelings one way or the other on the old manuals.  Your posts are making me curious as to what was in those old manuals that I am now missing out on.

Were the old manuals not repeated from year to year like the current manuals are?  I haven't gotten bored with Come Follow Me yet... I think part of that is that they do update it, making small tweaks, from year to year.  But, as I mentioned earlier, knowing that they are covering these same topics every year and that they are getting them for two hours each Sunday -- I try to find new ways to approach the material that will get the youth engaged and thinking.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought he got ex'ed?

Just the oldest stereotype -you can leave the church but you can't leave it alone.

He's still a member.

It's also true that you can leave the church but the church won't leave you alone.  That one plays out every week in ward councils across the world.

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

First, I'll just say that I'll be very surprised if all of these things happen. I'm very skeptical of these "inside sources" claims & like MFBukowski said, there is a HUGE difference between discussing something in a meeting and actually pulling the trigger on it.

Agreed... no way all these things are happening at once.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Shortening the endowment- I doubt it will happen, but it sure could. The endowment has been modified numerous times. In the earliest iterations it was HOURS long. It has been shortened over time. How can we be certain it wouldn't be shortened again?

I think shortening the endowment could happen but I don't think it would be announced at conference.  A letter to be read over the pulpit seems more likely to me.  Significant changes have been made to the initiatory and those weren't announced at all.  But, if they make something like a one hour endowment I do believe, as Reel suggests, that they would keep the full length version for those going through for themselves.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Changing the wedding/sealing policy so that the wedding happens first and the sealing at the temple later, seems very reasonable to me. Obviously it works that way in many parts of the world.

This is another one that I don't see being announced at conference -- it could be confusing to the rest of the world (outside North America) that already does it this way.

Similarly, if they were to drop the one year wait period (independent of the above) they wouldn't announce that.  They would just quietly change the policy like they did (or tried to do) back in November 2015.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Changing the policy about the temple garment- why not? The garment itself has been changed many times. Requirement for wearing it has been changed many times. I do recall reading in Anderson's book about requiring the wearing the garment in the temple only nearly happened. But as I recall it, it was discussed in a meeting. There was general consensus. 1 or 2 of the apostles even shared the info with their wives who were very excited about it. But then when other apostles returned to town and shared their opinions, the change was scuttled. I don't have time to search and provide references, but that's what I recall reading.

The only instruction about the garment is to "wear it throughout your life". That can be interpreted many ways. Obviously a change to temple only would be an adjustment, but even if I wore my garments once a month when I attended the temple, and did so for the rest of my life, I would be wearing them throughout my life.

Completely agree.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

When I was a kid, I remember speculations about what might happen, especially who might be called to a particular calling, was frowned on by church leaders.  I still recall a time when President Hinckley was conducting a general conference session and people were anxious to hear who a new apostle would be, and he said something to the effect that this would put an end to the speculation, and he got a large number of laughs at that line.  

It seems like the current leaders in charge are stoking the flames of speculation, and trying to use it to their advantage.  I'm not sure which is the better approach, but its definitely a different approach.  

In what way are they trying to use it to their advantage? 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Rain said:

Years ago carrots used to be a thing, not so much anymore. Earlier than that there were a lot of recipes in magazines for different veggie/gelatin salads. 

In the US, if you have a mix of fruit and/veggies then you have a "salad" though if it is all fruit it is usually called a "fruit salad". I think there are varying degrees of salad to dessert. 

Snickers Salad should definitely be a dessert.

Savory gelatin dishes are called aspics and they are gross.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Changing the policy about the temple garment- why not?

Why?  Is there a pressing need to make a change?

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I do recall reading in Anderson's book about requiring the wearing the garment in the temple only nearly happened.

If you find this passage in the book I'd be interested in reading it.  I looked, but didn't see it. 

Was this when the garment was still wrist and ankle length?  If so I could understand why they might have been discussing it.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Rain said:

There are 2 things I know. 1. God exists. 2. He loves me. Those are deep within the core of my soul and I cannot be shaken from them. Everything else falls into one stage of belief for me.

I have met people so hurt, so broken that they cannot believe that God loves them.

If Christ suffered all things then He also suffered the feelings some have of not feeling loved by God. It is how He knew how to help them. I can entertain that hypothetical because I know God loves them and that through my understanding/sympathy/empathy of them it may help them feel his love too.

 

I thought the question was, “What would you do if X happened,” not “Can you empathize with those who think X.” I see a distinction there. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought the question was, “What would you do if X happened,” not “Can you empathize with those who think X.” I see a distinction there. 

If I can't think about what I would do I can't empathize with them. If I can't empathize then I can't figure out what I would do. Two different things, but they are connected. Two sides of the same card. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed... no way all these things are happening at once.

I think shortening the endowment could happen but I don't think it would be announced at conference.  A letter to be read over the pulpit seems more likely to me.  Significant changes have been made to the initiatory and those weren't announced at all.  But, if they make something like a one hour endowment I do believe, as Reel suggests, that they would keep the full length version for those going through for themselves.

This is another one that I don't see being announced at conference -- it could be confusing to the rest of the world (outside North America) that already does it this way.

Similarly, if they were to drop the one year wait period (independent of the above) they wouldn't announce that.  They would just quietly change the policy like they did (or tried to do) back in November 2015.

Completely agree.

 

You guys might be too young to know this but there were no announcements or anything about the major Temple changes in 1990, at least not that I was aware of.

I heard it from my friends first. Then I went to the temple and got the shock.

It was then that I learned about the difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment.

Big difference.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Rain said:

If I can't think about what I would do I can't empathize with them.

I don’t see why not. 

You said God’s love for you is one thing that is beyond doubt, even hypothetically. Does that mean you can’t empathize with those who doubt His love for them?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Rain said:

There are 2 things I know. 1. God exists. 2. He loves me. Those are deep within the core of my soul and I cannot be shaken from them. Everything else falls into one stage of belief for me.

I have met people so hurt, so broken that they cannot believe that God loves them.

If Christ suffered all things then He also suffered the feelings some have of not feeling loved by God. It is how He knew how to help them. I can entertain that hypothetical because I know God loves them and that through my understanding/sympathy/empathy of them it may help them feel his love too.

 

This is the way I see it too. All the rest to me is allowing the spirit to create within you a paradigm that works for you to explain it all.

I just happen to think that we have the best paradigm.

So all the history stuff really doesn't bother me one iota. To me it's just a question of where is the best paradigm after one has experienced God's love.

The rest becomes an intellectual exercise for me.

And the final analysis it doesn't matter who even came up with the paradigm. But clearly Joseph did and clearly Joseph received revelation of that paradigm. But that of course is itself a religious belief.

But still it is a paradigm which cannot be ultimately proven.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In what way are they trying to use it to their advantage? 

I think they are using it to get excitement and interest around General Conference, and just church leadership in general.  Add to this the frequent use of the terms revelation and inspiration from President Nelson, and it seems to have everyone at a heightened level of excitement and anticipation from what I see.  This might get people to be more committed and devoted in the short term.  I'm not sure what the longer term implications are for this strategy though.  

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In what way?  I haven't heard anything from church leadership about changes. 

Haven't there been a few statements recently with a wait and see what happens in conference, kind of messaging, in addition to the expressions about revelation, and the changes last conference.  Put all that together and there seems to be lot more excitement in the air.  

Link to comment

 

 

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You guys might be too young to know this but there were no announcements or anything about the major Temple changes in 1990, at least not that I was aware of.

I heard it from my friends first. Then I went to the temple and got the shock.

It was then that I learned about the difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment.

Big difference.

 

They didn't announce the change in more recent years.  One of the sessions I went on even said not to tell others about it.

The 1990 change happened on my mission.  I didn't know about it till I had my final interview (since missionaries didn't go to the temple then and besides there was no temple in my mission.  At my interview I discussed with my president come concerns that I had and that was hen he told me that there were changes.  He told me I would go and find some of my questions answered and come home with even more questions. 

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  Is there a pressing need to make a change?

No. But has there ever been a "pressing need" for changing the garment? Not that I can tell. Yet the garment and the expectation around wearing them has changed multiple times.

If you find this passage in the book I'd be interested in reading it.  I looked, but didn't see it. 

Yeah, it was an interesting story. I hope someone can find it

Was this when the garment was still wrist and ankle length?  If so I could understand why they might have been discussing it.

Yes, and one piece. But I don't know if they still had the ribbons/strings up the chest at that point.

 

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

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